Vol. 80 Thursday, 

No. 131 July 9, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; Proposed Rule 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0027] 

RIN 1904–AD31 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) and announcement of public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial prerinse spray 

valves (CPSVs). EPCA also requires the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The notice also 

announces a public meeting to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES:

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2015. The 

standards meeting will start 

immediately following the test 

procedure meeting. The meeting will 

also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section VII ‘‘Public Participation’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR before and after the 

public meeting, but no later than 

September 8, 2015. See section VII 

‘‘Public Participation’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Instructions: Any comments 

submitted must identify the NOPR for 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, and 

provide docket number EERE–2014– 

BT–STD–0027 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AD31. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. Submit electronic comments 

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, 

or ASCII file format, and avoid the use 

of special characters or any form of 

encryption. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD, in which case it is not necessary to 

include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

previously and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

No faxes will be accepted. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see section 

VII 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 VII, ‘‘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: 

jim.raba@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. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price 

3. Energy Savings 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need for National Energy Conservation 

7. Other Factors 

F. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Market Assessment 

2. Efficiency Metrics 

3. Product Classes 

4. Technology Assessment 

1. Backflow Preventers 

2. Specially Designed Spray Patterns 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Addition of Flow Control Insert 

2. Smaller Spray Hole Area 

3. Aerators 

4. Additional Valves 

5. Changing Spray Hole Shape 

6. Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle 

Geometries 

C. Engineering Analysis 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39487 

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, Public Law 

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. Part 

431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and 

industrial equipment. 

4Because the anticipated compliance date is late 

in the year 2018, for analytical purposes, DOE 

conducted its analyses utilizing shipments 

associated with the 2019–2048 period. The 

analytical effect is equivalent to the use of a 2019 

compliance year. In the MIA, 2019 is referred to as 

the ‘‘analysis compliance year.’’ 

5The average LCC savings are measured relative 

to the no-new-standards case efficiency 

distribution, which depicts the CPSV market in the 

compliance year (see section IV.F.9). The simple 

PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline CPSV model (see section IV.C.1). 

1. Engineering Approach 

2. Product Classes 

3. Baseline and Max-Tech Models 

4. Manufacturing Cost Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency 

Distribution 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. Shipments 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. National Energy and Water Savings 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the NoStandards Case and Standards Cases 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

3. Discussion of Comments 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Commercial Prerinse 

Spray Valves 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.2 These products include 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

(CPSV), the subject of this document.3

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also 

provides that not later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) including new 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The proposed 

standards, which are described in terms 

of the maximum water flow rate (in 

gallons per minute, gpm) for each 

product class (defined by spray force in 

ounce-force, ozf), are shown in Table 

I.1. The proposed standards, if adopted, 

would apply to all products listed in 

Table I.1 and manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after the date 3 years after the 

publication of the final rule for this 

rulemaking. For purposes of the 

analyses conducted in support of this 

NOPR, DOE used 2015 as the expected 

year of publication of any final 

standards and 2018 as the expected 

compliance year.4

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

(COMPLIANCE STARTING 2018) 

Product class 

Maximum 

water flow rate 

(gpm) 

1. Light duty (≤5 ozf) ............ 0.65 

2. Standard duty (>5 ozf and 

≤8 ozf) ............................... 0.97 

3. Heavy duty (>8 ozf) .......... 1.24 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

amended standards on consumers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, as 

measured by the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings and the simple payback 

period (PBP).5 The average LCC savings 

are positive for all product classes. The 

PBP for all product classes is also less 

than the projected average CPSV 

lifetime of approximately 5 years. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6The discount rate is an industry average 

discount rate, which was estimated using publically 

available industry financial data for companies that 

sell CPSVs in the U.S. Data sources are listed in 

section IV.J.1. 7All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2014 dollars and are discounted to 

2015, unless otherwise noted. 8A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). 9The no-new-standards case assumptions are 

described in section IV.F.9. The no-new-standards 

case represents a projection of energy consumption 

in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency 

standards, and it considers market forces and 

policies that may affect future demand for more 

efficient products. 10The emission reductions calculated here result 

from the energy savings only. The emission 

reductions from water savings are not calculated as 

part of this analysis. 11A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) 

reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

13Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 

2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf). 

14 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF COMMERCIAL PRERINSE

SPRAY VALVES

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

1. Light duty (≤5 ozf) ............................................................................................................................................... 211 0.0 

2. Standard duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ...................................................................................................................... 472 0.0 

3. Heavy duty (>8 ozf) ............................................................................................................................................. 667 0.0 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this notice. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2015 to 2048). Using a real discount 

rate of 6.9 percent,6 DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves is $9.1 

million in 2014$. Under the proposed 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 21.6 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $2.0 million. 

Additionally, based on its analysis of 

available information, DOE does not 

expect any plant closings or significant 

loss of employment. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 7

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy and water. 

The lifetime savings for commercial 

prerinse spray valves purchased in the 

30-year period (2019 to 2048) amount to 

0.10 quadrillion Btu (quads) 8 and 

120.18 billion gallons of water. This 

represents a savings of 9 percent relative 

to the energy use of this product in the 

no-new-standards case.9 This also 

represents a savings of 9 percent relative 

to the water use of this product in the 

no-new-standards case. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves ranges 

from $0.71 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $1.46 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

purchased in 2019–2048. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits.10 The described energy savings 

would result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 5.76 million metric 

tons (Mt) 11 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

46.94 thousand tons of methane (CH4), 

2.43 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), 13.22 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), 0.04 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.01 tons of 

mercury (Hg).12 The cumulative 

reduction in CO2 emissions through 

2030 amounts to 1.83 Mt, which is 

equivalent to the emissions resulting 

from the annual electricity use of about 

251,719 homes. 

The value of the CO2 reduction is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.13 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates 

appropriate for each set of SCC values, 

DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 

between $0.04 billion and $0.61 billion. 

DOE also estimates the present 

monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reduction is between $1.80 and $18.48 

million at a 7-percent discount rate and 

between $3.52 and $36.15 million at a 

3-percent discount rate.14

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from the proposed standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES * 

Category Present value 

(million 2014$) 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................... 708 7 

1,459 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/metric ton case) * * .................................................................................. 44 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.1/metric ton case) * * .................................................................................. 196 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($63.3/metric ton case) * * .................................................................................. 309 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($121/metric ton case) * * ................................................................................... 606 3 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39489 

15To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2015, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total customer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using 

the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 

annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 

the first year of the analysis period, which yields 

the same present value. 

16The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 

the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ, ‘‘Correction 

to ‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon 

and organic matter, possibly the most effective 

method of slowing global warming,’ ’’ J. Geophys. 

Res. 110. pp. D14105 (2005). 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES *—Continued 

Category Present value 

(million 2014$) 

Discount rate 

(%) 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,723/ton) ................................................................................................... 10 7 

20 3 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................................................. 914 7 

1,675 3 

Costs 

Manufacturer Conversion Costs ‡ ............................................................................................................................ 2 to 3 N/A 

Total Net Benefits 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † ................................................................................................. 914 7 

1,675 3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with commercial prerinse spray valves shipped in 2019¥2048. These results include 

benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019¥2048. The results account for the incremental variable and 

fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

* * The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$ per metric ton, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated 

SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, 

respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. 

† Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3 percent discount 

rate. Manufacturer Conversion Costs are not included in the Total Net Benefits calculations. 

‡ The lower value of the range represents costs associated with the Sourced Components conversion cost scenario. The upper value represents costs associated with the Fabricated Components conversion cost scenario. Manufacturer conversion cost estimates are based on the 

engineering analysis and product teardowns conducted in 2014, and, therefore, have not been discounted. In the GRIM, these values are spread 

over the 3-year conversion period leading up to the compliance year. 

The benefits and costs of these 

proposed standards, for commercial 

prerinse spray valves sold in 2019– 

2048, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of: (1) The 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from consumer operation of 

products that meet the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy and water, minus increases in 

product purchase and installation costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV); and (2) the annualized 

monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2

emission reductions.15

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, whereas the 

value of CO2 reductions is based on a 

global value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

shipped in 2019–2048. Because CO2

emissions have a very long residence 

time in the atmosphere,16 the SCC 

values in future years reflect future CO2- 

emissions impacts that continue beyond 

2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.4. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction (for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate, along with the 

average SCC series that has a value of 

$41.1 per metric ton in 2015), there are 

no increased product costs associated 

with the standards proposed in this 

rule, while the benefits are $69.90 

million per year in reduced product 

operating costs, $10.94 million per year 

in CO2 reductions, and $1.00 million 

per year in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$81.85 million per year. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs as well as the average SCC series 

that has a value of $41.1 per metric ton 

in 2015, there are no increased product 

costs associated with the standards 

proposed in this rule, while the benefits 

are $81.32 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $10.94 million in CO2

reductions, and $1.11 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $93.37 million 

per year. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

Discount rate 

(%) 

Million 2014$/year 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ... 7 .................................... 69.90 ............................. 65.90 ............................. 72.70 

3 .................................... 81.32 ............................. 75.92 ............................. 85.10 

CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t * * .............. 5 .................................... 3.33 ............................... 3.33 ............................... 3.33 

CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t * * .............. 3 .................................... 10.94 ............................. 10.94 ............................. 10.94 

CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t * * .............. 2.5 ................................. 15.91 ............................. 15.91 ............................. 15.91 

CO2 Reduction at $119/t * * ............... 3 .................................... 33.81 ............................. 33.81 ............................. 33.81 

NOX Reduction at $2,723/ton ............ 7 .................................... 1.00 ............................... 1.00 ............................... 1.00 

3 .................................... 1.11 ............................... 1.11 ............................... 1.11 

Total† .......................................... 7 plus CO2 range .......... 74 to 105 ....................... 70 to 101 ....................... 77 to 108 

7 .................................... 81.85 ............................. 77.84 ............................. 84.64 

3 plus CO2 range .......... 86 to 116 ....................... 80 to 111 ....................... 90 to 120 

3 .................................... 93.37 ............................. 87.96 ............................. 97.15 

Costs 

Manufacturer Conversion Costs † ..... 7 .................................... 0.16 to 0.24 ................... 0.16 to 0.24 ................... 0.16 to 0.24 

3 .................................... 0.10 to 0.15 ................... 0.10 to 0.15 ................... 0.10 to 0.15 

Total Net Benefits 

Total ‡ ......................................... 7 plus CO2 range .......... 74 to 105 ....................... 70 to 101 ....................... 77 to 108 

7 .................................... 81.85 ............................. 77.84 ............................. 84.64 

3 plus CO2 range .......... 86 to 116 ....................... 80 to 111 ....................... 90 to 120 

3 .................................... 93.37 ............................. 87.96 ............................. 97.15 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with commercial prerinse spray valves shipped in 2019–2048. These results 

include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019–2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The primary, low benefits, and high benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2014 reference case, low estimate, and high estimate, respectively. 

* * The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. The 

fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. 

† The lower value of the range represents costs associated with the Sourced Components conversion cost scenario. The upper value represents costs for the Fabricated Components scenario. 

‡ Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3 percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. Manufacturer Conversion Costs are not included in the Net Benefits calculations. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for the product 

classes covered by this proposal. See 

chapter 8 of the NOPR technical support 

document (TSD) for more discussion of 

the no-new-standards case efficiency 

distribution. Based on DOE’s analyses, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of the proposed standards to the 

nation (energy savings, water savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

consumer LCC savings, and emission 

reductions) would outweigh the 

burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers). 

DOE also considered both more and 

less stringent energy efficiency levels 

(EL) as trial standard levels (TSL), and 

will continue to consider them in this 

rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. Based on 

consideration of the public comments 

DOE receives in response to this notice 

and related information collected and 

analyzed during the course of this 

rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 

energy efficiency levels presented in 

this notice that are either higher or 

lower than the proposed standards, or 

some combination of levels that 

incorporate the proposed standards in 

part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section discusses the 

statutory authority underlying this 

proposal, as well as some of the relevant 

historical background related to the 

establishment of standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. As part of this program, 

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) Under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must periodically 

review its already established energy 

conservation standards for a covered 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39491 

product. DOE is undertaking this 

rulemaking to meet this EPCA 

requirement. 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Secretary or the Federal 

Trade Commission, as appropriate, may 

prescribe labeling requirements for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 

U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(A)) Subject to certain 

criteria and conditions, DOE is required 

to develop test procedures to measure 

the energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each 

covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use the prescribed DOE test procedure 

as the basis for certifying to DOE that 

their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and 

when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with standards adopted pursuant to 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedure for commercial prerinse 

spray valves currently appears at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 431, subpart O. DOE recently 

proposed updates to its CPSV test 

procedure in a proposed rule issued for 

prepublication on June 05, 2015 (80 FR 

35874). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing amended 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated previously, any amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard for certain products, including 

commercial prerinse spray valves, if no 

test procedure has been established for 

the product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 

this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) through 

(VII)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

and water savings the consumer will 

receive during the first year that the 

standard applies, as calculated under 

the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered products that has two 

or more subcategories. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than 

that which applies generally to such 

type or class of products for any group 

of covered products that have the same 

function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (1) Consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (2) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE shall consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a) though (c)) 

California, however, has a statutory 

exemption to preemption for 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

standards adopted by the California 

Energy Commission before January 1, 

2005. (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(7)) As a result, 

while federal commercial prerinse spray 

valve standards, including any amended 

standards that may result from this 

rulemaking, apply in California, 

California’s commercial prerinse spray 

valve standards also apply as they are 

exempt from preemption. DOE may also 

grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into the standard, 

or, if that is not feasible, adopt a 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

17EPA WaterSense program, WaterSense 

Specification for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

Supporting Statement, Version 1.0 (Sept. 19, 2013) 

(Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/

partners/prsv_final.html). 

separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A) and (B)) DOE’s current 

test procedures and standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves do not 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use, which are not applicable for 

this product. Similarly, in this 

rulemaking, DOE only addresses active 

mode energy consumption because 

commercial prerinse spray valves only 

consume energy and water in active 

mode. 

B. Background 

In a final rule published on October 

18, 2005 (‘‘2005 CPSV final rule’’), DOE 

codified the current energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves that were prescribed by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 

109–58 (August 8, 2005). 70 FR 60407, 

60410. The 2005 CPSV final rule 

established that all commercial prerinse 

spray valves manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2006, must have a flow rate 

of not more than 1.6 gpm. 

DOE is conducting the current energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which 

requires that within 6 years of issuing 

any final rule establishing or amending 

a standard, DOE shall publish either a 

notice of determination that amended 

standards are not needed or a NOPR 

proposing amended standards. 

DOE initiated the current rulemaking 

on September 11, 2014, by issuing an 

analytical Framework document, 

‘‘Rulemaking Framework for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves’’ 

(‘‘2014 Framework document’’), which 

described the procedural and analytical 

approaches DOE anticipated using to 

evaluate energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves. 79 

FR 54213. DOE also announced a public 

meeting to discuss the proposed 

analytical framework for the rulemaking 

and invited written comments from the 

public. 79 FR 54213. The 2014 

Framework document is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BTSTD-0027-0001. 

The 2014 Framework document 

explained the issues, analyses, and 

process that DOE anticipated using to 

develop energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves. 

DOE held a public meeting on 

September 30, 2014, to solicit comments 

from interested parties regarding DOE’s 

analytical approach. Comments received 

in response to DOE’s proposed 

analytical approach have helped DOE 

identify and resolve issues relevant to 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, and 

have informed the analyses presented in 

this notice. DOE discusses and responds 

to the comments received in response to 

the 2014 Framework document in 

section IV. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

EPCA defines the term ‘‘commercial 

prerinse spray valve’’ as a ‘‘handheld 

device designed and marketed for use 

with commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment that sprays water on 

dishes, flatware, and other food service 

items for the purpose of removing food 

residue before cleaning the items.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(33)(A) In the 2015 CPSV 

test procedure NOPR, DOE is proposing 

to modify the CPSV definition to 

redefine the scope of coverage, as 

authorized under 42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B). 

For specific details on the proposed 

modifications to the CPSV definition, 

including how to submit comments see 

the test procedure NOPR (80 FR 35874). 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify a different standard. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE considers such 

factors as the utility of the feature to the 

consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) Different energy conservation 

standards may apply to different 

product classes. 

Currently, all covered commercial 

prerinse spray valves are included in a 

single product class that is subject to a 

1.6-gpm standard for maximum flow 

rate. 10 CFR 431.266. In the 2014 

Framework document, DOE considered 

whether to retain a single product class 

for all commercial prerinse spray valves, 

or to establish separate product classes 

based on the statutory criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) and comments from 

interested parties. See sections IV.A.2 

and IV.C.2 for more discussion on the 

product classes addressed in this NOPR. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA established the current 

maximum flow rate for commercial 

prerinse spray valves and prescribed an 

industry test procedure, American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Standard F2324–03, to measure 

the flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd), 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(14)) In a final rule 

published December 8, 2006, DOE 

incorporated by reference ASTM 

Standard F2324–03 under 10 CFR 

431.263, and prescribed it as the 

uniform test method to measure the 

flow rate of commercial prerinse spray 

valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR 

71340, 71374. In a final rule published 

October 23, 2013, DOE incorporated by 

reference ASTM Standard F2324–03 

(2009) for testing commercial prerinse 

spray valves, which updated the 2003 

version. 78 FR 62970, 62980. 

In 2013, ASTM amended Standard 

F2324–03 (2009) to replace the 

cleanability test with a spray force test, 

based on research conducted by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) WaterSense® program.17

In the 2015 CPSV test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by 

reference the amended ASTM Standard 

F2324–13. Additionally, DOE proposed 

requiring spray force to be measured 

based on the procedure in ASTM 

Standard F2324–13. For commercial 

prerinse spray valves with multiple 

spray patterns, DOE proposed that both 

flow rate and spray force be measured 

for each possible spray pattern. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

working prototype designs that could 

improve the efficiency of the products 

that are the subject of the rulemaking. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

options are technologically feasible. 

DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii) through (iv). Section IV.B of 

this notice discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, particularly the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39493 

18U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Annual Energy 

Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040 (Available at: 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/). 

technology options DOE considered, 

those it screened out, and those that are 

the basis for the TSLs in this 

rulemaking. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPR Technical 

Support Document (TSD). 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered products, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, using the design parameters for 

the most efficient products available on 

the market or in working prototypes. 

The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this rulemaking are 

described in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the commercial prerinse 

spray valves purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the expected year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards (2019–2048). The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

purchased in the 30-year analysis 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption in the absence of 

amended mandatory efficiency 

standards, and it considers market 

forces and policies that may affect 

future demand for more efficient 

products. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate 

energy savings from amended standards. 

The NIA spreadsheet model (described 

in section IV.H of this notice) calculates 

energy savings in site energy, which is 

the energy consumed by a product at the 

location where it is used. For electricity, 

DOE calculates national energy savings 

in terms of primary energy savings, 

which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity. To calculate primary energy 

savings, DOE derived annual conversion 

factors from the model used to prepare 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2014 

(AEO2014).18

For electricity and natural gas and oil, 

DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

energy savings. As discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment, the FFC metric includes 

the energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy efficiency standards. 76 FR 

51281 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 

77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). For FFC 

energy savings, DOE’s approach is based 

on the calculation of an FFC multiplier 

for each of the energy types used by 

covered products. For more information, 

see section IV.H.1 of this notice. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt more stringent standards for 

a covered product, DOE must determine 

that such action would result in 

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in EPCA, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, 

in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for the proposed standards 

(presented in section V.B.3.a of this 

notice) are nontrivial, and, therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 

discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses 

an annual cash-flow approach to 

determine the quantitative impacts. This 

step includes both a short-term 

assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include: (1) 

INPV, which values the industry on the 

basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 

cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increases in 

the price of the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including water, energy, maintenance, 

and repair expenditures) discounted 

over the lifetime of the product. The 

LCC and PBP analysis requires a variety 

of inputs, such as product prices, 

product water and energy consumption, 

water and sewer prices, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. For 

its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the covered 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19Because the anticipated compliance date is late 

in the expected compliance year, 2018, for 

analytical purposes, DOE assumes that customers 

will purchase the CPSV equipment that meets the 

potential amended standards in 2019. In other 

words, the first year of the analysis period is 2019. 

20For more information on NEMS, refer to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration documentation. A useful summary 

is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009) (October 2009) 

(Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

overview/index.html). 

21EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to 

describe only an AEO version of the model without 

any modification to code or data. Because the 

present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Office.) 

product in the first year of compliance 

with amended standards.19

The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a no-new-standards case that reflects 

projected market trends in the absence 

of amended standards. DOE identifies 

the percentage of consumers estimated 

to receive LCC savings or experience a 

LCC increase, in addition to the average 

LCC savings associated with a particular 

standard level. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analysis is discussed in further detail in 

section IV.F of this notice. 

3. Energy Savings 

EPCA requires DOE, in determining 

the economic justification of a standard, 

to consider the total projected energy 

savings that are expected to result 

directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in 

section IV.H.1, DOE uses spreadsheet 

models to project national energy 

savings. 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In determining whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

evaluates any lessening of the utility or 

performance of the considered products. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on 

data available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in this notice would not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE will transmit a 

copy of this proposed rule to the 

Attorney General with a request that the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)). DOE will 

publish and respond to the Attorney 

General’s determination in the final 

rule. 

6. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy conservation in 

determining whether a new or amended 

standard is economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 

savings from the proposed standards are 

likely to provide improvements to the 

security and reliability of the nation’s 

energy system. Reductions in the 

demand for electricity may also result in 

reduced costs for maintaining the 

reliability of the nation’s electricity 

system. DOE conducts a utility impact 

analysis to estimate how standards may 

affect the nation’s needed power 

generation capacity, as discussed in 

section IV.M. 

The proposed standards also are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production and use. DOE conducts an 

emissions analysis to estimate how 

standards may affect these emissions 

and reports the emissions impacts from 

each TSL it considered in section V.B.6. 

DOE also reports estimates of the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs in 

section IV.L. 

7. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent that 

interested parties submit any relevant 

information regarding economic 

justification that does not fit into the 

other categories described in the 

previous sections, DOE could consider 

such information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 

F. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the PBP for consumers. These 

analyses include, but are not limited to, 

the 3-year PBP contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. The 

rebuttable presumption payback 

calculation is discussed in section 

IV.F.11 of this proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

DOE used several spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of the proposed 

standards. One of these spreadsheet 

tools calculates LCCs and PBPs of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. Another provides shipments 

forecasts and then calculates impacts of 

potential standards on national energy 

savings and net present value. The 

Department also assessed manufacturer 

impacts, largely through the use of the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM) spreadsheet tool. The 

spreadsheets are available online at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts of amended standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves on 

utilities and the environment. DOE used 

a version of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility 

and environmental analyses.20 The 

NEMS model simulates the energy 

sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses 

NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy 

Outlook, a widely known baseline 

energy forecast for the United States. 

The version of NEMS used for appliance 

standards analysis, which makes minor 

modifications to the AEO version, is 

called NEMS–BT.21 NEMS–BT accounts 

for the interactions among the various 

energy supply and demand sectors and 

the economy as a whole. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the product concerned, 

including the purpose of the product, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the product. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

commercial prerinse spray valves 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39495 

22A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking 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: (1) submitted by T&S Brass; (2) 

appearing in the Public Meeting Transcript, which 

is document number 6 of the docket; and (3) 

appearing on page 30 of that document. 

23 Information on the WaterSense program for 

commercial prerinse spray valves is available at 

www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/prsv.html. 

rulemaking include: (1) Market 

assessment, (2) efficiency metrics, (3) 

product classes, and (4) technology 

assessment. The key findings of DOE’s 

market assessment are summarized in 

the following sections. See chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD for further discussion of 

the market and technology assessment. 

1. Market Assessment 

As part of the market assessment, 

DOE examined manufacturers, trade 

associations, and the quantities and 

types of products sold and offered for 

sale. DOE reviewed relevant literature to 

develop an understanding of the CPSV 

industry in the United States, including 

market research data, government 

databases, retail listings, and industry 

publications (e.g., manufacturer 

catalogs). Using this information, DOE 

assessed the overall state of the 

industry, CPSV manufacturing and 

market shares, shipments, general 

technical information on commercial 

prerinse spray valves, and industry 

trends. 

In the Framework document, DOE 

sought comments regarding the market 

for commercial prerinse spray valves, 

and in particular on product features, 

market shares, and trends. Additionally, 

DOE also sought comments on which 

organizations had a vested interest in 

commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE 

recognized Plumbing Manufacturers 

International (PMI) and North American 

Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers (NAFEM) in the 

Framework document as organizations 

that have an interest in commercial 

prerinse spray valves. In addition to 

these trade organizations, T&S Brass 

suggested including the National 

Restaurant Association (NRA) as an 

organization that has an interest in 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S 

Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 

at p. 30) 22 Additionally, the 

International Association of Plumbing 

and Mechanical Officials (IAMPO) 

commented that it tests and certifies 

commercial prerinse spray valves to 

make sure they meet mandated levels. 

Hence, IAMPO is also a body that has 

an interest in commercial prerinse spray 

valves. (IAPMO, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at p. 30) Alliance for 

Water Efficiency (AWE) recommended 

that DOE consider service companies, 

such as Ecolab, as a subtype in its list 

of retailers. It stated that such 

companies provide on-demand, on-site 

maintenance and other services to food 

service operators, and have the most 

influence over the selection of 

commercial prerinse spray valves at the 

restaurant site. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) DOE 

acknowledges and appreciates the 

information provided by these 

interested parties. 

Commenting on the commercial 

prerinse spray valve industry in general, 

T&S Brass stated that a small number of 

manufacturers control the majority of 

the market because commercial prerinse 

spray valves are a niche product. Two 

or three manufacturers have the 

majority of the market share. Most of the 

manufacturers in the industry are 

family-owned businesses. (T&S, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 58) 

DOE also held phone conversations 

with representatives from the EPA 

WaterSense® program regarding the 

market assessment.23 The 

representatives commented that the 

industry comprises a small number of 

CPSV manufacturers, most of which are 

private companies which do not readily 

provide market information. 

DOE researched government 

databases for CPSV product listings, 

including DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(CCMS), the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) Appliance Database, 

and the WaterSense database. Based on 

this research, DOE concluded that the 

CPSV market includes 54 basic models 

from 13 different brands and 11 

manufacturers. Chapter 3 provides more 

details on the CPSV market. 

2. Efficiency Metrics 

Currently, all covered commercial 

prerinse spray valves are included in a 

single product class that is subject to a 

1.6 gpm standard for maximum flow 

rate. 10 CFR 431.266. As part of the 

2014 Framework document, DOE 

considered adopting an alternative 

metric to replace the existing flow rate 

(gpm) metric. DOE examined alternative 

metrics that could achieve energy and 

water savings while also preserving 

product functionality. In the 2014 

Framework document, DOE presented 

two alternate metrics. One alternative 

metric under consideration was a 

performance metric that takes into 

account both flow rate and spray force 

(measured in gpm divided by ozf). 

Another metric considered was gallons 

per plate washed, which was calculated 

using the flow rate and the cleanability 

time, which is defined in ASTM 

Standard F2324–2003, as the 

‘‘effectiveness of the prerinse spray 

valve to remove soil from the plate 

before it is placed in a dishwashing 

machine.’’ DOE requested comments 

from interested parties on these 

suggested alternate metrics. 

A joint comment submitted by the 

Alliance to Save Energy, the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, and the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(‘‘Advocates’’) supported the 

consideration of a metric that 

incorporates both flow rate and spray 

force because this may allow DOE to 

adopt an amended standard that ensures 

functionality, while improving water 

and energy efficiency of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. In addition, the 

Advocates pointed out that a widely 

used industry standard, ASTM Standard 

F2324–13, already incorporates spray 

force measurement, and so a metric 

accounting for both flow rate and spray 

force would not cause additional burden 

to manufacturers listing products to the 

industry standard. (Advocates, No. 11 at 

p. 1) However, the Advocates also 

commented that product classes must be 

considered to distinguish between 

commercial prerinse spray valves and 

DOE could consider using spray force as 

one way to delineate separate product 

classes. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) 

A joint comment submitted by Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 

Southern California Gas Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison (CA IOUs) urged DOE 

to consider a metric or a product 

classification structure that addresses 

product performance in addition to 

water consumption. The CA IOUs stated 

that if a single metric does not capture 

both performance and water 

consumption, the standard should be 

structured to preserve the primary 

function of the product while 

addressing water efficiency. (CA IOUs, 

No. 14 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs also urged DOE to 

consider user satisfaction when 

considering the metric, as some field 

surveys have shown that users that are 

dissatisfied with efficient commercial 

prerinse spray valves will substitute 

them with those that likely increase 

overall water consumption. Therefore, 

CA IOUs suggested either incorporating 

spray force into the metric, or 

alternatively, using spray force to 

establish product classes as a way to 

account for differentiating products. (CA 

IOUs, No. 14 at p. 1) 

In terms of considering cleanability in 

the metric, the Advocates commented 

that they opposed using gallons per 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

plate washed as a metric because of 

concerns about efficacy and replicability 

of cleanability testing. (Advocates, No. 

11 at p. 1) CA IOUs also suggested that 

DOE consider not using the cleanability 

test given the problems with 

repeatability and little correlation to 

user satisfaction. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 

2) Additionally, AWE commented that 

the cleanability test was an unreliable 

indicator of top-performing products 

and was not easily repeatable in 

laboratories across North America. 

(AWE, No. 8 at p. 1) 

Although the purpose of the 

rulemaking is to achieve water savings, 

DOE recognizes that the utility of 

commercial prerinse spray valves must 

also be ensured. DOE agrees with 

interested parties that there are specific 

applications for different commercial 

prerinse spray valves, and to preserve 

utility, another measure besides flow 

rate must be considered in the analysis. 

There was a consensus among interested 

parties not to include cleanability in the 

test method metric because of the issues 

regarding repeatability of test results. 

Additionally, interested parties stated 

that cleanability had little correlation to 

performance and user satisfaction. 

Therefore, DOE did not use cleanability 

in the analysis. 

However, a majority of the interested 

parties supported including spray force 

in the analysis. Whereas some 

stakeholders suggested incorporating 

spray force as part of the water 

consumption metric, others commented 

that spray force can also be used as a 

characteristic to distinguish product 

classes. Based on the comments 

received, DOE proposes to retain flow 

rate (in gpm) as the efficiency metric, 

and to incorporate spray force as a 

characteristic to distinguish product 

classes. Because the industry currently 

uses flow rate as the efficiency metric, 

DOE will continue using this industryaccepted metric. However, to ensure 

that utility of the commercial prerinse 

spray valves is maintained, DOE 

proposes to use spray force as a 

characteristic to establish product 

classes. The following section provides 

further discussion on incorporating 

spray force as a characteristic to 

differentiate product classes. 

3. Product Classes 

As stated previously, all commercial 

prerinse spray valves are included in a 

single product class. In the 2014 

Framework document, DOE also 

considered whether to establish separate 

product classes based on the statutory 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), and 

requested comments from interested 

parties. 

The Advocates stated that separate 

product classes should be established to 

distinguish among commercial prerinse 

spray valves that fit different 

applications. The Advocates also stated 

that DOE should consider establishing 

product classes for commercial prerinse 

spray valves that would distinguish 

between valves designed and marketed 

for light duty, standard duty, and heavyduty applications. (Advocates, No. 11 at 

p. 2) The CA IOUs also suggested that 

DOE should examine what applications 

do not require a higher flow rate for 

establishing product classes. (CA IOUs, 

No. 14 at p. 2) 

NAFEM suggested evaluating the 

impacts of the rule on other applications 

where commercial prerinse spray valves 

are currently used. (NAFEM, No. 9 at p. 

2) Similarly, T&S Brass commented that 

the applications of commercial prerinse 

spray valves could vary from rinsing to 

cleaning baked-on food, and that the 

different applications might require 

different spray forces. T&S Brass stated 

that it offers a variety of prerinse spray 

valves that have different design 

features based on end users’ 

applications. (T&S Brass, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 40) T&S 

Brass also commented that nozzle 

design and spray pattern provide 

specific CPSV applications and 

performance and that consumers choose 

a commercial prerinse spray valve based 

on application by trying various designs 

and determining which commercial 

prerinse spray valve works best for their 

specified application. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 

4) Additionally, T&S Brass commented 

that CPSV efficiency depends on water 

pressure, water temperature, duration, 

flow rate, spray patterns, and other 

factors, and that the end-user 

application will dictate several of these 

variables. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that there are different applications of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, such 

as cleaning baked-on food and light 

rinsing. Therefore, commercial prerinse 

spray valves designed for heavy duty 

cleaning require a higher flow rate in 

order to achieve satisfactory cleaning 

performance compared to products 

designed for light rinsing. Therefore, to 

preserve consumer utility for all CPSV 

applications, DOE proposes to establish 

separate product classes for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

To determine what criteria to use to 

establish the product classes, DOE 

presented several different CPSV 

characteristics in the 2014 Framework 

document and requested input from 

interested parties. DOE received input 

on whether cleanability, flow rate, and 

spray force are criteria that should be 

used to establish product classes. 

a. Cleanability 

T&S Brass stated that because 

cleanability depends on subjective 

features such as spray pattern, enduser’s application, and duration, this 

characteristic should not be used to 

establish product classes. (T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 4) AWE suggested that DOE 

develop a more viable cleanability test 

method than that in ASTM F2324–2003 

if cleanability is to be used as the 

defining characteristic. (AWE, No. 8 at 

p. 2) CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

consider not using the cleanability test 

given the problems with repeatability 

and little correlation to user satisfaction. 

(CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) T&S Brass 

commented that ultra-low-flow 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

designed for applications that allow for 

minimum water consumption, and that 

cleanability using an ultra-low-flow 

commercial prerinse spray valve is not 

applicable to every CPSV application in 

the foodservice environment. (T&S 

Brass, No. 12 at p. 4) 

Based on these comments, as well as 

ASTM’s update of the F2324 standard 

(ASTM Standard F2324–13), which 

replaces the cleanability test with a 

spray force test, DOE is not considering 

using cleanability as a characteristic to 

define product classes. 

b. Flow Rate 

T&S Brass stated that flow rate is a 

useful characteristic to define product 

classes and that spray force is a related 

parameter that can be altered with the 

nozzle design. (T&S Brass, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 39) T&S 

Brass commented that the data for flow 

rates for commercial prerinse spray 

valves are available and verifiable 

because they are based upon consistent 

test methods of a national test standard. 

(T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass 

suggested using three product classes: 

(1) An ultra low-flow commercial 

prerinse spray valve with a maximum 

flow rate of 0.8 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) T&S Brass 

stated that the 1.6 gpm class is currently 

called the EPAct 2005 class. The 1.28 

gpm class is based on the WaterSense 

voluntary standard. The 0.80 gpm class 

represents a 50 percent reduction of the 

current DOE standard. (T&S Brass, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 

54) However, the Advocates commented 

that if the metric is not changed from 

the current gpm, then including flow 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39497 

24Spraying Systems Co., ‘‘Optimizing Your Spray 

System’’ (2009) (Available at: www.spray.com/

Literature_PDFs/TM410A_Optimizing_Your_Spray_

System.pdf); PNR America, ‘‘Some Uses of Spray 

Nozzles’’ (Available at: http://

www.pnramerica.com/pdfs/p2_6.pdf). 

25EPA 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). 

rate as a differentiator for product class 

would be inconsistent. (Advocates, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 

38) 

Additionally, T&S Brass commented 

that the performance of the maximum 

technologically feasible model (maxtech model) should not be evaluated 

solely based on flow rate. (T&S Brass, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 

52) Also, as described in section IV.A.1, 

interested parties commented that for 

DOE to maintain the utility of the 

commercial prerinse spray valves, 

another measure besides flow rate must 

be considered in the analysis. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE noted that it would be difficult to 

establish product classes based on flow 

rate if the flow rate efficiency metric 

was retained. For this rulemaking, DOE 

proposes to retain flow rate as the 

efficiency metric for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. Therefore, DOE is 

not considering flow rate as a 

characteristic to establish product 

classes. 

c. Spray Force 

As described in section IV.A.1, 

interested parties recommended that 

DOE incorporate spray force in the 

analysis. Additionally, the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 

recommended that DOE investigate 

whether spray force and flow rate are 

directly proportional, and to investigate 

whether spray force is a good 

characteristic to predict the performance 

of a commercial prerinse spray valve. 

(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

DOE investigated whether any 

relationship exists between spray force 

and flow rate. DOE tested multiple 

spray valves for both flow rate and spray 

force using the ASTM Standard F2324– 

13 test procedure. The test results 

showed a direct linear relationship 

between flow rate and spray force, such 

that higher flow rate corresponds to 

higher spray force. Additionally, DOE 

found literature online that supported 

the linear relationship between spray 

force and flow rate.24 Chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD provides further discussion 

on this relationship. 

Multiple interested parties also 

recommended the use of spray force to 

establish product classes. The 

Advocates suggested that spray force 

might be a suitable criterion to create 

product classes. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 

2) T&S Brass commented that there are 

several applications of commercial 

prerinse spray valves, and all might 

require different spray forces. (T&S 

Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 

at p. 39) AWE stated that spray force is 

a useful characteristic that could be 

used to define product classes. (AWE, 

No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs suggested using 

spray force to establish product classes 

as a way to account for differentiating 

products. 

However, NEEA stated that 

establishing product classes based on 

spray force could overlook cleaning 

effectiveness. It stated that a solid water 

jet and pattern jet could have the same 

flow rate and spray force, but that the 

pattern jet would clean better than a 

solid jet, despite both having the same 

spray force. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

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 were unsatisfactory. 

Seven of the nine unsatisfactory scores 

were attributed, among other factors, to 

the water pressure, or the userperceived force of the spray.25

Based on all comments from 

interested parties, DOE recognizes that 

spray force is an important criterion for 

characterizing consumer utility and is 

directly correlated with flow rate. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to use 

spray force as the criterion to establish 

product classes. The 2015 CPSV test 

procedure NOPR proposes to 

incorporate by reference ASTM 

Standard F2324–13, which includes a 

test method for measuring spray force. 

DOE is proposing three product 

classes based on ranges of spray force: 

(1) light-duty (less than or equal to 5 

ozf), (2) standard-duty (greater than 5 

ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf), and 

(3) heavy-duty (greater than than 8 ozf). 

The light-duty equipment class would 

be suitable for light rinsing purposes, 

the standard-duty product class would 

be suitable to clean wet foods, and the 

heavy-duty product class would be 

suitable to clean baked-on foods. DOE 

testing of commercial prerinse spray 

valves provided clear indication of three 

clusters of commercial prerinse spray 

valves within these spray force ranges. 

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides a 

detailed description of the product 

classes that DOE is proposing in this 

rulemaking. 

d. Impact of Product Classes on 

Compliance, Certification and 

Enforcement 

The procedures required for 

certification, determination, and 

enforcement of compliance of covered 

products with the applicable 

conservation standards are set forth in 

10 CFR 429. The sampling plan and 

certification requirements for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

dictated in 10 CFR 429.51. DOE 

received comments from interested 

parties regarding the impact of product 

classes on product compliance, 

certification, and enforcement. 

T&S Brass commented that the impact 

of assigning product classes should be 

considered with regard to the regulation 

and certification process. T&S Brass 

seeks clarification on how commercial 

prerinse spray valves will be certified 

(e.g., through accredited third parties) in 

the future, if product classes will create 

more burden on manufacturers, and if it 

will be an additional requirement 

besides WaterSense certification. (T&S 

Brass, No. 12 at p. 8) T&S Brass also 

commented that there is a general lack 

of enforcement for manufacturers to file 

with DOE and that many imported 

products do not follow the federal 

regulations. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 8) 

As described in this NOPR, DOE 

proposes to designate product classes 

based on ranges of spray force. In the 

concurrent 2015 CPSV test procedure 

NOPR, DOE is proposing that spray 

force be tested for each spray pattern. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to revise the 

certification reporting requirements 

under 10 CFR 429.51(b)(2) to include 

reporting the average spray force in ozf, 

in addition to reporting the average flow 

rate. The reported spray force will 

determine which product class applies 

to each certified basic model. As DOE 

understands that spray force is already 

a widely accepted and measured 

characteristic of commercial prerinse 

spray valves, DOE believes that adding 

the reporting requirement for spray 

force will not create significant 

additional burden for CPSV 

manufacturers. 

DOE further notes that the 

WaterSense prerinse spray valve 

program is a voluntary program 

administered by EPA, and DOE’s 

reporting and certification requirements 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

would be separate from the 

requirements of the WaterSense 

program. 

The Advocates noted that ASTM 

Standard F2324–13, which is being 

incorporated by reference in the 

concurrent 2015 CPSV test procedure 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

NOPR (80 FR 35874), already 

incorporates spray force measurement, 

and so accounting for both flow rate and 

spray force would not cause additional 

burden to manufacturers listing 

products to the industry standard. 

(Advocates, No. 11 at p. 1) However, the 

Advocates also noted that it would be 

challenging to administer the separate 

product classes when commercial 

prerinse spray valves in a commercial 

kitchen are interchangeable, as many 

users have both heavy-duty and lightduty cleaning to perform. (Advocates, 

No. 11 at p. 2) The Advocates cautioned 

that enforcement issues should also be 

considered when considering spray 

force. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) 

While DOE administers the 

certification, determination, and 

enforcement of compliance of covered 

products, DOE does not administer the 

end-use of the covered products by the 

consumers. Under DOE enforcement 

activities, conservation standards cases 

deal with manufacturers that have 

distributed products in the U.S. that 

DOE has found do not meet the required 

energy standards. Compliance 

certification cases deal with 

manufacturers that either have not 

certified that the products that they 

manufacture and distribute in the U.S. 

have been tested and meet the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards or have submitted invalid 

compliance certifications. With respect 

to products certified to EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR program, DOE refers to the EPA 

any products that DOE tests that do not 

meet the ENERGY STAR specification. 

Any complaints regarding noncompliant products can be sent to: 

energyefficiencyenforcement@

hq.doe.gov. 

4. Technology Assessment 

In the technology assessment, DOE 

identifies technology options that may 

decrease CPSV water consumption. This 

assessment provides the technical 

background and structure on which 

DOE bases its screening and engineering 

analyses. In the 2014 Framework 

Document, DOE suggested an initial list 

of technology options that it would 

consider, which included the following: 

• Addition of a flow control insert; 

• Smaller nozzle tip openings to 

increase pressure; 

• Incorporation of additional 

components including, but not limited 

to backflow preventers, additional 

valves, or hoses; and 

• Specially designed spray patterns, 

such as the following: fan spray pattern 

(single nozzle with a hollow cone 

stream); solid stream pattern (single 

nozzle with single solid jet stream); 

triple-action spray pattern (three nozzles 

with solid jet streams); knife-like spray 

pattern (single nozzle with a flat 

stream); and rose spray pattern 

(multiple nozzles resembling a common 

showerhead). 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the feasibility and impact of 

the technology options identified in the 

2014 Framework document, which are 

discussed in the screening and 

engineering analyses in section IV.B and 

section IV.C, respectively. T&S Brass 

commented that there should not be too 

many design restrictions, as commercial 

prerinse spray valves are used in 

different applications, and, based on the 

application, the incorporation of certain 

design options might be required. (T&S 

Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 

at p. 44) T&S Brass also commented that 

the rulemaking should not stifle 

innovation. Id. AWE recommended that 

DOE not be design-restrictive, but focus 

on cleaning performance, water 

consumption, and durability of 

commercial prerinse spray valves for the 

rulemaking. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the proposed standard 

is a performance-based standard, not a 

design-based standard. 

After further research regarding the 

potential technology options identified 

in the 2014 Framework document, DOE 

determined that several of them do not 

affect CPSV efficiency and thus are not 

considered to be technology options. 

The following subsections provide 

background on these product features 

that DOE determined had no impact on 

CPSV efficiency. The technology 

options that do affect CPSV efficiency 

are discussed further in section IV.B. 

1. Backflow Preventers 

Backflow preventers prevent reverse 

flow of water. They are mainly used in 

plumbing devices to protect water 

supplies from contamination or 

pollution. DOE did not identify any 

means by which incorporating a 

backflow preventers into a commercial 

prerinse spray valve could improve its 

efficiency by limiting the water flow 

rate. 

2. Specially Designed Spray Patterns 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE identified five different spray 

patterns that are incorporated in 

commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE 

performed several tests on various CPSV 

units with different spray patterns using 

the ASTM Standard F2324–13 test 

procedure. While the units provided 

different flow rate and spray force 

results, DOE research showed no direct 

correlation between the type of spray 

pattern and flow rate. Hence, DOE 

found no indication that a different 

spray pattern can be used to reduce 

water consumption. Additionally, T&S 

Brass commented that different nozzle 

designs and spray patterns have been 

developed to meet the requirements for 

specific CPSV applications. (T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 4) Hence, the type of spray 

pattern is more relevant to a specific 

CPSV application, rather than being a 

potential design option to reduce water 

consumption in commercial prerinse 

spray valves. 

DOE did, however, identify additional 

CPSV technology options beyond those 

in the 2014 Framework document 

which could improve CPSV efficiency. 

The additional technology options 

analyzed include spray hole eccentricity 

and orifice plate nozzle geometry, and 

are discussed further in the section IV.B. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 

adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) 

and 5(b) 

In response to the technology options 

presented in the 2014 Framework 

document, T&S Brass stated that design 

and technology aspects to improve 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39499 

26Although smaller spray hole area would result 

in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount of 

force, DOE’s proposed revised product class 

structure would preserve product utility for heavyduty applications. 

CPSV performance are considered 

proprietary information by 

manufacturers. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 

5) The Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) asked whether the 

spray patterns and associated nozzles 

used in the engineering analysis would 

be non-proprietary options. (NRDC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 

46). 

In the engineering and economic 

analyses, DOE considered all design 

options that are commercially available 

or present in a working prototype, 

including proprietary designs that meet 

the screening criteria. DOE will consider 

a proprietary design, however, only if it 

does not represent a unique path to a 

given efficiency level. If the proprietary 

design is the only approach available to 

achieve a given efficiency level, then 

DOE will eliminate that efficiency level 

from further analysis. However, if a 

given energy efficiency level can be 

achieved by a number of design 

approaches, including a proprietary 

design, DOE will examine the given 

efficiency level, despite the proprietary 

nature of that one design. 

Additionally, NAFEM stated that 

DOE’s suggested design options in the 

2014 Framework document fail to 

satisfy the criteria as specified in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(ii) through (iv). (NAFEM, 

No. 9 at p. 2) Sections 4(a)4(ii) through 

(iv) define three of the four screening 

criteria described previously, which are: 

Practicability to manufacture, install 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

or equipment utility or availability; and 

adverse impacts on health or safety. The 

technology options presented in the 

2014 Framework document had not 

been screened using the four factors 

discussed above. For the analysis in this 

notice, DOE evaluated the technology 

options being considered in the 

engineering analysis based on the four 

screening criteria. While a majority of 

the technology options were not 

considered in the analysis because they 

failed to satisfy the screening criteria, 

there are several technology options that 

DOE believes satisfy the screening 

criteria, which are discussed in the 

following sections. Those technology 

options not screened out by the four 

criteria are called ‘‘design options’’ and 

are considered in the engineering 

analysis as possible methods of 

improving efficiency. The following 

sections describe which technology 

options were screened out, and which 

were included as design options. 

1. Addition of Flow Control Insert 

A flow control insert is a component 

that can be installed within certain 

plumbing products to limit the amount 

of water that flows out of the product. 

Several faucets and showerheads on the 

market use flow control inserts to 

reduce water consumption. Therefore, a 

flow control insert could also be used in 

other water products, like commercial 

prerinse spray valves, to control flow. 

However, T&S Brass commented that 

the addition of a flow control insert 

should not be considered as a design 

option. T&S reports that a flow control 

insert would hinder CPSV performance, 

and can often be physically removed by 

the end user. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 

5) Additionally, T&S Brass mentioned 

that the nozzle itself is what regulates 

the flow rate in commercial prerinse 

spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) 

Based on research, DOE did not 

identify any commercial prerinse spray 

valves on the market that use flow 

control inserts to regulate water flow. 

Therefore, because flow control inserts 

are not incorporated in commercially 

available products or working 

prototypes, DOE has screened out flow 

control inserts from its analysis because 

they are not technologically feasible. 

2. Smaller Spray Hole Area 

The spray hole(s) are located at the 

exterior of the commercial prerinse 

spray valve and allow water to flow out 

of the nozzle. The total spray hole area 

is the sum of all the areas of the 

individual spray holes. DOE determined 

that the flow rate and nozzle spray hole 

area are directly related. Additional 

technical details regarding this 

relationship are provided in chapter 5 of 

the TSD. 

Given its relationship to flow rate, 

DOE identified nozzle spray hole area as 

an important factor to consider in the 

engineering analysis. Additionally, 

reducing the spray hole area is a 

relatively simple design change that 

satisfies the 4 screening criteria 

discussed above: (1) It is technologically 

feasible; (2) it would be practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service; (3) it 

would not have adverse impacts on 

product utility or availability; 26 and (4) 

it would not have adverse impacts on 

health and safety. Therefore, DOE will 

consider smaller nozzle tip openings, or 

a smaller nozzle spray hole area, as a 

design option in the engineering 

analysis. 

3. Aerators 

An aerator is a device that can be used 

to mix air with water, to reduce the flow 

of water from the device without 

reducing the water pressure. DOE is 

aware of only one commercial prerinse 

spray valve that incorporates an aerator. 

DOE tested this unit to determine how 

the aerator reduces water consumption. 

DOE testing indicated that the 

performance of this aerated unit differed 

substantially from the more common 

non-aerated units: It exhibited a very 

low spray force, and did not 

demonstrate the same linear 

relationship between flow rate and 

spray force that is typical of most other 

commercial prerinse spray valves that 

DOE tested. At the present time, DOE 

does not have enough information to 

determine (1) whether the addition of an 

aerator represents a technologically 

feasible design option for improving 

CPSV efficiency, or (2) whether aerators 

can be applied more generally to other 

CPSV designs. Therefore, DOE is 

tentatively screening out aerators from 

the analysis. DOE requests comment 

about its approach to screen out aerators 

in section V.E.14. 

4. Additional Valves 

Plumbing fixtures often use globe 

valves and butterfly valves to regulate 

water flow. Globe valves are comprised 

of a movable disk-like element and a 

stationary ring seated in a generally 

spherical body. The most common 

application of a globe valve is in a 

standard water faucet, such that when 

the handle is turned, a disc is lowered 

or raised. Butterfly valves regulate flow 

by means of a disc that rotates on an 

axis across the diameter of a pipe. Based 

on DOE’s research to date, however, 

there are no commercially available 

products or working prototypes of 

commercial prerinse spray valves that 

use these additional valves. 

Additionally, T&S Brass also 

commented that the incorporation of 

additional components, such as 

backflow preventers, additional valves, 

or hoses, should not be considered as a 

design option because they are not 

necessarily aspects incorporated within 

the commercial prerinse spray valve 

itself. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5). DOE 

considers any component separate from 

the commercial prerinse spray valve to 

not be part of the covered product, and 

therefore not subject to evaluation as a 

design option. For these reasons, DOE 

has screened out the incorporation of 

additional valves from its analysis. 

5. Changing Spray Hole Shape 

DOE found evidence that spray hole 

shape affects flow rate. DOE found that 

commercial prerinse spray valves with 

circular holes have higher flow rates 

than commercial prerinse spray valves 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

27Although smaller spray hole area would result 

in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount of 

force, DOE’s proposed revised product class 

structure would preserve product utility for heavyduty applications. 

28Although an orifice plate geometry would 

result in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount 

of force, DOE’s proposed revised product class 

structure would preserve product utility for heavyduty applications. 

with oval-shaped spray holes, if all 

other design elements are identical. 

Additionally, changing spray hole shape 

is a design change that satisfies the 4 

screening criteria discussed above: (1) It 

is technologically feasible; (2) it would 

be practicable to manufacture, install, 

and service; (3) it would not have 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; 27 and (4) it would not have 

adverse impacts on health and safety. 

Therefore, DOE will consider spray hole 

shape as a design option in the 

engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of the 

TSD provides further details on spray 

hole shape. 

6. Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle 

Geometries 

DOE has observed that the nozzle 

geometry affects the flow rate of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. Based 

on DOE testing, reverse-engineering 

teardowns and information available in 

the literature, DOE has determined that 

a ‘‘venturi meter’’ geometry allows 

water to pass through the nozzle more 

easily than an ‘‘orifice plate’’ geometry. 

Therefore, if all other design elements 

are identical, commercial prerinse spray 

valves with an orifice plate geometry 

have a lower flow rate than commercial 

prerinse spray valves with a venture 

meter geometry. Additionally, changing 

spray nozzle geometry is a design 

change that satisfies the 4 screening 

criteria discussed above: (1) It is 

technologically feasible; (2) it would be 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service; (3) it would not have adverse 

impacts on product utility or 

availability; 28 and (4) it would not have 

adverse impacts on health and safety. 

Therefore, DOE will consider spray 

nozzle geometry as a design option in 

the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of 

the TSD provides a more detailed 

discussion on this topic. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) 

and improved CPSV efficiency. This 

relationship serves as the basis for costbenefit calculations for individual 

consumers, manufacturers, and the 

nation. DOE typically structures the 

engineering analysis using one of three 

approaches: (1) Design option, (2) 

efficiency level, or (3) reverse 

engineering (or cost assessment). The 

design-option approach involves adding 

the estimated cost and associated 

efficiency of various efficiencyimproving design changes to the 

baseline to model different levels of 

efficiency. The efficiency-level 

approach uses estimates of costs and 

efficiencies of products available on the 

market at distinct efficiency levels to 

develop the cost-efficiency relationship. 

The reverse-engineering approach 

involves testing products for efficiency 

and determining cost from a detailed 

bill of materials (BOM) derived from 

reverse engineering representative 

products. 

For this analysis, DOE structured its 

engineering analysis for commercial 

prerinse spray valves using a 

combination of the design-option 

approach and the reverse-engineering 

approach. The analysis is performed in 

terms of incremental decreases in water 

consumption due to the implementation 

of selected design options, while the 

estimated MPCs for each successive 

design option are based on product 

teardowns and a bottom-up 

manufacturing cost assessment. Using 

this hybrid approach, DOE developed 

the relationship between MPC and 

CPSV efficiency. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD discusses 

the baseline efficiencies for each 

product class (in terms of flow rate), the 

design options DOE considered, the 

methodology used to develop 

manufacturing production costs, and the 

cost-efficiency curves. The LCC and PBP 

analysis uses the cost-efficiency 

relationships developed in the 

engineering analysis. 

1. Engineering Approach 

For each of the three proposed 

product classes, DOE selected a baseline 

efficiency (in terms of flow rate) as a 

reference point from which to measure 

changes resulting from each design 

option. DOE then developed separate 

cost-efficiency relationships for each 

product class analyzed. The following is 

a summary of the method DOE used to 

determine the cost-efficiency 

relationship for commercial prerinse 

spray valves: 

(1) Perform flow rate and spray force 

tests on a representative sample of 

commercial prerinse spray valves in 

every product class. 

(2) Develop a detailed BOM for the 

tested commercial prerinse spray valves 

through product teardowns, and 

construct a commercial prerinse spray 

valve cost model. 

(3) Use the test data and cost model 

to calculate the incremental increase in 

efficiency (i.e., decrease in flow rate) 

and cost increase of adding specific 

design options to a baseline model. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE presented plans for its engineering 

analysis and sought comment on its 

approach to calculating the costefficiency relationship for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. T&S Brass stated 

that the range of efficiency levels should 

be determined based on the 

performance of commercial prerinse 

spray valves evaluated per ASTM 

Standard F2324–13. (T&S Brass, No. 12 

at p. 5) DOE agrees that ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 reflects the latest changes in 

the industry and conducted all testing 

in support of this rulemaking using 

ASTM Standard F2324–13. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

look at DOE’s CCMS and the CEC 

appliance databases for available 

product data. The CA IOUs also 

provided separate charts that showed 

the range of flow rates from these 

databases; the ranges reported were 

from 0.65 to 1.48 gpm. (CA IOUs, No. 

14 at p. 3) For the analysis, DOE used 

CCMS and CEC databases to incorporate 

product data for the analysis. 

Additionally, DOE looked at the EPA 

WaterSense database and the Food 

Service Technology Center (FSTC) 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

testing results to determine the flow 

rates and spray forces. 

2. Product Classes 

DOE is proposing three product 

classes, defined by spray force ranges, as 

shown in Table IV.1. 

TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASSES

DEFINITIONS

Product class Spray force range 

Light-duty ...................... ≤ 5 ozf. 

Standard-duty ............... > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf. 

Heavy-duty ................... > 8 ozf. 

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes 

a detailed discussion regarding how the 

product classes were determined. 

3. Baseline and Max-Tech Models 

To analyze technology options for 

energy efficiency improvements, DOE 

defined a baseline model for each 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

product class. Typically, the baseline 

model is a model that just meets current 

energy conservation standards. 

For the heavy-duty product class 

(spray force greater than 8 ozf), DOE 

determined that the baseline flow rate is 

the current commercial prerinse spray 

valve energy conservation standard of 

1.6 gpm. For the standard-duty and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39501 

light-duty product classes, DOE 

established baseline flow rates that 

correspond to upper spray force bounds 

of these two product classes. DOE 

determined these baseline flow rates 

using the linear relationship between 

flow rate and spray force. DOE 

determined a best-fit linear equation 

that related flow rate and spray force 

using the test results for all the 

commercial prerinse spray valves that 

DOE tested. DOE then calculated the 

flow rates that corresponded to the 

spray force bounds for the standardduty and light-duty product classes 

using the best fit linear equation. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides 

more detail on the flow rate and spray 

force relationship. 

T&S Brass cautioned against picking 

the highest efficiency level (max-tech) 

solely based on flow rate. T&S Brass 

commented that there are products on 

the market with a low flow rate that 

have an unsatisfactory user rating. T&S 

Brass suggested also looking at spray 

force when determining the max-tech 

model. According to T&S Brass, the 

current definition of the max-tech 

model solely based on flow rate may 

work in certain applications, but may 

work poorly for a standard market 

application. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at p. 51) Additionally, 

T&S Brass also noted that the max-tech 

model in each product class may not 

adequately perform for all commercial 

foodservice applications. (T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 6) 

As described above, DOE proposes 

three product classes, defined by spray 

force ranges, which correspond to three 

major categories of CPSV usage (i.e. 

light-duty, standard-duty, and heavyduty). Separating commercial prerinse 

spray valves into three product classes 

will ensure that consumer utility is 

maintained within each product class. 

DOE believes that the max-tech level 

selected for each product class would 

not reduce consumer utility for the 

applications associated with each spray 

force range. 

To develop the relationships between 

flow rate and the design options for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE 

used publicly available data, including 

data from government databases, 

manufacturer catalogs and Web sites, 

and selected product testing for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. The 

engineering analysis focused on 

identifying and evaluating commercially 

available prerinse spray valves that 

incorporate design options that reduce 

flow rate. The analysis also identified 

the lowest flow rate that is 

commercially available within each 

product class (i.e., the max-tech model). 

Additionally, DOE found that the 

spray nozzle geometry is a variable that 

affects flow rate. The nozzle geometry is 

expressed in terms of a discharge 

coefficient. DOE calculated the 

discharge coefficient for the max-tech 

model in each product class and 

assumed a constant discharge 

coefficient for each efficiency level 

within that class. DOE requests 

comments on whether this approach is 

appropriate. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD includes 

details on the baseline flow rates and 

max-tech flow rates considered as part 

of the engineering analysis. 

4. Manufacturing Cost Analysis 

DOE estimated the manufacturing 

costs using a reverse-engineering 

approach, which involves a bottom-up 

manufacturing cost assessment based on 

a detailed BOM derived from teardowns 

of the product being analyzed. The 

detailed BOM includes labor costs, 

depreciation costs, utilities, 

maintenance, tax, and insurance costs, 

in addition to the individual component 

costs. These manufacturing costs are 

developed to be an industry average and 

do not take into account how efficiently 

a particular manufacturing facility 

operates. 

To develop the relationship between 

cost and performance for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, DOE used a 

reverse-engineering analysis, or 

teardown analysis. DOE purchased offthe-shelf commercial prerinse spray 

valves available on the market and 

dismantled them component by 

component to determine what 

technologies and designs manufacturers 

use to decrease commercial prerinse 

spray valve flow rate. DOE then used 

independent costing methods, along 

with component-supplier data, to 

estimate the costs of the components. 

T&S Brass stated that materials and 

processes for metallic, plastic, and 

rubber parts should be taken into 

consideration in the reverse-engineering 

process. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) T&S 

Brass also commented that the costs for 

incremental efficiency improvements of 

existing commercial prerinse spray 

valve are different among 

manufacturers, or even among models 

from the same manufacturer. Therefore, 

the costs to improve efficiency depend 

on the design of commercial prerinse 

spray valve. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE derived detailed manufacturing 

cost estimate data based on its reverse 

engineering analysis, which included 

the cost of the product components, 

labor, purchased parts and materials, 

and investment. 

DOE tested three series of commercial 

prerinse spray valves from three 

manufacturers. Through testing, DOE 

found that the flow rates of the units 

within each series were different. 

However, based on the reverseengineering analysis, the manufacturing 

costs for the units within each series 

were the same. Therefore, DOE 

concluded that there is no 

manufacturing cost difference for 

incremental efficiency improvements 

between models within the same series 

from the same manufacturer. 

DOE also tested and performed a 

teardown analysis on commercial 

prerinse spray valves from additional 

manufacturers. These commercial 

prerinse spray valves represented a 

range of baseline to max-tech units. The 

testing and teardown results indicated 

that the manufacturing costs between 

different units from different 

manufacturers can vary based on the 

type of material, amount of material, 

and/or process used. However, DOE 

determined that these factors do not 

affect the efficiency of a commercial 

prerinse spray valve. Therefore, DOE 

did not include these cost differences in 

the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD provides further details 

on the teardown analysis, component 

costs, and costs that were developed as 

part of the cost-efficiency curves. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The purpose of the markups analysis 

is to translate the MPC derived from the 

engineering analysis into the final 

consumer purchase price by applying 

the appropriate markups. The first step 

in this process is converting the MPC 

into the MSP by applying the 

manufacturer markup. The 

manufacturer markup includes sales, 

general and administrative, research and 

development, other corporate expenses, 

and profit. As described further in 

chapter 6 of the TSD, the manufacturer 

markup of 1.30 was calculated as the 

market share weighted average value for 

the industry. DOE developed this 

manufacturer markup by examining 

several major CPSV manufacturers’ 

gross margin information from annual 

reports and Securities and Exchange 

Commission 10–K reports. Because the 

10–K reports do not provide gross 

margin information at the subsidiary 

level, the estimated markups represent 

the average markups that the parent 

company applies over its entire range of 

equipment offerings, and does not 

necessarily represent the manufacturer 

markup of the subsidiary. Both the MPC 

and the MSP values are used in the 

MIA. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

29Survey data available at www.eia.gov/

consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm. 30 DOE considered a range of operating pressures 

in the analysis to account for the variations in water 

pressure supplied to buildings across the country. 

Through a sensitivity analysis on the impacts of 

water pressure on the flow rate of the prerinse spray 

valve, DOE concluded that 60 psi is a representative 

water pressure for prerinse spray valves. DOE used 

flow rates at a water pressure of 60 psi for each 

efficiency level in the energy and water use 

analysis, which is further discussed in the energy 

and water use TSD chapter. 

31End-use temperature was determined based on 

a review of several field studies. See chapter 7 of 

the NOPR TSD for a list of the field studies 

reviewed. 

32ASHRAE Standard 12–2000: Minimizing the 

Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building 

Water Systems, (February 2000). 

Next, DOE uses manufacturer-toconsumer markups to convert the MSP 

estimates into consumer purchase 

prices, which are then used in the LCC 

and PBP analysis, as well as the NIA. 

Consumer purchase prices are necessary 

for the baseline efficiency level and all 

other efficiency levels under 

consideration. 

For the markups analysis, DOE 

identified the following distribution 

channels (i.e. how the product is 

distributed from the manufacturer to the 

consumer): 

A. Manufacturer → Final Consumer 

(Direct Sales) 

B. Manufacturer → Authorized 

Distributor → Final Consumer 

C. Manufacturer → Retailer → Final 

Consumer 

D. Manufacturer → Service Company → 

Final Consumer 

During the Framework public meeting 

and public comment period, three 

comments were received with regard to 

distribution channels. T&S Brass 

commented that the trade associations 

did not maintain information on the 

percentage allocations among the 

various distribution channels. T&S 

Brass stated that such information was 

proprietary. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 71–72) T&S 

Brass also noted that there were 

numerous combinations of entities 

making up the potential distribution 

channels, and the three listed by DOE 

(A through C, as listed above) are only 

but a subset of the potential channels. 

(T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 6 at pp. 70–71) Additionally, AWE 

commented that the dominant CPSV 

sales outlet is made up of service 

companies providing on-demand, onsite maintenance and other services to 

food service operators. (AWE, No. 8 at 

p. 2) As such, DOE added a fourth 

distribution channel (Service Company), 

in addition to the three discussed in the 

Framework document (Direct Sales, 

Authorized Distributor, and Retail 

Merchant). Beyond this, DOE did not 

attempt to incorporate additional 

channels or investigate combinations of 

the existing channels, because of a lack 

of specific information on distribution 

channels. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE discussed both baseline and 

incremental markups. Baseline markups 

are multipliers that convert the MSP of 

products at the baseline efficiency level 

to consumer purchase price. 

Incremental markups are multipliers 

that convert the incremental increase in 

MSP for products at each higher 

efficiency level (compared to the MSP at 

the baseline efficiency level) to 

corresponding incremental increases in 

the consumer purchase price. In the 

analysis in this notice, DOE used only 

baseline markups, as the engineering 

analysis indicated that there is no price 

increase with improvements in 

efficiency for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD 

provides further details on the 

distribution channels and calculated 

markups. 

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy and water 

use analysis is to establish the annual 

energy and water consumption used by 

the product to assess the associated 

energy and water savings potential of 

different product efficiencies. To this 

end, DOE performed an energy and 

water use analysis that calculated 

energy and water use of commercial 

prerinse spray valves for each product 

class and efficiency level identified in 

the engineering analysis. The energy 

and water use analysis provided the 

basis for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly the LCC and PBP analysis 

and the NIA. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE indicated the analysis conducted 

for the NOPR is intended to capture and 

estimate water savings as a result of 

reduced flow rate and the related energy 

savings as a result of reduced hot water 

use. DOE calculated the energy and 

water use by determining the 

representative daily operating time of 

the product by major building types that 

contain commercial kitchens found in 

the Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS).29 The 

daily commercial prerinse spray valve 

operating time was annualized based on 

operating schedules for each building 

type. Water use for each product class 

was determined by multiplying the 

annual operating time by the flow rate 

at an operating pressure of 60 pounds 

per square inch (psi) for each efficiency 

level.30

Energy use was calculated by 

multiplying the annual water use in 

gallons by the energy required to heat 

each gallon of water to an end-use 

temperature of 108 °F.31 Cold water 

supply temperatures used in this 

calculation were derived for the nine 

U.S. census regions based on ambient 

air temperatures and hot water supply 

temperature was assumed to be 140 °F 

based on ASHRAE Standard 12–2000.32

The proportion of buildings which used 

natural gas or electricity for water 

heating found in the CBECS database 

were multiplied by the energy 

consumption of each kind of water 

heater, taking into account the 

efficiency level of the product, to obtain 

the total energy consumption of each 

product class and efficiency level of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

In response to the 2014 Framework 

document, DOE received several 

comments related to potential data 

sources for the energy and water use 

analysis. IAPMO asked whether the 

rulemaking team had coordinated with 

DOE’s Water, Energy, and Technology 

team. (IAPMO, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 77–78) 

WaterSense asked how DOE planned to 

collect data on CPSV operation. 

(WaterSense, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 6 at pp. 78–79) T&S Brass noted that 

operation data might be available 

through NAFEM and FSTC. (T&S Brass, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 

80) Finally, AWE commented that it had 

data available on operating time and 

water temperature from California 

Urban Water Conservation Council 

(CUWCC) studies. (AWE, No. 8 at p.3) 

In response to these comments, and as 

discussed above, DOE collected data 

from several end-use studies that 

measured operating time of commercial 

prerinse spray valves in field 

applications, such as restaurants and 

cafeteria settings. Data on water 

temperature measured in the field 

studies were also utilized by DOE to 

determine the hot water and end-use 

temperature. 

Additionally, T&S Brass commented 

that operational patterns varied widely 

across applications that use CPSV 

products. The different operational 

patterns across applications are a result 

of such factors as the volume of 

dishwashing or ware washing (i.e., 

number of pieces) requiring prerinsing, 

the rate at which dishwashing or ware 

washing needs to be done in order to 

return the commercial ware back into 

service, the difficulty in cleaning debris 

from the commercial ware, and 

operational patterns for product classes. 

T&S Brass added that these operational 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39503 

33EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field 

Study Report, (March 2011) (Available at: 

www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_

study_report_033111v2_508.pdf.). 

patterns will vary in duration of usage, 

as flow rates change within each 

application. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE acknowledges comments 

submitted by T&S Brass regarding 

varying operational spray patterns and 

considered the varying operational 

patterns across applications of 

commercial prerinse spray valves in the 

analysis for this notice. As described in 

further detail in chapter 7 of the NOPR 

TSD, DOE determined operational time 

for the product based on operational 

patterns of distinct building types that 

house commercial prerinse spray valves, 

including educational facilities, food 

retail, healthcare, lodging, and 

restaurants. Operational patterns taken 

into consideration for each building 

category included operating days per 

week, operating hours per day, and 

estimated daily number of meals served. 

DOE assumed the same operating time 

for different flow rates based on the 

conclusion of the EPA WaterSense field 

study that determined the flow rate of 

a CPSV did not significantly impact the 

operating time of the unit.33

T&S Brass also commented that 

potential energy savings due to a lower 

flow rate might be offset by using a 

higher water temperature that would 

create water savings, but not energy 

savings due to the increase in water 

temperature. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 8) 

In regards to the comment submitted 

by T&S Brass, DOE assumed an end-use 

temperature of 108 °F based on 

measured temperatures in field studies 

for commercial prerinse spray valves of 

varying flow rates. The field studies 

demonstrated that the end-use 

temperature did not significantly vary 

with flow rate. Therefore, DOE 

tentatively concludes this temperature 

is a reasonable representation of the 

temperature used by the majority of 

CPSV consumers, regardless of the flow 

rate of the unit. 

In response to the 2014 Framework 

document, NEEA commented that it had 

access to the data for utility programs in 

the Northwest. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

DOE appreciates the comment from 

NEEA regarding their access to regional 

utility program data. In the analysis for 

this NOPR, DOE utilized field studies 

and data that approximated national 

potable water supply temperatures and 

operational water temperatures. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. The LCC is the total consumer 

expense over the life of the product, 

consisting of purchase and installation 

costs plus operating costs (expenses for 

energy and water use, maintenance, and 

repair). To compute the operating costs, 

DOE discounts future operating costs to 

the time of purchase and sums them 

over the lifetime of the product. The 

PBP is the estimated amount of time (in 

years) it takes consumers to recover the 

potential increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more efficient 

products through lower operating costs. 

DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the 

change in purchase cost at higher 

efficiency levels by the change in 

annual operating cost for the year that 

new standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

an estimate of the no-new-standards 

case product efficiency distribution. The 

no-new-standards case estimate reflects 

the market in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards, 

including the market for products that 

exceeds the current energy conservation 

standard. In contrast, the PBP is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MSPs, 

distribution channel markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy and water 

consumption, energy prices and price 

projections, combined water prices 

(which include water and wastewater 

prices) and price projections, repair and 

maintenance costs, product lifetimes, 

discount rates. DOE created 

distributions of values for product 

lifetime, discount rates, energy and 

combined water prices, and sales taxes, 

with probabilities attached to each value 

to account for their uncertainty and 

variability. 

The computer model DOE used to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal BallTM (a 

commercially available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and CPSV user 

samples. The model calculated the LCC 

and PBP for products at each efficiency 

level for 10,000 CPSV users per 

simulation run. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers as if each were to 

purchase a new commercial prerinse 

spray valve in the first year of the 

analysis period. For this rulemaking, 

DOE anticipates any amended standards 

would apply to commercial prerinse 

spray valves manufactured 3 years after 

the date on which any final amended 

standard is published. For this 

rulemaking, DOE anticipates 

publication of any final standards in late 

2015 and compliance in late 2018. 

However, for the purposes of this 

analysis, DOE used 2019 instead of 2018 

as the beginning of the analysis period 

for the LCC and PBP analysis, due to the 

anticipated compliance date being late 

in the year 2018. 

Table IV.2 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 and its appendices of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.2—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost .............................................. Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. 

Installation Costs ....................................... Baseline installation cost determined with data from U.S. Department of Labor. Assumed no change 

with efficiency level. 

Annual Energy and Water Use .................. Determined from the energy required to heat a gallon of water used at the prerinse spray valve multiplied by the average annual operating time and flow rate of each product class. 

Variability: By census region 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.2—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs Source/method 

Energy, Water and Wastewater Prices ..... Energy: Based on EIA’s Form 826 data for 2013. Variability: By State 

Water: Based on 2012 AWWA Survey. 

Variability: By State 

Energy and Water Price Trends ................ Energy: Forecasted using AEO2014 price forecasts. 

Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information. 

Maintenance and Repair Costs ................. Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime ......................................... DOE assumed an average lifetime of 5 years. 

Variability: Characterized using modified Weibull probability distributions. 

Discount Rates .......................................... Estimated using the average cost of capital to commercial prerinse spray valve consumers. Cost of 

capital was found using information from the federal reserve and from Damodaran online data. 

First Year of Analysis Period ..................... 2019 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the 

distribution channel markups described 

in section IV.D (along with sales taxes). 

As stated earlier in this notice, DOE 

used baseline markups, but did not 

apply incremental markups, because the 

engineering analysis indicated that there 

is no price increase with improvements 

in efficiency for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. Product costs are assumed 

to remain constant over the analysis 

period. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE received the following 

comments to the 2014 Framework 

document regarding installation costs of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

T&S Brass commented that 

installation costs typically did not 

increase with higher-efficiency prerinse 

spray valves due to this process being a 

simple swap out. Under certain 

circumstances, depending on the 

manufacturer, additional materials may 

be necessary. (T&S Brass, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 83–85) 

T&S Brass also commented that 

depending upon the manufacturer, 

dealer, or installer, the initial 

installation costs of new products may 

or may not change for higher-efficiency 

models. The valve is typically a preassembled component of a prerinse unit 

installed into new facilities, but is 

usually provided separately for preexisting installations. For retrofit 

applications where an existing valve is 

replaced with a higher-efficiency valve, 

the cost may increase depending upon 

the degree of design change required to 

manufacture the commercial valve to 

the higher-efficiency requirement. This 

may require additional components, or 

revised upstream components, that are 

needed for proper installation and/or 

performance. This again is dependent 

upon the various manufacturers, 

dealers, or installers. (T&S Brass, No. 12 

at p. 7) 

DOE has not received any specific 

data or other comments regarding 

installation cost as a function of product 

efficiency. Given the relatively simple 

nature of installing spray valves, and 

because there are no substantial 

differences in size, shape, or function of 

more efficient units relative to baseline 

efficiency units, DOE assumes that 

installation costs for more efficient units 

are the same as the costs for baseline 

products. 

3. Annual Energy and Water 

Consumption 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD details 

DOE’s analysis of CPSV annual energy 

and water use at various efficiency 

levels. For each sampled building type, 

DOE determined the energy and water 

consumption for a commercial prerinse 

spray valve at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described in section 

IV.E of this notice. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived energy prices from the 

EIA regional average energy price data 

for the commercial sectors. DOE used 

projections of these energy prices for 

commercial consumers to estimate 

future energy prices in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO2014) was used as the default 

source of projections for future energy 

prices. 

DOE developed estimates of 

commercial electricity and natural gas 

prices for each state and the District of 

Columbia (DC). DOE derived average 

regional energy prices from data that are 

published annually based on EIA Form 

826. DOE then used EIA’s AEO2014 

price projections to estimate commercial 

electricity and natural gas prices in 

future years. EIA’s AEO2014 price 

projections have an end year of 2040. To 

estimate price trends after 2040, DOE 

used the average annual rate of change 

in prices from 2030 to 2040. DOE 

assumed that 100 percent of 

installations were in commercial 

locations. DOE did not receive any 

comments to the 2014 Framework 

document regarding its method for 

determining energy prices. 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE indicated that it would determine 

marginal water and wastewater rates in 

the U.S. that would be used in the LCC 

and PBP analysis, as well as the NIA. It 

further stated that it would investigate 

American Water Works Association’s 

(AWWA’s) biannual water and 

wastewater rate survey when modeling 

water and wastewater marginal pricing 

and projected future rate escalations. 

DOE received the following comments 

regarding the determination of the 

appropriate water prices for applicable 

analyses. 

T&S Brass recommended using 

AWWA as a source for water prices. 

(T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 6 at p. 88) T&S Brass also 

commented that it recognized the 

relationship between wastewater 

discharge and water usage. The impact 

of wastewater discharge is dependent 

upon municipal wastewater charges, 

such as sewer rate. Therefore, similar to 

the costs of municipal water, 

wastewater charges are based upon the 

location across the nation. (T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 7) T&S Brass suggested that 

DOE should contact AWWA to 

determine marginal water and 

wastewater rates and methods to break 

out water and wastewater rates across 

different pricing segments, such as 

regionally or by state, as well as future 

trends in water and wastewater rate 

escalations. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 94–96) 

In response to T&S Brass’s comments, 

and consistent with the 2014 

Framework document, DOE obtained 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39505 

34The Food Service Technology Center test data 

for prerinse spray valves is available at 

www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/. The 

DOE compliance certification data for commercial 

prerinse spray valves is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/. 

data on water and wastewater prices 

from the 2012 AWWA surveys for this 

notice. For each state and DC, DOE 

combined all individual utility 

observations within the state to develop 

one value for water and wastewater 

service. Because water and wastewater 

charges are frequently tied to the same 

metered commodity values, DOE 

combined the prices for water and 

wastewater into one total dollar per 

thousand gallons figure. This figure is 

referred to as the combined water price. 

DOE used the consumer price index 

(CPI) data for water related consumption 

(1970–2013) in developing a real growth 

rate for combined water price forecasts. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides 

more detail about DOE’s approach to 

developing water and wastewater 

prices. 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the product; maintenance 

costs are associated with maintaining 

the operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency produce no changes, or only 

minor changes, in repair and 

maintenance costs compared to baseline 

efficiency product. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE requested information as to 

whether maintenance and repair costs 

are a function of efficiency level and 

product class. T&S Brass commented 

that determining whether repair costs 

may change for more efficient products, 

or whether commercial prerinse spray 

valves were typically replaced upon 

failure or repaired, depends on how the 

manufacturer markets their products. 

Some manufacturers and distributors 

place a premium on their more efficient 

products. Others view it as doing a 

service to the environment and to 

consumers by offering the same price. 

(T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 6 at pp. 94–96). T&S Brass also 

commented that some manufacturers 

offer repair kits. Some manufacturers 

view commercial prerinse spray valves 

as ‘‘throwaway’’ items, but T&S Brass 

does not, and stated that it could 

document that some of its original spray 

valves had been in use for over 60 years. 

(T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 6 at p. 86) Additionally T&S Brass 

commented that although its products 

can last longer than 5 years, end users 

decide whether to replace the entire 

unit or repair the unit in the field. (T&S 

Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 

at pp. 96–97) T&S Brass also stated that 

it offers an array of repair kits for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S 

Brass, No. 12 at pp. 7–8) 

DOE acknowledges T&S Brass’s 

comments. But, based on the lack of 

data regarding repair rates in the 

industry, DOE assumed that consumers 

would replace the commercial prerinse 

spray valve upon failure rather than 

repairing the product. DOE assumed 

that there are no changes in 

maintenance or repair costs between 

different efficiency levels. 

7. Product Lifetime 

Because product lifetime varies 

depending on utilization and other 

factors, DOE developed a distribution of 

product lifetimes. In the 2014 

Framework document, DOE assumed an 

average CPSV lifetime of 5 years. 

T&S Brass commented that water 

temperature and pressure, as well as 

frequency and duration of usage, were 

key considerations when determining 

the life expectancy of a unit. (T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass also 

commented that they do not know of a 

correlation between spray valve usage 

and life expectancy. (T&S Brass, No. 12 

at p. 3) T&S Brass pointed out that lifecycle testing for mechanical endurance 

is a prerequisite for third-party 

certification of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) 

DOE did not find sufficient data to 

support the use of factors such as usage, 

or water temperature and pressure, as a 

way to determine the distribution of 

lifetimes of commercial prerinse spray 

valves in the analysis for this notice. 

T&S Brass commented that lifetime 

values cannot be accurately quantified 

because of the range and number of 

variables, as well as the various enduser applications that must be 

considered. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 3) 

DOE developed a Weibull distribution 

with an average lifetime of 5 years and 

a maximum lifetime of 10 years. The use 

of a lifetime distribution for this 

analysis helps account for the variability 

of product lifetimes. 

However, NEEA commented that it 

expected the actual lifetime to be 

reduced due to an observed 10 percent 

attrition after 1 year because of events 

such as businesses closing, the unit 

being replaced, or rinsing stations being 

removed in Northwest utility programs. 

Additionally, NEEA pointed out that 

SBW Consulting’s evaluation report 

estimated that CPSV lifetimes might be 

as low as 2 years based on reported sales 

volume and the estimated population of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

(NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 1–2) 

In consideration of NEEA’s comment 

regarding the lifetime distributions used 

for commercial prerinse spray valves, in 

the NOPR analysis DOE modified the 

Weibull distribution to reflect 10 

percent of commercial prerinse spray 

valves failing within the first year after 

installation. See chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD for further details on the method 

and sources DOE used to develop CPSV 

lifetimes. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

developed discount rates by estimating 

the average cost of capital to commercial 

prerinse spray valve consumers. DOE 

applies discount rates to commercial 

consumers to estimate the present value 

of future cash flows derived from a 

project or investment. Most companies 

use both debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so the cost of capital is the 

weighted-average cost to the firm of 

equity and debt financing. See chapter 

8 in the NOPR TSD for further details 

on the development of consumer 

discount rates. 

9. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency 

Distribution 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analysis considered the 

projected distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers purchase 

under the no-new-standards case. DOE 

refers to this distribution of product 

efficiencies as a no-new-standards case 

efficiency distribution. 

To estimate the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distribution of 

commercial prerinse spray valves in 

2019 (the first year of the analysis 

period), DOE relied on data from the 

Food Service Technology Center and 

DOE’s CCMS Database for commercial 

prerinse spray valves.34 Additionally, 

DOE conducted general internet 

searches and examined manufacturer 

literature to understand the 

characteristics of the spray valves 

currently offered on the market. DOE 

assumed that the no-standards case 

percentages in 2019 would stay the 

same through the analysis period. The 

no-standards case efficiency distribution 

is described in chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The estimated shares for the nostandards case efficiency distribution 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for commercial prerinse spray valves are 

shown in Table IV.3. 

TABLE IV.3—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE NO-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION BY PRODUCT CLASS

IN 2019 

Efficiency level Light duty 

(% of shipments) 

Standard duty 

(% of shipments) 

Heavy duty 

(% of shipments) 

Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 15 40 40 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 35 50 50 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 0 0 5 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 50 10 5 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more 

efficient products, compared to baseline 

product, through energy and water cost 

savings. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed 

the life of the product mean that the 

increased total installed cost is not 

completely recovered in reduced 

operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. As 

explained in the engineering analysis of 

this notice (IV.C) there are no additional 

installed costs for more efficient 

commercial prerinse spray valves, 

making the PBP zero. 

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

EPCA, as amended, establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that a standard 

is economically justified if DOE finds 

that the additional cost to the consumer 

of purchasing a product complying with 

an energy conservation standard level 

will be less than three times the value 

of the first year’s energy (and, as 

applicable, water) savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

test procedure in place for that standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each 

considered efficiency level, DOE 

determined the value of the first year’s 

energy and water savings by calculating 

the quantity of those savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying that amount 

by the average energy and combined 

water price forecast for the year in 

which compliance with the amended 

standard would be required. The results 

are summarized in section V.B.1.c of 

this notice. 

G. Shipments 

DOE uses projections of product 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on energy and 

water use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops 

shipment projections based on historic 

economic figures and an analysis of key 

market drivers for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. In DOE’s shipments 

model, CPSV shipments are driven by 

both new construction and stock 

replacements. The shipments model 

takes an accounting approach, tracking 

market shares of each product class and 

the vintage of units in the existing stock. 

Stock accounting uses product 

shipments as inputs to estimate the age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

for all years. The age distribution inservice product is a key input to 

calculations of both the national energy 

savings (NES), national water savings, 

and NPV, because operating costs for 

any year depend on the age distribution 

of the stock. DOE also considers the 

impacts on shipments from changes in 

product purchase price and operating 

cost associated with higher efficiency 

levels. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE stated its intention to use historical 

shipment data for commercial prerinse 

spray valves obtained from trade 

organization surveys and commercial 

floor space growth data to characterize 

CPSV shipments. In response, NEEA 

recommended including a broader mix 

of building types beyond just 

restaurants, such as grocery stores and 

institutional facilities, to estimate total 

shipments. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 1) 

In the shipments analysis for this 

notice, DOE gathered information 

pertaining to commercial prerinse spray 

valves for many building types besides 

just restaurants from the National 

Restaurant Association, Puget Sound 

Energy Program, EPA WaterSense Field 

Study, and other industry reports. 

DOE did not receive any shipments 

data from interested parties in response 

to the 2014 Framework document. DOE 

based the retirement function (the time 

at which the product fails and is 

replaced) on the probability distribution 

for product lifetime that was developed 

in the LCC and PBP analysis. The 

shipments model assumes that no units 

are retired below a minimum product 

lifetime (one year of service) and that all 

units are retired before exceeding a 

maximum product lifetime (ten years of 

service). 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE indicated that it intended to derive 

standards case shipments projections 

using the same data used in the 

development of the base case 

projections. DOE assumed that any 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves would not impact the total 

volume of shipments over the analysis 

period. Rather, in response to the 

proposed standards, product shipments 

may move from one efficiency level to 

another, but the total number of units 

shipped remains the same between the 

base and standards cases. 

DOE determined that a roll-up 

scenario is most appropriate to establish 

the distribution of efficiencies for the 

year that compliance with amended 

CPSV standards would be required. 

Under the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario, DOE 

assumes: (1) Product efficiencies in the 

no-standards case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll-up’’ to meet the new 

standard level; and (2) product 

efficiencies above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected. The details of DOE’s approach 

to forecast efficiency trends are 

described in chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The nature of the market for 

commercial prerinse spray valves makes 

it possible that consumers may, under 

examined TSLs and product classes, opt 

to switch product classes to a 

commercial prerinse spray valve that 

consumes more water and energy than 

their current product. In particular, if 

current choices of product correspond 

to consumers’ optimal product under 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39507 

the current regulatory environment, it is 

probable that some consumers would 

switch from the standard-duty product 

class to the heavy-duty product class in 

response to proposed standards, given 

the lack of restrictions on doing so. DOE 

implemented a mechanism in the 

shipments model to estimate such 

consumer choices. The economics 

resulting from product-class switching 

may result in lower optimal efficiency 

levels and reduced estimates of water 

and energy savings, as compared to the 

case without class switching. A detailed 

description of DOE’s method to model 

product-class switching is contained in 

chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES, national 

water savings, and NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels. 

DOE calculates the NES, national water 

savings, and NPV based on projections 

of annual CPSV shipments, along with 

the annual energy and water 

consumption and total installed cost 

data from the energy and water use 

analysis, as well as the LCC and PBP 

analysis. DOE forecasted the energy and 

water savings, operating cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of products 

sold from 2019 through 2048. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing a 

base-case projection with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projection 

characterizes energy and water use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For the basecase projection, DOE considers 

historical trends in efficiency and 

various forces that are likely to affect the 

mix of efficiencies over time. DOE 

compares the base-case projection with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy and water savings, 

and the national consumer costs and 

savings for each TSL. Chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD describes the models and 

how to use them; interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical or weighted-average 

mean values (as opposed to probability 

distributions) as inputs. 

DOE used projections of energy and 

combined water prices as described in 

section IV.F.4 and IV.F.5, as well as 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. As part of 

the NIA, DOE analyzed scenarios that 

used inputs from the AEO2014 Low 

Economic Growth and High Economic 

Growth cases. Those cases have higher 

and lower energy price trends compared 

to the reference case. NIA results based 

on these cases are presented in 

appendix 10A of the NOPR TSD. 

Table IV.4 summarizes the inputs and 

methods DOE used for the NIA analysis. 

Discussion of these inputs and methods 

follows the table. See chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD for further details. 

TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments .................................................. Annual shipments from shipments model. 

First Year of Analysis Period ..................... 2019 

No-Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Efficiency distributions are forecasted based on historical efficiency data. 

Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies .. Used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario. 

Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy and water use at each TSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ...................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. 

Incorporates forecast of future product prices based on historical data. 

Annual Energy and Combined Water Cost 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy and water consumption per 

unit, and energy, and combined water treatment prices. 

Energy Prices ............................................ AEO2014 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation through 2058. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factors Varies yearly and is generated by NEMS–BT. 

Discount Rate ............................................ 3 and 7 percent real. 

Present Year .............................................. Future expenses discounted to 2015, when the NOPR will be published. 

1. National Energy and Water Savings 

The national energy and water savings 

analysis involves a comparison of 

national energy and water consumption 

of the considered product in each 

potential standards case (TSL) with 

consumption in the no-standards case 

with no amended energy and water 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy and water 

consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

unit (by vintage or age) by the unit 

energy and water consumption (also by 

vintage). Then, DOE calculated annual 

NES and national water savings based 

on the difference in national energy and 

water consumption for the no-standards 

case (without amended efficiency 

standards) and for each higher 

efficiency standard. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy, and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy using annual conversion 

factors derived from the AEO2014 

version of NEMS. Cumulative energy 

and water savings are the sum of the 

annual NES and national water savings 

for each year over the timeframe of the 

analysis. DOE has historically presented 

NES in terms of primary energy savings. 

In the case of electricity use and 

savings, this quantity includes the 

energy consumed by power plants to 

generate delivered (site) electricity. 

In response to the recommendations 

of a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency 

Standards’’ appointed by the National 

Academy of Sciences, DOE announced 

its intention to use FFC measures of 

energy use and greenhouse gas and 

other emissions in the national impact 

analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 proposed statement of policy, DOE 

published a statement of amended 

policy in the Federal Register in which 

DOE explained its determination that 

NEMS is the most appropriate tool for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

35OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003) 

(Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

memoranda/m03–21.html.). 

36SEC Form 10–K filings are available at 

www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. Stock reports are 

available at www.standardandpoors.com. 

its FFC analysis, as well as its intention 

to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 

49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the NoStandards Case and Standards Cases 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-standards case (without new or 

amended standards) and the standards 

case. Section IV.F.9 of this notice 

describes how DOE developed a nostandards case energy efficiency 

distribution (which yields a shipmentweighted average efficiency) for each of 

the considered product classes for the 

first year of the forecast period. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs, and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-standards 

case and each standards case in terms of 

total savings in operating costs versus 

total increases in installed costs. DOE 

calculates operating cost savings over 

the lifetime of each product unit 

shipped during the forecast period. The 

operating cost savings are energy and 

combined water cost savings. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. DOE estimated the 

NPV of consumer benefits using both a 

3-percent and a 7-percent real discount 

rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 

accordance with guidance provided by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to Federal agencies on the 

development of regulatory analysis.35

The discount rates for the determination 

of NPV are in contrast to the discount 

rates used in the LCC and PBP analysis, 

which are designed to reflect an 

individual consumer’s perspective. The 

7-percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by an amended national standard. DOE 

evaluated impacts on particular 

subgroups of consumers by analyzing 

the LCC impacts and PBP for those 

particular consumers from alternative 

standard levels. For this rulemaking, 

DOE analyzed the impacts of the 

considered standard levels on single 

entities and limited service 

establishment end users. 

In general, the higher the cost of 

capital and the lower the cost of energy 

and water, the more likely it is that an 

entity would be disproportionately 

affected by the requirement to purchase 

higher efficiency product. In this 

analysis, a single entity would be a 

small, independent, or family-owned 

business that operates in a single 

location. Compared to large 

corporations and franchises, these single 

entities might be subjected to higher 

costs of capital. For the purpose of the 

subgroup analysis, a limited service 

establishment is a consumer that is 

likely to have a significantly lower 

operating time than the average 

consumer. A lower operating time 

would lead to lower operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of the product, 

making this subgroup of consumers 

disproportionately affected by amended 

efficiency standards. Chapter 11 in the 

NOPR TSD describes the consumer 

subgroup analysis in greater detail. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves and to estimate the 

potential impacts of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects and includes 

analyses of forecasted industry cash 

flows, the INPV, investments in research 

and development (R&D) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative elements of the MIA 

rely on the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cashflow model customized for this 

rulemaking. See section IV.J.2 for details 

on the GRIM. The qualitative parts of 

the MIA address factors such as product 

characteristics, characteristics of 

particular firms, and market trends. The 

complete MIA is discussed in chapter 

12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE conducted 

the MIA in the three phases. 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a profile of the commercial prerinse 

spray valve manufacturing industry 

based on the market and technology 

assessment, information on the present 

and past market structure and 

characteristics of the industry, product 

attributes, product shipments, 

manufacturer markups, and the cost 

structure for various manufacturers. 

The profile also included an analysis 

of manufacturers in the industry using 

Security and Exchange Commission 10– 

K filings, Standard & Poor’s stock 

reports, and corporate annual reports 

released by publicly held companies.36

DOE used this and other publicly 

available information to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM, including an industry discount 

rate, manufacturer markup, cost of 

goods sold and depreciation, selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and research and 

development (R&D) expenses. 

Phase 2 focused on the financial 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on the industry 

as a whole. Amended energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flows in three 

distinct ways: (1) Create a need for 

increased investment, (2) raise per-unit 

production costs, and (3) alter 

manufacturer revenue due to possible 

changes in sales volumes and/or 

manufacturer’s per-unit gross margins. 

DOE used the GRIM to model these 

effects in a cash-flow analysis of the 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturing industry. In performing 

this analysis, DOE used the financial 

parameters developed in Phase 1, the 

cost-efficiency curves from the 

engineering analysis, and the shipment 

assumptions from the NIA. 

In phase 3, DOE evaluated subgroups 

of manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

standards or that may not be accurately 

represented by the average cost 

assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash-flow analysis. For 

example, small businesses, 

manufacturers of niche products, or 

companies exhibiting a cost structure 

that differs significantly from the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39509 

industry average could be more 

negatively affected. While DOE did not 

identify any other subgroup of 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves that would warrant a 

separate analysis, DOE specifically 

investigated impacts on small business 

manufacturers. See section V.B.2.d and 

section VI.B of this notice for more 

information. 

The MIA also addresses the direct 

impact on employment tied to the 

manufacturing of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. Using the GRIM and 

census data, DOE estimated the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the no-standards case and at each 

TSL from 2015 to 2048. See section 

V.B.2.b of this notice and chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD for more information on 

direct employment impacts. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow that result in a 

higher or lower industry value due to 

energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM is a standard, discounted cashflow model that incorporates 

manufacturer costs, markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information as inputs, and models 

changes in manufacturing costs, 

shipments, investments, and margins 

that may result from amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM uses 

these inputs to arrive at a series of 

annual cash flows, beginning with the 

base year of the analysis, 2015, and 

continuing to 2048. DOE uses the 

industry-average weighted average cost 

of capital (WACC) of 6.9 percent, as this 

represents the minimum rate of return 

necessary to cover the debt and equity 

obligations manufacturers use to finance 

operations. 

DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV 

in the no-standards case with INPV at 

each TSL (the standards case). The 

difference in INPV between the base and 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of the amended standard on 

manufacturers. Additional details about 

the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturer production costs are the 

costs to the manufacturer to produce a 

commercial prerinse spray valve. These 

costs include materials, labor, overhead, 

and depreciation. Changes in the MPCs 

of commercial prerinse spray valves can 

affect revenues, gross margins, and cash 

flow of the industry, making product 

cost data key inputs for DOE’s analysis. 

DOE estimated the MPCs for the three 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

product classes at the baseline and 

higher efficiency levels, as described in 

section IV.C of this notice. The cost 

model also disaggregated the MPCs into 

the cost of materials, labor, overhead, 

and depreciation. DOE used the MPCs 

and cost breakdowns as described in 

section IV.C of this notice, and further 

detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, 

for each efficiency level analyzed in the 

GRIM. 

No-Standards Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues in each year of the forecast 

based in part on total unit shipments 

and the distribution of these values by 

efficiency level and product class. 

Generally, changes in the efficiency mix 

and total shipments at each standard 

level affect manufacturer finances. The 

GRIM uses the NIA shipments forecasts 

from 2015 to 2048, the end of the 

analysis period. 

To calculate shipments, DOE 

developed a shipments model for each 

product class based on an analysis of 

key market drivers for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. For greater detail 

on the shipments analysis, see section 

IV.G of this notice and chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards may cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to make 

necessary changes to their production 

facilities and bring product designs into 

compliance. For the MIA, DOE 

classified these costs into two major 

groups: (1) Product conversion costs and 

(2) capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are investments in 

R&D, testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs focused on making 

product designs comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment to 

adapt or change existing production 

facilities so that new product designs 

can be fabricated and assembled. 

DOE contacted manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves for the 

purpose of conducting interviews. 

However, no manufacturer agreed to 

participate in an interview. In the 

absence of information from 

manufacturers, DOE created estimates of 

capital and product conversion costs 

using the engineering cost model and 

information gained during product 

teardowns. DOE’s estimates of the 

product and capital conversion costs for 

the CPSV manufacturing industry can 

be found in section IV.J.2 of this notice 

and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE seeks information on capital and 

product conversion costs associated 

with amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

Standards Case Shipments Forecasts 

The MIA results presented in section 

V.B.2 of this notice use shipments from 

the NIA. For standards case shipments, 

DOE assumed that commercial prerinse 

spray valve consumers would choose to 

buy the commercial prerinse spray valve 

that has the flow rate that is closest to 

the flow rate of the product they 

currently use and that complies with the 

new standard (and, accordingly, 

manufacturers would choose to produce 

products with the closest flow rate to 

those they currently produce). Due to 

the structure of the product classes and 

efficiency levels for this rule, in certain 

instances, product class switching is 

predicted to occur, wherein consumers 

choose to buy the product with the flow 

rate that is closest to their current 

product’s flow rate even if it has a 

higher spray force (putting those 

products into a different product class). 

Where product class switching does not 

occur, no-standards case shipments of 

products that did not meet the new 

standard would roll up to meet the 

standard starting in the compliance 

year. See section IV.G of this notice for 

a description of the standards case 

efficiency distributions. 

The NIA also used historical data to 

derive a price scaling index to forecast 

product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in 

the GRIM use the default price forecast 

for all scenarios, which assumes 

constant pricing. See section IV.F.1 of 

this notice for a discussion of DOE’s 

price forecasting methodology. 

Markup Scenarios 

MSP is equal to MPC times a 

manufacturer markup. The MSP 

includes direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, material, 

depreciation, and overhead estimated in 

DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production 

costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), 

along with profit. 

DOE used the baseline manufacturer 

markup of 1.30, developed during Phase 

1 and subsequently revised, for all 

products when modeling the nostandards case in the GRIM. DOE 

requests comment on the use of 1.30 as 

an appropriate baseline markup for all 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

For the standards case in the GRIM, 

DOE modeled two markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

37Commercial pre-rinse spray valves 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall be 

capable of cleaning 60 plates in an average time of 

not more than 30 seconds per plate. (http://

www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-400- 

2014-009/CEC-400-2014-009-CMF.pdf) 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards. For both GRIM 

markup scenarios, DOE placed no 

premium on higher efficiency products. 

This is based on the assumption that 

efficiency is not the primary factor 

influencing purchasing decisions for 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

consumers. The two standards case 

markup scenarios are (1) a preservation 

of gross margin as a percentage of 

revenues markup scenario, and (2) a 

preservation of per-unit earnings before 

interest and taxes (EBIT) markup 

scenario. 

The preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup scenario 

assumes that the baseline markup of 

1.30 is maintained for all products in 

the standards case. Typically, this 

scenario represents the upper bound of 

industry profitability, as manufacturers 

are able to fully pass through additional 

costs due to amended standards to their 

consumers under this scenario. 

The preservation of per-unit EBIT 

markup scenario is similar to the 

preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup 

scenario, with the exception that in the 

standards case minimally compliant 

products lose a fraction of the baseline 

markup. Typically, this scenario 

represents the lower bound for 

profitability and a more substantial 

impact on the industry as manufacturers 

accept a lower margin in an attempt to 

offer price competitive entry level 

products while maintaining the same 

level of EBIT, on a per-unit basis, that 

they saw prior to amended standards. 

For the commercial prerinse spray 

valve industry, there is no difference 

between the preservation of gross 

margin as a percentage of revenues and 

the preservation of per-unit EBIT 

markup scenarios described previously. 

This is explained by the fact that 

manufacturing production costs are 

estimated to be constant across all 

standard efficiency levels (i.e., baseline, 

EL 1, EL 2, EL 3), total shipments are 

constant across standards efficiency 

levels, and changes in standard case 

shipments for certain product classes as 

a result of product class switching (e.g., 

a decrease in Standard Duty commercial 

prerinse spray valve shipments and an 

equivalent increase in Heavy Duty 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

shipments at all TSLs) are controlled for 

by using the per-unit EBIT in modeling 

the lower bound of industry 

profitability. Because the preservation of 

gross margin as a percentage of revenues 

and the preservation of per-unit EBIT 

markup scenarios produce the same 

results in the GRIM, DOE does not break 

out the results of each in the 

presentation of INPV impacts in section 

V.B.2.a of this notice. DOE requests 

comment on the appropriateness of 

assuming a constant manufacturer 

markup across all product classes and 

efficiency levels. 

Capital Conversion Cost Scenarios 

In order to estimate an upper and 

lower bound of industry profitability as 

a result of amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, DOE developed two model 

scenarios for the capital conversion 

costs required to meet each TSL. The 

assumption underlying both scenarios is 

that capital conversion costs associated 

with increasing the efficiency of 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

exclusively related to the fabrication of 

plastic nozzles, as manufacturers would 

have to redesign nozzle molds to 

produce a nozzle with fewer or smaller 

spray holes. DOE does not believe there 

would be capital conversion costs 

associated with the in-house fabrication 

of metal nozzles. A more detailed 

discussion of capital conversion cost 

assumptions is provided in chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD. 

One capital conversion cost scenario, 

representing the upper bound of 

industry profitability, assumes that the 

majority of commercial prerinse spray 

valve manufacturers source components 

(including the nozzle) from component 

suppliers and simply assemble the 

commercial prerinse spray valves (i.e., 

Sourced Components Scenario). The 

second scenario, representing the lower 

bound of industry profitability, assumes 

that all of the commercial prerinse spray 

valve manufacturers currently selling 

products with plastic spray nozzles 

fabricate these nozzles in-house (i.e., 

Fabricated Components Scenario). More 

detail regarding these capital conversion 

cost scenarios is provided in chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD. Additionally, DOE 

requests comment on which capital 

conversion cost scenario more 

accurately reflects the expected capital 

conversion costs associated with 

amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the public comment period 

following the 2014 Framework public 

meeting, trade associations and a small 

business manufacturer of commercial 

prerinse spray valves provided several 

comments on the potential impact of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers. 

PMI stated that manufacturers are 

required to comply with Federal, state, 

and local regulations, and often strive to 

obtain additional certifications under 

EPA’s WaterSense program, IAPMO, 

and the Canadian Standards Association 

(CSA). PMI stated that commercial 

prerinse spray valve manufacturers are 

required to file their products with 

many agencies, including the Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC), DOE, CEC, 

the State of Texas, and the State of 

Massachusetts. Collectively, these 

requirements impose a worrisome 

burden on manufacturers in terms of 

time and cost. (PMI, No. 10 at p. 2) T&S 

Brass commented that manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

familiar with industry standards such as 

ASME A112.18.1/CSA B125.1 and 

ASTM F2324–13, and that 

manufacturers recognize the added 

burden of re-testing and certification 

due to design and/or performance 

changes. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE acknowledges the existence of 

Federal regulations, cleanability 

standards established by the State of 

California,37 and third-party 

certification programs impacting 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturers. DOE investigates 

cumulative regulatory burden impacts 

associated with this rulemaking in 

section V.B.2.e of this notice, and in 

more detail in chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the recertification costs 

associated with complying with 

industry standards that result from 

amended DOE standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. DOE will 

consider any such additional 

information when estimating product 

conversion costs for the final rule 

(section VII.E. of this notice). 

NAFEM commented that DOE failed 

to show how the considerable costs of 

the regulation are economically 

justified. NAFEM also suggested that the 

economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers, particularly small 

businesses, is considerable because the 

technology options suggested by DOE in 

the Framework document are not 

technologically feasible. (NAFEM, No. 9 

at p. 2) Both T&S Brass and NAFEM 

agreed that small businesses should be 

analyzed as a manufacturer subgroup in 

the manufacturer impact analysis. (T&S, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 65 

and NAFEM, No. 9 at p. 2) Additionally, 

T&S Brass commented that small 

businesses operate on strict budgets and 

operating costs. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 8) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39511 

38See EPA emission factors for GHG inventories 

available at www.epa.gov/climateleadership/

inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

39 IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)] Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Chapter 8 (2013). 

40See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

41See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 

(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

42See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 

S.Ct. 1584, 1610 (U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court 

held in part that EPA’s methodology for quantifying 

emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 

due to their impacts in other downwind States was 

based on a permissible, workable, and equitable 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision that 

provides statutory authority for CSAPR. 

43See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed 

October 23, 2014) (No. 11–1302). 

The economic impact on 

manufacturers is presented in section 

V.B.2. The economic impact on 

consumers is presented in section V.B.1. 

DOE analyzes the impacts of the 

rulemaking on small business 

manufacturers as a subgroup in section 

VI.B of this notice, and in section 12.6 

of the NOPR TSD. 

T&S Brass suggested that DOE include 

importers of commercial prerinse spray 

valves as a subgroup because the lack of 

enforcement by government agencies on 

importers has adverse effects on other 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturers who do follow the 

current regulations. (T&S, No. 12 at p.8) 

Energy conservation standards set by 

DOE apply to imported commercial 

prerinse spray valves as well as 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

assembled or manufactured 

domestically. Commercial prerinse 

spray valves are subject to DOE’s 

enforcement authority for energy 

conservation standards, regardless of 

whether they are imported or 

manufactured domestically. For this 

reason, DOE does not believe that 

importers of commercial prerinse spray 

valves should be considered as a 

manufacturing subgroup for this 

analysis. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE contacted manufacturers 

representing an estimated 100 percent of 

the U.S. commercial prerinse spray 

valve market for the purpose of 

conducting interviews. However, no 

manufacturer agreed to participate in an 

interview. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

from potential energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. In addition to estimating impacts 

of standards on power sector emissions, 

DOE estimated emissions impacts in 

production activities (extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels) that 

provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these 

emissions account for the FFC. In 

accordance with DOE’s FFC Statement 

of Policy (76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011) 

as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 

2012)), the FFC analysis also includes 

impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) 

and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which 

are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

DOE conducted the emissions 

analysis using emissions factors for CO2

and most of the other gases derived from 

data in AEO2014. Combustion 

emissions of CH4 and N2O were 

estimated using emissions intensity 

factors published by the EPA in its 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Factors Hub.38 DOE developed separate 

emissions factors for power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

method that DOE used to derive 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying each ton of the 

greenhouse gas by the gas’s global 

warming potential (GWP) over a 100- 

year time horizon. Based on the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,39 DOE used GWP values of 28 

for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. 

Each annual version of NEMS 

incorporates the projected impacts of 

existing air quality regulations on 

emissions. AEO2014 generally 

represents current legislation and 

environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and DC. SO2

emissions from 28 eastern States and DC 

were also limited under the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). 

CAIR created an allowance-based 

trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program. In 2008, 

CAIR was remanded to EPA by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, but it remained in 

effect.40 In 2011, EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR,41 and the court 

ordered EPA to continue administering 

CAIR. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed the judgment of 

the DC Circuit and remanded the case 

for further proceedings consistent with 

the Supreme Court’s opinion.42 On 

October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted 

the stay of CSAPR.43 Pursuant to this 

action, CSAPR went into effect (and 

CAIR ceased to be in effect) as of 

January 1, 2015. 

Because AEO2014 was prepared prior 

to the Supreme Court’s opinion, it 

assumed that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040. Thus, DOE’s 

analysis used emissions factors that 

assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the 

regulation in force. However, the 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR is 

not relevant for the purpose of DOE’s 

analysis of emissions impacts from 

energy conservation standards. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will decline significantly as a 

result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 

FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard 

for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

and also established a standard for SO2

(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

44CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX is slight. 

45National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and DC.44

Energy conservation standards are 

expected to have little effect on NOX

emissions in those States covered by 

CAIR because excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions. However, standards would 

be expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not affected by the caps, so 

DOE estimated NOX emissions 

reductions from the standards 

considered in this NOPR for these 

States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps. DOE estimated 

mercury emissions using emissions 

factors based on AEO2014, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

In the 2014 Framework document, 

DOE requested comment and 

information on potential methods and 

data sources that can be used to assess 

emissions reductions as a result of water 

savings. In response to DOE’s request, 

the Advocates commented that the 

analysis should take into account the 

off-site energy embedded by public 

water suppliers, private wells, and 

wastewater treatment systems serving 

locations with covered products that use 

water. The Advocates further stated that 

they intend to develop a more 

substantial recommendation regarding 

methods and data sources for this 

docket at a later date. (Advocates, No. 

11 at pp. 2–3) DOE recognizes that there 

are emission reductions related to 

reduction in water production and 

distribution. However, currently there 

are no standardized models or tools that 

adequately account for these reductions 

as a result of water savings, and DOE 

was not able to analyze these potential 

emissions reductions. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

are expected to result from each of the 

TSLs considered. In order to make this 

calculation analogous to the calculation 

of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in the forecast period 

for each TSL. This section summarizes 

the basis for the monetary values used 

for each of these emissions and presents 

the values considered in this notice. 

For this notice, DOE relied on a set of 

values for the SCC that was developed 

by a Federal interagency process. The 

basis for these values is summarized in 

the following sections, and a more 

detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages in 

the United States resulting from a unit 

change in CO2 emissions, while a global 

SCC value is meant to reflect the value 

of damages worldwide. 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions. 

The estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

challenges. A report from the National 

Research Council 45 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs, (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions 

on the climate system, (3) the impact of 

changes in climate on the physical and 

biological environment, and (4) the 

translation of these environmental 

impacts into economic damages. As a 

result, any effort to quantify and 

monetize the harms associated with 

climate change will raise questions of 

science, economics, and ethics, and 

should be viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. The agency can estimate the 

benefits from reduced (or costs from 

increased) emissions in any future year 

by multiplying the change in emissions 

in that year by the SCC values 

appropriate for that year. The NPV of 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying each of these future benefits 

by an appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

changes and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and will consider public comments as 

part of the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

Federal agencies, the Administration 

sought to develop a transparent and 

defensible method, specifically 

designed for the rulemaking process, to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39513 

46 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

47Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf). 

48Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 

2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf). 

quantify avoided climate change 

damages from reduced CO2 emissions. 

The interagency group did not 

undertake any original analysis. Instead, 

it combined SCC estimates from the 

existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: Global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Each model was given 

equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach in modeling how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models, while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, was included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The values grow in 

real terms over time. Additionally, the 

interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,46 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.5 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,47 which is 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.5—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[2007$ per Metric Ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for this notice 

were generated using the most recent 

versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.48

Table IV.6 shows the updated sets of 

SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 

2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC 

estimates between 2010 and 2050 is 

reported in appendix 14–B of the NOPR 

TSD. The central value that emerges is 

the average SCC across models at the 3- 

percent discount rate. However, for 

purposes of capturing the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, 

the interagency group emphasizes the 

importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

49U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2006 Report 

to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf.). 

TABLE IV.6—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 (2007$ PER METRIC TON CO2) 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

because they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The 2009 National 

Research Council report points out that 

there is tension between the goal of 

producing quantified estimates of the 

economic damages from an incremental 

ton of carbon and the limits of existing 

efforts to model these effects. There are 

a number of analytical challenges that 

are being addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the Federal 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. The 

interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2014$ using the implicit 

price deflator for GDP from the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis. For each of the 

four sets of SCC values, the values for 

emissions in 2015 were $12.2, $41.1, 

$63.3, and $121 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2014$). DOE 

derived values after 2050 using the 

relevant growth rates for the 2040–2050 

period in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE has taken into account how 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce site NOX emissions 

nationwide and increase power sector 

NOX emissions in those 22 States not 

affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of net NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for this notice based on 

estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Estimates of 

monetary value for reducing NOX from 

stationary sources range from $483 to 

$4,964 per short ton in 2014$.49 DOE 

calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of 

$2,723 per short ton (in 2014$), and real 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. DOE has not 

included monetization of those 

emissions in the current analysis. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the electric power 

generation industry that would result 

from the adoption of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. In the 

utility impact analysis, DOE analyzes 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation that would 

result for each TSL. The utility impact 

analysis is based on published output 

from NEMS, which is a public domain, 

multi-sectored, partial equilibrium 

model of the U.S. energy sector. Each 

year, NEMS is updated to produce the 

AEO reference case, as well as a number 

of side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. DOE uses 

published side cases that incorporate 

efficiency-related policies to estimate 

the marginal impacts of reduced energy 

demand on the utility sector. The output 

of this analysis is a set of timedependent coefficients that capture the 

change in electricity generation, primary 

fuel consumption, installed capacity, 

and power sector emissions due to a 

unit reduction in demand for a given 

end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of energy 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD 

describes the utility impact analysis in 

further detail. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include both 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the product subject to 

standards, their suppliers, and related 

service firms. The direct employment 

impacts are addressed in the MIA. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than those in the manufacturing 

sector being regulated, caused by: (1) 

Reduced spending by end users on 

energy and water, (2) reduced spending 

on new energy supply by the utility 

industry, (3) potential increased 

spending on new products to which the 

new standards apply, and (4) the effects 

of those three factors throughout the 

economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39515 

50 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by email to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

51See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), U.S. 

Department of Commerce (1992). 52 J.M. Roop, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz. ImSET 

3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL– 

18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(2009) (Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf). 

Labor Statistics (BLS).50 The BLS 

regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of 

economic activity in different sectors of 

the economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.51 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

For the amended standard levels 

considered in this notice, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies version 

3.1.1 (ImSET).52 ImSET is a specialpurpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output’’ (I–O) model, 

which was designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies. 

The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model having 

structural coefficients that characterize 

economic flows among 187 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved 

in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rulemaking. 

Because ImSET predicts small job 

impacts resulting from this rulemaking, 

regardless of these uncertainties, the 

actual job impacts are likely to be 

negligible in the overall economy. For 

more details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. It addresses the 

TSLs examined by DOE and the 

projected impacts of each of these levels 

if adopted as energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

NOPR TSD supporting this notice. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of four TSLs for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. These TSLs were 

developed using combinations of 

efficiency levels (ELs) for the product 

classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents 

the results for those TSLs in this notice. 

DOE presents the results for all 

efficiency levels that were analyzed in 

the NOPR TSD. Table V.1 presents the 

TSLs and the corresponding efficiency 

levels for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. TSL 4 represents the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy and water 

efficiency. TSL 3 is the combination of 

efficiency levels for each product class 

that yields the maximum total NPV. TSL 

2 consists of the next efficiency level 

below the max-tech level for all product 

classes. TSL 1 consists of the first 

efficiency level considered above the 

baseline for all commercial prerinse 

spray valve product classes. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

TSL 

Light duty 

(≤5 ozf) 

Standard duty 

(>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 

Heavy duty 

(>8 ozf) 

EL Flow rate 

(gpm) EL Flow rate (gpm) EL Flow rate (gpm) 

1 ............................................................... 1 0.72 1 1.10 1 1.44 

2 ............................................................... 2 0.68 2 0.97 2 1.28 

3 ............................................................... 3 0.65 2 0.97 3 1.24 

4 ............................................................... 3 0.65 3 0.94 3 1.24 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on commercial prerinse spray valve 

consumers by looking at the effects 

potential amended standards would 

have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also 

examined the impacts of potential 

standards on consumer subgroups. 

These analyses are discussed below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on consumers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE 

conducted an LCC and PBP analysis for 

each TSL. In general, higher-efficiency 

products would affect consumers in two 

ways: (1) Purchase price would increase 

and (2) annual operating costs would 

decrease. Because DOE did not find that 

the purchase price of commercial 

prerinse spray valves increased with 

increasing efficiency, the only effect of 

higher-efficiency products to consumers 

is decreased operating costs. Inputs 

used for calculating the LCC and PBP 

include total installed costs (i.e., 

product price plus installation costs) 

and operating costs (i.e., energy, and 

combined water prices, energy and 

combined water price trends). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.7 show the 

LCC and PBP results for all efficiency 

levels considered for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. In the first of each 

pair of tables, the simple payback is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. In the second of each pair of 

tables, the LCC savings are measured 

relative to the no-standards case 

efficiency distribution in the first year of 

the analysis period (see section IV.F.9 of 

this notice). No impacts occur when the 

no-standards case efficiency for a 

specific consumer equals or exceeds the 

efficiency at a given TSL as a standard 

would have no effect because the 

product installed would be at or above 

that standard level without amended 

standards. For commercial prerinse 

spray valves, DOE determined that there 

was no increase in purchase price with 

increasing efficiency level within each 

product class. Therefore, LCC and PBP 

results instead reflect differences in 

operating costs due to decreased energy 

and water use for each EL. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR LIGHT DUTY (≤5 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE

SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2014$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

.......................................... 0 79 373 1,957 2,036 ........................ 4.9 

1 ....................................... 1 79 353 1,854 1,933 0.0 4.9 

2 ....................................... 2 79 334 1,751 1,830 0.0 4.9 

3, 4 ................................... 3 79 319 1,674 1,753 0.0 4.9 

NOTE: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR LIGHT

DUTY (≤5 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

(net cost) 

Average 

savings * 

(2014$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 103 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 0 134 

3, 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 0 211 

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD DUTY (>5 ozf AND ≤8 ozf) 

COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2014$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

.......................................... 0 79 599 3,141 3,220 ........................ 4.9 

1 ....................................... 1 79 540 2,832 2,911 0.0 4.9 

2, 3 ................................... 2 79 476 2,498 2,577 0.0 4.9 

4 ....................................... 3 79 461 2,420 2,499 0.0 4.9 

NOTE: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR

STANDARD DUTY (>5 ozf AND ≤8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

(net cost) 

Average 

savings * 

(2014$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 309 

2, 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 2 0 472 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39517 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR

STANDARD DUTY (>5 ozf AND ≤8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES—Continued 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

(net cost) 

Average 

savings * 

(2014$) 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 0 549 

NOTE: The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR HEAVY DUTY (>8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE

SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2014$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

...................................... 0 79 785 4,120 4,199 ........................ 4.9 

1 ................................... 1 79 707 3,708 3,787 0.0 4.9 

2 ................................... 2 79 628 3,296 3,375 0.0 4.9 

3, 4 ............................... 3 79 609 3,193 3,272 0.0 4.9 

NOTE: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR HEAVY

DUTY (>8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

(net cost) 

Average 

savings * 

(2014$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 412 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 0 595 

3, 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 0 667 

NOTE: The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I of this 

notice, DOE determined the impact of 

the considered TSLs on small 

businesses and limited service 

establishments. Table V.8 through Table 

V.10 compare the average LCC savings 

at each efficiency level for the two 

consumer subgroups, along with the 

average LCC savings for the entire 

sample for each product class for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. The 

average LCC savings for single entities 

and limited service establishments at 

the considered efficiency levels are not 

substantially different from the average 

for all consumers. Chapter 11 of the 

NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC 

and PBP results for the two subgroups. 

TABLE V.8—LIGHT DUTY (≤5 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR

CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL CONSUMERS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

1 ............................................................... 97 82 103 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 ............................................................... 126 107 134 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3 ............................................................... 198 169 211 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4 ............................................................... 198 169 211 0.0 0.0 0.0 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.9—STANDARD DUTY (≤5 ozf AND >8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE

LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL CONSUMERS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

1 ............................................................... 290 247 309 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 ............................................................... 444 378 472 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3 ............................................................... 444 378 472 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4 ............................................................... 516 439 549 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TABLE V.10—HEAVY DUTY (>8 ozf) COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS

FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL CONSUMERS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

Single 

entities 

Limited 

service 

establishments 

All 

consumers 

1 ............................................................... 387 330 412 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 ............................................................... 559 476 595 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3 ............................................................... 627 533 667 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4 ............................................................... 627 533 667 0.0 0.0 0.0 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F.11, EPCA 

provides a rebuttable presumption that 

an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for products that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy and water 

savings resulting from the standard. In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for the considered 

standard levels, DOE used discrete 

values rather than distributions for 

input values, and, as required by EPCA, 

based the energy and water use 

calculation on the DOE test procedures 

for commercial prerinse spray valves. 

As a result, DOE calculated a single 

rebuttable presumption payback value, 

and not a distribution of payback 

periods, for each efficiency level. Table 

V.11 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs. While DOE examined 

the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it 

considered whether the standard levels 

considered for this proposed rule are 

economically justified through a more 

detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of those levels pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

that analysis serve as the basis for DOE 

to evaluate the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). As indicated in 

the engineering analysis, there is no 

increased purchase cost for products 

that meets the standard, so the 

rebuttable PBP for each considered TSL 

is zero. 

TABLE V.11—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: REBUTTABLE PBPS

Product class 

Rebuttable payback period for trial standard level 

(years) 

1 2 3 4 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) .................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ......................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. Section V.B.2.a describes 

the expected impacts on manufacturers 

at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD explains the analysis in further 

detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

DOE modeled two scenarios using 

different markup assumptions and two 

scenarios using different conversion 

cost assumptions, for a total of four 

different scenarios, in order to evaluate 

the range of cash flow impacts on the 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturing industry of amended 

energy conservation standards. 

However, as described in section IV.J.2, 

given constant manufacturing 

production costs for all product classes 

and across all standard efficiency levels, 

and constant total industry shipments, 

there is no difference in INPV impacts 

between the two markup scenarios. 

Therefore, DOE reports only the two 

capital conversion cost scenario’s INPV 

results. Each scenario results in a 

unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each 

TSL. These assumptions correspond to 

the bounds of a range of capital 

conversion costs that DOE anticipates 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39519 

could occur in the standards case. The 

following tables illustrate the financial 

impacts (represented by changes in 

INPV) of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers would incur for 

each product class at each TSL. 

The INPV results refer to the 

difference in industry value between the 

no-standards case and the standards 

case, which DOE calculated by 

summing the discounted industry cash 

flows from the base year (2015) through 

the end of the analysis period (2048). 

The discussion also notes the difference 

in cash flow between the no-standards 

case and the standards case in the year 

before the compliance date of potential 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

TABLE V.12—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES—WITH THE SOURCED

COMPONENTS CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS SCENARIO

Units No-standards 

case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2014$ millions .................... 9.1 8.5 8.1 8.0 8.0 

Change in INPV .................. 2014$ millions .................... ........................ (0.6) (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) 

% ........................................ ........................ (7.0) (11.5) (12.1) (12.1) 

Product Conversion Costs .. 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 

Capital Conversion Costs ... 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Total Conversion Costs ...... 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 1.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 

Free Cash Flow (2018) ....... 2014$ millions .................... 0.5 0.17 (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) 

% Change .......................... ........................ (65.8) (108.2) (113.8) (113.8) 

* Parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE V.13—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES—WITH THE FABRICATED

COMPONENTS CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS SCENARIO

Units No-standards 

case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2014$ millions .................... 9.1 7.7 7.2 7.1 7.1 

Change in INPV .................. 2014$ millions .................... ........................ (1.4) (1.9) (2.0) (2.0) 

% ........................................ ........................ (15.0) (21.0) (21.6) (21.6) 

Product Conversion Costs .. 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 

Capital Conversion Costs ... 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 

Total Conversion Costs ...... 2014$ millions .................... ........................ 2.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 

Free Cash Flow (2018) ....... 2014$ millions .................... 0.5 (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) 

% Change .......................... ........................ (142.8) (198.8) (204.4) (204.4) 

* Parentheses indicate negative values. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$1.4 million to 

¥$0.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥15.0 percent to ¥7.0 percent for the 

Fabricated Components and Sourced 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenarios, respectively. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by as much as 142.8 percent to 

¥$0.2 million, compared to the nostandards case value of $0.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. As DOE 

forecasts that approximately 65 percent 

of commercial prerinse spray valves in 

the no-standards case shipments 

scenario will meet TSL 1 in the first 

year that standards are in effect (2019), 

35 percent of the market is affected at 

this standard level. The impact on INPV 

at TSL 1 stems exclusively from the 

conversion costs associated with the 

conversion of baseline units to those 

meeting the standards set at TSL 1. At 

TSL 1, because the industry already 

produces a substantial number of 

products at this efficiency level, product 

and capital conversion costs are limited 

to approximately $1.2 million for the 

Sourced Components Capital 

Conversion Costs scenario and $2.0 

million for the Fabricated Components 

Capital Conversion Costs scenario. 

DOE notes that the shift of 20 percent 

of shipments from the Standard Duty to 

Heavy Duty product class does not have 

a significant impact on overall INPV 

because MPCs are the same across all 

product classes. For this reason, and 

because per-unit product conversion 

costs are the same for any product that 

has a change in flow rate and spray 

force at each efficiency level, and 

because capital conversion costs are a 

function of the material of the spray 

nozzle rather than the spray force (i.e., 

product class), DOE does not believe 

product class switching will have a 

detrimental impact on commercial 

prerinse spray valve manufacturers 

beyond the impact felt in the absence of 

product class switching. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$1.9 million to 

¥$1.0 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥21.0 percent to ¥11.5 percent for the 

Fabricated Components and Sourced 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenarios, respectively. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by as much as 198.8 percent to 

¥$0.5 million, compared to the nostandards case value of $0.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. As it is 

estimated that only approximately 20 

percent of commercial prerinse spray 

valves will meet the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 2 in the first year that 

standards are in effect (2019), a 

substantial fraction of the market is 

affected at this standard level. As with 

TSL 1, the impact on INPV at TSL 2 

stems exclusively from the conversion 

costs associated with the conversion of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

lower efficiency units to those meeting 

the standards set at TSL 2. At TSL 2, 

because the majority of commercial 

prerinse spray valves will have to be 

updated to reach the standard level, 

product and capital conversion costs are 

estimated to be approximately $1.9 

million for the Sourced Components 

Capital Conversion Costs scenario and 

$2.9 million for the Fabricated 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenario. Again, DOE notes that the shift 

of 20 percent of shipments from the 

Standard Duty to Heavy Duty product 

class, at this TSL does not have a 

significant impact on overall INPV due 

to the fact that MPCs are constant across 

all product classes and conversion costs 

are not a function of product class. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$2.0 million to 

¥$1.1 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥21.6 percent to ¥12.1 percent for the 

Fabricated Components and Sourced 

Components Capital Conversion Cost 

scenarios, respectively. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by as much as 204.4 percent to 

¥$0.5 million, compared to the nostandards case value of $0.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. As it is 

estimated that less than 20 percent of 

commercial prerinse spray valves will 

meet the efficiency levels specified at 

TSL 3 in the first year that standards are 

in effect (2019), a substantial fraction of 

the market is affected at this standard 

level. Again, the impact on INPV at TSL 

3 stems exclusively from the conversion 

costs associated with the conversion of 

lower efficiency units to those meeting 

the standards set at TSL 3. At this TSL, 

because the majority of commercial 

prerinse spray valves will have to be 

updated to reach the standard level, 

product and capital conversion costs are 

estimated to be approximately $2.0 

million for the Sourced Components 

Capital Conversion Costs scenario and 

$3.0 million for the Fabricated 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

model. Again, DOE notes that the shift 

of 20 percent of shipments from the 

Standard Duty to Heavy Duty product 

class, at this TSL does not have a 

significant impact on overall INPV due 

to the fact that MPCs are constant across 

all product classes and conversion costs 

are not a function of product class. 

Finally, at TSL 4, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from ¥$2.0 

million to ¥$1.1 million, or a change in 

INPV of ¥21.6 percent to ¥12.1 percent 

for the Fabricated Components and 

Sourced Components Capital 

Conversion Cost scenarios, respectively. 

Impacts are the same as at TSL 3 due to 

the fact that no Standard Duty 

commercial prerinse spray valves at 

efficiency level 2 (greater than 0.94 gpm 

and less than or equal to 0.97 gpm) are 

currently marketed. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by as much as 204.4 percent to 

¥$0.5 million, compared to the nostandards case value of $0.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. Again, 

the impact on INPV at TSL 4 stems 

exclusively from the conversion costs 

associated with the conversion of lower 

efficiency units to those meeting the 

standards set at TSL 4. At this TSL, 

because the majority of commercial 

prerinse spray valves will have to be 

updated to reach the standard level, 

product and capital conversion costs are 

estimated to be approximately $2.0 

million for the Sourced Components 

Capital Conversion Costs scenario and 

$3.0 million for the Fabricated 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenario. DOE notes that the shift of 45 

percent of shipments from the Standard 

Duty to Heavy Duty product class, at 

this TSL does not have a significant 

impact on overall INPV due to the fact 

that MPCs are constant across all 

product classes and conversion costs are 

not a function of product class. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the no-standards case and at each 

TSL from 2014 to 2048. DOE used the 

labor content of each product and the 

MPCs from the engineering analysis to 

estimate the total annual labor 

expenditures associated with 

commercial prerinse spray valves sold 

in the United States. Using statistical 

data from the most recent U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2011 ‘‘Annual Survey of 

Manufactures’’ (2011 ASM) as well as 

market research, DOE estimates that 100 

percent of commercial prerinse spray 

valves sold in the United States are 

assembled domestically, and hence that 

portion of total labor expenditures is 

attributable to domestic labor. Labor 

expenditures for the manufacturing of 

products are a function of the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

in real terms remain constant. 

Using the GRIM, DOE forecasts the 

domestic labor expenditure for 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

production labor in 2019 will be 

approximately $2.0 million. Using the 

$21.86 hourly wage rate including fringe 

benefits and 2,039 production hours per 

year per employee found in the 2011 

ASM, DOE estimates there will be 

approximately 44 domestic production 

workers involved in assembling and, to 

a lesser extent, fabricating components 

for commercial prerinse spray valves in 

2019, the year in which any amended 

standards would go into effect. In 

addition, DOE estimates that 22 nonproduction employees in the United 

States will support commercial prerinse 

spray valve production. The 

employment spreadsheet of the 

commercial prerinse spray valve GRIM 

shows the annual domestic employment 

impacts in further detail. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover workers only up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling commercial prerinse spray 

valves within an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely 

associated with production operations, 

such as material handling with a 

forklift, are also included as production 

labor. Additionally, the employment 

impacts shown are independent of the 

employment impacts from the broader 

U.S. economy, which are documented 

in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

Table V.14 depicts the potential levels 

of production employment that could 

result following amended energy 

conservation standards as calculated by 

the GRIM. The employment levels 

shown reflect the scenario in which 

manufacturers continue to produce the 

same scope of covered products in 

domestic facilities and domestic 

production is not shifted to lower-laborcost countries. The following discussion 

includes a qualitative evaluation of the 

likelihood of negative domestic 

production employment impacts at the 

various TSLs. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39521 

TABLE V.14—TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2019 

No-standards 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2019 

(without changes in production locations) ........................ 44 44 44 44 44 

The design option specified for 

achieving greater efficiency levels (i.e. 

changing the total spray hole area of the 

commercial prerinse spray valve nozzle) 

does not increase the labor content 

(measured in dollars) of commercial 

prerinse spray valves at any EL, nor 

does it increase total MPC. Additionally, 

total industry shipments are forecasted 

to be constant across TSLs. Therefore, 

DOE predicts no change in domestic 

manufacturing employment levels 

provided manufacturers do not relocate 

production facilities outside of the 

United States. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Less than 20 percent of shipments of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

already comply with the amended 

energy conservation standards proposed 

in this rulemaking. Not every 

manufacturer that ships commercial 

prerinse spray valves offers products 

that meet these amended energy 

conservation standards. However, 

because DOE believes that 

manufacturers would not need to make 

substantial platform changes by the 

2019 compliance date in order to 

upgrade their products to meet the 

amended energy conservation standards 

proposed in this rulemaking, DOE does 

not foresee any impact on 

manufacturing capacity during the 

period leading up to the compliance 

date. DOE seeks additional comment on 

the impact to manufacturing capacity 

between the issuance date and the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche product 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE examined the potential for 

disproportionate impacts on small 

business manufacturers, as discussed in 

section VI.B of this notice. DOE did not 

identify any other manufacturer 

subgroups for this rulemaking. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and can 

lead companies to abandon product 

lines or markets with lower expected 

future returns than competing products. 

For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

For the cumulative regulatory burden, 

DOE considers other DOE regulations 

that could affect commercial prerinse 

spray valve manufacturers that will take 

effect approximately 3 years before or 

after the analysis compliance date of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The compliance years and 

expected industry conversion costs of 

energy conservation standards that may 

also impact commercial prerinse spray 

valve manufacturers are indicated in 

Table V.15 

TABLE V.15—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE MANUFACTURERS

Regulation 

Approximate 

compliance 

date 

Estimated 

conversion 

costs 

(million) 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps; 80 FR 4041 (January 26, 2015) ..................................................................... 1/26/2018 ..... $38.6 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers and Refrigerator-Freezers; 79 FR 17725 (March 28, 2014) ............................ 3/27/2017 ..... 43.1 

External Power Supplies; 79 FR 7846 (February 10, 2014) ...................................................................................... 2/10/2016 ..... 43.4 

* Estimated compliance date. 

In addition to DOE’s energy 

conservation regulations for commercial 

prerinse spray valves and other 

products also sold by commercial 

prerinse spray valve manufacturers, 

several other existing and pending 

regulations apply to commercial 

prerinse spray valves. In response to the 

Framework document and public 

meeting for this rulemaking, 

manufacturers and trade groups 

provided comments relating to 

regulatory burdens associated with 

third-party and international industry 

standards and certification programs 

(e.g., ASME A112.18.1/CSA B125.1, 

ASTM F2324) and state water efficiency 

regulations (e.g. California, Texas, and 

Massachusetts). DOE summarized these 

comments in section IV.J.3 of this 

notice. See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD 

for the results of DOE’s analysis of the 

cumulative regulatory burden. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy and water 

savings attributable to potential 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, DOE compared the energy and 

water consumption of these product 

types under the no-standards case to 

their anticipated energy and water 

consumption under each TSL. Table 

V.16 through Table V.19 present DOE’s 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

53U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis,’’ section E, 

(Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

projections of the national energy 

savings and national water savings for 

each TSL considered for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H.1 of this notice. 

TABLE V.16—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 1 

TSL Product class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

1 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.001 0.001 1.305 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.206 0.223 265.371 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.193) (0.209) (248.840) 

TOTAL TSL 1 .......................................................................... 0.014 0.015 17.836 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.17—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 2 

TSL Product class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

2 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.004 0.005 5.655 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.234 0.252 300.718 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.157) (0.169) (201.856) 

TOTAL TSL 2 .......................................................................... 0.081 0.088 104.517 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.18—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 3 

TSL Product class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

3 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.007 0.007 8.918 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.234 0.252 300.718 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.147) (0.159) (189.458) 

TOTAL TSL 3 .......................................................................... 0.093 0.101 120.178 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.19—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 4 

TSL Product class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

4 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.007 0.007 8.918 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.439 0.474 564.457 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.409) (0.442) (526.609) 

TOTAL TSL 4 .......................................................................... 0.036 0.039 46.766 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

OMB Circular A–4 requires agencies 

to present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs.53

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9, 

rather than 30, years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39523 

54EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some consumer products, the 

compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

revised standards.54 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to CPSV 

equipment. Thus, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only, and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. Table V.20 through Table 

V.23 report cumulative national energy 

and water savings associated with this 

shorter analysis period of 2019–2027. 

The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of products purchased during 

this period. 

TABLE V.20—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 1 

TSL Equipment class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

1 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.352 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.057 0.062 71.472 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.054) (0.058) (67.019) 

TOTAL TSL 1 .......................................................................... 0.004 0.004 4.804 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.21—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 2 

TSL Equipment class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

2 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.001 0.001 1.523 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.065 0.070 80.992 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.044) (0.047) (54.365) 

TOTAL TSL 2 .......................................................................... 0.023 0.024 28.149 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.22—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 3 

TSL Equipment class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

3 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.002 0.002 2.402 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.065 0.070 80.992 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.041) (0.044) (51.026) 

TOTAL TSL 3 .......................................................................... 0.026 0.028 32.367 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

TABLE V.23—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 4 

TSL Equipment class 

National energy savings 

(quads) * National 

water savings 

(billion gal) Primary FFC 

4 ............................................. Light Duty (≤5 ozf) .................................................................. 0.002 0.002 2.402 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................... 0.122 0.131 152.024 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................ (0.114) (0.122) (141.830) 

TOTAL TSL 4 .......................................................................... 0.010 0.011 12.595 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis, DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. 

Table V.24 through Table V.27 show 

the consumer NPV results for each TSL 

DOE considered for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2019–2048. 

TABLE V.24—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCT SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 1 

TSL Product class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.008 $0.016 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 1.604 3.295 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (1.507) (3.095) 

TOTAL TSL 1 ............................................................................................ 0.105 0.216 

TABLE V.25—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCT SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 2 

TSL Product class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

2 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.033 $0.069 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 1.813 3.724 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (1.230) (2.524) 

TOTAL TSL 2 ............................................................................................ 0.616 1.269 

TABLE V.26—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCT SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 3 

TSL Product class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

3 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.053 $0.108 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 1.813 3.724 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (1.157) (2.374) 

TOTAL TSL 3 ............................................................................................ 0.708 1.459 

TABLE V.27—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCT SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 FOR TSL 4 

TSL Product class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

4 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.053 $0.108 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 3.418 7.018 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (3.195) (6.559) 

TOTAL TSL 4 ............................................................................................ 0.276 0.568 

As described previously in the 

discussion of the energy and water 

savings results, DOE also determined 

financial impacts for a sensitivity case 

utilizing a 9-year analysis period. Table 

V.28 through Table V.31 report NPV 

results associated with this shorter 

analysis period. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2019–2027. As mentioned 

previously, this information is 

presented for informational purposes 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39525 

only, and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 

TABLE V.28—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR

EQUIPMENT SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 1 

TSL Equipment class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.003 $0.005 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 0.708 1.034 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (0.665) (0.971) 

TOTAL TSL 1 ............................................................................................ 0.046 0.068 

TABLE V.29—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR

EQUIPMENT SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 2 

TSL Equipment class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

2 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.015 $0.021 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 0.800 1.168 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (0.544) (0.793) 

TOTAL TSL 2 ............................................................................................ 0.271 0.397 

TABLE V.30—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR

EQUIPMENT SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 3 

TSL Equipment class 

Net present value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

3 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.023 $0.034 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 0.800 1.168 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (0.511) (0.746) 

TOTAL TSL 3 ............................................................................................ 0.312 0.456 

TABLE V.31—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR

EQUIPMENT SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 FOR TSL 4 

TSL Equipment class 

Net present 

value 

(billion $2014) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

4 ....................................................... Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ..................................................................................... $0.023 $0.034 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ........................................................... 1.509 2.203 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) .................................................................................. (1.411) (2.059) 

TOTAL TSL 4 ............................................................................................ 0.121 0.177 

c. Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of 

potential standards on the economy in 

general. As discussed previously, DOE 

expects energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves to 

reduce energy and water bills for 

product owners, and the resulting net 

savings to be redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. These expected 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. Thus, 

indirect employment impacts may result 

from expenditures shifting between 

goods (the substitution effect) and 

changes in income and overall 

expenditures (the income effect) that 

could occur due to amended energy 

conservation standards. As described in 

section IV.N of this notice, DOE used an 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

to estimate indirect employment 

impacts of the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

understands that there are uncertainties 

involved in projecting employment 

impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term 

timeframes (2020–2025), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

amended standards are likely to have 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. All TSLs increase 

net demand for labor by fewer than 500 

jobs. The net change in jobs is so small 

that it would be imperceptible in 

national labor statistics, and it might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD presents detailed results regarding 

indirect employment impacts. As shown 

in Table V.32, DOE estimates that net 

indirect employment impacts from a 

CPSV amended standard are small 

relative to the national economy. 

TABLE V.32—NET SHORT-TERM CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT (JOBS) 

Trial standard level 2020 2025 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 45 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 95 266 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 109 306 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 43 119 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

Based on testing conducted in support 

of this proposed rule, and discussed in 

section IV.C.1, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the commercial 

prerinse spray valves under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers of these products 

currently offer units that meet or exceed 

the proposed amended standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

amended standards. The Attorney 

General determines the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard, and 

transmits such determination to DOE, 

together with an analysis of the nature 

and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) 

DOE will transmit a copy of this 

notice and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the 

DOJ provide its determination on this 

issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the proposed rule in 

preparing the final rule, and DOE will 

publish and respond to DOJ’s comments 

in that document. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

reduction in generating capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves could also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V.33 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

emissions reductions to result from the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.33—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................. 0.78 4.58 5.27 2.05 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 0.85 4.99 5.73 2.23 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.0011 0.0064 0.0074 0.0029 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.0063 0.0371 0.0427 0.0166 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.05 0.27 0.31 0.12 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.36 2.09 2.40 0.93 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................. 0.07 0.43 0.49 0.19 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 1.11 6.51 7.49 2.91 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.00001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 6.92 40.55 46.63 18.15 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................. 0.85 5.01 5.76 2.24 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39527 

TABLE V.33—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 1.96 11.50 13.22 5.15 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.0011 0.0065 0.0074 0.0029 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.0066 0.0388 0.0446 0.0174 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) ............................................................................ 1.75 10.28 11.82 4.60 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 6.97 40.83 46.94 18.27 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)) ........................................................................... 195.09 1143.16 1314.46 511.51 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.36 2.11 2.43 0.94 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

DOE estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. As discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice, for CO2, DOE used 

the most recent values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The four sets of SCC values for CO2

emissions reductions in 2015 resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2014$) 

are represented by $12.2 per metric ton 

(the average value from a distribution 

that uses a 5-percent discount rate), 

$41.1 per metric ton (the average value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate), $63.3 per metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$121 per metric ton (the 95th-percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate). The values for 

later years are higher due to increasing 

damages (emissions-related costs) as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V.34 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. DOE calculated domestic 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values, and these 

results are presented in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.34—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE

SPRAY VALVE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

SCC Case * (million 2014$) 

5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile * 

Primary Energy Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 6.0 26.7 42.0 82.4 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 35.2 156.3 246.2 482.9 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 40.5 179.7 283.1 555.2 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 15.8 69.9 110.2 216.1 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.6 2.5 3.9 7.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 3.2 14.4 22.7 44.6 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 3.7 16.6 26.1 51.3 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 1.4 6.5 10.2 20.0 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 6.6 29.1 45.9 90.0 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 38.5 170.7 268.9 527.5 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 44.2 196.3 309.2 606.5 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 17.2 76.4 120.3 236.0 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.2, $41.1, $63.3, and $121 per metric ton (2014$). 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge regarding the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate as well as the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed on reducing CO2 emissions 

in this rulemaking is subject to change. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this proposed rule the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

most recent values and analyses 

resulting from the interagency process. 

DOE also estimated the cumulative 

monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from 

amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The dollar-perton values that DOE used are discussed 

in section IV.L of this notice. Table V.35 

presents the cumulative present values 

for each TSL calculated using 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.35—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY

VALVES TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

[Million 2014$] 

TSL 3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 0.7 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 7.6 3.9 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 8.7 4.5 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.4 1.8 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.7 0.8 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 9.7 4.9 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 11.1 5.6 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4.3 2.2 

Total Emissions 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.9 1.5 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 17.2 8.8 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 19.8 10.1 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 7.7 3.9 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V.36 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of consumer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed in section V.B.6. 

TABLE V.36—PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM

CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TSL 

Billion 2014$ 

SCC value of 

$12.2/metric ton 

CO2* and medium 

value for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$41.1/metric ton 

CO2* and medium 

value for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$63.3/metric ton 

CO2* and medium 

value for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$121/metric ton 

CO2* and medium 

value for NOX** 

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with: 

1 ........................................................................................ 0.226 0.249 0.265 0.309 

2 ........................................................................................ 1.324 1.457 1.555 1.813 

3 ........................................................................................ 1.523 1.675 1.788 2.085 

4 ........................................................................................ 0.593 0.652 0.696 0.811 

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with: 

1 ........................................................................................ 0.113 0.136 0.152 0.197 

2 ........................................................................................ 0.663 0.795 0.894 1.152 

3 ........................................................................................ 0.762 0.914 1.027 1.325 

4 ........................................................................................ 0.297 0.356 0.400 0.515 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.2, $41.1, $63.3, and $121 per metric ton (2014$). 

** The medium value for NOX is $2,723 per short ton (2014$). 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. 

The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of products 

shipped in 2019 to 2048. Because CO2

emissions have a very long residence 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39529 

55The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 

the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ, ‘‘Correction 

to ‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon 

and organic matter, possibly the most effective 

method of slowing global warming,’ ’’ J. Geophys. 

Res. 110. pp. D14105 (2005). 

time in the atmosphere,55 the SCC 

values in future years reflect future 

climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of CO2 that continue 

beyond 2100. 

8. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) DOE did not 

consider any other factors in this 

analysis. 

C. Conclusion 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

products must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens, considering to the greatest 

extent practicable the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each TSL, beginning with 

a maximum technologically feasible 

level, to determine whether that level 

was economically justified. Where the 

max-tech level was not justified, DOE 

then considered the next most efficient 

level and undertook the same evaluation 

until it reached the highest efficiency 

level that is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

saves a significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each trial 

standard level, Table V.37 and Table 

V.38 present a summary of the results of 

DOE’s quantitative analysis for each 

TSL. In addition to the quantitative 

results presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. Those 

include the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

Section V.B.1.b presents the estimated 

impacts of each TSL for these 

subgroups. DOE discusses the impacts 

on direct employment in CPSV 

manufacturing in section IV.J.4, and 

discusses the indirect employment 

impacts in section IV.N. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Commercial Prerinse 

Spray Valves 

Table V.37 and Table V.38 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of this notice. 

TABLE V.37—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL

IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads) 

0.01 0.09 0.10 0.04 

Cumulative Water Savings (billion gal) 

17.84 104.52 120.18 46.77 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2014$ billion) 

3% discount rate ...................................................................... 0.22 1.27 1.46 0.57 

7% discount rate ...................................................................... 0.11 0.62 0.71 0.28 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................................... 0.85 5.01 5.76 2.24 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................... 1.96 11.50 13.22 5.15 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................. 0.0011 0.0065 0.0074 0.0029 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................ 0.0066 0.0388 0.0446 0.0174 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq *) .................................................. 1.75 10.28 11.82 4.60 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................ 6.97 40.83 46.94 18.27 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq *) .................................................. 195.09 1143.16 1314.46 511.51 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................ 0.36 2.11 2.43 0.94 

Value of Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2014$ million) * * ............................................................. 6.6 to 90.0 38.5 to 527.5 44.2 to 606.5 17.2 to 236.0 

NOX¥3% discount rate (2014$ million) .................................. 2.94 17.25 19.83 7.72 

NOX¥7% discount rate (2014$ million) .................................. 1.50 8.82 10.14 3.95 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

* * Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.38—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER

AND MANUFACTURER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV Relative to a No-Standards Case Value of 9.1 

(2014$ million, 6.9% discount rate) ..................................... 7.7 to 8.5 7.2 to 8.1 7.1 to 8.0 7.1 to 8.0 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................................................ (15.0) to (7.0) (21.0) to (11.5) (21.6) to (12.1) (21.6) to (12.1) 

Direct Employment Impacts 

Potential Increase in Domestic Production Workers in 2019 .. 0 0 0 0 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2014$) 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ................................................................... 16 68 107 107 

Standard Duty (>5 and ≤8 ozf) ................................................ 125 429 429 499 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................. 166 541 640 640 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Standard Duty (>5 and ≤8 ozf) ................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Standard Duty (>5 and ≤8 ozf) ................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ................................................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 0% 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain 

TSLs. 

DOE first considered TSL 4, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 4 would save 0.04 quads of 

energy and 46.77 billion gallons of 

water. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $0.28 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

$0.57 billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 2.24 Mt of CO2, 5.15 

thousand tons of NOX, 0.94 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.003 tons of Hg, 0.02 

thousand tons of N2O, and 18.27 

thousand tons of CH4. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $17 

million to $236 million. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $107 for light duty CPSV 

models, $499 for standard duty models, 

and $640 for heavy duty models. The 

simple payback period is 0.0 years for 

all CPSV models. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC net cost 

is 0 percent for all CPSV models. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $2.0 

million to a decrease of $1.1 million. If 

the lower bound of the range of impacts 

is reached, TSL 4 could result in a net 

loss of up to 21.6 percent in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

Although TSL 4 for commercial 

prerinse spray valves provides positive 

LCC savings, and a positive total NPV of 

consumer benefits, TSL 3 provides for 

greater energy savings at a similar 

burden to the industry. Consequently, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that TSL 

4 does not provide the maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1) 

Next DOE considered TSL 3, which 

saves an estimated total of 0.10 quads of 

energy, and 120.18 billion gallons of 

water. TSL 3 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $0.71 billion using 

a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.46 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 

TSL 3 provides the maximum total NPV, 

energy savings, and water savings. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 5.76 Mt of CO2, 13.22 

thousand tons of NOX, 2.43 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.007 tons of Hg, and 46.94 

thousand tons of CH4. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $44 

million to $606 million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $107 for light duty CPSV 

models, $429 for standard duty models, 

and $640 for heavy duty models. The 

simple payback period is 0.0 years for 

all CPSV models. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC net cost 

is 0 percent for all CPSV models. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $2.0 

million to a decrease of $1.1 million. If 

the lower bound of the range of impacts 

is reached, TSL 3 could result in a net 

loss of up to 21.6 percent in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

DOE tentatively concludes that at TSL 

3 for commercial prerinse spray valves, 

the benefits of energy savings, water 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions would outweigh 

the negative impacts on manufacturers, 

including the conversion costs that 

could result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3, DOE 

tentatively concludes that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy and water. 

Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 3 for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. The 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39531 

56To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total customer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (2020, 2030, etc.), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table V.40. 

Using the present value, DOE then calculated the 

fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, 

starting in the compliance year, which yields the 

same present value. 

valves, which are a maximum water 

flow rate, are shown in Table V.39. 

TABLE V.39—PROPOSED AMENDED

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY

VALVES

Product class 

Compliance 

date: Month 

Day, 2018 

Maximum 

water flow rate 

(gpm) 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ................ 0.65 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and 

≤8 ozf) ............................... 0.97 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ............. 1.24 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2014$, of the benefits from 

operating products that meets the 

proposed standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy and water, minus 

increases in product purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.56 The value of the CO2

reductions, otherwise known as the 

SCC, is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed 

by a recent interagency process. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions, 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and SCC are performed with different 

methods that use different time frames 

for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2019–2048. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of all future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of 1 ton of carbon dioxide in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

Table V.40 shows the annualized 

values for commercial prerinse spray 

valves under TSL 3, expressed in 2014$. 

The results under the primary estimate 

are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other 

than CO2 reductions, for which DOE 

used a 3-percent discount rate along 

with the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $41.1 per metric ton in 2015 (in 

2014$), there are no increased product 

costs associated with the standards in 

the proposed rule, while the annualized 

benefits are $70.65 million per year in 

reduced product operating costs, $10.94 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.00 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$82.59 million per year. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs, and the SCC series corresponding 

to a value of $41.1 per metric ton in 

2015 (in 2014$), there are no increased 

product costs associated with the 

standards in this proposed rule, while 

the benefits are $82.20 million per year 

in reduced operating costs, $10.94 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.11 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$94.25 million per year. 

TABLE V.40—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR COMMERCIAL

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES SOLD IN 2019–2048 

Discount rate 

Million 2014$/year 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ... 7% ................................. 69.90 ............................. 65.90 ............................. 72.70. 

3% ................................. 81.32 ............................. 75.92 ............................. 85.10. 

CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t * * .............. 5% ................................. 3.33 ............................... 3.33 ............................... 3.33. 

CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t * * .............. 3% ................................. 10.94 ............................. 10.94 ............................. 10.94. 

CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t * * .............. 2.5% .............................. 15.91 ............................. 15.91 ............................. 15.91. 

CO2 Reduction at $119/t * * ............... 3% ................................. 33.81 ............................. 33.81 ............................. 33.81. 

NOX Reduction at $2,723/ton ............ 7% ................................. 1.00 ............................... 1.00 ............................... 1.00. 

3% ................................. 1.11 ............................... 1.11 ............................... 1.11. 

Total † ......................................... 7% plus CO2 range ....... 74 to 105 ....................... 70 to 101 ....................... 77 to 108. 

7% ................................. 81.85 ............................. 77.84 ............................. 84.64. 

3% plus CO2 range ....... 86 to 116 ....................... 80 to 111 ....................... 90 to 120. 

3% ................................. 93.37 ............................. 87.96 ............................. 97.15. 

Costs 

Manufacturer Conversion Costs † ..... 7% ................................. 0.16 to 0.24 ................... 0.16 to 0.24 ................... 0.16 to 0.24. 

3% ................................. 0.10 to 0.15 ................... 0.10 to 0.15 ................... 0.10 to 0.15. 

Total Net Benefits 

Total ‡ ......................................... 7% plus CO2 range ....... 74 to 105 ....................... 70 to 101 ....................... 77 to 108. 

7% ................................. 81.85 ............................. 77.84 ............................. 84.64. 

3% plus CO2 range ....... 86 to 116 ....................... 80 to 111 ....................... 90 to 120. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.40—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR COMMERCIAL

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES SOLD IN 2019–2048—Continued 

Discount rate 

Million 2014$/year 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

3% ................................. 93.37 ............................. 87.96 ............................. 97.15. 

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the commercial prerinse spray valves purchased from 2019 through 

2048. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental product costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected CPSV price trends, as the consumer demand for products is a function of CPSV prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy 

prices and building starts from the AEO2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. 

* * The CO2 values represent global values (in 2014$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2015 under several scenarios. The values of 

$12.2, $41.1, and $63.3 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount 

rates, respectively. The value of $121 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. 

† The lower value of the range represents costs associated with the Sourced Components conversion cost scenario. The upper value represents costs for the Fabricated Components scenario. 

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3 percent discount rate, which is 

$41.1 per metric ton in 2015 (in 2014$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. Manufacturer Conversion 

Costs are not included in the Net Benefits calculations. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ requires each agency to 

identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, 

the failures of private markets or public 

institutions that warrant new agency 

action, as well as to assess the 

significance of that problem. 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). The problems that 

the proposed standards address are as 

follows. 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases, the benefits of more 

efficient products are not realized 

because of misaligned incentives 

between purchasers and users. An 

example of such a case is when the 

product purchase decision is made by a 

building contractor or building owner 

who does not pay the energy costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of commercial prerinse spray 

valves that are not captured by the users 

of such products. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases that 

impact human health and global 

warming. DOE attempts to quantify 

some of the external benefits through 

use of social cost of carbon values. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

the proposed regulatory action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section (3)(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of 

the Executive Order requires that DOE 

prepare a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) on this rule and that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review this rule. DOE 

presented to OIRA for review the draft 

rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and 

has included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that this NOPR is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39533 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of commercial 

prerinse spray valves, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the statute. DOE 

used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 

30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and 

codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description, and are 

available at www.sba.gov/sites/default/

files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Commercial prerinse spray valves 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 332919, ‘‘Other metal valve and 

pipe fitting manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 500 employees or less 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

To estimate the number of small 

businesses that could be impacted by 

the amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE conducted a market 

survey using public information to 

identify potential small manufacturers. 

DOE reviewed the DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(CCMS), EPA’s WaterSense program 

database, individual company Web 

sites, and various marketing research 

tools (e.g., Hoovers reports) to create a 

list of companies that import, assemble, 

or otherwise manufacture commercial 

prerinse spray valves covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer products 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or 

are foreign-owned and operated. 

DOE identified 11 commercial spray 

valve manufacturers selling commercial 

prerinse spray valves in the United 

States, 8 of which are small businesses. 

DOE contacted all identified 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturers for interviews. 

Ultimately, no manufacturers agreed to 

participate in an interview. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

The eight small domestic commercial 

spray valve manufacturers account for 

approximately 83 percent of commercial 

spray valve basic models currently on 

the market. The remaining 17 percent of 

commercial spray valve spray basic 

models currently on the market are 

offered by three large manufacturers. 

Using basic model counts, DOE 

estimated the distribution of industry 

conversion costs between small 

manufacturers and large manufacturers. 

Using its count of manufacturers, DOE 

calculated capital conversion costs 

(under both capital conversion costs 

scenarios, Table VI.1) and product 

conversion costs (Table VI.2) for an 

average small manufacturer versus an 

average large manufacturer. To provide 

context on the size of the conversion 

costs relative to the size of the 

businesses, DOE presents the 

conversion costs relative to annual 

revenue and annual operating profit 

under the proposed standard level for 

the two capital conversion cost 

scenarios considered in the MIA, as 

shown in Table VI.3 and Table VI.4. The 

current annual revenue and annual 

operating profit estimates are derived 

from the GRIM’s industry revenue 

calculations and the market share 

breakdowns of small versus large 

manufacturers. Due to the lack of direct 

market share data for individual 

manufacturers, DOE used basic model 

counts as a percent of total basic models 

currently available on the market as a 

proxy for market share. 

TABLE VI.1—COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS * 

Trial standard level 

Sourced components capital 

conversion costs scenario 

Fabricated components capital 

conversion costs scenario 

Capital 

conversion costs 

for typical small 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

Capital 

conversion costs 

for typical large 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

Capital 

conversion costs 

for typical small 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

Capital 

conversion costs 

for typical large 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

TSL 1 ....................................................................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.09 $0.06 

TSL 2 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.08 

TSL 3 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.08 

TSL 4 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.08 

* Capital conversion costs are the capital investments made during the 3-year period between the publication of the final rule and the analysis 

compliance year of the proposed standard. 

TABLE VI.2—COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS * 

Trial standard level 

Product 

conversion costs 

for typical small 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

Product 

conversion costs 

for typical large 

manufacturer 

(2014$ millions) 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... $0.12 $0.06 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.09 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.10 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.10 

* Product conversion costs are the R&D and other product development investments made during the 3-year period between the publication of 

the final rule and the analysis compliance year of the proposed standard. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.3—COMPARISON OF CONVERSION COSTS FOR AN AVERAGE SMALL AND AN AVERAGE LARGE MANUFACTURER

AT TSL 3—SOURCED COMPONENTS CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS SCENARIO

Capital 

conversion cost 

(2014$ millions) 

Product 

conversion cost 

(2014$ millions) 

Conversion costs/ 

conversion period 

revenue * 

(percent) 

Conversion costs/ 

conversion period 

operating profit * 

(percent) 

Small Manufacturer .................................................................. $0.01 $0.19 9 81 

Large Manufacturer ................................................................. 0.01 0.10 8 79 

* The conversion period, the time between the final rule publication year and the analysis compliance year for this rulemaking, is 3 years. 

TABLE VI.4—COMPARISON OF CONVERSION COSTS FOR AN AVERAGE SMALL AND AN AVERAGE LARGE MANUFACTURER

AT TSL 3—FABRICATED COMPONENTS CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS SCENARIO

Capital 

conversion cost 

(2014$ millions) 

Product 

conversion cost 

(2014$ millions) 

Conversion costs/ 

conversion period 

revenue * 

(percent) 

Conversion costs/ 

conversion period 

operating profit * 

(percent) 

Small Manufacturer .................................................................. $0.11 $0.19 13 120 

Large Manufacturer ................................................................. 0.08 0.10 14 129 

* The conversion period, the time between the final rule publication year and the analysis compliance year for this rulemaking, is 3 years. 

At the proposed level, depending on 

the capital conversion cost scenario, 

DOE estimates total conversion costs for 

an average small manufacturer to range 

from $20,000 to $30,000 for the Sourced 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenario and the Fabricated 

Components Capital Conversion Costs 

scenario, respectively. This suggests that 

an average small manufacturer would 

need to reinvest roughly 81 percent to 

120 percent of its operating profit per 

year over the conversion period to 

comply with standards. Depending on 

the capital conversion cost scenario, the 

total conversion costs for an average 

large manufacturer range from $11,000 

to $18,000 for the Sourced Components 

Capital Conversion Costs scenario and 

the Fabricated Components Capital 

Conversion Costs scenario, respectively. 

This suggests that an average large 

manufacturer would need to reinvest 

roughly 79 percent to 129 percent of its 

commercial prerinse spray valve-related 

operating profit per year over the 3-year 

conversion period. 

As noted earlier, because of a lack of 

data pertaining to true market shares of 

individual manufacturers, DOE requests 

additional information and data 

regarding the number and market share 

of domestic small manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, as 

well as small business impacts related 

to the proposed energy conservation 

standards. DOE will consider any such 

additional information when 

formulating and selecting TSLs for the 

final rule (section VII.E. of this notice). 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being proposed 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The previous discussion analyzes 

impacts on small businesses that would 

result from DOE’s proposed rule. In 

addition to the other TSLs being 

considered, a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) can be found in the NOPR TSD 

chapter 17. For commercial prerinse 

spray valves, the RIA discusses the 

following policy alternatives: (1) No 

change in standard, (2) consumer 

rebates, (3) consumer tax credits, (4) 

voluntary energy efficiency targets, and 

(5) bulk government purchases. 

Although these alternatives may 

mitigate, to some extent, the economic 

impacts on small entities compared to 

the standards, DOE determined that the 

energy savings of these alternatives are 

significantly smaller than those that 

would be expected to result from 

adoption of the proposed standard 

levels. Accordingly, DOE is declining to 

adopt any of these alternatives and is 

proposing the standards set forth in this 

rulemaking. See chapter 17 of the NOPR 

TSD for further detail on the policy 

alternatives DOE considered. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

For example, individual manufacturers 

may petition for a waiver of the 

applicable test procedure. Further, 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed 

$8,000,000 may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the 

compliance date of a final rule 

establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(t)) Additionally, Section 504 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for 

the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial products, 

including commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 

FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collectionof-information requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 30 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39535 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the 

proposed rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, appendix 

B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and appendix B, 

B(1)–(5). The proposed rule fits within 

the category of actions because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial product, and for 

which none of the exceptions identified 

in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has 

made a CX determination for this 

rulemaking, and DOE does not need to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

imposes certain requirements on 

Federal agencies formulating and 

implementing policies or regulations 

that preempt State law or that have 

Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 

(Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

tentatively determined that it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document and TSD chapter 17, the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis,’’ for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the proposed rule unless DOE 

publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an 

alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (dd), 

this proposed rule would amend energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’, chapter 

17 of the TSD for this proposed rule. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed this NOPR under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, is not 

a significant energy action because the 

proposed standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to 

advance security screening procedures 

which require advance notice prior to 

attendance at the public meeting. If a 

foreign national wishes to participate in 

the public meeting, please inform DOE 

of this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Regina Washington at 

(202) 586–1214 or by email 

(Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov) so that 

the necessary procedures can be 

completed. 

DOE requires visitors to have laptops 

and other devices, such as tablets, 

checked upon entry into the Forrestal 

Building. Any person wishing to bring 

these devices into the building will be 

required to obtain a property pass. 

Visitors should avoid bringing these 

devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to 

check in. Please report to the visitor’s 

desk to have devices checked before 

proceeding through security. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), there have been recent 

changes regarding identification (ID) 

requirements for individuals wishing to 

enter Federal buildings from specific 

States and U.S. territories. As a result, 

driver’s licenses from several States or 

territories will not be accepted for 

building entry, and instead, one of the 

alternate forms of ID listed below will 

be required. 

DHS has determined that regular 

driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: 

Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and 

Washington. Acceptable alternate forms 

of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 

Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s 

License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by 

the States of Minnesota, New York or 

Washington (Enhanced licenses issued 

by these States are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government-issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39537 

Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/54. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be 

present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. There shall not be 

discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings as well as 

on any aspect of the rulemaking until 

the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice 

and will be accessible on the DOE Web 

site. In addition, any person may buy a 

copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. 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 

regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. 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. 

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/courier, or mail also will 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 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

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 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier 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 that 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). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

efficiency levels selected for its analysis. 

Specifically, DOE requests feedback on 

whether cleaning performance or any 

other consumer utility is affected at any 

of the analyzed efficiency levels. 

2. DOE requests comment on the 

recertification costs associated with 

complying with industry standards, 

which result from amended DOE 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

3. DOE seeks additional information 

on industry capital and product 

conversion costs of compliance 

associated with the amended standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

proposed in this notice. 

4. DOE requests comment on which 

capital conversion cost scenario more 

accurately reflects the expected capital 

conversion costs associated with 

amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

5. DOE requests additional 

information and data regarding the 

number and market share of domestic 

small manufacturers of commercial 

prerinse spray valves, as well as small 

business impacts related to the 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

6. DOE requests comment on the 

probability of consumers switching 

product classes as a result of amended 

standards, as well as the current 

methods to account for such switching 

in the shipments model. 

7. DOE requests comment on the 

appropriateness of assuming a constant 

manufacturer markup across all product 

classes and efficiency levels. 

8. DOE requests comment on any 

variation in installation costs of 

commercial prerinse spray valves that is 

correlated to increases in commercial 

prerinse spray valve efficiency. 

9. DOE requests comment on the 

estimated MSPs for each of the analyzed 

efficiency levels. DOE seeks input on 

what design options manufacturers are 

likely to incorporate into commercial 

prerinse spray valve at each of the 

analyzed efficiency levels, as well as 

their associated costs. 

10. DOE requests comment on what 

impact, if any, the proposed energy 

conservation standards would have on 

domestic manufacturing facilities and 

their associated employment. DOE 

requests information on whether 

domestic manufacturers would move 

production overseas or source an 

increased number of products from 

foreign OEMs under the proposed 

standards. 

11. DOE requests comment on the 

potential rebound effect from setting the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves. 

DOE requests comments on the 

potential technology options identified 

by DOE for improving the efficiency of 

commercial prerinse spray valves and 

its screening analysis used to select the 

most viable options for consideration in 

setting the proposed standards (see 

sections IV.A and IV.B of this notice). 

12. DOE requests comment on its 

estimate that standards do not affect a 

consumer’s decision to replace or repair 

a failed commercial prerinse spray 

valve. Specifically, DOE seeks any data 

that indicate how commercial prerinse 

spray valve replace versus repair 

decisions are impacted by increased 

total installed cost, increased repair 

cost, and energy cost savings. 

13. DOE requests comments on the 

electric water heater thermal efficiency 

used in the analysis. DOE also requests 

additional data and references to the 

potential increase in efficiency that 

commercial electric and natural gas 

water heaters will achieve over time. 

14. DOE requests comments on 

whether aerators represent a 

technologically feasible design option 

that can be applied to all commercial 

prerinse spray valves. Additionally DOE 

requests comment on what kind of 

utility aerated commercial prerinse 

spray valves provide to the consumer, 

and if it is any different from a 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

without an aerator. 

15. DOE requests comment on the 

approach to delineate product classes by 

spray force. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment on whether the spray force 

criteria is appropriate, or whether there 

are any other characteristics that need to 

be incorporated to determine product 

classes. 

16. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product classes, the spray 

force bounds used to separate product 

classes, and the number of product 

classes. 

17. DOE requests comment on the 

approach taken to use the discharge 

coefficient of the max-tech throughout 

all efficiency levels. Furthermore, DOE 

requests information what design 

decisions manufacturers make to adjust 

the discharge coefficients of their spray 

nozzles. 

18. DOE requests comment on the cost 

analysis methodology used to create the 

MSP-efficiency relationship for each 

product class. 

19. DOE requests comment on the use 

of 1.30 as an appropriate baseline 

markup for all commercial prerinse 

spray valves. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 39539 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 

2015. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below. 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.51(b) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 429.51 Commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

* * * * * 

(b) Certification reports. (1) The 

requirements of § 429.12 are applicable 

to commercial prerinse spray valves; 

and 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report must include the 

following public product-specific 

information: The maximum flow rate in 

gallons per minute (gpm), rounded to 

the nearest 0.01 gallon, and the average 

spray force in ounce-force (ozf), 

rounded to the nearest 0.1 ozf. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 431.266 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.266 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

(a) Commercial prerinse spray valves 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2006 and before [DATE 3 YEARS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE ESTABLISHING AMENDED 

ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL 

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], shall have a flow 

rate of not more than 1.6 gallons per 

minute. 

(b) Commercial prerinse spray valves 

manufactured on or after [DATE 3 

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE ESTABLISHING 

AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL 

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] shall have a flow 

rate that does not exceed the following: 

Product class 

(spray force in ounce-force) 

Maximum 

flow rate 

(gallons per 

minute) 

Light Duty (≤5 ozf) ................ 0.65 

Standard Duty (>5 ozf and 

≤8 ozf) ............................... 0.97 

Heavy Duty (>8 ozf) ............. 1.24 

[FR Doc. 2015–16336 Filed 7–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2