Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-16995

Proposed Rule2021-16995

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

August 18, 2021

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), 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" or "the Department") to periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notification of proposed determination ("NOPD"), DOE has initially determined that amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are not needed. DOE requests comment on this proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46330-46357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16995]

[[Page 46329]]

Vol. 86

Wednesday,

No. 157

August 18, 2021

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46330]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034]
RIN 1905-AE56

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
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'' or ``the Department'') to periodically
determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. In this notification of proposed
determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially determined that amended
energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are
not needed. DOE requests comment on this proposed determination and the
associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday, September 1, 2021,
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before October 18, 2021. See section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments by email to the following address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a392a292c484a4b43292e3e4a4a494e3a1f1f541e151f541d150c">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include a docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0034 and/or RIN number 1904-AE56 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.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, DOE has found it necessary to make temporary
modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing
Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only electronic
submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses
an undue hardship, please contact Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if one is held), comments, and
other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034</a>. The docket web page contains 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#307140405c59515e53556344515e54514254436145554344595f5e437055551e545f551e575f46">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC,
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#246f45504c565d4a0a69476d4a504b574c644c550a404b410a434b52">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24655454484d454a47417750454a404556405775514157504d4b4a576441410a404b410a434b52">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Commercial Prerinse
Spray Valves
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
F. Further Considerations
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Technology Options
3. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Remaining Technologies
4. Product Classes
5. Market Assessment
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
a. Cost-Efficiency Results
C. Markups Analysis
D. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Water and Wastewater Prices
6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
7. Product Lifetime
8. Discount Rates
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. Payback Period Analysis
E. Shipments Analysis
1. Nearest Neighbor Switch Scenario
2. Product Switch Scenario
F. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Product Costs
b. Shipment Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

[[Page 46331]]

2. Direct Impacts on Employment
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
4. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
C. National Impact Analysis
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
D. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Cost Effectiveness
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
4. Additional Consideration
5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include commercial prerinse spray
valves, the subject of this NOPD.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\3\ Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves
in Part B of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of
Part B (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part C) 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. DOE refers to commercial prerinse spray valves as either
``products'' or ``equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification 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 (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed commercial prerinse
spray valves subject to standards specified in title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') Sec. 431.266.
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy
(water) efficient commercial prerinse spray valves and commercial
prerinse spray valves with lower energy use. For those commercial
prerinse spray valves for which DOE determined higher standards to be
technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would
result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether higher
standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses and estimated the net
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, and comments received in response to the early
assessment request for information (``RFI'') published in June 2020
(``June 2020 RFI''; see 85 FR 35383 (Jun. 10, 2020)), DOE has
tentatively determined that current standards for commercial prerinse
spray valves do not need to be amended because any potential benefits
are outweighed by the risk of increased energy and water usage due to
the increased risk of product switching, costs, and additional burden
to manufacturers.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include commercial
prerinse spray valves, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6291(33)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards (in terms of
flow rate) for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) and directs DOE to
conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
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.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) 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 42 U.S.C. 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 procedures for commercial prerinse spray valves appear at 10
CFR 431.264.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(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 apply in California, California's
commercial prerinse spray valve standards also apply for standards
adopted before January 1, 2005, as they were exempt from preemption. In
2018, California revised its regulations so that the maximum flow rate
requirements align with those implemented by DOE for commercial
prerinse spray valves. DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or

[[Page 46332]]

regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
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 a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B))
Because commercial prerinse spray valves only consume energy and water
in active mode, DOE's test procedures for commercial prerinse spray
valves do not address standby mode and off mode energy use as they are
not applicable for this product.
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)-
(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the
issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must
publish either a notification of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on
which a determination is based publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard
prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') for any type (or
class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified includes whether the
proposed standard at that level is cost-effective, as defined under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an
evaluation of cost-effectiveness requires DOE to consider 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 standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year review
requirement in EPCA.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on January 27, 2016, (``January 2016
Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on and after January
28, 2019. 81 FR 4748. These standards prescribe a maximum flow rate in
gallons per minute (``gpm'') for each product class and are set forth
in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.266 and repeated in Table II.1.

Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial
Prerinse Spray Valves
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Product class (spray force in ounce-force, ozf) (gpm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1 (<=5.0 ozf)................................ 1.00
Product Class 2 (>5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf)................... 1.20
Product Class 3 (>8.0 ozf)................................. 1.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Commercial Prerinse Spray
Valves
In support of the present review of the CPSV energy conservation
standards, on June 10, 2020, DOE published the June 2020 RFI, which
identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its
determination of whether the standards need to be amended. 85 FR 35383.
DOE was specifically interested in collecting data and information that
could enable the agency to determine whether it should propose a ``no
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1)
Would not result in a significant savings of energy, (2) is not
technologically feasible, (3) is not economically justified, or (4) any
combination of foregoing. Id. at 85 FR 35385. In response to a comment
received, DOE published on July 20, 2020, a reopening of public comment
period extending the comment period for an additional 30 days. 85 FR
43748.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2--June 2020 RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Organization(s) NOPD Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP.............. Efficiency
Project. Organization.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
Plumbing Manufacturers Inc...... PMI............... Trade Association.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46333]]

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0034, which is maintained at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034</a>). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This document addresses issues raised by these
commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

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
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The CPSV classes
for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail in
section IV.A.4 of this document. This proposed determination covers
commercial prerinse spray valves defined as a handheld device that has
a release-to-close valve and is suitable for removing food residue from
food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or
ware washing equipment. 10 CFR 431.262 The scope of coverage is
discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1 of this document.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) DOE will finalize a test procedure
establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy
conservation standards at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 8(d) of
appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule''). DOE's
current energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves are expressed in terms of gpm. 10 CFR 431.266
DOE published a test procedure final rule on December 30, 2015,
which incorporated by reference the 2013 version of ASTM International
(``ASTM'') Standard F2324 (``ASTM F2324-13''). 80 FR 81441 (``December
2015 Final Rule''). In the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE also revised
the definition of ``commercial prerinse spray valve,'' made minor
changes to the DOE flow rate test method, and added a definition and
test method for ``spray force.'' The test procedures for commercial
prerinse spray valves are codified in 10 CFR 431.264.
On June 5, 2020, DOE published an RFI soliciting public comment and
data on all aspects of the existing DOE test procedure for commercial
prerinse spray valves, including (1) the scope and definition of the
test procedure, (2) incorporation of the reaffirmed industry standard,
and (3) the representativeness of the test water pressure. 85 FR 34541
On May 20, 2021 DOE published a test procedure NOPR, which proposed
updates to incorporate the 2019 reaffirmed version of ASTM Standard
F2324, ASTM F2324-13 (2019). 86 FR 27298, 27302. DOE has initially
determined that this change to the version referenced would not impact
the measured flow rate. Id. DOE also proposed revising the definition
of ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' to clarify which valves are
covered products but did not propose to change the scope of valves that
are covered. Id.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. 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 means for improving
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C.
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; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A to 10 CFR part
430, subpart C. Section IV.A.3 of this document discusses the results
of the screening analysis for commercial prerinse spray valves,
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed
determination. For further details on the screening analysis for this
proposed determination, see chapter 4 of the NOPD technical support
document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such a product. (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 analysis
are described in section IV.B of this document and in chapter 5 of the
NOPD TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated, DOE projected energy
savings from application of the efficiency level to the commercial
prerinse spray valves purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the assumed year of compliance with the potential standards (2027-
2056). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the
commercial prerinse spray valves purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each
efficiency level as the difference in energy consumption between each
standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case
represents a

[[Page 46334]]

projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate national energy
savings (``NES'') from potential amended or new standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves. The NIA spreadsheet model (described
in section IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of both site and primary energy savings, which is the savings in
the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity.
DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. 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 conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on
the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used
by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.G of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) On February 14, 2020, DOE
published an update to its procedures, interpretations, and policies
for consideration in new or revised energy conservation standards and
test procedure, i.e., ``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial
Equipment'' (see 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A).\6\ 85 FR
8626. In the updated Process Rule, DOE established a significance
threshold for energy savings under which DOE employs a two-step
approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold
and a threshold that is a percent reduction in the energy use of the
covered product. Section 6(a) of the appendix A to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order
13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. Exec. Order No. 13,990, 86 FR
7037 (Jan. 25, 2021) (``E.O. 13990''). E.O. 13990 affirms the
Nation's commitment to empower our workers and communities; promote
and protect our public health and the environment; and conserve our
national treasures and monuments. To that end, the stated policies
of E.O. 13990 include: Improving public health and protecting our
environment; ensuring access to clean air and water; and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. E.O. 13990 section 1. Section 2 of E.O.
13990 directs agencies, in part, to immediately review all existing
regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other
similar agency actions (``agency actions'') promulgated, issued, or
adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or
may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set
forth in the Executive Order. E.O. 13990 section 2. In addition,
section 2(iii) of E.O. 13990 specifically directs DOE to, as
appropriate and consistent with applicable law, publishing for
notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or
rescinding the updated Process Rule. In response to this directive,
DOE has undertaken a review of the updated Process Rule. See, 86 FR
18901 (Apr. 12, 2021) and 86 FR 35668 (July 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a potential
max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quadrillion
British thermal units (``quads'') of site energy savings threshold.
Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C. If the
0.3-quad threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings
to the total energy usage of the covered product to calculate a
percentage reduction in energy usage. Section 6(b)(3) of appendix A to
10 CFR part 430, subpart C. If this comparison does not yield a
reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year
period, the analysis will end and DOE will propose to determine that no
significant energy savings would likely result from setting new or
amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C. If either one of the thresholds is reached, DOE will conduct
analyses to ascertain whether a standard can be prescribed that
produces the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both
technologically feasible and economically justified and still
constitutes significant energy savings at the level determined to be
economically justified. Section 6(b)(5) of appendix A to 10 CFR part
430, subpart C. This two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether
a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy savings
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that DOE avoids
setting a standard that ``will not result in significant conservation
of energy.''
EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful
output of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such
product, measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6291(5), emphasis added) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the quantity of
energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as
measured by the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further,
EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for
setting standards for new covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric
for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
DOE noted in the June 2020 RFI that the significant water savings
requirement does not apply to prerinse spray valves. 85 FR 35383,
35385. DOE cites 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B), which specifies significant
conservation of water for only ``showerheads, faucets, water closets,
or urinals''. DOE also stated that the prohibition on amending a
standard to allow greater water use does not apply to prerinse spray
valves. Id. DOE cites 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), which similarly prohibits
the prescription of any amended standard that increases the maximum
allowable water use of only showerheads, faucets, water closets, or
urinals.
The CA IOUs commented that because commercial prerinse spray valves
use heated water, any standard that increased the flow rate would be in
conflict with EPCA's prohibition on increasing maximum allowable energy
use as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4)
As discussed, DOE is not proposing to amend the energy conservation
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (i.e., DOE is not
proposing to amend the maximum flow rates). For this proposed
determination, DOE analyzed the maximum possible savings relative to
the potential for consumers to switch to equipment or products with a
higher flow rate, such as faucets, in response to more stringent
standards.

E. Cost Effectiveness

In making a determination of whether amended energy conservation
standards are needed, EPCA requires DOE to consider the cost
effectiveness of amended standards in the context of the savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
In determining cost effectiveness of amending standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE conducted

[[Page 46335]]

LCC and PBP analyses that estimate the costs and benefits to users from
standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the cost
effectiveness of amended standards, DOE considered the NPV of total
costs and benefits estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs for
determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and
(3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings.

F. Further Considerations

As stated previously, pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE publishing a
notification of determination that energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves do not need to be amended, DOE must
issue a NOPR that includes new proposed standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B)) The new proposed standards in any such NOPR must be
based on the criteria established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and follow
the procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B)) The criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that standards
be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency,
which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(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 statutory 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 for, or maintenance expenses of
the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from 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
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

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

As discussed in the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE found that amended
standards at a level more stringent than those adopted would not be
economically justified under the considerations of the seven factors
prescribed in EPCA. 81 FR 4748, 4794. Specifically, the Secretary
concluded that at the more stringent standards levels the benefits of
energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the reduction in manufacturer industry value. Id.
Consequently, the Secretary concluded that standards more stringent
than those adopted were not economically justified. Id. For the
determination proposed in this document, DOE has considered potential
manufacturer impacts associated with amended energy conservation
standards (See section IV.H of this document).

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to commercial prerinse spray valves.
Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used
several analytical tools to estimate the impact of potential energy
conservation standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates
the LCC savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The
NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections
and calculates NES and NPV of total consumer costs and savings expected
to result from potential energy conservation standards. These
spreadsheet tools are available on the website: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034</a>.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. 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 proposed determination include (1) a determination
of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of commercial prerinse spray
valves. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in
the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of commercial
prerinse spray valves in 10 CFR 431.262, which defines commercial
prerinse spray valve as ``a handheld device that has a release-to-close
valve and is suitable for removing food residue from food service items
before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing
equipment.'' Any product meeting the definition of commercial prerinse
spray valve is included in DOE's scope of coverage.
In response to the June 2020 RFI, NEEA and Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that many valves marketed on online
retailers' and manufacturers' websites appear to meet DOE's definition
of a commercial prerinse spray valve but have flow rates above DOE's
limits. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 7 at p. 2) ASAP provided
website links to products it asserted meet DOE's definition but have
flow rates above DOE's energy conservation standard limits and models
that are advertised as complying with DOE standards are not included in
DOE's compliance database. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2-4) ASAP commented that
the current definition means that a product does not have to be
explicitly marketed as a commercial prerinse spray valve in order to be
covered, so long as it is suitable for use in washing dishes. (Id. at
p. 2)
In the May 20, 2021 CPSV test procedure NOPR, DOE addressed similar
comments and proposed to update the definition to codify in the CFR
existing guidance on the application of the current definition in 10
CFR 431.262. 86 FR 27298. DOE reiterated that adopting this guidance is
not intended to change the scope of valves covered in the CPSV
definition, only to codify existing guidance. Id.
2. Technology Options
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE identified several technology options
that would be expected to improve the efficiency of

[[Page 46336]]

commercial prerinse spray valves, as measured by the DOE test
procedure. The complete list of technology options identified are as
follows:
(1) Addition of flow control insert,
(2) Smaller spray hole area,
(3) Aerators,
(4) Additional valves,
(5) Changing spray hole shape, and
(6) Venturi meter to orifice plate nozzle geometries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A venturi meter is a nozzle where the fluid accelerates
through a converging cone of 15-20 degrees. An orifice plate is a
flat plate with a circular hole drilled in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested comment on the applicability of these technologies to
the efficiency and performance characteristics of commercial prerinse
spray valves. DOE also requested comment and data on any new
technologies that should be considered in its analysis. 85 FR 35383,
35386-35387.
In response to the June 2020 RFI, PMI commented that it is not
aware of any significant technological advances that would vastly alter
the water and energy savings from the products currently being
produced. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 1) CA IOUs commented that pressure
compensating aerator (``PCA'') technology represents an opportunity for
further efficiency gains from commercial prerinse spray valves and
recommended DOE investigate the energy saving potential of these
technologies. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1)
PCAs typically use an O-ring that compresses and relaxes in
response to system pressure. When there is no pressure, the O-ring is
relaxed and allows the aerator to be fully opened. As the pressure
increases, the O-ring is compressed into the aerator opening to
partially block water passage. This establishes an inverse relationship
between the area of the aerator opening and the water pressure, and can
be designed such that the water flow rate is approximately constant
with pressure.
CA IOUs commented that because the flow rate of commercial prerinse
spray valves varies with pressure, low water pressure can reduce user
satisfaction and result in consumers trying to alter their spray valve
or replace it with a higher flow-rate spray valve. (Id. at p. 1-2) They
stated that using a PCA decouples the flow rate of commercial prerinse
spray valves from water supply pressure, increasing consumer
satisfaction. (Id. at p. 3) CA IOUs commented that PCAs became widely
adopted around 2010 and were not previously considered by DOE in the
context of a CPSV rulemaking. They urged DOE to consider PCAs as a
technology option in this rulemaking. (Id. at p. 3)
An initial review of the technology indicates that PCAs represent
an opportunity to increase consumer satisfaction at low water pressure,
as PCAs would ensure that consumers get their desired spray force
across the entire range of in-field water pressures. However, DOE does
not initially find PCAs to represent a technology option that would
improve the water efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves as
measured by DOE's test procedure. DOE's test procedure measures flow
rate and spray force at a singular, representative water pressure.
Adding a PCA would not change the flow rate or spray force at DOE's
test pressure.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ In the CA IOUs comment, Figure 2 also shows that at the DOE
test procedure test pressure (60 pounds per square inch, or psi),
the flow rate continues to be at 1.28 gpm for fixed orifice, PCA
high performance, and PCA basic. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options
shown in Table IV.1. Detailed descriptions of these technology options
can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.

Table IV.1--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Option
Addition of Flow Control Insert
Smaller Spray Hole Area
Aerators
Additional Valves
Changing Spray Hole Shape
Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle Geometries
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on its determination that PCAs would not change
the flow rate or spray force at DOE's test pressure.
3. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five 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.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C.
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE presented the screened-out technology
options from the January 2016 Final Rule and sought comment regarding
whether these technology options would continue to be screened out. 85
FR 35383, 35387. In response to the June 2020 RFI, DOE did not receive
any comments suggesting these technologies should no longer be screened
out. DOE's review of the market also suggests that these technologies
are not suitable for further consideration, as discussed in chapter 4
of the TSD. Therefore, for this analysis, DOE has maintained the
January 2016 Final Rule conclusions and has screened out the same
technology options as presented in Table IV.2.

[[Page 46337]]

Table IV.2--Screened-Out Technology Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening criteria (X = basis for screening out)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screened technology option Practicability to Adverse impact Unique-pathway
Technological manufacture, on product Adverse impacts on proprietary
feasibility install, and service utility health and safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addition of Flow Control Insert........................ X .................... ................ .................... ................
Aerators............................................... X .................... ................ .................... ................
Additional Valves...................................... X .................... ................ .................... ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Remaining Technologies
After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options and considers them as design options in
the engineering analysis:
(1) Smaller spray hole area.
(2) Changing spray hole shape, and
(3) Venturi meter to orifice plate nozzle geometries.
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially available products or working prototypes. Also these
remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in
adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or
safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD.
4. Product Classes
In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type
of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
For commercial prerinse spray valves, the current energy
conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 431.266 are based on three
product classes determined according to spray force, which is a
performance-related feature that provides utility to the consumer.
``Spray force'' is defined as the amount of force exerted onto the
spray disc, measured in ounce-force (``ozf''). 10 CFR 431.262 Table
IV.3 lists the current three product classes for commercial prerinse
spray valves.

Table IV.3--Current Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray force in ounce-force,
Product class ozf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1........................... <=5.0 ozf.
Product Class 2........................... >5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf.
Product Class 3........................... >8.0 ozf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These product classes were based on previous market research that
identified three distinct end-user applications requiring differing
amounts of spray force: (1) Cleaning delicate glassware and removing
loose food particles from dishware (which require the least amount of
spray force), (2) cleaning wet food, and (3) cleaning baked-on foods
(which requires the greatest amount of spray force). 81 FR 4748, 4758-
4759.
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE sought feedback regarding whether there
had been any changes to the end-user applications of each product
classes and if any of the existing product classes should be merged or
separated. Further, DOE requested any data on additional performance-
related features, in addition to spray force, that provide unique
consumer utility that would justify additional product classes. 85 FR
35386.
In response, PMI commented that it was not aware of any data or
market feedback that would warrant changes to the end-user applications
of each product class or changes to the current product class
structure. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 4) Further, it was not aware of any data
or market feedback that would warrant additional product classes. (Id.)
DOE did not receive any comments or data suggesting that changes to the
existing product class structure were needed and therefore maintained
the existing product class structure in this analysis.
5. Market Assessment
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE stated that preliminary research
indicated some of the ``shower-type'' basic models since the January
2016 Final Rule had been redesigned to have flow rates and spray force
in product class 2 (>5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf), with few commercial
prerinse spray valves remaining in product class 3 (>8.0 ozf). 85 FR
35383, 35386.
In response to the RFI, PMI commented that the total number of
commercial prerinse spray valves that meet the Environmental Protection
Agency's (``EPA's'') WaterSense standards continues to grow. (PMI, No.
4 at p. 3) It further commented that industry needs more time to
evaluate the impact the current DOE standards have had on the market.
(Id. at p. 1) Specifically, PMI stated that the relatively recent
compliance date has not allowed manufacturers time to recoup their
investments associated with the most recent redesigns, and some
manufacturers and distributors need time to sell-through the existing
products they have in stock. (Id. at p. 4) PMI commented in support of
a no-new-standards determination due to any improvement in efficiency
being negligible when compared to the current standard's improvement
from the previous 1.6 gpm flow rate limitation. (Id. at p. 5)
DOE notes that EPA's WaterSense program was sunset in 2019, with
the implementation of the energy conservation standard prescribed in
the January 2016 Final Rule, after participants expressed an
``overwhelming preference for canceling the WaterSense specification,
indicating limited potential for further efficiency.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ EPA's notification of sunset of the WaterSense Specification
for commercial prerinse spray valves can be found at the following
link: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial-pre-rinse-spray-valves-specification-and-certification">https://www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial-pre-rinse-spray-valves-specification-and-certification</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEEA reiterated DOE's observation that significantly fewer spray
valves are currently manufactured in product class 3 and expressed
concern that the absence of high flow-rate valves could drive certain
manufacturers to select out of scope products with flow rates above
energy conservation standards. (NEEA, No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA recommended
DOE investigate any potential product class switching and any switching
to equipment that may be out of scope. (Id.

[[Page 46338]]

at p. 4) DOE modeled potential product class switching and any
switching to out-of-scope equipment as discussed in section IV.F of
this document.
For this proposed determination, DOE initially relied on government
databases, retail listings, and industry publications (e.g.,
manufacturer catalogs) to assess the overall state of the industry. DOE
used this market analysis to generate the shipments analysis, discussed
in section IV.F of this document. DOE maintained the nearest neighbor
switching assumptions from the previous rulemaking, as discussed in
section IV.F of this document.

B. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of commercial prerinse
spray valves. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis: The selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
NEEA recommended DOE set the efficiency standards to the maximum
available flow rate currently on the market in each product class.
(NEEA, No. 7 at p. 4) As described in the following analyses, DOE
evaluated the savings potential of higher efficiency standards.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency-level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In this proposed determination, similar to the January 2016 Final
Rule, DOE is adopting a design-option approach. The analysis is
performed in terms of incremental increases in efficiency (decreases in
flow rate) due to implementation of selected design options.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
The current minimum energy conservation standards represent the
baseline efficiency levels for each product class. The current
standards for each product class are based on flow rate in gpm. DOE
requested comment in the June 2020 RFI regarding whether using the
current energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves are an appropriate baseline efficiency level. 85 FR 35383,
35388. DOE did not receive any comments on this issue. Therefore, DOE
is using the current energy conservations standards as the baseline
efficiency level in this analysis.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency (i.e., lowest water use in a given product
class) unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a
``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product.
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE presented the max-tech efficiency level
from the January 2016 Final Rule and requested comment as to whether
these max-tech options were appropriate. 85 FR 35383, 35388. DOE did
not receive any comment suggesting they were not. Based on a review of
recent manufacturer catalogs, DOE identified a new max-tech commercial
prerinse spray valve for product class 1, which has a flow rate of 0.45
gpm as compared to the flow rate of 0.62 gpm presented in the June 2020
RFI.\10\ As such, DOE has used the max-tech efficiency level flow rates
presented in Table IV.4 in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The new max-tech model utilizes smaller spray hole area to
further reduce flow rate. This is not a new technology option;
rather, it is further utilizing a technology option considered
during the January 2016 Final Rule.

Table IV.4--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Product class (gpm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1............................................ 0.45
Product Class 2............................................ 0.73
Product Class 3............................................ 1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on its new max-tech efficiency level for product
class 1.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE presented a theoretical linear
relationship between CPSV flow rate and spray force, derived from both
Bernoulli's principle of incompressible flow and the concept of
conservation of mass in a fluid system. Further, DOE had verified this
linear relationship through market testing of available products and
close matching between the theoretical relationship and the flow rates
and spray forces of available products. 81 FR 4748, 4762. The
relationship between flow rate and spray force is given below:

[[Page 46339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU21.000

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment regarding whether this
equation was still applicable. PMI commented that this relationship was
still accurate and that it supports using the equation for determining
flow rate or spray force. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any
other comments on the equation, and therefore continues to apply this
equation in the engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the BOM for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency
curves by creating a BOM using physical and catalog teardowns of
commercial prerinse spray valves and concluded that manufacturing
production cost was unaffected by efficiency level, both within product
classes and across product classes. 81 FR 4748, 4765. In the June 2020
RFI, DOE requested comment as to whether this conclusion had changed
since DOE's previous analysis. 85 FR 35383, 35389. DOE did not receive
any comment suggesting this conclusion has changed.
As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE did not
observe any new technology options from the January 2016 Final Rule.
Therefore, for this proposed determination, DOE updated the cost
analysis from the January 2016 Final Rule to be representative of the
market in 2020. This included updating the material prices of each
component of the previously torn down commercial prerinse spray valves
and updating the labor, depreciation, utilities, maintenance, tax, and
insurance costs. DOE did not include any commercial prerinse spray
valves that have exited the market or had their design modified since
they were torn down. The resulting BOM provides the basis for the
manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
These updated costs reaffirm that there are differences in
manufacturing costs between units from different manufacturers.
However, none of the differences were directly related to the
efficiency of a commercial prerinse spray valve. Rather, the
differences were primarily due to differences in the type and amount of
material used (e.g., plastic versus brass or stainless steel spray
nozzles). As such, the resulting cost analysis provided the basis for
the MPC estimates. However, DOE has initially concluded that MPC is
unaffected by efficiency level, similar to the conclusion from the
January 2016 Final Rule; i.e., MPC remains constant across all product
classes. 81 FR 4748, 4765.
DOE seeks comment and data regarding any changes in MPC that would
not be accounted for by updating the cost analysis of the previously
conducted product teardowns. Specifically, DOE seeks any data that
would contradict its determination of no incremental cost associated
with improvements in efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves.
a. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency data and indicate that manufacturing production costs are
unaffected by efficiency level within a product class and across
product classes. Therefore, DOE assumed the final MPC as the average
MPC of all commercial prerinse spray valves. The summary of the cost
efficiency relationships for product class 1, 2, and 3 are presented in
Table IV.5, Table IV.6, and Table IV.7, respectively. See TSD chapter 5
for additional detail on the engineering analysis and complete cost-
efficiency results.

Table IV.5--Cost Efficiency Relationship for Product Class 1
[Spray force <=5.0 ozf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Incremental
Efficiency level Efficiency level Flow rate production cost over
description (gpm) cost (2020$) baseline ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... Current Federal standard... 1.00 $26.91 $0.00
Level 1............................ 15% improvement over 0.85 26.91 0.00
Federal standard.
Level 2............................ 25% improvement over 0.75 26.91 0.00
Federal standard.
Level 3............................ Maximum technologically- 0.45 26.91 0.00
feasible (max-tech).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46340]]

Table IV.6--Cost Efficiency Relationship for Product Class 2
[Spray force >5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Incremental
Efficiency level Efficiency level Flow rate production cost over
description (gpm) cost (2020$) Baseline ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current Federal standard 1.20 $26.91 $0.00
Level 1............................... 15% improvement over 1.02 26.91 0.00
Federal standard.
Level 2............................... 25% improvement over 0.90 26.91 0.00
Federal standard.
Level 3............................... Maximum technologically- 0.73 26.91 0.00
feasible (max-tech).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.7--Cost Efficiency Relationship for Product Class 3
[Spray force >8.0 ozf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Incremental
Efficiency level Efficiency level Flow rate production cost over
description (gpm) cost (2020$) baseline ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current Federal standard 1.28 26.91 0.00
Level 1............................... Maximum technologically- 1.13 26.91 0.00
feasible (max-tech).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for additional detail on the
engineering analysis and complete cost-efficiency results.

C. Markups Analysis

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the
annual Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed
by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes commercial
prerinse spray valves. The manufacturer mark-up is discussed in more
detail in section IV.H.2.d of this document.
The markups analysis also develops appropriate markups (e.g.,
retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the
distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived
in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in
the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis
(``MIA''). At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up
the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.
DOE requested comment in the June 2020 RFI regarding markups per
distribution channel as well as the portion of equipment sold via each
distribution channel. 85 FR 35383, 35390. DOE did not receive any
comments related to markups per distribution channel.
For commercial prerinse spray valves, the main parties in the
distribution chain are manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and
service company. Each party in the distribution chain sells to the
final consumer. Table IV.8 provides the portion of equipment passing
through different distribution channels.

Table IV.8--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Channel Pathway through channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 17
Final Consumer
(Direct Sales).
B................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 33
Authorized
Distributor [rarr]
Final Consumer.
C................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 17
Retailer [rarr]
Final Consumer.
D................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 33
Service Company
[rarr] Final
Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE developed baseline markups for each entity in the distribution
chain. Baseline markups are multipliers that convert the MSP of
equipment at the baseline efficiency level to consumer purchase price.
Incremental markups are multipliers that convert the incremental
increase in MSP for a product at each higher efficiency level (compared
to the MSP at the baseline efficiency level) to the corresponding
purchase price. In the analysis for this proposed determination, 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.
DOE relied on annual reports and SEC 10-K reports from public
companies in the different distribution channels to estimate average
baseline markups. Table IV.9 provides the markups for each distribution
channel.

Table IV.9--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Baseline Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Pathway Baseline markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 1.72
Final Consumer
(Direct Sales).
B................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 1.72
Authorized
Distributor [rarr]
Final Consumer.

[[Page 46341]]

C................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 1.52
Retailer [rarr]
Final Consumer.
D................................ Manufacturer [rarr] 1.87
Service Company
[rarr] Final
Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the markup channels, the percentage through
each channel, and the baseline markup of commercial prerinse spray
valves.
Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's development of
markups for commercial prerinse spray valves.

D. Energy and Water Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of commercial prerinse spray valves at different
efficiencies in representative U.S. commercial buildings, and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased CPSV efficiency. The energy
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of commercial prerinse
spray valves in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other
analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards. The energy use analysis for this
NOPD is the same process as DOE used in the January 2016 Final Rule. 81
FR 4748, 4765-4766.
As discussed in section IV.B.1, DOE developed flow rates for each
efficiency level analyzed in the engineering analysis. 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 2012 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (``CBECS'').\12\ The daily CPSV operating time was
annualized based on operating schedules for each building type. In the
June 2020 RFI, DOE presented CPSV annual operating hours and requested
comment on those hours. 85 FR 35383, 35390. DOE did not receive any
comments related to operating hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. 2020.
Washington, DC. Available at <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/">https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water use for each equipment class was determined by multiplying
the annual operating time by the flow rate and operating pressure of 60
pounds per square inch (``psi'') for each efficiency level. DOE
requested comment in the June 2020 RFI requesting feedback related to
the typical operating pressure of the water typically supplied to
commercial prerinse spray valves and DOE's assumption of 60 psi. 85 FR
35383, 35390. PMI concurred with this operating pressure and stated
that 60 <plus-minus> 2 psi is representative of the average U.S. water
pressure in commercial kitchens. (PMI, No. 4 at pp. 4-5) DOE did not
receive any further comments and therefore maintained the 60 psi
operating pressure for each efficiency level.
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 [deg]F. DOE requested comment in the June 2020
RFI related to the end-use water temperature of the water leaving the
prerinse spray valves and any related supporting data. 85 FR 35383,
35390. PMI stated that it was not aware of any data or market
information that suggested a different temperature than the 108 [deg]F
end-use temperature. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 5) 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 [deg]F based on ASHRAE Standard 12-
2020.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ ASHRAE Standard 12-2020: Minimizing the Risk of
Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems (March 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the methods to improve DOE's energy-use
analysis, as well as any supporting alternate operating hour estimates
for operation of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE seeks comment on
water pressure and the end-use temperature.
Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis4764-4765. For purposes
of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Table IV.10 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
of the NOPD TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups and
sales tax, as appropriate.
Installation Costs........... Baseline installation cost determined
with data from U.S. Department of Labor
and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............ The energy use multiplied by the average
hours per year. Average number of hours
based on field data.
Variability: Based on the 2012 CBECS.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (``EIA'')
Form 861 data for 2020.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 27 regions.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on the Annual Energy Outlook 2021
(``AEO2021'') price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime............. Average: 5 years

[[Page 46342]]

Discount Rates............... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the considered
appliances or might be affected
indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date.............. 2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD 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.C (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.
In prior energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE estimated
the total installed costs per unit for product and then assumed that
costs remain constant throughout the analysis period. This assumption
is conservative because product costs tend to decrease over time. In
2011, DOE published a notice of data availability (``NODA'') titled
Equipment Process Forecasting in Energy Conservation Standards
Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). In the NODA, DOE proposed a
methodology for determining whether equipment process have trended
downward in real terms. The methodology examines so-called price or
experimental learning, wherein, with ever-increasing experience with
the production of a product, manufacturers are able to reduce their
production costs through innovations in technology and process.
Commercial prerinse spray valves are formed metal devices. Neither
changes in technology nor process are expected to occur to change the
price of the product in this analysis. For this analysis DOE assumed
that product costs remain constant over the analysis period. This is
consistent with the January 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 4748, 4767.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from
U.S. Department of Labor to estimate the baseline installation cost for
commercial prerinse spray valves. Consistent with the January 2016
Final Rule, DOE found no evidence that installation costs would be
affected by increased efficiency levels. 81 FR 4748, 4767.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled CPSV user, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a commercial prerinse spray valve at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously in section IV.D of this
document.
4. Energy Prices
DOE derived average annual commercial electricity prices for 27
geographic regions using data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (``EIA'') Form EIA-861 database (based on ``Annual
Electric Power Industry Report'').\14\ The NOPD analysis used the data
for 2020 DOE derived average natural gas prices using data from EIA's
natural gas prices.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Available at <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html">www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html</a>.
\15\ Available at <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PCS_DMcf_m.htm">https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PCS_DMcf_m.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in
national-average commercial energy price in AEO2021.\16\ AEO2021 has an
end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the
average annual rate of change in prices from 2040 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050.
2021. Washington, DC. (AEO2021). Available at <a href="http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/">www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Water and Wastewater Prices
DOE obtained data on water and wastewater prices from the 2019
American Water Works Association (``AWWA'') surveys for this
analysis.\17\ For each state and the District of Columbia, 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 (1974-2019) in developing a real growth rate for
combined water price forecasts. DOE requested comment in the June 2020
RFI whether a different water price dataset should be considered. 85 FR
35383, 35391. DOE received no comments related to water price datasets.
Chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD provides more detail about DOE's approach to
developing water and wastewater prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Available at https://www.awwa.org/Store/2019-Water-and-
Wastewater-Rate-Survey--Digital-Set/ProductDetail/79004009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products. DOE requested comment in the June 2020 RFI on the
assumption of zero maintenance and repair costs upon failure. DOE
assumed that consumers would replace the commercial prerinse spray
valve upon failure rather than repairing the product. 85 FR 35383,
35391. DOE also requested comment if these changes would differ per
efficiency level. Id. DOE received no comments related to maintenance
nor repair costs. For this NOPD, DOE modeled commercial prerinse spray
valves as not being repaired, and no maintenance costs. Additionally,
DOE modeled no changes in maintenance or repair costs between different
efficiency levels.
7. Product Lifetime
For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE used lifetime estimates
from manufacturer datasheets and other published data sources. DOE
requested comment in the June 2020 RFI regarding lifetime and lifetime
distributions. In the June 2020 RFI, DOE restated the values from the
January 2016 Final Rule, an average lifetime of 5 years and maximum of
10 years. 85 FR 35383, 35391. DOE did not receive any

[[Page 46343]]

comments related to lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves. 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 in product
lifetimes.
8. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to CPSV users to estimate the present value of future operating costs.
DOE estimated a distribution of commercial discount rates for
commercial prerinse spray valves based on consumer financing costs and
the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\18\ DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance
purchase decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in
this model. The LCC estimates NPV over the lifetime of the product, so
the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost
of commercial consumer funds, taking this time scale into account.
Given the long-time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a
marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is
inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are
expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over
the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in
their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest
rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact
of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and
assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in NPV of
lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence of several
factors: transaction costs, risk premiums and response to
uncertainty, time preferences, and interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To establish commercial discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant commercial consumer debt or asset classes in
order to approximate a commercial consumer's opportunity cost of funds
related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average
percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by commercial
consumer building type using data from Damodaran Online \19\ for 1998-
2019. Using Damodaran Online and the Federal Reserve, DOE developed a
distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by building type
to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which amended
standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample building a
specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average
rate across all types of commercial consumer debt and equity, weighted
by the shares of each type, given business size, is 7.0 percent. See
chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for further details on the development of
consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Damodaran Online. Available at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/
~adamodar/ (accessed April 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
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 analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of commercial
prerinse spray valves for 2027 (the first year of the analysis period),
DOE conducted general internet searches and examined manufacturer
literature to understand the characteristics of the spray values
currently offered on the market. DOE assumed that the no-new-standards
case percentages in 2027 would stay the same through the analysis
period. The estimated market shares by product class for the no-new-
standards case for commercial prerinse spray valves are shown in Table
IV.11. The estimated market shares within each product class for the
no-new-standards case for commercial prerinse spray valves are shown in
Table IV.12. See chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for further information on
the derivation of the efficiency distributions.

Table IV.11--Product Class Distribution in No-New-Standards Case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of
Product class shipments (%
of shipments)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 10
2 70
3 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.12--Efficiency Level Distribution Within Each Product Class in No-New-Standards Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3
Efficiency level (% of shipments) (% of shipments) (% of shipments)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................................... 3.1 74.2 86.0
1...................................................... -- 24.2 14.0
2...................................................... 87.5 ................. .................
3...................................................... 9.4 1.5 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to
baseline products, through energy cost savings. The PBP is expressed in
years. The PBP that exceeds the life of the product means that the
increased total installed cost is not 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.

E. Shipments Analysis

DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\20\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking market
shares of each product class and the vintage of

[[Page 46344]]

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs
to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all
years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input
to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for
any year depend on the number of commercial prerinse spray valves in
operation during that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical CPSV shipment data come from industry reports as well as
DOE's Compliance Certification Management System.\21\ DOE used the
commercial floorspace growth rate to make projections through year
2056. PMI commented that at least 20,000 restaurants closed in 2020 as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. (PMI, No. 4 at pp. 3-4) DOE modeled
flat growth in 2020 through 2022 for commercial prerinse spray valves.
DOE assumes that growth will increase by the time the analysis period
starts in 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms">https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous research by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
identified low spray force as one of the primary drivers of user
dissatisfaction for some application of commercial prerinse spray
valves.\22\ The relationship between consumer satisfaction and spray
force for commercial prerinse spray valves makes it possible that
consumers may opt to switch product classes if they are unsatisfied
with the spray force available to them in their current product class.
In some cases, consumers may opt to switch to a commercial prerinse
spray valve that consumes more water and energy than their current
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report,
as 24-25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/ws-background-prsv-field-study-report.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/ws-background-prsv-field-study-report.pdf</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the current choices of product under the current regulations
correspond to the consumers' optimal product, it is probable that some
consumers would switch from product class 1 to product class 2 or from
product class 2 to product class 3 in response to amended standards in
order to maintain their satisfaction with the product. In more extreme
cases, consumers may also opt to exit the CPSV market and purchase a
different type of product (e.g., a faucet) with a higher flow rate. The
economics resulting from product-class and product-type switching may
result in lower optimal efficiency levels and reduced estimates of
water and energy savings, as compared to the case without class
switching.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged both the
possibility that consumers would switch between product classes and the
possibility that a subset of consumers would exit the CPSV market and
purchase higher flow-rate products (e.g., faucets). 81 FR 4748, 4769.
DOE previously implemented a nearest neighbor switching mechanism and a
product switch scenario in the shipments model to estimate such
consumer choices.
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment and information on
whether product class switching occurred as a result of the previous
amended rule as well as any potential switching as the result of a new
amended rule. 85 FR 35883, 35392. NEEA recommended DOE examine
potential product-class switching in the product class 3 CPSV market.
(NEEA, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) In the shipment model in this analysis, DOE
developed a method for modeling product class switching where consumers
opted for the nearest neighbor and the possibility of some consumers
exiting the CPSV market for higher flow-rate products, similar to the
previous rulemaking.
1. Nearest Neighbor Switch Scenario
The first scenario can be characterized as a ``nearest neighbor''
approach, in that consumers would choose the product with the flow rate
that is closest to their current product flow rate, even if it has a
higher spray force (thus product class switching). Under the nearest
neighbor scenario, DOE assumed 100 percent of consumers would choose
the closest flow rate. Table IV.13 lists the flow rate for the
potential efficiency levels evaluated in this NOPD, which are the
consumer's potential options for product switching.

Table IV.13--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Flow Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3
Efficiency level --------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate (gpm) Flow rate (gpm) Flow rate (gpm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................................... 1.00 1.20 1.28
Level 1................................................ * 0.85 1.02 1.13
Level 2................................................ 0.75 * 0.90 .................
Level 3................................................ 0.45 0.73 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Market data do not indicate currently available product that meet this efficiency level.

This scenario was included within the Reference case when DOE
analyzed any potential amended standards, similar to the January 2016
Final Rule. 81 FR 4748, 4769. A detailed discussion of DOE's method to
model product class switching is contained in chapter 9 of the TSD.
DOE seeks comment on the product-class switching methodology used
in this analysis, including any logic consumers may employ when
switching as well as the portion of consumers that may switch.
2. Product Switch Scenario
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE include an alternate analysis
(Trial Standard Level 4a) where consumers of product class 3 might opt
for other products such as a faucet. 81 FR 4748, 4779. The Federal
standard for that product has a flow rate of 2.2 gpm. 10 CFR 430.32(o)
In response to the June 2020 RFI, NEEA requested DOE examine
potential switching to products above DOE standards. (NEEA, No. 7 at
pp. 1-3)
In this NOPD, DOE also included a sensitivity analysis (known as a
product switch scenario) in which some consumers exit the CPSV market
and instead use other products like faucets, with greater flow rates
than applicable to commercial prerinse spray valves. In this
sensitivity analysis, a subset of consumers currently using the highest
efficiency level of product class 3 (e.g., consumers currently
purchasing valves at EL0 of product class 3) would exit the CPSV market
and instead use faucets with a flow rate of 2.2 gpm.

[[Page 46345]]

As noted in section IV.A.5, since the January 2016 Final Rule, some
of the high flow rates (and correspondingly high spray force) units
identified during the last rulemaking have been redesigned as product
class 2 commercial prerinse spray valves, with lower spray forces. As a
result, few units are currently available in product class 3. The lack
of units available in product class 3 makes it more likely that
customers seeking the product utility associated with a high spray
force unit would not be satisfied with their commercial prerinse spray
valve if more efficient standards are considered in product class 3.
Therefore, the likelihood of customers opting for alternative products
in response to amended standards is more likely during this rulemaking
than it was during the January 2016 Final Rule.
A detailed discussion of DOE's method to model this sensitivity
analysis is contained in chapter 9 of the TSD.
DOE seeks comment on the approach used to analyze the possibility
of some consumers exiting the CPSV market for higher flow-rate
products, including any logic consumers may employ when switching as
well as the portion of consumers that may switch.

F. National Impact Analysis

The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\23\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the equipment
being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential
standard levels considered based on projections of annual product
shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed
cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings,
product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of
commercial prerinse spray valves sold from 2027 through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
CPSV product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for each CPSV product class if
DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency
levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect
the market shares of commercial prerinse spray valves with lower flow
rates than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each EL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.14 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD for details.

Table IV.14--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments............................ Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Modeled Compliance Date of Standard.. 2027.
Efficiency Trends.................... No-new-standards case.
Standards cases.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit... Annual weighted-average values
are a function of energy use at
each EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit........ Annual weighted-average values
are a function of cost at each
EL.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.......... Annual weighted-average values as
a function of the annual energy
consumption per unit and energy
prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit. Annual values do not change with
efficiency level.
Energy Prices........................ AEO2021 projections (to 2050) and
extrapolation through 2056.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2021.
Discount Rate........................ 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................... 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.E.9 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' switching scenario
to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that
standards are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the
market shares of product in the no-new-standards case that do not meet
the standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new
standard level or switch to the ``nearest neighbor'' based on the flow
rate of the valves that were originally used. The market share of
product above the standard would remain unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered product between each potential standards
case (EL) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity

[[Page 46346]]

consumption and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by
power plants to generate site electricity) using annual conversion
factors derived from AEO2021. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of
the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
The use of a higher-efficiency product is occasionally associated
with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in
utilization of the product due to the increase in efficiency. For
commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE did not use a rebound effect
estimate. DOE does not include the rebound effect in the NPV analysis
because it reasons that the increased service from greater use of the
product has an economic value that is reflected in the value of the
foregone energy savings.
In 2011, 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 NIA 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 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \24\ that EIA uses to
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production, and
delivery in the case of natural gas, (including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use
and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at <a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581">https://www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581</a>(2009)index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance 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-new-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
shipped during the projection period.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual national-average commercial energy
price changes in the Reference case from AEO2021, which has an end year
of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average
annual rate of change in prices from 2020 through 2050. As part of the
NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs from variants of the
AEO2021 Reference case that have lower and higher economic growth.
Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends compared to the
Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in
appendix 10C of the NOPD TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPD, 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.\25\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are
designed to reflect a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html">www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
DOE conducted a MIA for commercial prerinse spray valves to
estimate the financial impacts of analyzed amended energy conservation
standards on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves. The MIA
has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of
the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an
industry cash-flow model customized for the commercial prerinse spray
valves covered in this proposed determination. The key GRIM inputs are
data on the industry cost structure, MPCs, and shipments, as well as
assumptions about manufacturer markups and manufacturer conversion
costs. The key MIA output is industry net present value (``INPV''),
which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital,
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The GRIM
calculates annual cash flows using standard accounting principles. DOE
used the GRIM to compare changes in INPV between the no-new-standards
case and various ELs, the standards cases. The difference in INPV
between the no-new-standards case and the standards cases represents
the financial impact of potential amended energy conservation standards
on CPSV manufacturers. Different sets of assumptions (conversion cost
scenarios) produce different INPV results. The qualitative part of the
MIA addresses factors such as manufacturing capacity; characteristics
of, and impacts on, any particular subgroup of manufacturers, including
small manufacturers; the cumulative regulatory burden placed on CPSV
manufacturers; and any impacts on competition.
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time
due to potential amended energy conservation standards. These changes
in cash flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the standards
cases compared to the no-new-standards case. The GRIM uses a standard
annual cash-flow analysis that incorporates MPCs, manufacturer markups,
shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. It then models
changes in manufacturer investments that may result from the analyzed
amended energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to
calculate a series of annual cash flows beginning with the reference
year of the analysis, 2021, and continuing to the terminal year of the
analysis, 2056. DOE computes INPV by summing the stream of annual
discounted cash flows during the analysis period. DOE used a real
discount rate of 6.89 percent, the same discount rate used in the
January 2016 Final Rule, for CPSV manufacturers in this NOPD. 81 FR
4748, 4749. Many of

[[Page 46347]]

the GRIM inputs come from the engineering analysis, the shipments
analysis, and other research conducted during the MIA. The major GRIM
inputs are described in detail in the following sections.
DOE seeks comment on the use of 6.89 as a real discount rate for
CPSV manufacturers.
a. Manufacturer Product Costs
Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products. However, as discussed in section
IV.B.2 of this document, the MPCs for all commercial prerinse spray
valves is constant at every efficiency level and for every product
class. In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering
analysis, as described in section IV.B.2 of this document and further
detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
b. Shipment Projections
INPV, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, which
depends on the quantity and prices of commercial prerinse spray valves
shipped in each year of the analysis period. Industry revenue
calculations require forecasts of (1) total annual shipment volume of
commercial prerinse spray valves, (2) the distribution of shipments
across the product classes, and (3) the distribution of shipments
across ELs.
In the MIA, DOE used the shipments calculated as part of the
shipments analysis discussion in section IV.F of this document and
chapter 9 of the TSD for this NOPD.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
DOE expects the analyzed amended CPSV energy conservation standards
would cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and product designs into compliance with
potential amended standards. For the MIA, DOE classified these
conversion costs into two groups: (1) Capital conversion costs and (2)
product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are investments in
property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing
production facilities so new product designs can be fabricated and
assembled. Product conversion costs are investments in research,
development, testing, marketing, certification, and other non-
capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with
potential amended standards.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of a potential final rule and the year
by which manufacturers must comply with potential amended standards.
DOE created estimates of industry capital and product conversion costs
using the engineering cost model and information gained during product
teardowns. Product conversion costs depend on the number of CPSV models
that need to be redesigned and re-tested as well as the number of
manufacturers that need to update brochures and marketing materials.
Capital conversion costs are based on the number of plastic spray
patterns that would need to be fabricated by CPSV manufacturers. The
conversion cost estimates are presented in section V.B of this
document.
d. Manufacturer Markup
As discussed in section IV.H.2.a of this document, the MPCs for
commercial prerinse spray valves are the manufacturers' costs for those
products. The MPCs include materials, direct labor, depreciation, and
overhead, which are collectively referred to as the cost of goods sold.
The MSP is the price received by CPSV manufacturers from the first sale
of those products, typically to a distributor, regardless of the
downstream distribution channel through which the commercial prerinse
spray valves are ultimately sold. The MSP is not the price the end-user
pays for commercial prerinse spray valves because there are typically
multiple sales along the distribution chain and various markups applied
to each sale. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer
markup. The manufacturer markup covers all the CPSV manufacturer's non-
production costs (i.e., selling, general, and administrative expenses;
research and development; and interest) as well as profit. Total
industry revenue for CPSV manufacturers equals the MSPs at each
efficiency level multiplied by the number of shipments at that
efficiency level for all product classes. As previously discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this document, the MPC for all commercial prerinse
spray valves is the same at each ELs for all product classes.
Therefore, total industry revenue equals the MSP multiplied by the
number of shipments.
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the
manufacturer markup of 1.30 from the January 2016 Final Rule is still
appropriate to represent the market share weighted average value. 85 FR
35383, 35389. DOE did not receive any comments on this topic.
Therefore, in this NOPD MIA, DOE used the same manufacturer markup of
1.30 that was used in the January 2016 Final Rule.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE
and the projected impacts of each of these levels. Additional details
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this
document.

A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness (i.e., the savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average life of commercial prerinse
spray valves compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the commercial
prerinse spray valves) that is likely to result from the imposition of
a standard at an efficiency level by considering the LCC and PBP at
each EL. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on
selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the
following sections.
Typically, a higher-efficiency product can affect consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. In the case of commercial prerinse spray valves, there is no
incremental cost associated with the higher-efficiency product. Inputs
used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs
(i.e., product price plus installation costs) and operating costs
(i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price trends, repair
costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses product
lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD provides
detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V.1 shows the average LCC and PBP results for the ELs
considered for commercial prerinse spray valves in this analysis.

Table V.1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCC savings Simple payback
Efficiency level 2020$ period years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................... $379.05 0
EL 2....................................... 739.23 0
EL 3....................................... 751.50 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average LCC results in Table V.1 reflect the assumption of a
consumer opting to stay within the same product class and not
incorporating the switching between product classes that is modeled
when assessing national impacts. The results in Table V.1 also

[[Page 46348]]

assume a consumer purchases a product from an efficiency level that
exists in the market as shown in Table IV.13. As a result, product
class 1 consumers at baseline efficiency level purchase efficiency
level 2 products in the LCC analysis, and product class 2 consumers at
efficiency level 1 purchase efficiency level 3 in the LCC analysis.

B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed a MIA to estimate the impact of potential amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of commercial prerinse
spray valves. The following sections describe the expected impacts on
CPSV manufacturers at each EL. Chapter 11 of the NOPD TSD explains the
MIA in further detail.
1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides MIA results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that could result from new and amended
standards. Table V.2 and Table V.3 depict the estimated financial
impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy
conservation standards on CPSV manufacturers, as well as the conversion
costs that DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at each EL. To
evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the CPSV industry, DOE
modeled two conversion cost scenarios that correspond to the range of
potential manufacturer investments that may occur in responses to
potential amended standards. Each conversion cost scenario results in a
unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each EL.
In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the
difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and the
standards cases that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from
the reference year (2021) through the end of the analysis period
(2056). The results also discuss the difference in cash flows between
the no-new-standards case and the standards cases in the year before
the analyzed compliance date for potential amended energy conservation
standards. This differential represents the size of the required
conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the CPSV
industry in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.
To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential
impacts on CPSV manufacturers, DOE modeled a sourced conversion cost
scenario. This scenario assumes that the majority of CPSV
manufacturers, but not all CPSV manufacturers, source components
(including the nozzle) from component suppliers and simply assemble the
commercial prerinse spray valves. In this scenario, the CPSV
manufacturers that DOE assumed source components would not incur
capital conversion cost related to the fabrication of plastic nozzles
if CPSV manufacturers must redesign nozzle molds due to the analyzed
energy conservation standards.
To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential
impacts on CPSV manufacturers, DOE modeled a fabricated conversion cost
scenario. This scenario assumes that all of the CPSV manufacturers
currently selling products with plastic spray nozzles fabricate these
nozzles in-house. In this scenario, all CPSV manufacturers incur
capital conversion costs related to the fabrication of plastic nozzles
if CPSV manufacturers must redesign nozzle molds due to analyzed energy
conservation standards.
DOE seeks comment on the methodology for estimating manufacturer
conversion costs used in the two conversion cost scenarios (the sourced
conversion cost scenario and the fabricated conversion cost scenario).
Additionally, DOE seeks comment of how many manufacturers fabricate
plastic nozzles in-house verses how many manufacturers out-source the
production of the plastic nozzles for their commercial prerinse spray
valves.
Table V.2 and Table V.3 present the projected results for
commercial prerinse spray valves under the sourced and fabricated
conversion cost scenarios. DOE examined results for all product classes
together since most manufacturers sell products across a variety of the
analyzed product classes.

Table V.2--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves--Sourced Conversion Cost Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level *
Units No-new- -----------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... (2020$ millions) 11.5 10.6 10.6 10.6
Change in INPV................ (2020$ millions) .............. (0.9) (0.9) (0.9)
(%)............. .............. (7.5) (7.5) (7.6)
Product Conversion Costs...... (2020$ millions) .............. 1.3 1.3 1.3
Capital Conversion Costs...... (2020$ millions) .............. 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Conversion Costs........ (2020$ millions) .............. 1.4 1.4 1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

Table V.3--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves--Fabricated Conversion Cost
Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level *
Units No-new- -----------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... (2020$ millions) 11.5 10.5 10.5 10.4
Change in INPV................ (2020$ millions) .............. (1.0) (1.0) (1.1)
(%)............. .............. (8.5) (8.5) (9.5)
Product Conversion Costs...... (2020$ millions) .............. 1.3 1.3 1.3
Capital Conversion Costs...... (2020$ millions) .............. 0.3 0.3 0.4
Total Conversion Costs........ (2020$ millions) .............. 1.6 1.6 1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

[[Page 46349]]

At EL 1, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV to range from -$1.0
million to -$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of -8.5 percent to -7.5
percent. At EL 1, industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus
capital expenditures) is estimated to decrease to $0.1 million, or a
drop of up to 88.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value
of $0.7 million in 2026, the year leading up to the analyzed compliance
date of potential amended energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at EL 1. DOE
projects that in the analyzed year of compliance (2027), 97 percent of
CPSV shipments in product class 1, 26 percent of CPSV shipments in
product class 2, and 14 percent of CPSV shipments in product class 3
will meet EL 1. DOE expects CPSV manufacturers to incur approximately
$1.3 million in product conversion costs to update brochures and
marketing material and re-test and redesigned CPSV models that would
need to be redesigned if standards were set at EL 1. Additionally, CPSV
manufacturers would incur between $0.3 million and $0.1 million in
capital conversion costs to fabricate new plastic nozzle molds to
accommodate spray patterns that could meet potential standards set at
EL 1.
At EL 2, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV to range from -$1.0
million to -$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of -8.5 percent to -7.5
percent. At EL 2, industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus
capital expenditures) is estimated to decrease to $0.1 million, or a
drop of up to 88.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value
of $0.7 million in 2026, the year leading up to the analyzed compliance
date of potential amended energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at EL 2. DOE
projects that in the analyzed year of compliance (2027), 97 percent of
CPSV shipments in product class 1 and 2 percent of CPSV shipments in
product class 2 will meet or exceed EL 2. Product class 3 is already at
max-tech, and 14 percent of product class 3 CPSV shipments will meet
max-tech. DOE expects CPSV manufacturers to incur approximately $1.3
million in product conversion costs to update brochures and marketing
material and re-test and redesigned CPSV models that would need to be
redesigned if standards were set at EL 2. Additionally, CPSV
manufacturers would incur between $0.3 million and $0.1 million in
capital conversion costs to fabricate new plastic nozzle molds to
accommodate spray patterns that could meet potential standards set at
EL 2.
At EL 3, max-tech for all product classes, DOE estimates the
impacts on INPV to range from -$1.1 million to -$0.9 million, or a
change in INPV of -9.5 percent to -7.6 percent. At EL 3, industry free
cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) is estimated
to decrease to less than $0.1 million, or a drop of up to 99.0 percent,
compared to the no-new-standards case value of $0.7 million in 2026,
the year leading up to the analyzed compliance date of potential
amended energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at EL 3. DOE
projects that in the analyzed year of compliance (2027), 9 percent of
CPSV shipments in product class 1, 2 percent of CPSV shipments in
product class 2, and 14 percent of CPSV shipments in product class 3
will meet max-tech. DOE expects CPSV manufacturers to incur
approximately $1.3 million in product conversion costs to update
brochures and marketing material and re-test and redesigned CPSV models
that would need to be redesigned if standards were set at EL 3.
Additionally, CPSV manufacturers would incur between $0.4 million and
$0.1 million in capital conversion costs to fabricate new plastic
nozzle molds to accommodate spray patterns that could meet potential
standards set at EL 3.
2. Direct Impacts on Employment
The design option specified for achieving greater ELs (i.e.,
changing the total spray hole area of the CPSV nozzle) does not
increase the labor content (measured in dollars) of commercial prerinse
spray valves at any EL, nor does it increase total MPC or labor
associated with manufacturing commercial prerinse spray valves.
Additionally, total industry shipments are forecasted to be constant at
all the analyzed standard levels. Therefore, DOE predicts no change in
domestic manufacturing employment levels due to any of the analyzed
standard levels.
3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Not every CPSV manufacturer makes CPSV models that could meet all
the analyzed amended energy conservation standards for all product
classes. However, DOE believes that manufacturers would not need to
make substantial platform changes or significant investments for their
CPSV products to meet any of the amended energy conservation standards
analyzed in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE does not foresee any
significant impact on manufacturing capacity due to any of the analyzed
amended energy conservation standards.
4. 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 cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts on small businesses in
section VI.B of this document. DOE did not identify any other
manufacturer subgroups for this rulemaking.
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product. While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of
several existing or 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 lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
products. For these reasons, DOE typically conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency. However, given the tentative conclusion discussed
in section V.D of this document, DOE did not conduct a cumulative
regulatory burden analysis.

C. National Impact Analysis

This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the ELs considered as
potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE compared their
energy consumption under the no-new-

[[Page 46350]]

standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each EL.
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of product purchased
in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance
with amended standards (2027-2056). Table V.4 presents DOE's
projections of the NES for each efficiency level considered for
commercial prerinse spray valves. The savings were calculated using the
nearest neighbor switch scenario as described in section IV.F.1 of this
document. The savings were calculated using the approach described in
section IV.G of this document.

Table V.4--Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 30 Years of
Shipments (2027-2056)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings
--------------------------------------------------------- National water
Efficiency level Site energy Primary energy FFC energy savings (billion
(quads) (quads) (quads) gal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 0.014 0.052 0.055 53.153
2................................... 0.010 0.037 0.039 37.882
3................................... 0.011 0.039 0.041 39.435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V.5 presents DOE's projections of the NES for each efficiency
level considered for commercial prerinse spray valves. The savings were
calculated using the product switch scenario as described in section
IV.F.2 of this document. The savings were calculated using the approach
described in section IV.G of this document.

Table V.5--Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 30 Years of
Shipments (2027-2056)--Product Switch Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings *
--------------------------------------------------------- National water
Efficiency level Site energy Primary energy FFC energy savings *
(quads) (quads) (quads) (billion gal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... (0.028) (0.102) (0.108) (104.043)
2................................... (0.032) (0.117) (0.123) (119.313)
3................................... (0.032) (0.116) (0.122) (117.761)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values.

OMB Circular A-4 \26\ 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. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years,
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 revised standards.\27\ The review timeframe established in
EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to commercial prerinse
spray valves. Thus, such results are presented for informational
purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table V.6. The saving values in
Table V.6 were calculated using the nearest neighbor product class
switching scenario as described in section IV.F.1 of this document. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray
valves purchased in 2027-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/</a>.
\27\ Section 325(m) of EPCA 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. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review
timeframe associated with amended standards. 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 products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.

Table V.6--Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 9 Years of
Shipments (2027-2035)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings
--------------------------------------------------------- National water
Efficiency level Site energy Primary energy FFC energy savings (billion
(quads) (quads) (quads) gal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 0.004 0.014 0.015 14.315
2................................... 0.003 0.010 0.011 10.203

[[Page 46351]]

3................................... 0.003 0.010 0.011 10.621
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The savings in Table V.7 were calculated using the product switch
scenario as described in section IV.F.2 of this document. The impacts
are counted over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves
purchased in 2027-2035.

Table V.7--Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 9 Years of
Shipments (2027-2035)--Product Switch Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings *
--------------------------------------------------------- National water
Efficiency level Site energy Primary energy FFC energy savings *
(quads) (quads) (quads) (billion gal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... (0.008) (0.028) (0.029) (28.022)
2................................... (0.009) (0.032) (0.033) (32.134)
3................................... (0.009) (0.031) (0.033) (31.716)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values.

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the ELs considered for commercial
prerinse spray valves. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on
regulatory analysis,\28\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.8 shows the consumer NPV
results with impacts counted over the lifetime of product purchased in
2027-2056. Values in Table V.8 are based on the shipments as described
in section IV.F.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/</a>.

Table V.8--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 30 Years of Shipments (2027-2056)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion $2020)
-------------------------------------
Efficiency level 7-percent 3-percent
discount rate discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 0.350 0.770
2................................. 0.249 0.549
3................................. 0.259 0.572
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also calculated the NPV for the alternate shipment scenario (as
described in section IV.F.1) using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent
real discount rate. Table V.9 shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of product purchased in 2027-2056.

Table V.9--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 30 Years of Shipments (2027-2056)--
Product Switch Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion $2020) *
-------------------------------------
Efficiency level 7-percent 3-percent
discount rate discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. (0.684) (1.508)
2................................. (0.785) (1.729)
3................................. (0.774) (1.707)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values.

[[Page 46352]]

The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.10. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of product purchased in 2027-2035. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.

Table V.10--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 9 Years of Shipments (2027-2035)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion $2020)
-------------------------------------
Efficiency level 7-percent 3-percent
discount rate discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 0.160 0.246
2................................. 0.112 0.176
3................................. 0.116 0.183
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPV results based on the 9-year analytical period (2027-2035)
for the alternate shipment scenario (as described in section IV.F.1)
are presented in Table V.11.

Table V.11--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; 9 Years of Shipments (2027-2035)--
Product Switch Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion $2020) *
-------------------------------------
Efficiency level 7-percent 3-percent
discount rate discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. (0.306) (0.482)
2................................. (0.351) (0.553)
3................................. (0.347) (0.546)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values.

D. Proposed Determination

As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether amended standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves would result in significant
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be cost
effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Additionally, DOE also estimated the impact on manufacturers. The
criteria considered under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional
analysis are discussed in the following subsections. Because an
analysis of potential cost effectiveness and energy savings first
require an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE first discusses
the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE then addresses
the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated with potential
amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves would be technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
tentatively determined that there are technology options that would
improve the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves. These
technology options are being used in commercially available commercial
prerinse spray valves and therefore are technologically feasible. (See
section IV.A.2 for further information.) Hence, DOE has tentatively
determined that amended energy conservation standards for commercial
prerinse spray valves are technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves would be cost effective through an
evaluation of the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered product which are likely to result from the imposition of
an amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C),
and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an LCC analysis to
estimate the net costs/benefits to users from increased efficiency in
the considered commercial prerinse spray valves. (See results in Table
V.1.) DOE then aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to estimate
the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by the Nation. (See
results in Table V.8 and Table V.10.) As noted, the inputs for
determining the NPV are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings.
DOE considered each of the efficiency levels. All efficiency levels
would result in positive NPV at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount
rates. However, in DOE's sensitivity analysis, wherein a subset of
consumers exit the CPSV market and switch to higher flow-rate products
such as faucets (product switch scenario), all efficiency levels would
result in a negative NPV at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates.
DOE notes that the lack of incremental costs to consumers
associated with higher-efficiency products makes LCC and NPV values
cost-effective. However, the potential reduction in consumer utility
risks driving consumers to alternative products with higher flow-rates.
As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this document, the change in product
availability since the January 2016 Final Rule makes it more likely
that certain

[[Page 46353]]

consumers would switch to higher flow-rate products in response to
amended standards. This shift increases the likelihood that amended
standards could result in a negative NPV. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that amended standards would not be economically
justified at any efficiency level due to the increased likelihood of
consumers switching products to higher flow-rate products as a result
of decreased consumer utility due to potential amended standards, and
the corresponding negative NPV of this product switch scenario.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves would
result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)
and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended standards for commercial prerinse
spray valves, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-
standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each
potential standard level. The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of product purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-2056).
DOE estimates that amended standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves would result in maximum energy savings of 0.014 site energy
quads and 0.055 FFC energy savings at EL1 over a 30-year analysis
period (2027-2056). (See results in Table V.4 of this document.)
However, in DOE's sensitivity analysis, wherein a subset of consumers
exit the CPSV market and switch to higher flow-rate products such as
faucets (product switch scenario), amended standards could result in an
increase in national site energy use between 0.028 (EL1) and 0.032
(EL3) quads and an increase in FFC energy use between 0.108 (EL1) and
0.124 (EL3) quads over a 30-year analysis period (2027-2056). (See
results in Table V.5.) As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this document,
the change in product availability since the January 2016 Final Rule
makes it more likely that certain consumers would switch to higher
flow-rate products in response to amended standards. This shift
increases the likelihood that amended standards could result in
increased energy and water usage.
4. Additional Consideration
EPCA lists several additional factors for DOE to consider in
deciding whether to amend energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) In this analysis, DOE investigated the
manufacturer impacts of any potential amended standards. DOE estimates
that amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves would
result in a reduction in INPV between 7.5 and 9.5 percent. (See results
in Table V.2 and Table V.3 of this document)
DOE also considers any lessening of the utility or the performance
of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As noted in section IV.F,
spray force is a driving factor of consumer utility and consumer
satisfaction. As discussed in section IV.B.1.b, there is a direct
relationship between flow rate and spray force. Therefore, the
relationship between consumer satisfaction and spray force for
commercial prerinse spray valves makes it possible that consumers may
opt to switch product classes if they are unsatisfied with the spray
force available to them in their current product class due to amended
standards. In some cases, consumers react to amended standards by
switching to a commercial prerinse spray valve, or alternative product,
that consumes more water and energy than their current product. DOE
accounted for this potential reduction in utility in its shipments
analysis by considering the possibility of both the nearest neighbor
switch scenario (section IV.F.1) and the product switch scenario
(section IV.F.2).
5. Summary
In this proposed determination, although some energy savings are
possible in the standards case analysis, there is risk that amended
standards could result in increased energy consumption if consumers
switch to higher water usage products, like faucets (product switch
scenario). Similarly, the product switch scenario would also result in
a negative NPV for the total costs and savings for consumers. As
discussed in section IV.F.2 of this document, the change in product
availability since the 2016 Final Rule makes in more likely that
consumers would switch to higher water usage products in the presence
of amended standards. Therefore, it is more likely that amended
standards could result in increases in water, energy, and costs. The
risk of these potential increases outweigh the cost effectiveness of
any new or amended standards.
As such, any potential benefits from amended standards are
outweighed by this risk and the additional burden on manufacturers. DOE
has tentatively determined based on the estimated negative NIA values
resulting from product switching and the estimated additional burden on
manufacturers, new or amended standards would not be economically
justified. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that amended
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are not needed. DOE will
consider all comments received on this proposed determination in
issuing any final determination.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This proposed determination has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a
result, the OMB did not review this proposed determination.

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 E.O. 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 rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (<a href="https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, if adopted, the
determination would not amend any energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination,
if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for
this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the

[[Page 46354]]

Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

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. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, 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 product, including
commercial prerinse spray valves. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The
collection-of-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 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the 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

DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021 DOE's regulations include a
categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or rulings
with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D,
appendix A4 DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will
complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. 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 determination
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)
Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 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 E.O. 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). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 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
E.O. 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 determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 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. Public Law 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 them. 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
<a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf</a>.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

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

[[Page 46355]]

Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination 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 E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination 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, 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). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf</a>. DOE has
reviewed this NOPD 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

E.O. 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 the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``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 E.O. 12866,
or any successor Executive 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.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, is not a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not
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.

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.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared Peer Review report pertaining
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\29\
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. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues to
reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process for
considering amended energy conservation standards in the case of the
present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0">https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website at
<a href="https://cms.doe.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines">https://cms.doe.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines</a>. 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 an interest in the topics addressed in this
notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit such request
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d594a5a5b9bcb4bbb6b086a1b4bbb1b4a7b1a684a0b0a6a1bcbabba695b0b0fbb1bab0fbb2baa3">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional

[[Page 46356]]

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 webinar. 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 webinar and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed determination.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments received before the webinar, allow
time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this
proposed determination. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, 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. 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 proposed
determination. The official conducting the webinar/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 webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this NOPD and will be accessible on the DOE website. 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 determination 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 document.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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. No 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, written in English, and 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 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 two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
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 seeks comment on its determination that PCAs would not
change the flow rate or spray force at DOE's test pressure.
2. DOE seeks comment on its new max-tech efficiency level for
product class 1.

[[Page 46357]]

3. DOE seeks comment and data regarding any changes in MPC that
would not be accounted for by updating the cost analysis of the
previously conducted product teardowns. Specifically, DOE seeks any
data that would contradict its determination of no incremental cost
associated with improvements in efficiency of commercial prerinse
spray valves.
4. DOE seeks comment on the markup channels, the percentage
through each channel, and the baseline markup of commercial prerinse
spray valves.
5. DOE seeks comment on the methods to improve DOE's energy-use
analysis, as well as any supporting alternate operating hour
estimates for operation of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE
seeks comment on water pressure and the end-use temperature.
6. DOE seeks comment on the product-class switching methodology
used in this analysis, including any logic consumers may employ when
switching as well as the portion of consumers that may switch.
7. DOE seeks comment on the approach used to analyze the
possibility of some consumers exiting the CPSV market for higher
flow-rate products, including any logic consumers may employ when
switching as well as the portion of consumers that may switch.
8. DOE seeks comment on the use of 6.89 as a real discount rate
for CPSV manufacturers.
9. DOE seeks comment on the methodology for estimating
manufacturer conversion costs used in the two conversion cost
scenarios (the sourced conversion cost scenario and the fabricated
conversion cost scenario). Additionally, DOE seeks comment of how
many manufacturers fabricate plastic nozzles in-house verses how
many manufacturers out-source the production of the plastic nozzles
for their commercial prerinse spray valves.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination.

Signing Authority

This document of

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on August 18, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.