Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 35383-35394 [2020-12438]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35383-35394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034]


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

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

ACTION: Request for information and early assessment review.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an early 
assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards 
would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended 
energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves 
(``CPSVs''). Specifically, through this request for information 
(``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency 
to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: Would not result in a 
significant savings of energy; is not technologically feasible; is not 
economically justified; or any combination of foregoing. DOE also 
welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the 
scope of this document (including those topics not specifically 
raised), as well as the submission of data and other relevant 
information concerning this early assessment review.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0034, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034 in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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:

[[Page 35384]]

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Process
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Markups Analysis
    F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
    G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    H. Shipments
    I. National Impact Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

1. Authority
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency and water efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ 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), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(dd)) EPCA prescribed the initial energy conservation standards (in 
terms of flow rate) for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(dd)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 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).
    Federal energy and water efficiency requirements for covered 
products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and 
regulations concerning energy and water conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    EPCA requires that, not later than six years after the issuance of 
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to 
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In making a 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must 
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant 
conservation of energy and water, (2) are technologically feasible, and 
(3) are cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the 
benefits of a standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent 
practicable, considering the savings in operating costs throughout the 
estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) 
compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges 
for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely 
to result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE determines not to 
amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, not later than three 
years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend 
standards, DOE must publish either a notice 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))
    In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against 
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following 
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard 
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not 
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
2. Background
    DOE codified the energy conservation standards initially prescribed 
by EPCA, which established a maximum flow rate of 1.6 gallons per 
minute (gpm) for commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured 
beginning January 1, 2006. 70 FR 60407 (October 18, 2005). On January 
26, 2016, DOE issued a final rule establishing three product classes of 
commercial prerinse spray valves (defined by spray force in ounce-force 
(ozf)) and associated energy conservation standards for each product 
class. 81 FR 4748 (``January 2016 CPSV Final Rule''). The current 
energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, section 266. The currently 
applicable DOE test procedures for commercial prerinse spray valves 
appear at 10 CFR 431.264.
    DOE is publishing this early assessment review RFI to collect data 
and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE 
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.

B. Rulemaking Process

    Pursuant to DOE's recently amended ``Process Rule'' (85 FR 8626; 
Feb. 14, 2020), DOE stated that as a first step in a proceeding to 
consider establishing or amending an energy conservation standard, such 
as the existing standards for CPSVs at issue in this notice, DOE would 
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that DOE is 
considering the initiation of a

[[Page 35385]]

proceeding, and as part of that notice, DOE would request the 
submission of related comments, including data and information showing 
whether any new or amended standard would satisfy the relevant 
requirements in EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard. 
Based on the information received in response to the notice and its own 
analysis, DOE would determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for 
a new or amended standard, or issue a proposed determination that the 
standards do not need to be amended.
    When prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, DOE 
must follow specific statutory criteria. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy or, in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, or 
urinals, water efficiency, which is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE notes that the 
significant energy (water) savings requirement does not apply to 
prerinse spray valves. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) (specifying 
significant conservation of water for only ``showerheads, faucets, 
water closets, or urinals''); see also 85 FR 8626, 8671. Likewise, the 
prohibition on amending a standard to allow greater water use does not 
apply to prerinse spray valves. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) (prohibiting 
the prescription of any amended standard which increases the maximum 
allowable water use of only showerheads, faucets, water closets or 
urinals).
    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 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))

    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 of 
this early assessment review RFI shows the individual analyses that are 
performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

                           Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                                    Corresponding DOE analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............   Shipments Analysis.
                                          National Impact Analysis.
                                          Energy and Water Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility..............   Market and Technology Assessment.
                                          Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers   Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
     and Consumers.                       Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
                                          Shipments Analysis.
    2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings    Markups for Product Price Determination.
     Compared to Increased Cost for the   Energy and Water Use Determination.
     Product.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
    3. Total Projected Energy Savings..   Shipments Analysis.
                                          National Impact Analysis.
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance   Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of         Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
     Competition.
    6. Need for National Energy and       Shipments Analysis.
     Water Conservation.
                                          National Impact Analysis.
    7. Other Factors the Secretary        Employment Impact Analysis.
     Considers Relevant.                  Utility Impact Analysis.
                                          Emissions Analysis.
                                          Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                          Regulatory Impact Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section I.A, DOE is publishing this early assessment 
review RFI to collect data and information that could enable the agency 
to determine whether DOE 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.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE has identified a variety 
of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the 
technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for 
commercial prerinse spray valves may be warranted.
    Issue 1: As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there 
have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most 
recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider 
more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information 
that could enable the

[[Page 35386]]

agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result 
in a significant savings of energy or water; (2) is not technologically 
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of 
the foregoing.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition of commercial 
prerinse spray valve, as codified at 10 CFR 431.262. The definition of 
commercial prerinse spray valve was most recently amended in a test 
procedure final rule. 80 FR 81441 (December 30, 2015). A commercial 
prerinse spray valve is ``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 and ware washing 
equipment.'' 10 CFR 431.262.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the CPSV industry that 
will be used to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new 
standard'' determination. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative 
information to characterize the structure of the industry and market. 
DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, 
addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve 
energy and water efficiency or reduce energy and water consumption, and 
explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and 
manufacturing of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE also reviews 
product literature, industry publications, and company websites. 
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to 
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for 
commercial prerinse spray valves.
1. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a standard higher or lower than that which applies (or would apply) for 
such type (or class) for any group of covered products that have the 
same function or intended use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a 
determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a separate product class, DOE must consider such factors as 
the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. Id.
    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 ozf. 10 CFR 431.262. Table II.1 lists the 
current three product classes for commercial prerinse spray valves.

   Table II.1--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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE referenced an 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense[supreg] field study, 
which found that low water pressure, or spray force, can be a source of 
user dissatisfaction. 81 FR 4748, 4758-4759. Further, DOE explained 
that their market research had 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). Id
    Issue 2: DOE requests feedback and data on any changes to the end-
user applications of each product class (1) cleaning delicate glassware 
and removing loose food particles from dishware, (2) cleaning wet food, 
(3) cleaning baked-on food. Further, DOE requests feedback on the 
commercial sectors purchasing commercial prerinse spray valves in each 
product class.
    The spray force boundaries for the three product classes were 
determined based on an analyses of commercial prerinse spray valves on 
the market including a wide range of manufacturers, flow rates, and 
spray hole shapes and test results of commercial prerinse spray valves 
with shower-type spray shapes. 81 FR 4748, 4759-4760. DOE stated that 
shower-type spray shapes provide the distinct utility of minimizing 
``splash back'' that can be associated with nozzle-type designs at 
higher flow rates. Id. Preliminary research indicates that many of 
these shower-type commercial prerinse spray valves are in product class 
2 (>5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf), with few in product class 3 (>8.0 ozf).
    Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the current CPSV product classes 
and whether changes to these individual product classes and their 
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged 
or separated (e.g., merging product class 2 and 3, further 
distinguishing commercial prerinse spray valves in product class 1 
based on levels of efficiency, etc.). DOE further requests feedback on 
whether combining certain classes could impact product utility by 
eliminating any performance-related features or by impacting the 
stringency of the current energy conservation standard for these 
products. DOE also requests comment on separating any of the existing 
product classes and whether it would impact product utility by 
eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any compliance 
burdens.
    Issue 4: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product 
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, 
DOE requests information on other performance-related features (e.g., 
cleanability, equipment usage time, splash-back, spray distance, etc.) 
that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the 
corresponding impacts on energy and water use that would justify 
separate product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of 
these performance-related features would increase or decrease energy or 
water consumption).
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent 
rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves. A complete list of 
those prior technology options 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

[[Page 35387]]

    (6) Venturi meter to orifice plate nozzle geometries.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 is not aware of any new technology options for reducing CPSV 
flow rate since the publication of the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.
    Issue 5: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed regarding 
their applicability to the current market and how these technologies 
may impact the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves as 
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks 
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were 
considered in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
that are currently available for each technology option.
    Issue 6: DOE seeks information on any new technologies for reducing 
the flow rate of commercial prerinse spray valves, including their 
market adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating them into 
products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, 
manufacturing/production/implementation issues, etc.).
    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact product features or consumer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration. 
In this early assessment RFI, DOE seeks data and information with 
respect to technologies previously screened out or retained that could 
enable the agency to determine whether to 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 
the foregoing.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (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 of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Adverse Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. 
If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
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 will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    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. See 85 FR 8626, 8705.
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Table II.2 of this RFI summarizes the technology options that DOE 
screened out in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, and the applicable 
screening criteria.

                              Table II.2--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 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  ....................  ................  ....................  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in section II.B.2 with respect to commercial 
prerinse spray valves. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how 
these same criteria would affect any other technology options not 
already identified in this document with respect to their potential use 
in commercial prerinse spray valves.
    Issue 9: With respect to the screened-out technology options listed 
in Table II.2 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether these 
options would, based on current and projected assessments regarding 
each of them, remain screened out under the five screening criteria 
described in this section. With respect to each of these technology 
options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) taken to 
facilitate the introduction of each option to improve the energy 
performance of commercial prerinse spray valves and the potential to 
impact consumer utility of the commercial prerinse spray valves.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for

[[Page 35388]]

consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the cost-
efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer 
production cost (``MPC'') associated with increasing the efficiency of 
products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible 
(``max-tech'') efficiency level for each product class. In this early 
assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information with respect to 
these cost-benefit calculations that could enable the agency to 
determine whether to 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 the foregoing.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs)'' for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as 
a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or 
typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that 
meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides 
basic consumer utility.
    The current minimum energy conservations standards (for which 
compliance has been required beginning January 28, 2019) represent the 
current efficiency levels for each product class. The current standards 
for each product class are based on flow rate in gpm. The current 
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are found at 10 CFR 
431.266.
    Issue 10: DOE requests feedback on whether the current energy 
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are 
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to consider in 
evaluating whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination.
    Issue 11: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed product classes that are not 
currently in place or for the contemplated combined product classes, as 
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. For 
the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE analyzed all three CPSV product 
classes. The maximum available efficiencies for these three analyzed 
product classes are included in Table II.3 of this early assessment 
review RFI.

        Table II.3--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Flow rate
                                             Flow rate      percentage
                                               (gpm)       below current
                                                             standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1.........................            0.62            38.0
Product Class 2.........................            0.73            39.2
Product Class 3.........................            1.13            11.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech 
efficiency levels based on the least consumptive tested commercial 
prerinse spray valve in each product class. See chapter 5 of the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule technical support document (TSD) \5\ for 
the analysis of max-tech efficiency levels in that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For 
Consumer Products And Commercial And Industrial Equipment: 
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves,'' is available at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 12: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for 
potential consideration in determining whether DOE could propose a ``no 
new standard determination'' for the products at issue--and if not, why 
not.
    Issue 13: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options.
    In the January 2016 CPSV 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 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For 
Consumer Products And Commercial And Industrial Equipment: 
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, p. 5-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.005


[[Page 35389]]


    Issue 14: DOE requests comment and data on whether Eq. 1 continues 
to be applicable for determining the flow rate or spray force of a 
commercial prerinse spray valve on the market. If not, include any 
characteristics or technologies which would allow CPSV flow rates to be 
greater or lesser than that predicted by Eq. 1.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product 
classes. For the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships by conducting teardowns of existing products 
and estimating the efficiency improvements and costs associated with 
incorporating specific design options into the assumed baseline model 
for each analyzed product class.
    For the three product classes analyzed in the January 2016 CPSV 
Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves and concluded that 
manufacturing production cost was unaffected by efficiency level, both 
within product classes and across product classes. See chapter 5 of the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for the cost-efficiency curves 
developed in that rulemaking.
    Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in section II.B.2 of this 
document to increase energy efficiency in CPSVs beyond the baseline. 
This includes information on the order in which manufacturers would 
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the 
efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the 
increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that 
would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information 
regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's 
ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response 
to consumer demand.
    Issue 16: DOE also seeks input on whether there is an increase in 
MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option. 
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated 
for design options in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule have changed 
since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the 
investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, 
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling 
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement 
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
    Issue 17: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options 
may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific product 
classes.
    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. For the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used a manufacturer 
markup of 1.30 for all commercial prerinse spray valves as the market 
share weighted average value for the industry. See chapter 6 of the 
2016 Final Rule TSD.
    Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the manufacturer markup 
of 1.30 is an appropriate markup to represent the market share weighted 
average value for the industry. DOE also seeks data on any changes to 
the manufacturer markup since the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.

E. Markups Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to markups for commercial prerinse spray valves that could 
enable the agency to determine whether to 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 
the foregoing.
    DOE derives customer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate), 
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major 
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with 
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and 
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products 
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental 
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the 
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and 
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in 
generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') 
analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''). Table II.4 provides 
the portion of equipment passing through different distribution 
channels, and Table II.5 provides the associated markups used in the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.

    Table II.4--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage
          Channel                     Pathway            through channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                            Manufacturer [rarr] Final                17
                              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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table II.5--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Baseline Markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Channel                     Pathway           Baseline markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                             Manufacturer [rarr]                  1.67*
                               Final Consumer (Direct
                               Sales).
B                             Manufacturer [rarr]                   1.67
                               Authorized Distributor
                               [rarr] Final Consumer.
C                             Manufacturer [rarr]                   1.52
                               Retailer [rarr] Final
                               Consumer.
D                             Manufacturer [rarr]                   1.92
                               Service Company [rarr]
                               Final Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Direct sales baseline markup assumed equal to that for distributors
  (i.e., manufacturers would not undercut authorized distributors).


[[Page 35390]]

    Issue 19: DOE requests information on the markups per distribution 
channel as well as the portion of equipment sold that pass through each 
distribution channel.

F. Energy and Water Use Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray 
valves that could enable the agency to determine whether to 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 the foregoing.
    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water 
use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and 
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy and water 
efficiency improvements. DOE bases the energy and water consumption of 
commercial prerinse spray valves on the rated annual energy and water 
consumption as determined by the DOE test procedure. Along similar 
lines, the energy and water use analysis is meant to represent typical 
energy and water consumption in the field. To develop annual energy and 
water use estimates, DOE multiplies annual usage (in hours per year) by 
the flow rate (gpm). DOE characterizes representative commercial 
prerinse spray valves in the engineering analysis, which provide 
measured flow rates. In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, to 
characterize the country's average use of commercial prerinse spray 
valves for a typical year, DOE developed annual operating hours, using 
data from Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Table II.6 of 
this early assessment review RFI lists the operating hours from the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.

   Table II.6--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Annual Operating Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Average
                                                            annual CPSV
           Building type                  Schedule        operating time
                                                               hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education:
    K-12..........................  Weekday only........             135
    K-12..........................  7 days per week.....             188
    College/University............  7 days per week.....             282
Food Retail:
    All groups....................  7 days per week.....              39
Healthcare:
    Outpatient....................  7 days per week.....             587
    Inpatient.....................  7 days per week.....             978
Lodging:
    Dormitory.....................  7 days per week.....             463
    Motel/Hotel...................  7 days per week.....             540
Restaurant:
    All groups....................  Weekday only........             259
    All groups....................  7 days per week.....             544
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Operating Time Across Building Groups..             426
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, annual water use was 
determined by multiplying the annual operating time by the flow rate at 
an operating pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi). Annual site 
energy use was calculated by multiplying the annual water use in 
gallons by the energy required to each gallon of water to an end-use 
temperature of 108 [deg]F. 81 FR 4748, 4766.
    Issue 20: DOE seeks feedback on the annual CPSV operating times as 
shown in Table II.6.
    Issue 21: DOE seeks feedback on operating pressure of the water 
typically supplied to commercial prerinse spray valves and DOE's 
assumption of an operating pressure of 60 psi. If DOE should consider 
use of a different operating pressure, DOE requests data in support of 
the alternate value. Additionally, DOE seeks information and data on 
how the water operating pressure affects energy and water use of 
commercial prerinse spray valves.
    Issue 22: DOE seeks feedback on the assumed end-use water 
temperature of the water leaving the commercial prerinse spray valves. 
If DOE should consider a different water temperature, DOE requests data 
in support of the alternate temperature.

G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to life-cycle cost and payback periods for commercial 
prerinse spray valves that could enable the agency to determine whether 
to 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 the foregoing.
    DOE conducts the LCC and the payback period (``PBP'') analysis to 
evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation 
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves on individual customers. 
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in 
LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total 
customer expense over the life of the equipment, consisting of 
purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for energy and 
water use). Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include 
the cost of the equipment (which includes MSPs, distribution channel 
markups, and sales taxes) and installation costs. Inputs to the 
calculation of operating expenses include annual energy and water 
consumption, energy and water prices and price projections, equipment 
lifetimes, discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and 
amended standards is required.
    Based on the nature of commercial prerinse spray valves, in the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE established several assumptions 
specific to this equipment. First, commercial prerinse spray valves are 
typically replaced entirely upon failure rather than

[[Page 35391]]

repaired. Because of this feature, there were no repair or maintenance 
costs included in operating costs calculations. Second, purchasing 
price and installed costs were estimated to be the same across all 
product classes and efficiency levels. With the purchasing price and 
the installed cost, which are the same for the baseline and efficiency 
levels, those costs cancel each other out in the LCC calculation. 
Therefore, LCC savings come entirely from the operating cost savings.
    Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether the assumptions of zero 
maintenance and repair costs and fixed installed costs across all 
product classes are still valid.
    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE defined equipment lifetime 
as the age when a commercial prerinse spray valve is retired from 
service. Based on data and Weibull distribution, the average lifetime 
was 4.9 years. In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, lifetime did not 
vary across product classes or by efficiency level. DOE assumed that 
around 10 percent of new food establishments fail within the first year 
and the commercial prerinse spray valve was no longer in use. 
Therefore, the lifetime distribution had a 10 percent failure rate in 
the first year followed by conventional Weibull distribution with 
average life of 5 years and maximum life of 10 years.
    Issue 24: DOE requests the information on the failure rates and 
lifetime distribution for commercial prerinse spray valves.
    Issue 25: DOE seeks feedback on whether the CPSV average operating 
lifetime is valid for use in the present analyses and if not, why not? 
If an alternate value (or values) should be used, what value (or 
values) should DOE use instead and why? Please provide relevant data in 
support of any alternative values that DOE should use.
    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used water prices from the 
American Water Works Association (``AWWA'') and energy prices from the 
Energy Information Administration (``EIA'') database of commercial 
electricity and natural gas prices.
    Issue 26: DOE seeks feedback on whether alternate water and energy 
price datasets should be considered. DOE requests relevant data and 
sources in support of any alternative values or methods that are 
suggested.
    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, the installation costs 
consisted only of the labor costs of the individual installing the 
commercial prerinse spray valve and were assumed to be the same for 
each product class and efficiency level. To determine the labor costs 
associated with the installation of commercial prerinse spray valves, 
DOE assumed that the consumer maintenance personnel would be installing 
the equipment and that it would take a single employee 1 hour to 
completely install the equipment. Because maintenance employees for 
different types of businesses and buildings have different hourly 
wages, the installation costs varied by building type. In the January 
2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used hourly wage data for grounds maintenance 
employees via the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as national 
minimum wage data, as presented in Table II.7. For restaurant and 
retail consumers, installation costs for all product classes and 
efficiency levels were the value of 1 hour of minimum wage. For 
healthcare, lodging, and education consumers, installation costs for 
all product classes and efficiency levels were the value of 1 hour of 
grounds maintenance employee mean wages.

                                     Table II.7--Labor Cost by Building Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Healthcare                       Lodging         Education       Restaurants         Retail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$16.75......................................          $16.75           $16.75            $7.25            $7.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 8 of the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for the 
installation cost estimates developed for the January 2016 CPSV Final 
Rule.
    Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on the costs associated with 
installing a commercial prerinse spray valve, specifically the number 
of hours (or fraction thereof) to install a commercial prerinse spray 
valve as well as labor rates DOE should use to analyze the costs of 
installation. If DOE should consider alternate assumptions, DOE 
requests the corresponding references and data.

H. Shipments Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to CPSV shipments that could enable the agency to 
determine whether to 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 the foregoing.
    DOE develops shipments forecasts of commercial prerinse spray 
valves to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on energy and water consumption, net present 
value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments 
projections are based on available historical data broken out by 
product class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow 
for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE relied on historic data 
from the EPA's WaterSense[supreg] Field Study and an industry source to 
develop the projections presented in Table II.8 of this RFI. EPA's 
Field Study estimates 1.35 million units installed circa 2010 based on 
the assumption of one commercial prerinse spray valve per restaurant 
and restaurants representing 70 percent of the market. See Chapter 9 of 
the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD.

                        Table II.8--Projected Shipments From January 2016 CPSV Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent of                      Percent of
                  Product class                        2017          shipments         2018          shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray Force <= 5 ozf............................          22,426              10          22,874              10
Spray Force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf................          67,278              30          68,623              30
Spray Force > 8 ozf.............................         134,556              60         137,247              60
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35392]]

 
    Total.......................................         224,259             100         228,744             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 28: DOE seeks shipment data on commercial prerinse spray 
valves shipped over the last 5-year period, separated by spray force. 
DOE also seeks feedback on how the projected shipments in Table II.8 
compare to actual shipments of commercial prerinse spray valves in 
these years. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not 
available at the product type level, DOE requests more aggregated 
fractions of annual sales at the category level.
    Issue 29: DOE seeks feedback on how common it is for food 
establishments (e.g., restaurants or food sales) to have more than one 
commercial prerinse spray valve and the factors of why of commercial 
prerinse spray valves are chosen for purchase (e.g., spray force, 
intended function such as washing glass vs. pots, etc.).
    Product class switching can occur when consumers opt to choose a 
different product than they would normally purchase because of a 
perceived change. This change may be an amended standard, the costs 
associated with the new product, or features (e.g., need for greater 
flow rate or spray force for commercial prerinse spray valves). As a 
result of product class switching, consumers purchase more products of 
a different product class than originally projected.
    Issue 30: DOE seeks information about whether product class 
switching occurred as a result of the previous amended rule, and if so 
to what extent. DOE also seeks information about if product class 
switching would be expected under possible amended standards and if so, 
which directions and what key metrics would induce the product class 
switching. DOE requests information on the evidence of such switching 
and the extent of it.

I. National Impact Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to national impacts that could enable the agency to 
determine whether to 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 the foregoing.
    The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic 
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The 
NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total customer costs and 
savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards 
at specific efficiency levels.
    In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE evaluated the impacts of 
new and amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves by 
comparing no-new-standards-case projections with standards-case 
projections. The no-new-standards-case projections characterize energy 
use and customer costs for each product class in the absence of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. DOE compared these projections 
with projections characterizing the market for each product class if 
DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency 
levels (i.e., the trial standards levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) 
for that class. In charactering the no-new-standards and standards 
cases, DOE considered historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies 
sold in the absence of amended standards, and how that mix may change 
over time. In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE assumed no rebound 
effect for commercial prerinse spray valves.\7\ See chapter 10 of the 
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for additional discussion of the NIA 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The rebound effect refers to the tendency of a customer to 
respond to the cost savings associated with more efficient equipment 
in a manner that leads to marginally greater equipment usage, 
thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated benefits related to 
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 31: DOE seeks comment and information on whether a rebound 
rate of 0 percent is appropriate for commercial prerinse spray valves. 
If an alternate rebound rate should be used, DOE requests information 
and data in support of the alternate rate.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to manufacturer impacts that could enable the agency to 
determine whether to 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 the foregoing.
    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves, and to evaluate 
the potential impact of such standards on direct employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and 
qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies 
on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-
flow model adapted for each product in this analysis, with the key 
output of industry net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part 
of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation 
standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well 
as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular 
subgroups of manufacturers, and important market and product trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\8\ Manufacturing of commercial prerinse spray valves 
is classified under NAICS 332919, ``Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting 
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less 
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This 
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company 
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining 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 or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a

[[Page 35393]]

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 conducts an analysis of cumulative 
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance 
efficiency.
    Issue 32: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute commercial prerinse spray valves in the United States.
    Issue 33: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact 
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's 
size threshold, of commercial prerinse spray valves that manufacture 
products in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any 
other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted 
by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any 
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue 34: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray 
valves associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different 
products that these manufacturers may also make and (2) product-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also 
requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory 
burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that 
would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray 
valves.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and 
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought 
information to better understand market trends and issues in the 
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that 
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to 
ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in 
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards 
for covered products and equipment. As part of this early assessment 
review RFI, DOE seeks comments, data, and information on the issues 
presented in this document as they may be applicable to energy 
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.
3. Other Issues
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this early assessment review that may not specifically be 
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under 
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage 
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to 
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). 
Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to 
provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its 
energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable 
to commercial prerinse spray valves while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and 
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters 
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations 
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. After the close of the 
comment period, DOE will review the public comments received, and may 
begin collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this 
document.
    Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office 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 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. If this instruction is followed, 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 https://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through https://www.regulations.gov 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 CBI 
section.
    DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be

[[Page 35394]]

publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any 
accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a 
cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, 
telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will 
not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No 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, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    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).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members 
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist 
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive 
future notices and information about this process or would like to 
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 8, 
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary 
of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is 
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance 
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 4, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-12438 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P