Rulemaking Framework for

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves

Docket # EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Building Technologies Office

September 4, 2014
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

1.1 The Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standards Program ...............................1

1.2 Definitions...................................................................................................................2

1.3 Current Energy Conservation Standards.....................................................................3

1.4 Overview of the Rulemaking Process.........................................................................4

1.4.1 Preliminary Analysis....................................................................................5

1.4.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ..................................................................6

1.4.3 Final Rule.....................................................................................................7

1.5 Test Procedures...........................................................................................................7

1.6 Labeling ......................................................................................................................8

2. ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING..............................................................................8

3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT....................................................11

3.1 Market Assessment ...................................................................................................11

3.1.1 Manufacturer Trade Group ........................................................................12

3.1.2 Manufacturers and Market Shares.............................................................13

3.2 Equipment Classes....................................................................................................17

3.3 Technology Assessment............................................................................................18

4. SCREENING ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................19

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS......................................................................................20

5.1 Overview...................................................................................................................20

5.2 Baseline Models........................................................................................................21

5.3 Efficiency Levels......................................................................................................22

5.4 Cost-Efficiency Relationship and Analysis..............................................................23

5.5 Proprietary Designs...................................................................................................24

5.6 Other Regulatory Changes Affecting the Engineering Analysis..............................24

6. MARKUPS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................25

7. ENERGY AND WATER USE ANALYSIS ...............................................................26

8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS .................................27

8.1 Analytical Approach .................................................................................................27

8.2 Installation Costs.......................................................................................................28

8.3 Energy Prices............................................................................................................29

8.4 Water Prices..............................................................................................................29

8.5 Maintenance and Repair Costs..................................................................................29

8.6 Equipment Lifetime ..................................................................................................30

8.7 Discount Rates..........................................................................................................30

9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................30

9.1 Standards Impacts on Shipments..............................................................................31

10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................31

10.1 Energy and Water Efficiency Trends........................................................................31

10.2 National Water and Energy Savings.........................................................................32

10.3 Net Present Value .....................................................................................................33

11. CUSTOMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS.....................................................................33

12. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................34

12.1 Sources of Information for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis................................34

12.2 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis....................................................................................35
ii

12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis.............................................................................36

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment .............................................................................36

12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden ................................................................................37

13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS.................................................................................38

14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS.....................................................................38

15. EMISSIONS ANALYSIS............................................................................................39

16. MONETIZING REDUCED CO2 AND OTHER EMISSIONS..................................42

17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS .....................................................................43

APPENDIX A – LIST OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT.........................................................44

APPENDIX B – DRAFT PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 

QUESTIONAIRE .................................................................................................................48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process.......................................................... 10

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Basic Models per Manufacturer in the United States Market .............. 14
iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

ARMTCA American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOM bill of materials

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CCMS Compliance Certification Management System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

CSA Canadian Standards Association

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

CSL candidate standard level

CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council

D.C. District of Columbia

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

EGU electric generating unit

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

FFC full-fuel-cycle

FTC Federal Trade Commission

GHG greenhouse gas

gpm gallons per minute

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model 

HAP hazardous air pollutant

Hg mercury

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

LCC life-cycle cost

MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

MIA manufacturer impact analysis

MPC manufacturer production cost

NAFEM North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEMS National Energy Modeling System 

NES national energy savings

NIA national impact analysis

NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking 

NOX oxides of nitrogen

NPV net present value

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget

PBP payback period
iv

PM particulate matter

PMI Plumbing Manufacturers International

psi per square inch

SBA Small Business Administration

SCC social cost of carbon

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission 

SO2 sulfur dioxide

TSD technical support document

TSL trial standard level
1

Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to describe the procedural and analytical approaches the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) anticipates using to evaluate energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves.

The DOE Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program, in the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Building Technologies Office, develops and 

promulgates test procedures and energy conservation standards for consumer appliances and 

commercial equipment. The process for developing standards involves analyses, public notice, 

and consultation with interested parties. Such parties, collectively referred to as interested parties 

or stakeholders, include manufacturers, customers, energy conservation and environmental 

advocates, State and Federal agencies, and any other groups or individuals having an interest in 

the energy conservation standards and test procedures.

This document is intended to inform stakeholders of the standards rulemaking process for 

commercial prerinse spray valves and to encourage and facilitate stakeholder input during the 

rulemaking. This document is the starting point for developing standards and is not a definitive 

statement with respect to any issue to be determined in the rulemaking.

Section 1 provides an overview of the rulemaking process. Sections 2 through 17 discuss 

analyses DOE intends to conduct to fulfill the statutory requirements and guidance for this 

standards rulemaking. DOE’s analyses will determine whether new energy conservation 

standards are technologically feasible, economically justified and would result in significant 

energy savings. DOE will conduct an engineering analysis, a life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

period (PBP) analysis, a national impact analysis (NIA), and a manufacturer impact analysis 

(MIA) in addition to other analyses.

Information regarding this rulemaking effort, along with any formal proposal and 

accompanying analyses, will be maintained on the DOE website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100.

This document contains comment boxes that highlight issues on which DOE seeks 

comment and requests feedback from interested parties. The comment boxes are also 

used to ask specific questions on the approaches the DOE is proposing to follow to 

conduct the analyses required for the standards rulemaking. Such requests for 

stakeholder feedback are numbered according to the section in which they appear.

1.1 The Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 

seq.) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of various 

products and equipment. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the 

American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 
2

(Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,”

1 which includes 

commercial prerinse spray valves, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33))

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered consumer 

products and certain commercial and industrial equipment (hereafter referred to as “covered 

products”) consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of 

Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling of consumer products

and DOE implements the remainder of the program, including labeling of commercial and

industrial equipment. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended 

standards for covered products. Any amended standard for a covered product must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required by EPCA to develop test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost, of each covered product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293)

1.2 Definitions

EPCA defines “commercial prerinse spray valve” as “a handheld device designed and 

marketed for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water 

on dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food residue before 

cleaning the items.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A))

Under EPCA, the Secretary may modify the definition of “commercial prerinse spray 

valve” by rule –

(i) to include products –

(I) that are extensively used in conjunction with commercial dishwashing and 

ware washing equipment; 

(II) the application of standards to which would result in significant energy 

savings; and 

(III) the application of standards to which would meet the criteria specified in 

section 6295(o)(4) of this title; and 

(ii) to exclude products –

(I) that are used for special food service applications; 

(II) that are unlikely to be widely used in conjunction with commercial 

dishwashing and ware washing equipment; and 

(III) the application of standards to which would not result in significant energy 

savings. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B))

DOE is considering modifications to the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve to 

ensure coverage of equipment types not explicitly addressed in the current definition, but that are 

substantially similar to or serve the same purpose as those currently addressed by the existing 

 

1

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3

definition (i.e., products that are extensively used in conjunction with commercial dishwashing 

and ware washing equipment), the application of standards to which would result in significant 

energy savings, and that would not likely become unavailable in the market should standards be 

applied to them.

Item 1-1 DOE requests comment on the modification of the definition of “commercial 

prerinse spray valve” to include additional covered equipment types.

1.3 Current Energy Conservation Standards

Section 135(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Pub. L. 109-58, amended 

section 325 of EPCA to add paragraph (dd), which now states that commercial prerinse spray 

valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall have a flow rate of not more than 1.6 

gallons per minute (gpm).

The current energy conservation standard of a maximum flow rate of 1.6 gpm is located 

at 10 CFR 431.266. This standard was placed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as part 

of a technical amendment final rule in October 2005 that placed energy conservation standards, 

test procedures, and related definitions prescribed by Congress into the CFR.

2

70 FR 60407 (Oct. 

18, 2005).

As part of this rulemaking, DOE may consider adopting an alternative water consumption 

metric to replace the flow rate metric currently used as the commercial prerinse spray valve 

standard. DOE will consider alternative metrics that will achieve energy and water savings and 

also take into account preserving the function of the equipment (e.g., to ensure that a reduction in 

flow rate does not significantly increase cleaning time, which would reduce water savings). One 

alternative metric under consideration is a performance metric that takes into account both flow 

rate and spray force (measured in gpm divided by ounce-force). Spray force is the measurement 

of the amount of force exerted by the flow of water, which relates to how well the product 

functions for its intended purpose. This metric may better correlate with efficiency of a prerinse 

spray valve in terms of water needed to remove food or other particles off dishware rather than a

simple measure of flow rate. The most recently issued industry test procedures for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2324-13,

include both flow rate and spray force (see section 1.5). Therefore manufacturers are currently 

required to perform both of these tests to meet the ASTM standard. The current DOE test 

procedure for commercial prerinse spray valves in 10 CFR 431.264, which incorporates by 

 

2 As explained in the October 18, 2005 final rule, apparently due to a legislative drafting error, several types of 

commercial equipment, including commercial prerinse spray valves, were placed in Part B of Title III of EPCA, 

which contains the provisions for the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other than 

Automobiles.” DOE expected at the time that the error would be corrected through legislation and that the 

provisions would become amendments to Part C of EPCA for “Certain Industrial Equipment.” Because the location 

of the provisions within the CFR does not affect either their substance or applicable procedure, DOE placed the

EPAct provisions for each product or type of equipment in the appropriate CFR part based on their nature or type, 

which included placing the regulatory provisions for commercial prerinse spray valves in Title 10 of the CFR, part 

431, “Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment.” 70 FR 60407. 
4

reference ASTM F2324-03 (2009), requires only measurement of flow rate for compliance with 

DOE regulations.

An alternate metric could directly correlate water use and the amount of time it takes to 

clean a dish (measured in gallons per plate washed). This metric would take into account prerinse 

spray valves that have a low flow rate but take substantially longer to accomplish the intended 

function, which ultimately may not save water.

Either of these metrics may allow DOE to establish a standard that more directly 

correlates the efficiency of prerinse spray valves with the primary function of cleaning dishware. 

An alternate metric may also assist DOE in determining different classes of prerinse spray valve 

equipment that are designed for specific applications, thereby enabling the maximum increase in 

water and energy efficiency that does not unnecessarily degrade the utility of a particular class of 

products. In both of these examples above, however, DOE would need to revise the test 

procedure to provide a standardized method for determining ratings under any such new metric. 

Regardless of metric, the final standard would need to be set so that it achieves water and energy

savings and does not violate EPCA’s “anti-backsliding provisions.”

3

Item 1-2 DOE requests comment on potential metrics other than flow rate that may be 

used to achieve greater water savings in commercial prerinse spray valves

and if there is sufficient benefit to using an alternative metric to justify 

changing from the current flow rate (gpm) metric.

1.4 Overview of the Rulemaking Process

Under EPCA, any new or amended standards must achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In setting any new or amended standards, DOE must consider, to the 

greatest extent practicable: (1) the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the affected equipment; (2) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 

average life of equipment compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expense;

(3) the total projected amount of energy and water savings likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; (4) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the equipment 

likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) the impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; (6) the need for national energy and water conservation; and (7) other 

factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) Other statutory 

considerations include those set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)–(2)(A), (2)(B)(ii)–(iii), and (3)–

(4).

 

3 EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a))
5

In its efforts to set energy conservation standards, DOE publishes notices in the Federal 

Register to inform the public about its activities in this effort. Subsequent to announcing the 

availability of the Framework document, DOE typically publishes three additional public notices 

that further advance DOE’s efforts to set standards for a given product or equipment.

The publication of the preliminary analysis (see section 1.4.1) describes in detail the 

analytical framework DOE plans to apply, and this presents the public with the opportunity to 

evaluate and provide substantive feedback on the models and tools that DOE plans to use in 

developing its proposed standards. This step is designed to help facilitate additional public 

participation before DOE formally proposes a rule for public consideration. The approach laid 

out in the preliminary analysis also addresses stakeholder comments to the Framework 

document. Next, DOE publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (see section 1.4.2), 

which presents DOE’s proposed standards. In doing so, the notice addresses comments received 

in response to the preliminary analysis; analyzes the impacts of standards on customers, 

manufacturers, and the nation; and details DOE’s balancing of those impacts. Finally, DOE 

publishes the final rule (see section 1.4.3), which contains any standards DOE may adopt along 

with the applicable compliance dates. The final rule notice addresses comments submitted in 

response to the NOPR, presents any revised analyses of the projected impacts from these 

standards, and discusses DOE’s balancing of the impacts.

DOE considers the participation of all interested parties to be a very important part in the 

process for setting forth energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of interested parties during the comment periods provided at each 

step. Beginning with public comment on the Framework document and during subsequent 

comment periods, interactions among interested parties provide a balanced discussion of critical 

information required to conduct the standards rulemaking. Additionally, DOE encourages the 

development and submission of consensus agreements among stakeholders.

1.4.1 Preliminary Analysis

As part of its efforts in preparing a proposed rule, DOE typically identifies equipment 

design options or candidate standard levels (CSLs) that it will analyze in detail and those it 

should eliminate from further consideration. This process includes a market and technology 

assessment (see section 3) and a screening analysis (see section 4). These activities include 

identifying the key issues and design options or CSLs to be considered by DOE as it develops a 

rulemaking proposal.

At the start of the preliminary analysis, DOE considers CSLs for each equipment class. 

DOE uses these CSLs to collect manufacturer cost data, historical shipment data, shipmentweighted average efficiency data, and preliminary manufacturer impact data (e.g., capital 

conversion expenditures, marketing costs, research and development costs). During the 

preliminary analysis stage, DOE presents customer life-cycle cost (LCC) impact and payback 

period (PBP) results (see section 8); national energy savings (NES), national water savings, and 

customer net present value (NPV) results (see section 10) for a range of CSLs; and a preliminary 

MIA (see section 12).
6

DOE analyzes the costs and benefits of CSLs or design options. In addition to the 

efficiency corresponding to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) design and the 

efficiency corresponding to the minimum LCC point, DOE generally selects levels or design 

options for consideration that span the full range of technologically achievable efficiencies.

The current metric used for the energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse 

spray valves is flow rate measured in gallons per minute. An improved CSL (i.e., higher 

efficiency level) for this product reduces flow rate. The reduction in flow rate directly results in 

energy savings due to decreased hot water usage. DOE intends to include water, energy, and 

associated cost savings as part of its analysis of commercial prerinse spray valves.

The range of levels analyzed typically includes the following:

 the least efficient model in the market;

 the current efficiency level, as applicable under 10 CFR part 431;

 the highest CSL that is technologically feasible (the max-tech level);

 the level with the lowest LCC; and

 levels that incorporate noteworthy technologies or fill in large gaps between other 

CSLs considered.

DOE will make the results of the analyses available on its website for review and will 

consider comments on them after publication of the preliminary analysis. As part of this process, 

DOE also makes available for public comment a preliminary technical support document (TSD) 

containing the details of all the analyses performed to date.

1.4.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

After the publication of the preliminary analysis, there is a public comment period and a 

public meeting. DOE also conducts further economic impact analyses. These analyses may 

include refinements of previous analyses, and will include a customer LCC subgroup analysis 

(see section 11), a complete MIA (see section 12), a utility impact analysis (see section 13), an 

employment impact analysis (see section 14), an emissions analysis (see section 15), and a 

regulatory impact analysis (see section 17).

DOE will make the results of all the analyses available on its website for review and will 

consider comments after the publication of the NOPR. This review and comment process may 

result in revisions to the preliminary analyses that DOE performed. The analytical process ends 

with the selection of proposed standard levels presented in the NOPR. DOE selects the proposed 

standard levels from the trial standard levels (TSLs) analyzed. TSLs represent specific 

combinations of efficiency levels in each equipment class that satisfy certain criteria (efficiency 

levels in the NOPR phase are known as CSLs in the preliminary analysis phase). Examples of 

potential TSLs include selecting efficiency levels in each equipment class that maximize 

customer LCC savings, NES, or national NPV. The NOPR, published in the Federal Register, 

will document the evaluation and selection of any proposed standards.

For each equipment class, DOE will identify the maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible. If DOE proposes a level that is below the max-tech level, it will 

sequentially explain the reasons for eliminating higher levels beginning with the highest level 
7

considered. DOE will present the analysis results in the NOPR and the analysis details in an 

accompanying TSD.

DOE considers many factors in selecting its proposed standards. These factors are 

prescribed by EPCA and take into consideration the benefits and costs of the standards. When 

DOE publishes the NOPR, it will provide the Department of Justice (DOJ) with a copy of the 

NOPR and TSD and solicit feedback on the impact of the proposed standard level on 

competition. DOJ will review these standard levels in light of any lessening of competition that 

is likely to result from the imposition of standards. DOE will consider DOJ’s determination on 

the impacts of the proposed standard on competition in preparing the final rule. The NOPR is 

followed by a public comment period that includes a public meeting.

1.4.3 Final Rule

After the publication of the NOPR, DOE will conduct a thorough review of all analyses 

performed, and of the TSLs. Final revisions to the analyses and TSLs will be made as 

appropriate, considering any comments from DOJ and other interested parties.

The standards rulemaking will conclude with the publication of the final rule. DOE will 

select any final standard levels based on the complete record before it, including any comments 

or data submitted in response to the Framework document, preliminary analysis, and NOPR. The 

final rule will promulgate any standard levels and the accompanying date by which all products 

subject to the new standard must be in compliance (the compliance date). If the final rule results 

in amended standards, the final rule notice will also explain the basis for the selection of the 

amended standard level(s). A final TSD will also be made available once the rule is issued.

1.5 Test Procedures

EPCA specifies that the test procedure for measuring flow rate for commercial prerinse 

spray valves shall be based on ASTM Standard F2324, entitled “Standard Test Method for PreRinse Spray Valves.” 42 U.S.C. 6293(14) At the time of its incorporation in the CFR by DOE in

a final rule published on October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60407), the current version of this test method 

was F2324-03. 

EPCA also requires that at least once every 7 years, the Secretary shall review test 

procedures for all covered products and either amend test procedures with respect to any covered 

product (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully 

comply with the requirements of paragraph) or publish notice in the Federal Register of any 

determination not to amend a test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) Accordingly, DOE 

recently conducted a rulemaking to consider adoption of an updated test method for prerinse 

spray valves. On October 23, 2013, DOE published a final rule (the 2013 test procedure final 

rule) that incorporated by reference the test procedure specified in ASTM F2324-03 (2009), 

“Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves” as approved on May 1, 2009. 78 FR 62970 

(October 23, 2013). This test method is essentially a reissuance of the same test method 

incorporated by DOE in its October 18, 2005 final rule.

Since the publication of the 2013 test procedure final rule, ASTM has updated the F2324 

standard to reflect changes in the industry, which was issued as a new version, ASTM F2324-13.
8

DOE has not yet conducted a rulemaking to consider adoption of this most recent version of the 

F2324 standard.

The new ASTM F2324-13 amends the previous test procedure, ASTMF2324-03 (2009), 

in several ways. The primary change in the ASTM test procedure replaces the cleanability test 

with a spray force test. The cleanability test evaluates the cleaning time of a standard dinner 

plate. Spray force (measured in ounce-force) is the measurement of the amount of force exerted 

by the flow of water. This change is based on research conducted by the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) WaterSense®program, which shows the cleanability test has little 

relation to user satisfaction or commercial prerinse spray valve usage time.

DOE is considering revising the test procedure present at 10 CFR part 431, subpart O, for 

commercial prerinse spray valves to reference the new ASTM F2324-13.

Item 1-3 DOE requests comment on the potential use of ASTM F2324-13 as the test 

method required for certification of commercial prerinse spray valves.

1.6 Labeling

EPCA provides labeling requirements for covered products including commercial 

prerinse spray valves. DOE or the Federal Trade Commission may establish labeling 

requirements for prerinse spray valves after a test procedure has been prescribed. (42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(5))

DOE may analyze the appropriateness of a labeling rule in conjunction with the analyses 

for standards described in the remainder of this document.

Item 1-4 DOE seeks comment on whether it should establish a labeling requirement for 

commercial prerinse spray valves.

2. ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKING

The purpose of the analyses conducted in support of the standards rulemaking is to ensure 

that DOE selects energy conservation standards that achieve the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The economic justification 

considers the economic impacts on domestic manufacturers and customers, national benefits 

(including environmental impacts), issues of customer utility, and impacts from any lessening of 

competition. The analyses conducted in support of the standards rulemaking effort help to ensure 

that the final standards meet these criteria of technological feasibility and economic justification.

This section offers an overview of DOE’s analytical methodology and discusses the 

major components of the analyses DOE will conduct. A consistent analytical approach will be 

applied by DOE through its consideration of each analysis as a part of the overall standardssetting framework.
9

Figure 2.1 summarizes the analytical components of the standards-setting process. The 

analyses are presented in the center column. Each analysis has a set of key inputs, which are data 

and information required for the analysis. “Approaches” are the methods that will be used to 

obtain key inputs. For example, some key inputs exist in public databases, some will be collected 

from stakeholders, and some will be developed by the project team in support of DOE’s 

evaluation efforts. The results of each analysis are key outputs, which would feed directly into 

the analytical framework that DOE would apply if it determines that standards would satisfy the 

statutory requirements (i.e., technological feasibility and economic practicability). Arrows

connect one analysis to another indicate the flow of information.
10

Figure 2.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Energy

Conservation Standards Rulemaking Process
11

3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The market and technology assessment will provide information about the commercial 

prerinse spray valve equipment industry. This assessment is used to determine equipment classes 

and identify potential design options or efficiency levels for each equipment class. Section 3.2

discusses the equipment classes being considered; section 3.3 describes the technology 

assessment for this equipment. 

3.1 Market Assessment

DOE will qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the structure of the commercial 

prerinse spray valve equipment industries and markets. In the market assessment, DOE will 

identify and characterize the manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves, estimate market 

shares and trends in the market, address regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to 

improve the water efficiency or reduce the water consumption of commercial prerinse spray 

valves, and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and 

manufacturing of the product. As part of this analysis, DOE will review product literature, 

industry publications, and company websites to gather information on market trends and current 

technology innovation.

DOE will use historical equipment shipments and prices as an aid to create shipment 

scenarios and predict future prices. DOE will also identify important issues such as potential 

small business impacts, competitive disruptions, and other factors that may arise from enacting 

standards. Market structure data will be used to assess competitive impacts as part of the 

manufacturer impact analysis.

There may be limited public information on national shipments, manufacturing costs, 

channels of distribution, product lifetimes, and manufacturer market shares of prerinse spray 

valves. Such data represent an important input for analyses that determine whether efficiency

standards are economically justified, and technologically feasible, and will result in significant 

energy conservation. DOE encourages interested parties to submit data that will improve DOE’s 

understanding of the prerinse spray valve market. These data may be provided under a 

confidentiality agreement with DOE’s contractor responsible for this part of the rulemaking 

analysis. In other rulemakings, DOE’s contractors routinely work with confidential data provided 

by manufacturers and other organizations in preparing aggregated results for DOE’s analyses.

These aggregated results do not divulge the sensitive, individual raw data, but enable other 

interested parties to comment on the aggregated dataset.

Alternatively, interested parties may submit confidential data to DOE, indicating in 

writing which data should remain confidential. Interested parties must submit confidential 

information to DOE according to the procedures outlined in 10 CFR 1004.11. Pursuant to 10 

CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies. One copy of the document must

include all the information believed to be confidential, and the other copy must have the 
12

information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the 

confidential status of the information and treat it accordingly.4

Item 3-1 DOE requests information that would contribute to the market assessment,

including information on current equipment types available on the market, 

range of rated flow rates of equipment, current equipment features, and 

designs related to efficiency.

Item 3-2 DOE welcomes input on estimates of market shares, products, features, and 

trends for the prerinse spray valves covered in this rulemaking.

3.1.1 Manufacturer Trade Group

DOE recognizes the importance of trade groups in distributing information and 

promoting the interests of the industry that they support. Plumbing Manufacturers International 

(PMI) was identified as the primary group that supports and has an interest in commercial 

prerinse spray valves. PMI is a trade organization that represents various plumbing product 

manufacturers working to promote the industry’s growth while promoting water efficiency, 

environmental sustainability, health, and safety. PMI advocates the interests of the plumbing 

product industry regarding Federal and State legislative and regulatory issues. In addition to 

being a charter member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency, and a member of U.S. Green 

Building Council, PMI also promotes and supports the WaterSense program as a partner working 

closely with EPA.

5

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) is another 

organization that may be interested in prerinse spray valves. NAFEM is a trade association of 

over 500 foodservice equipment and supplies manufacturers, including some that manufacture 

prerinse spray valves.

6 DOE plans to contact both NAFEM and PMI to ask if they can provide 

market information on prerinse spray valves.

Item 3-3 DOE seeks information regarding which trade organizations represent the 

commercial prerinse spray valve industry.

 

4

Factors that DOE considers when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) a 

description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; 

(3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other public sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

after which such information might lose its confidential character; and (7) why disclosure of the information would 

be contrary to the public interest.

5

Plumbing Manufacturers International, What is PMI?, www.pmihome.org/files/public/About-PMI(1).pdf.

6 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers, About NAFEM, http://www.nafem.org/aboutnafem/Default.aspx.
13

3.1.2 Manufacturers and Market Shares

This section describes major commercial prerinse spray valve retailers, manufacturers 

and their market shares, and product lifetimes. 

3.1.2.1 Retailers

Prerinse spray valves are generally available to customers from so-called brick-andmortar retailers, Internet sellers, and showrooms. 

Brick-and-mortar retailers have a physical retail building that customers can visit to view 

products and make purchases. There are several sub-types in this category, including:

 mass market retailers—national chain stores such as home centers, discount stores, 

and hardware stores; 

 specialty stores, which usually offer a broad range of products in a narrow product 

category and can be mass market, regional, or independent owners having a single 

retail outlet; and

 club or warehouse stores, which require a membership fee for customers to gain 

access to the goods, which usually are sold in bulk.

Online sales may be via a division of any of the brick-and-mortar retailers, sometimes 

called “clicks and bricks,” or via a dedicated online retailer. DOE lacks information on retailer 

market share for prerinse spray valve, and seeks comment on this issue.

Item 3-4 DOE seeks information on retailers and retailer market share for commercial 

prerinse spray valves.

3.1.2.2 Major Manufacturers

This section describes major commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturers and their 

market shares. The primary manufacturers are shown in Figure 3.1.
14

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Basic Models per Manufacturer in the United States Market

The chart shown in Figure 3.1 was constructed by comparing the number of basic models 

per manufacturer to the total number of basic models in the U.S. market for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. First, DOE researched all the basic models in the DOE Compliance Certification

Management System (CCMS) database.

7 A total of 29 unique basic models from 7 different 

brands were found. After that, all commercial prerinse spray valves from the WaterSense 

database were added to this list.8 A total of 22 unique models were found in the WaterSense 

database, 14 of which also appear in the CCMS database. The remaining eight units were not 

found in any of the following sources: the CCMS database, the manufacturer website, and 

Google search. Therefore, DOE concluded that these eight units are not available in the United 

States and excluded them from Figure 3.1. 

Additional models were found by searching the web. DOE identified the following four 

additional manufacturers: Niagara Conservation, Krowne Metal Corporation, Strahman Valves, 

Inc., and Component Hardware Group, which offered a total of one, two, three and nine basic 

models, respectively. Therefore, Figure 3.1 contains 44 basic models from 11 different brands. 

However, there may be other manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves that are not 

listed in the chart. Further research is required to develop a comprehensive analysis of the spray 

valve market. The market share in terms of sales could also differ significantly from the fraction 

of basic models available for sale. For example, in a study conducted by the California Urban 

 

7

See U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Database, www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.

8

See U.S. EPA, Water Sense, www.epa.gov/watersense/product_search.html.
15

Water Conservation Council, Fisher Manufacturing was said to have a 60 percent of the prerinse 

spray valve market share in the western United States.9

Once the list of brands and basic models was complete, the manufacturers associated with 

every brand were added. DOE research indicates that the Centaur, Equip, and T&S brands are all 

manufactured by T&S Brass; the Trident brand is manufactured by Mueller Streamline Co.; and 

the Encore brand is manufactured by Component Hardware Group. All other brands are named 

after the manufacturer that produces them. 

Item 3-5 DOE seeks information on major manufacturers that may have been 

overlooked in this Framework document.

3.1.2.3 Historical Shipments

The EPA’s WaterSense program estimates that 306,000 commercial prerinse spray valves 

were sold in the United States in 2012.10 This was determined based on a National Restaurant 

Association (NRA) estimate of approximately 970,000 commercial food establishments 

operating in the United States as of 2012, and WaterSense’s estimate of approximately 1.5 

prerinse spray valves being used in each establishment. Additionally, WaterSense estimates that 

approximately 20 percent of the estimated 1.5 million prerinse spray valves are replaced each 

year and that the number of new restaurants grows by 1 percent annually. 

Additionally, some states and utilities have also examined annual sales of prerinse spray 

valves for the states in which their studies were conducted. In 2004, a study commissioned by the 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company estimated the total annual sales volume of commercial 

prerinse spray valves in the state of California was 18,000.

11 In 2007, based on the assumption 

that 100,000 prerinse spray valves with a 5-year life expectancy were installed in California, the 

California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) estimated that approximately 20,000 

spray valves were replaced each year. CUWCC also reported that Fisher Manufacturing

estimated that about 30,000 of its commercial prerinse spray valves were sold in California every 

year. With this information, and the assumption that Fisher held 60 percent of the prerinse spray 

valve market share in the Western United States, the CUWCC further estimated that 50,000 

prerinse spray valves were sold in California annually.

12

 

9

See SBW Consulting, Inc., Impact and Process Evaluation Final Report (Feb. 2007), available at 

www.cuwcc.org/Portals/0/Pre-Rinse%20Spray%20Valve%20Program%20Phase%202.pdf.

10 See U.S. EPA, WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pr-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement (Sept. 

2013), available at www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_suppstate_09.19.13_final_508.pdf.

11 See Energy Solutions, Draft Analysis of Standards Options for Pre-Rinse Spray Valves (May 2004), available at 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2003rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_PreRinse_Spray_Valves.pdf.

12 See SBW Consulting, Inc., Impact and Process Evaluation Final Report (Feb. 2007), available at 

www.cuwcc.org/Portals/0/Pre-Rinse%20Spray%20Valve%20Program%20Phase%202.pdf
16

Based upon an estimate of approximately 100,00013 restaurants in California, 

approximately 10 percent of all restaurants in the United States are in California 

(100,000/970,000), and thus, approximately 10 percent of spray valve sales could also be 

expected to occur in California. Using the average of CUWCC’s two estimates for the number of 

spray valves sold per year in California (35,000), this would equate to approximately 340,000 

spray valve sales nationally.

DOE’s research on historical shipments data is currently limited to WaterSense estimates 

for 2012, and older estimates for the state of California. DOE seeks further information on this 

issue. 

Item 3-6 DOE requests information on nationwide historical equipment shipments and 

prices for commercial prerinse spray valves.

3.1.2.4 Equipment Lifetime

DOE has begun to investigate life expectancy of commercial prerinse spray valves. In 

establishing the WaterSense specification for commercial prerinse spray valves, EPA stated that

their average lifetime was 5 years. EPA stated that the 5-year useful life was determined based 

on conversations with manufacturers, and input from the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), PMI, and other research conducted 

on this product category.

14 The assumption is also supported by an EPA field study conducted in 

early 2010, in which EPA found several spray valves in use that were not compliant with the 

EPAct requirements, indicating that these spray valves were at least 4 years old.15 Survey 

respondents to the field study said that spray valves last between 2 and 7 years. However, a 

commenter to EPA stated that on average, prerinse spray valves last only 1 to 1.5 years and some 

last as little as 3 months. Additionally, WaterSense set the life-cycle requirements for a 

commercial prerinse spray valve to 250,000 cycles based on their field study in 2010.16

Item 3-7 DOE seeks input and data on prerinse spray valve product lifetime and the

relationship between spray valve usage and life expectancy.

 

13 With 0.241 restaurants per 100 people in California as shown in statemaster.com 

(www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_res_percap-lifestyle-resturants-per-capita) and the population of California 

estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 38,332,521 in 2013, the number of restaurants in California is found to 

be 92,381. 

14 See U.S. EPA, WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pr-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement (Sept. 

2013), available at www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_suppstate_09.19.13_final_508.pdf.

15 See U.S. EPA, Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Field Study Report (Mar. 2011), available at

http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf. 

16 See U.S. EPA, WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pr-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement (Sept. 

2013), available at www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_suppstate_09.19.13_final_508.pdf.

.
17

3.2 Equipment Classes

When necessary, DOE divides covered products into classes by: (1) the type of energy 

used; (2) the capacity of the product; or (3) any other performance-related feature that justifies 

different standard levels, such as features affecting customer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE 

then conducts its analysis and considers establishing separate standard levels for each product 

class. If DOE determines that separate classes are appropriate for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, DOE will consider a separate energy conservation standard for each equipment class. 

For commercial prerinse spray valves, separate equipment classes have not been defined.

As such, all covered commercial prerinse spray valves are currently included in a single class 

that is subject to the 1.6-gpm standard for maximum flow rate. 10 CFR 431.266 As part of this 

rulemaking DOE will consider whether to retain a single equipment class for all commercial 

prerinse spray valves included in the scope of this rulemaking or to establish separate equipment 

classes based on the statutory criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE does not plan to differentiate 

equipment classes based on the type of energy used, because all spray valves consume energy 

indirectly through hot water consumption. DOE is considering if equipment classes should be 

defined based on capacity or other performance related features. As such, DOE is considering 

establishing equipment classes based on one or more of the following spray valve characteristics:

 flow rate (gpm)

 spray force

 cleanability time

 design of flow control insert

 equipment features that change functionality, such as different spray modes

One option is to use measured flow rate to develop an equipment class. In comments 

sent to EPA on its WaterSense Draft Specification for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 

stakeholders requested that WaterSense establish a product category and efficiency and 

performance provisions for “ultra-low-flow” prerinse spray valves.17 The commenters suggested 

defining this category as those commercial prerinse spray valves with a maximum flow rate of 

0.8 gpm at 60 pounds per square inch (psi) and a minimum spray force of 4 ounces. The 

commenters noted that they regularly sell ultra-low-flow spray valves to some commercial 

kitchens because not every application requires a higher flow rate and higher spray force and that 

lower flow rates are needed for specific niche markets. In response, EPA set the WaterSense 

spray force threshold to 4.0 ounces to include ultra-low-flow spray valves in the program and did 

not establish a separate equipment category for them. 

DOE notes that it would be difficult to establish spray valve equipment classes based on 

flow rate (gpm), if the efficiency metric is also measured in gpm. The current regulations for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are in terms of gpm. However, if an alternative metric is used 

(see section 1.3), this approach to creating equipment classes becomes more feasible. DOE 

 

17 See U.S. EPA Comments on the February 2013 WaterSense Draft Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray 

Valves (May 2013), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/ws_prsvspecpubliccommentcompilation_508.pdf. 
18

requests comment on how ultra-low-flow spray valves differ from other spray valves in usage, 

functionality, features, and cleaning ability. 

Another option is to construct equipment classes based on spray force. Spray force 

represents the amount of force the water leaving the spray valve can exert. Depending on the 

relationship between spray force and the cleaning effectiveness, spray force could be a useful 

way of differentiating spray valve capacity. DOE seeks information on the relationship between 

a prerinse spray valve’s spray force, flow rate, and its ability to clean. 

Another possible way of differentiating spray valve capacity is through cleanability, 

where cleanability is “the effectiveness of the prerinse spray valve to remove soil from the plate 

before it is placed in a dishwashing machine” as defined in the ASTM F2324-03 (2009) test 

procedure. Testing involves measuring the average cleaning time in seconds per plate.

Alternatively, DOE could establish product classes based on performance-related 

features, such as features affecting customer utility. Features that could possibly warrant the 

creation of different equipment classes include the presence or design of flow control inserts and 

the availability of different spray modes. DOE will analyze whether there are unique design 

constraints associated with these design characteristics that would warrant the creation of 

separate equipment classes.

Item 3-8 DOE requests input from interested parties about the design characteristics 

and criteria that it is considering using when creating equipment classes. In 

particular, should additional or fewer criteria beyond those identified above 

be used as a basis for developing equipment classes?

Item 3-9 DOE seeks comment on whether spray force and cleanability are useful 

characteristics that could define the equipment classes of a prerinse spray 

valve.

Item 3-10 DOE requests comment on how ultra-low-flow spray valves differ from other 

spray valves in usage, functionality, features, and cleaning ability.

3.3 Technology Assessment

Measures that improve the energy efficiency of the product are called “technology 

options,” and they are based on existing technologies, as well as prototype designs and concepts.

In consultation with interested parties, DOE will develop a list of technology options for 

consideration in this rulemaking. Following research into this list of technology options, DOE 

will consider each one against four screening criteria: (1) technological feasibility; 

(2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. The screening analysis is discussed in 

further detail in section 4. Those technology options that pass the four screening criteria become

“design options” and will be considered in the engineering analysis as appropriate ways of 

improving the efficiency and will assist DOE in determining the “max-tech” design.
19

DOE’s research indicates that the design of the nozzle can impact the flow rate and 

therefore the water consumption of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE has identified the 

following designs that might be used to improve commercial prerinse spray valve performance:

1. addition of a flow control insert;

2. smaller nozzle tip openings to increase pressure;

3. incorporation of additional components including, but not limited to backflow 

preventers, additional valves, or hoses; and

4. specially designed spray patterns, such as the following:

a. fan spray pattern (single nozzle with a hollow cone stream)

b. solid stream pattern (single nozzle with single solid jet stream)

c. triple action spray pattern (three nozzles with solid jet streams)

d. knife-like spray pattern (single nozzle with a flat stream)

e. rose spray pattern (multiple nozzles resembling a common showerhead).

Item 3-11 DOE seeks information from manufacturers on various nozzle designs and 

spray patterns and their impacts on flow rate, spray force, cleanability, or 

other related functionality of the equipment. 

Item 3-12 DOE seeks information on what technology options are available to improve 

the performance of commercial prerinse spray valves. 

4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out design options that DOE will not 

consider in examining potential standards, if any, for commercial prerinse spray valves.

As an initial matter, DOE will develop a list of design options (through its own research 

and in consultation with interested parties) for consideration in the engineering analysis (see 

section 5). The identified candidate design options will encompass all those technologies that 

may improve water efficiency. Thereafter, DOE will review each design option in light of the 

following four criteria:

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will not further consider technologies unless they are 

incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes.

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If DOE determines 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 by the time of the effective date of the standard, then it will not 

consider that technology further.

3. Adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability. If DOE determines a technology 

to have significant adverse impact on the utility of equipment to significant subgroups 

of customers, or result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 

performance characteristics (including reliability), features, size, capacities, and 
20

volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United 

States at the time, it will not consider that technology further.

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a technology will have 

significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider that technology 

further.

DOE will document the reasons for eliminating any design options during the screening 

analysis and will publish this documentation for stakeholder review and comment as part of the 

preliminary analysis. Technology options that are not screened out by the above four criteria will 

be considered design options in the development of cost-efficiency curves in the engineering 

analysis.

Item 4-1 DOE welcomes comments on any technologies listed in section 3.3 (or others 

not identified) that it should not consider based on any of the four screening 

criteria. If so, please provide details regarding the specific screening criteria 

that would preclude DOE from considering such technology options. DOE 

also welcomes comments on how the above four screening criteria might 

apply to any additional technology option(s) that an interested party 

recommends to DOE.

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

After conducting the screening analysis described in section 4, DOE will perform an 

engineering analysis based on the remaining design options that are available to improve 

commercial prerinse spray valve efficiency. The engineering analysis consists of estimating the 

energy and water consumption and cost of products at various levels of increased efficiency.

Section 5.1 provides an overview of the engineering analysis. Section 5.2 discusses baseline 

models. Section 5.3 discusses efficiency levels. Section 5.4 describes DOE’s planned approach 

to the cost-efficiency relationship and analysis. Section 5.5 addresses proprietary designs.

Section 5.6 discusses cumulative regulatory burdens that might affect the engineering analysis.

5.1 Overview

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the relationship between 

manufacturer selling price and efficiency for commercial prerinse spray valves. In determining 

the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer selling price 

associated with design changes that increase efficiency relative to the baseline models (which, in 

most cases, are the most typical, lowest-efficiency products currently sold on the market). DOE 

will develop cost estimates for spray valves at a range of efficiency levels based on the 

technologies incorporated into products at those levels and the associated changes in material, 

labor, shipping, and overhead costs. This relationship between price and efficiency serves as the 

basis for cost/benefit calculations to individual customers in the LCC analysis and to the nation 

in the NIA. 
21

As a preliminary step in this analysis, DOE may determine an appropriate subset of 

equipment classes to analyze. DOE would extrapolate the results of this analysis to the remaining 

equipment classes. The number of equipment classes chosen to be representative will depend on 

whether appropriate relationships between engineering results can be developed between the 

various equipment classes.

Once DOE establishes the representative equipment classes, it will select a baseline 

model as a reference point for each class. DOE will also identify the highest efficiency that is 

technologically feasible within each equipment class (i.e., the “max-tech” model). DOE may 

determine the max-tech model by investigating the existence of any prototypes with higher 

efficiency than commercially available models. DOE will then develop separate cost-efficiency 

relationships for each equipment class analyzed. 

DOE will derive cost estimates for the engineering analysis from a reverse-engineering 

process, supplemented by manufacturer-supplied data. The reverse-engineering process consists 

of a detailed equipment disassembly process, where: (1) representative units are torn down; 

(2) all components, processes, assembly, and manufacturing steps are noted in an activities-based 

cost model; and (3) all manufacturing costs are calculated. Representative units are chosen based 

on the range of efficiencies, design options, and capacities. 

To develop the relationships between efficiency and cost for prerinse spray valves, DOE 

intends to use publicly available data, including data from government databases, manufacturer 

catalogs, and websites as well as selected product testing. DOE encourages interested parties to 

submit test data or other information that will improve DOE’s understanding of prerinse spray 

valve performance and cost. Using these data, which will allow DOE to determine the 

incremental costs of changes in material, labor, shipping, and overhead from the baseline, DOE 

will develop cost estimates for design options or efficiency levels (which it will also use in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, section 12). 

Thus, DOE proposes the following two-part method for determining the cost-efficiency 

relationship:

1. Developing a detailed bill of materials (BOM) for baseline models in each 

representative equipment class through product teardowns.

2. Calculating the incremental cost and efficiency of adding specific design options to a 

baseline model.

Item 5-1 DOE seeks stakeholder comment on these and other potential approaches to 

determining the cost-efficiency relationship of commercial prerinse spray 

valves.

5.2 Baseline Models

For each equipment class, DOE will identify a baseline model to serve as a reference 

point against which DOE can measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation 
22

standards. DOE will develop a separate efficiency curve for each baseline model directly 

analyzed. Selection of the baseline model is a critical aspect of DOE’s analytical approach. The 

baseline model should represent the characteristics of a typical prerinse spray valve in a given 

representative equipment class. Normally, the baseline model is a model that just meets current 

energy conservation standards. If DOE moves forward with flow rate as the efficiency metric for 

this rulemaking, then DOE will use 1.6 gpm at 60 psi as the baseline efficiency. If DOE uses an 

alternative metric, then selection of the baseline model will involve consideration of spray valve 

features and performance characteristics, such as spray pattern, spray force, and cleanability. 

Item 5-2 DOE welcomes comments on its proposed approach to select baseline models 

for each equipment class.

Item 5-3 DOE seeks information regarding the specific technological characteristics of 

baseline models.

5.3 Efficiency Levels

To establish the efficiency levels DOE intends to consider, DOE will identify the highest 

efficiency that is technologically feasible within each equipment class (i.e., the max-tech model) 

and analyze the design options and costs associated with improving commercial prerinse spray 

valve efficiency from the baseline through the max-tech models. DOE intends to collect 

efficiency data from various sources including manufacturer catalogs and websites to establish 

the range of efficiencies currently available on the market. DOE will also use these data to 

categorize relationships between efficiency and technological options, where the technological 

options used can be identified. 

DOE notes that the maximum efficiency levels available in current prerinse spray valves 

may not necessarily correspond to the max-tech levels. It is possible that some of the design 

options that have met the screening criteria (i.e., passed the screening analysis) may be working 

prototypes that are not yet commercially available and, therefore, would not be found in today’s 

available maximum-efficiency products. DOE seeks stakeholder input to determine appropriate 

max-tech efficiency levels.

Item 5-4 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regarding the range of efficiency levels 

that should be examined as part of its analysis for commercial prerinse spray 

valves.

Item 5-5 DOE seeks input from interested parties on a methodology that would be 

appropriate for determining the max-tech models for each commercial 

prerinse spray valve analyzed. 
23

5.4 Cost-Efficiency Relationship and Analysis

The engineering analysis primarily involves estimating the energy consumption and cost 

of products at various levels of efficiency. Those estimates are then used to identify the costefficiency relationship for the products. DOE typically structures its estimation of the costefficiency relationship around one of three methodologies: (1) the design-option approach, which 

calculates the incremental cost of adding specific design options to the baseline model; (2) the 

efficiency-level approach, which calculates the incremental costs of achieving increases in 

efficiency, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and 

(3) the reverse-engineering cost-assessment approach, which involves a “bottom-up” 

manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed BOM being analyzed. The methodology used 

for the engineering analysis depends on the product, the technologies under study, and any 

historical data DOE can utilize. 

DOE is considering whether to use the design option approach or the efficiency level 

approach to identifying incremental improvements in efficiency. DOE tentatively has decided to 

use the reverse-engineering approach to develop a cost assessment for each baseline model. If a 

relationship between various equipment classes can be quantified, DOE may select a 

representative equipment class to analyze and develop a scaling method to derive results for the 

other equipment classes. If not, DOE could conduct a separate analysis for each equipment class.

Before performing the engineering analysis, DOE plans to test a number of prerinse spray 

valve models. The testing would enable DOE to gather measured data on spray valve 

performance to support the engineering analysis. DOE is also considering obtaining efficiency 

data from DOE’s CCMS database,

18 supplemented by other government sources, manufacturer 

catalogues, and manufacturer interviews, as necessary.

DOE plans to disassemble and inventory the spray valve components for select models 

and to identify manufacturing processes required to fabricate them. This approach will allow 

DOE to derive the material and labor costs and generate BOMs for baseline spray valves in each 

equipment class and representative size bin. The BOMs describe the products in detail, including 

manufacturing steps required to make and/or assemble each part. DOE will then develop a cost 

model to convert the BOMs for baseline models and the cost of the design options associated 

with different efficiency levels into manufacturer production costs (MPCs). By applying derived 

manufacturer markups to the MPCs, DOE will calculate the manufacturer selling prices and 

construct industry cost-efficiency curves. As a complement to this work, DOE may also evaluate 

retail prices to estimate manufacturer selling prices; review data collected from manufacturers 

about prices, efficiencies, and other features of various models of prerinse spray valve; and 

interview manufacturers about the techniques and associated costs used to improve efficiency. 

Item 5-6 DOE seeks comments on its proposed methods for determining costs 

associated with incremental efficiency improvements in commercial prerinse 

spray valves.

 

18 See U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Compliance Certification Database, http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
24

Item 5-7 DOE seeks information on prerinse spray valve performance and related 

incremental manufacturing costs (e.g., material costs, labor costs, overhead 

costs, building conversion capital expenditures, capital expenditures for 

tooling or equipment conversion associated with more efficient designs, 

research and development expenses, and marketing expenses).

Item 5-8 DOE seeks comment on shipping expenses, markups, and any other factors 

that affect the manufacturer selling price of commercial prerinse spray valves.

Item 5-9 DOE welcomes comments on how commercial prerinse spray valve efficiency 

varies with spray force, cleanability, or any other parameter.

5.5 Proprietary Designs

In its engineering and economic analyses, DOE will consider all design options that are 

commercially available or present in a working prototype, including proprietary designs that 

meet the screening criteria discussed in section 4. DOE will consider a proprietary design in the 

subsequent analyses, however, only if it does not represent a unique path to a given efficiency 

level. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, 

then DOE will eliminate that efficiency level from further analysis. DOE will reject a standard 

level that can only be met with a single proprietary technology because it could result in an anticompetitive market, a principle consistently applied in past DOE rulemakings as economically 

unjustifiable. However, if a given energy efficiency level can be achieved by a number of design

approaches, including a proprietary design, DOE will continue to examine the given efficiency 

level, despite the proprietary nature of that one design.

DOE is sensitive to manufacturer concerns about proprietary designs and will take steps 

to maintain the confidentiality of any proprietary data provided by manufacturers. This 

information will provide input to the competitive impacts assessment and other economic 

analyses.

Item 5-10 DOE seeks information on proprietary designs of which it should be aware for 

commercial prerinse spray valves under consideration in this rulemaking. If 

such proprietary designs exist, DOE would like to acquire the cost data 

necessary for evaluating those designs.

5.6 Other Regulatory Changes Affecting the Engineering Analysis

In conducting an engineering analysis, DOE considers the effects of the full complement 

of regulatory burdens (including those outside DOE’s statutory standards rulemaking process) 

that can affect manufacturers of covered products. Some regulatory requirements potentially 

could affect the energy efficiency or energy consumption of the commercial prerinse spray 

valves covered under this rulemaking. DOE will attempt to identify all regulatory requirements 

that could affect the engineering analysis. Evaluating such requirements is closely related to the 
25

cumulative regulatory burden assessment that DOE will conduct as part of the manufacturer 

impact analysis. Based on consideration of the comments received on the engineering analysis, 

DOE will make any necessary changes to its analysis. Those changes will be reflected in the 

NOPR.

Item 5-11 DOE welcomes comments on regulatory burdens and changes that should be 

considered in the engineering analysis of commercial prerinse spray valves.

Item 5-12 DOE welcomes comments on other engineering issues that could affect the 

engineering analysis.

6. MARKUPS ANALYSIS

DOE uses customer price estimates in its LCC and PBP analysis, and NIA. DOE 

typically uses manufacturer-to-customer markups to convert estimates of the manufacturer 

selling price derived from the engineering analysis (section 5) to customer prices. The 

manufacturer-to-customer markups are in addition to the manufacturer markups on production 

costs that DOE uses in estimating manufacturer selling price in the engineering analysis.

Before developing markups, DOE identifies distribution channels (i.e., how the 

equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the customer). DOE’s consultations with 

industry experts indicate that manufacturers provide commercial prerinse spray valves to the 

marketplace through a variety of channels.

Based on discussions with industry experts, DOE believes there are three main channels 

that prerinse spray valves move through between the manufacturer and final customer. 

1. Direct Sales: This channel represents direct sales from a manufacturer to the final 

customer.

2. Authorized Distributor: This channel represents a mix of businesses that are 

authorized by specific manufacturers to sell their equipment. These may be 

independent businesses, or manufacturer/company-owned stores. Authorized 

distributors will generally have the ability to sell the complete line of a 

manufacturer’s equipment, and offer servicing and parts.

3. Retail Merchants: This channel represents a mix of businesses, including catalog 

sales, Internet sales, “big-box” retail, or other merchant retail sales. These sales can 

be through either manufacturer-authorized agents or non-authorized distributors. 

Consistent with the approach followed for other products and equipment, DOE will 

determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances and 

commercial equipment to include prerinse spray valves. DOE will also use current industry-level 

financial data reported in the Economic Census produced by the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate 
26

markups for distributors and catalog sales. If available, DOE will also make use of financial data 

included in industry reports.

The baseline markup relates the manufacturer sales price of baseline products to the 

distributor sales price. DOE calculates the baseline markup as an average ratio of selling price to 

cost. Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the manufacturer sales price 

of higher-efficiency models to the change in the distributor sales price. The incremental markup 

reflects a situation in which the distributor faces an increase in cost of goods sold for particular 

equipment because of manufacturing changes necessitated by new or amended standards.

In addition to developing markups, DOE will develop and include sales taxes to calculate 

final prices to customers. DOE will use an annually updated Internet source, the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.19

Item 6-1 DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels and the share of industry 

shipments for each distribution channel described in this document as it 

applies to the range of commercial prerinse spray valves that are covered by 

this potential rule.

7. ENERGY AND WATER USE ANALYSIS

For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE will establish the annual energy and water

consumption of the equipment and assess the energy- and water-savings potential of various 

equipment efficiencies. As part of the energy and water use analysis, certain engineering 

assumptions may be required regarding equipment application, including how often the 

equipment is operated and under what conditions. DOE uses the annual energy- and waterconsumption and energy- and water-savings potential in the LCC and PBP analysis to establish 

the savings in customer operating costs at various equipment flow rates. DOE may also account 

for cost savings related to reduction in wastewater discharge as a result of water savings in the 

LCC and PBP analysis.

DOE intends for this analysis to capture and estimate water savings as a result of reduced 

flow rate and the related energy savings as a result of reduced hot water use. DOE will consider 

the specific flow rates by equipment classes used in distinct applications. DOE will also consider

changes in operation patterns as a result of varying flow rates and equipment classes. 

Item 7-1 DOE requests input on operational patterns of commercial prerinse spray 

valves for different equipment classes and applications that may impact water 

consumption.

 

19 See The Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Determine Sales and Use Tax Rates, www.thestc.com/.
27

Item 7-2 DOE seeks recommendations on sources of data for regional potable water 

supply temperatures and typical operational water temperatures used in 

commercial prerinse spray valves for different applications and equipment 

classes. 

Item 7-3 DOE seeks comments on the inclusion of associated reduction in wastewater 

discharge as a result of lower flow rate for prerinse spray valves.

8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

This section describes the LCC and PBP analysis that DOE will perform for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, including how DOE develops the inputs to the calculation. The LCC 

analysis establishes the total cost of equipment over its lifetime (including purchase price and 

operating costs). The PBP analysis calculates the amount of time required for water and energy 

cost savings to pay back any increased initial cost of higher-efficiency equipment.

The effects of energy conservation standards on customers include a change in operating 

expense (usually decreased) and a change in purchase price (usually increased). DOE analyzes 

the net effect on customers by calculating the LCC and PBP using the engineering performance 

data, the equipment prices, and the water-use and end-use load characterization data. Inputs to 

the LCC calculation include the cost to the customer of the installed equipment (purchase price 

plus installation cost), operating expenses (energy expenses and, if applicable, repair costs and 

maintenance costs), the lifetime of the equipment, and a discount rate. Section 8.1 describes the 

analytical approach used to model prerinse spray valves. Section 8.2 characterizes the installation 

costs of the equipment. Sections 8.3 and 8.4 discuss energy and water prices, respectively. 

Sections 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 respectively describe maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, 

and discount rates.

8.1 Analytical Approach

DOE plans to conduct an LCC and PBP analysis for each of the representative units for 

each commercial prerinse spray valve equipment class. DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis 

by modeling both the uncertainty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulation and 

probability distributions, starting in the preliminary analysis phase of this rulemaking. Among 

other calculations, the Monte Carlo approach identifies the percentage of customers benefitting 

from and being burdened by a prospective standard.

The LCC model uses Monte Carlo simulation to sample probability distributions for 

several of the parameters that affect the LCC. The Monte Carlo simulation is implemented using 

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and the Crystal Ball add-in program. Each Monte Carlo simulation 

would typically consist of 10,000 computer-generated LCC and PBP calculations.

Each calculation uses input values sampled from a probability distribution or defined as 

single point values. The analysis results are presented as a distribution of LCC values and 

summary statistics such as average LCC savings and median PBP.
28

DOE expects to use probability distributions to characterize equipment lifetime, discount 

rates, and annual energy and water use. DOE may also use probability distributions for 

distributor markups. DOE expects to use point values to characterize the other LCC inputs, 

including the manufacturer markup, as these data are available only as single values.

To accurately estimate the percentage of customers that would be affected by a particular 

standard level, DOE accounts for the distribution of equipment efficiencies expected for the 

compliance year. In other words, rather than analyzing the impacts of a particular standard level 

assuming that all customers are currently purchasing equipment at the baseline level, DOE 

conducts the analysis by taking into account the full range of equipment efficiencies that 

customers would purchase under the base case (i.e., the case without new energy conservation

standards). By accounting for customers who already purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits from standards. DOE determines the LCC savings and 

PBP for a particular standard level relative to the base case distribution of equipment 

efficiencies. Hence, if the equipment chosen in the base case has an efficiency that meets a given 

standard level, the customer is not affected by a given standard level; the LCC savings are zero 

and the PBP is not defined.

DOE also performs an analysis to determine whether the 3-year rebuttable presumption 

of economic justification applies, i.e., whether the additional cost of purchasing equipment that 

meets the standard level would be less than three times the value of the water and energy savings 

in the first year. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For this analysis, DOE determines the value of 

the first year’s water and energy savings using the DOE test procedure. Although DOE examines 

the rebuttable-presumption criteria, the economic justification for potential standard levels are 

based on the full economic analysis required under section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

The following sections discuss how DOE plans to develop key inputs to the LCC and

PBP analysis, including (1) installation costs, (2) water and energy prices, (3) maintenance and 

repair costs, (4) equipment lifetime, and (5) discount rates. The other inputs to the LCC and PBP 

analysis—namely, manufacturer costs, annual water and energy consumption, and markups for 

the determination of equipment prices—have been previously addressed.

8.2 Installation Costs

The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any other miscellaneous materials and 

parts. DOE is aware that there may be variability in the costs for commercial prerinse spray 

valve installations. However, DOE does not have information to suggest that existing installation 

practices would necessarily change under an energy conservation standard.

Item 8-1 DOE seeks comment on whether installation costs for commercial prerinse 

spray valves increase with higher-efficiency equipment.

Item 8-2 DOE seeks comment on whether installation costs for commercial prerinse 

spray valves are variable depending on equipment class and application.
29

8.3 Energy Prices

DOE will use average energy prices, adjusting by building type if necessary, to value 

energy savings for customers. Marginal prices will be developed for the commercial sector for 

all 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia (D.C.). 

DOE will then use projections of energy prices for commercial customers by state from 

the most recent version of the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) to estimate future energy prices.

8.4 Water Prices

DOE will determine marginal water and wastewater rates in the United States that will be 

used in the LCC and PBP analysis and NPV analysis. Water and wastewater prices vary 

considerably across the United States. Currently, the Federal government does not track 

projections for regional water and wastewater prices as it does for energy prices. The American 

Water Works Association publishes a water and wastewater rate survey biannually that provides 

pricing data for water utilities across the United States.

20 DOE will investigate these data when

modeling water and wastewater marginal pricing and projected future rate escalations.

Item 8-3 DOE seeks comment on sources of data for determining marginal water and 

wastewater rates and methods to break out water and wastewater rates across 

different pricing segments (such as regionally or by state).

Item 8-4 DOE seeks data sources and methods to determine future trends in water and 

wastewater rate escalations.

8.5 Maintenance and Repair Costs

DOE will consider any expected changes to maintenance and repair costs for the covered 

equipment. Small incremental changes in equipment efficiency are expected to incur little or no 

change in repair and maintenance costs over baseline equipment. For equipment with significant 

efficiency improvements over the baseline, there may be increased repair and maintenance costs 

because such equipment may incorporate technologies that are not widely available and/or more 

costly to maintain. Also, DOE will investigate whether commercial prerinse spray valves are 

typically replaced upon failure of the equipment rather than repaired.

Item 8-5 DOE invites comment on whether repair costs may change for more-efficient 

commercial prerinse spray valves.

 

20 American Water Works Ass’n, Water & Wastewater Rates, www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-utilitymanagement/water-wastewater-rates.aspx.
30

Item 8-6 DOE invites comment on whether commercial prerinse spray valves are 

typically replaced upon failure or repaired.

8.6 Equipment Lifetime

DOE will use information from catalogs and various literature sources, and input from 

manufacturers and other stakeholders, to establish commercial prerinse spray valve lifetimes 

(measured in years) for use in the LCC and PBP analysis, and subsequent analyses. Based on 

available information, DOE believes that the useful life of a commercial prerinse spray valve is 

approximately 5 years.

21

Item 8-7 DOE seeks comment on appropriate commercial prerinse spray valve

lifetimes for the equipment under consideration, as well as data regarding 

correlation between hours of use and commercial prerinse spray valve

lifetime.

8.7 Discount Rates

The calculation of LCC requires the use of an appropriate discount rate for those 

commercial companies that purchase commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE will derive the 

discount rates for these commercial customers by estimating the capital costs for companies that 

purchase prerinse spray valves. The cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present 

value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies 

use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weightedaverage cost of equity and debt financing, which is referred to as the weighted-average cost of 

capital.

Item 8-8 DOE seeks input on the proposed approach for estimating discount rates for 

commercial prerinse spray valve customers.

9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the national impacts of 

standards on energy and water consumption, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE’s 

approach considers that shipments of commercial prerinse spray valves are driven by the 

economic growth of commercial sectors that use this equipment. Historical data will be used to 

establish the relationship between shipments of commercial prerinse spray valves and the 

appropriate index for sector growth. DOE intends to use historical shipments data for

 

21 U.S. EPA, WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement (Sept. 2013), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_suppstate_09.19.13_final_508.pdf.
31

commercial prerinse spray valves from trade organization surveys and commercial floor space 

growth data to characterize the shipments of this equipment.

DOE typically projects shipments for a 30-year period beginning with the expected 

compliance date of any standards.

Item 9-1 DOE seeks comment on an appropriate shipments projection methodology, 

including the selection of appropriate economic drivers.

Item 9-2 DOE requests historical shipments data for the equipment discussed in this 

Framework document, including shipments for differing equipment flow rates.

9.1 Standards Impacts on Shipments

DOE plans to derive standards-case projections using the same data used in the 

development of the base-case projections. Often, DOE standards-case projections take into 

account the usual increase in purchase price and the usual decrease in operating costs caused by a 

new standard. The magnitude of the difference between the standards-case and base-case 

shipment projections depends on the estimated purchase price increase, as well as the operatingcost savings from the standard and the corresponding effects on customer purchasing behavior. 

DOE plans to assess whether there are sufficient data to estimate the impact of the considered 

standard on prerinse spray valve shipments relative to the base case.

Item 9-3 DOE seeks comment on how an energy conservation standard for commercial 

prerinse spray valves might impact shipments of the equipment.

10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The NIA assesses the aggregate impacts of potential conservation standards at the 

national level. Impacts that DOE will report include the cumulative NES and national water 

savings from potential commercial prerinse spray valve standards and the cumulative NPV of the 

total customer benefits. Section 10.1 discusses energy and water savings trends. Section 10.2

describes the national water and energy savings calculations, and section 10.3 discusses the NPV

calculations.

10.1 Energy and Water Efficiency Trends

Key components of DOE’s estimates of NES, national water savings, and NPV are the 

equipment efficiency projections over time for the base case (without new standards) and for 

each of the standards cases. To develop the various cases, DOE plans to develop market-share 

efficiency data (i.e., data on the distribution of equipment shipments by efficiency) for the 

commercial prerinse spray valve equipment classes DOE is considering. DOE will estimate the 

change in efficiency in the base case by considering historical trends and input from 

stakeholders.
32

The market-share efficiency data will allow DOE to estimate the efficiency impact that 

standards may have in the standards’ compliance year. DOE expects to use a “roll-up” scenario 

in developing potential standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. Under this scenario, 

DOE assumes (1) equipment efficiencies in the base cases that do not meet the standard level 

under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) equipment

efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. DOE plans to 

use this scenario because it believes commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturers would not 

take on the additional costs associated with re-tooling and make modifications to commercial 

prerinse spray valve lines whose efficiencies are higher than the new standard level.

Once DOE establishes the shipment-weighted efficiency for each considered standard 

level for the assumed compliance date of the standard, it can estimate future shipment-weighted 

efficiencies using the same rate of projected efficiency growth as in the base case, or if 

appropriate, a different rate for the standards case.

Item 10-1 DOE seeks comment on how the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray 

valves would be likely to change in the future in the absence of standards.

10.2 National Water and Energy Savings

DOE intends to calculate national commercial prerinse spray valve water and associated 

energy consumption for each year beginning with the expected compliance date of any standards. 

It will calculate national water and energy consumption for the base cases and each efficiency 

standard level analyzed, and the water and energy savings will be calculated as the difference in 

water and energy consumption between the base cases and the standards cases. DOE plans to 

perform this calculation using a spreadsheet model that accounts for the stock of equipment 

affected by standards.22 The water and energy savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 

equipment purchased in the 30-year projection period.23 DOE is also considering incorporating 

resulting cost savings from reduction in wastewater discharge.

DOE intends to consider whether there may be a rebound effect associated with moreefficient commercial prerinse spray valves in its determination of NES and national water 

savings. Increased equipment utilization may result from an increase in water efficiency. If data 

indicate that there may be a rebound effect and the data are sufficient to allow quantification of 

this effect for commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE will account for the rebound effect in its 

calculation of NES.

 

22 Several examples of NES spreadsheet models from previous rulemakings can be found on DOE’s website at:

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/.

23 In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance.

In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire 

lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of NES to be 

consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.
33

Item 10-2 DOE seeks comment on the likelihood of increased commercial prerinse spray 

valve usage as a direct result of improved equipment efficiency.

10.3 Net Present Value

To determine the NPV of potential energy conservation standards, DOE calculates annual 

energy and water expenditures based on annual energy and water consumption by incorporating 

projected energy and water prices, using the projection of shipments and average efficiency 

described in section 9.

DOE calculates annual equipment expenditures by multiplying the price per unit by the 

number of projected shipments. The difference between a base case and a standards case 

scenario gives the national energy and water cost savings and increased equipment expenditures 

in dollars. The difference each year between energy and water cost savings and increased 

equipment expenditures is the net savings (if positive) or net costs (if negative). DOE discounts 

those annual values to the present time and sums them to obtain a NPV.

Consistent with guidelines set by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

DOE will conduct two NPV calculations, one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and the other 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.

24 The discount rates for the determination of NPV differ 

from the discount rates used in the LCC analysis (which are developed from a customer’s 

perspective). The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the “societal rate of time 

preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their 

present value.

11. CUSTOMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

The LCC and PBP analysis described in section 8 investigates the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on all users of commercial prerinse spray valves. For the customer 

subgroup analysis, DOE divides users into subgroups, which comprise a subset of the population 

that is likely to be affected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards 

(e.g., small businesses or firms that use prerinse spray valves in particular applications where 

energy and water savings are likely to be small).25 The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the magnitude of this disproportional impact. DOE will work with stakeholders to 

identify any subgroups for consideration and will conduct a subgroup analysis as part of the

NOPR.

 

24 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (September 17, 2003).

25 These firms differ from any prerinse spray valve manufacturers who may qualify as a small business under the 

size standards established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). DOE analyzes impacts to these small 

businesses, which would be directly impacted by any final standards DOE might establish, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (see section 12.3).
34

Item 11-1 DOE seeks comment on what, if any, user subgroups should be considered in 

evaluating potential standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.

12. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

DOE conducts its MIA consistent with the Report to Congress, “Energy Conservation 

Standards Activities” (Jan. 31, 2006) (required report under Section 141 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005) (Standards Activities), available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/congressional_report_013106.p

df.

Prior to 2006, DOE did not report any MIA results during the preliminary analysis phase; 

however, under the format established by the “Energy Conservation Standards Activities,” DOE 

typically collects, evaluates, and reports preliminary information and data in the preliminary 

analysis, if performed for a given rulemaking. (See Standards Activities, p. 48.) Such preliminary 

information would include the anticipated conversion costs by efficiency level and the 

corresponding anticipated impacts on direct employment. DOE would solicit further information 

during the preliminary analysis phase through the manufacturer interviews conducted as part of 

that phase’s engineering analysis. A draft set of questions to be used for those interviews is 

contained in Appendix B.

DOE intends the MIA to help assess the potential impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves. In addition to 

financial impacts, a wide range of quantitative and qualitative effects may occur following 

adoption of an amended standard that may require changes to the manufacturing practices for 

these products. DOE identifies these potential effects through interviews with manufacturers, as 

well as other stakeholders and experts.

For the NOPR, DOE supplements the results of the preliminary MIA with more-detailed 

analyses, as described in sections 12.1 through 12.5. Specifically, DOE carries out an industrywide cash flow analysis using the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), identifies and 

analyzes subgroups of manufacturers whose businesses vary significantly from the industry as a 

whole, performs a competitive impacts assessment, and reviews the cumulative regulatory 

burden for the industry.

12.1 Sources of Information for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Many of the analyses described earlier provide important information that DOE uses as 

inputs for the MIA. Such information includes financial parameters developed in the market 

assessment (section 3), manufacturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis (section 5), 

retail price forecasts (section 6), and shipments forecasts (section 9). DOE supplements this 

information with information gathered during manufacturer interviews, as discussed below.

During the preliminary analysis phase, DOE conducts detailed interviews with

manufacturers to gain insight into the range of possible impacts from potential amended energy 
35

conservation standards. These interviews will coincide with preliminary technical interviews for 

the engineering analysis.

During the NOPR phase, DOE will conduct more detailed MIA interviews with 

manufacturers. The interview process plays a key role in the MIA by providing an opportunity 

for directly affected parties to express their views on important issues. During the interviews, 

DOE solicits information on the possible impacts of potential amended standards on 

manufacturing costs, product prices, sales, direct employment, capital assets, and industry 

competitiveness. Both qualitative and quantitative information are valuable in terms of this 

analysis. DOE schedules interviews well in advance to provide every opportunity for key 

individuals to be available to participate. In addition, DOE provides manufacturers with the 

questionnaire before the interviews to facilitate the gathering of the appropriate information.

Although a written response to its questionnaire is acceptable, DOE prefers an interactive 

interview process, because it helps clarify manufacturer responses and provides the opportunity 

to identify additional issues.

DOE asks interview participants to identify all confidential information provided in 

writing or orally. While it will consider information gathered, as appropriate, in its energy 

conservation standards decision-making process, DOE will protect confidential information from 

disclosure, consistent with applicable law. DOE also asks participants to identify any information 

they wish to have included in the public record, but do not want to have associated with their 

interview (thereby identifying that particular manufacturer). DOE incorporates such information 

into the public record, but reports it without attribution.

DOE collates the completed interview questionnaire results and prepares a summary of 

the major issues and outcomes. This summary becomes part of the TSD produced in a 

rulemaking.

12.2 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis

The industry cash flow analysis relies primarily on the GRIM. DOE uses the GRIM to 

analyze the financial impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards on the industries 

that produce the products covered by the standard.

The GRIM analysis uses a number of inputs—annual expected revenues; manufacturer 

costs such as costs of goods sold; selling, general, and administrative costs; taxes; and capital 

expenditures (both ordinary capital expenditures and those related to standards)—to determine a 

series of annual cash flows beginning from the announcement of the new or amended standards 

and continuing throughout the analysis period. DOE compares the results against base-case 

projections that involve no amended standards. The financial impact of new or amended 

standards is the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Other 

performance metrics, such as return on invested capital, also are available from the GRIM.

DOE gathers the inputs needed for the GRIM from two primary sources: (1) the analyses 

conducted to this point; and (2) interviews with manufacturers and other stakeholders.

Information gathered from previous analyses includes financial parameters, manufacturing costs, 
36

price forecasts, and shipments forecasts. Interviews with manufacturers and other stakeholders 

are essential in supplementing this information.

12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

It is possible that the use of average industry cost values may not adequately assess 

differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. DOE recognizes that smaller 

manufacturers, niche players, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs 

significantly from the industry average may be affected differently by new or amended 

standards. Ideally, DOE would consider the impact on every firm individually. In highly 

concentrated industries, this may be possible. In industries having numerous participants, 

however, DOE uses the results of the market and technology assessment to group manufacturers 

into subgroups, as appropriate.

Small businesses, as defined by the SBA for commercial prerinse spray valve 

manufacturers, are enterprises with 500 employees or fewer. Small business size standards are 

listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description.

Commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturing is classified under NAICS 332913, “Plumbing 

Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing.”26 As part of its subgroup analysis, DOE would identify 

small businesses that manufacture these products and interview small businesses affected by the 

rulemaking to determine if there are differential impacts on these companies that may result from 

amended energy conservation standards. DOE examines publicly available data and contacts 

manufacturers, when needed, to determine if they meet the SBA’s definition of a small 

manufacturing facility and if their manufacturing facilities are located within the United States.

The detailed manufacturer subgroup impact analysis entails calculating cash flows 

separately for each defined class of manufacturer. For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE is 

interested in feedback about potential subgroups, including small businesses. DOE will conduct a 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to determine the impacts of any amended standards on small 

businesses consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Item 12-1 DOE seeks comment on the appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if any, for 

commercial prerinse spray valves that DOE should consider in a 

manufacturer subgroup analysis.

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

an imposition of standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It further directs the 

Attorney General to determine in writing the impacts, if any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii))

 

26 NAICS Ass’n, NAICS Code Description, www.naics.com/free-code-search/naicsdescription.php?code=332913.
37

DOE makes a determined effort to gather firm-specific information regarding financial 

and other impacts associated with the proposed amended energy conservation standard, and 

reports the anticipated aggregated impact of the proposed amended standard on manufacturers. A 

key aspect of the competitive impacts analysis focuses on assessing the impacts on smaller 

manufacturers. DOE bases this assessment on manufacturing cost data and on information 

collected from interviews with manufacturers. These manufacturer interviews focus on gathering 

information that will help in assessing asymmetrical cost increases to some manufacturers, 

increased proportion of fixed costs potentially increasing business risks, and potential barriers to 

market entry (e.g., proprietary technologies). DOE provides the Attorney General with a copy of 

the NOPR and the TSD for consideration in the evaluation of the impact of amended standards in 

terms of the lessening of competition. DOE publishes the Attorney General’s letter and addresses 

any related comments in the final rule.

12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

Other regulations (Federal, State, local, or international) may apply to manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves covered under this rulemaking, as well as to other products 

made by the same manufacturers. Multiple regulations may result in a significant, cumulative 

regulatory burden on these manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE carefully considers the 

overlapping effects of amended DOE standards and other regulatory actions on manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves.

DOE is aware of additional regulations concerning spray valves for sale in California. 

California has in place a flow rate standard for commercial prerinse spray valves of 1.6 gpm at 

60 psi, which is identical to the Federal standard, as well as a cleanability standard that requires 

that “commercial pre-rinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall be 

capable of cleaning 60 plates in an average time of not more than 30 seconds per plate.”27

California adopted the standards on December 15, 2004.28 EPCA preempts any requirements of 

State and local governments concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of products and 

equipment covered by the Act, with certain exceptions. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 6297(c). An 

exception from the general rule of preemption exists for regulations concerning standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) before 

January 1, 2005. 42 U.S.C. 6297 (c)(7). Any state regulations concerning commercial prerinse 

spray valves adopted by the CEC after January 1, 2005 would not be excepted from standard 

preemption.

Item 12-2 DOE welcomes comments on what other existing regulations or pending 

regulations it should consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory 

burden.

 

27 California Energy Commission, 2014 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, Report No. CEC-400-2014-009-CMF, 

available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-400-2014-009/CEC-400-2014-009-CMF.pdf.

28 State of California, Order No. 04-1215-08, Docket No. 04-AAER-01, available at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2004rulemaking/notices/2004-12-22_ORDER_ADOPT.PDF . 
38

Item 12-3 DOE seeks comment on small businesses that could be impacted by energy 

conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and what the 

impacts on small businesses of potential standards might be.

13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

To estimate the effects of energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves on the electric and gas utilities industries, DOE plans to use a variant of EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS), called NEMS-BT. NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector, used primarily for the purpose of preparing EIA’s 

AEO. NEMS produces a widely recognized reference case projection for the United States 

through 2040 and is available in the public domain.

The effect of reducing site energy use is modeled by making NEMS runs that deviate 

from the most recent AEO reference case. Each year, DOE develops response coefficients using 

NEMS-BT that give changes in capacity and generation by fuel type for a given quantity of site 

energy use reduction to a particular energy end use. DOE develops response coefficients for 

several different energy end uses. To model the impact of this standard on the electric and gas 

utilities industries, the response coefficients will be weighted by end use, and then they will be 

applied to the site energy savings for commercial prerinse spray valves that are generated from 

the NIA analysis.

Given the current and future water supply and infrastructure concerns that are affecting 

many parts of the United States, assessing impacts on water and wastewater utilities may be 

possible in this rulemaking. However, there is a high degree of regional and climatic variability

among water and wastewater utilities, and DOE is not aware of standardized tools or models to 

appropriately quantify water utility impacts at the national level.

Item 13-1 DOE seeks comment from interested parties about its proposed use of NEMSBT to conduct the utility impact analysis.

Item 13-2 DOE seeks comment and information on potential methods and data sources 

that can be used to assess the impacts on water and wastewater utilities as a 

result of energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.

14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

The employment impact analysis examines indirect employment impacts from standards, 

which consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the 

manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by end users on energy

and water; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased 

spending on new equipment to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those three 

factors throughout the economy. (Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the equipment subject to standards, their suppliers, and related 
39

service firms. The MIA will address impacts on the number of employees working for the 

manufacturers.)

One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in 

economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor 

Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as 

well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from

BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and 

indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.29 There are many reasons for these 

differences, including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capitalintensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing customer utility bills. Because reduced customer expenditures for energy

likely lead to increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the 

utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors).

As part of its NOPR analyses, DOE plans to estimate indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).30 ImSET is a special-purpose version of the “U.S. 

Benchmark National Input-Output” (I–O) model, which was designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows 

among 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use.

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model and understands 

the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment 

effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run. DOE may 

consider the use of other modeling approaches for examining long-run employment impacts.

Item 14-1 DOE seeks comments about its proposed approach to assessing national 

indirect employment impacts.

15. EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

In the emissions analysis, DOE will estimate the reduction in power sector emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg) from 

potential energy conservation standards for the considered equipment. In addition, DOE will 

 

29 See U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) (1992).

30 MJ Scott, OV Livingston, JM Roop, RW Schultz & PJ Balducci, Imset 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 

Model Description and User’s Guide,(May 2009) (prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. 

Dep’t of Energy, PNNL-18412), available at www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf.
40

estimate emissions impacts in production activities (extracting, processing, and transporting 

fuels) that provide the energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as “upstream” 

emissions. Together, these emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle (FFC). In accordance with

DOE’s FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51281), the FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions 

of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases (GHGs).

DOE primarily conducts the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO2 and most 

of the other gases derived from data in EIA’s most recent AEO. Combustion emissions of CH4

and N2O are estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.31

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. The text below refers to AEO

2014, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of December 

31, 2013.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to nationwide 

and regional emissions cap and trading programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 

emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia

(D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states and D.C. were also limited under the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which created an allowance-based trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program in those states and D.C. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 

remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), but it remained in effect.32 On July 6, 2011, EPA 

issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug.

8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.33The court 

ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. AEO 2014 assumes that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040.

34

The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing EPA regulations,

any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 

 

31 U.S. EPA, Center for Corporate Climate Leadership, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghgemissions.html. 

32 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008).

33 See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

34 On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The case will now return to 

the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme Court held in 

part that EPA's methodology for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain states due to their impacts 

in other downwind states was based on a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean Air Act 

provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, Slip. Op. No 12-

1182, *32 slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). Because DOE would be using emissions factors based on AEO 2014

for the NOPR phase of this rulemaking, this document assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force.

The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of SO2 emissions.
41

adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions 

by any regulated EGU. In past rulemaking efforts, DOE recognized that there was uncertainty 

about the effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that no reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2 as a

result of standards.

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a result of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants, which were announced by EPA on December 21, 

2011. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, EPA established a standard for 

hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent surrogate 

standard for acid gas HAPs. The same controls are used to reduce HAPs and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired 

power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent 

injection systems installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, emissions will be far below the cap that 

would be established by CSAPR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 

emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency standards will reduce 

SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond.

CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in eastern states and the District of Columbia. 

Standards are expected to have little or no physical effect on these emissions in those states 

covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However, standards 

would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the states not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimates NOX emissions reductions from potential standards in the states where emissions are 

not capped.

The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions 

caps and, as such, DOE’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

will estimate mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO 2014, which 

incorporates the MATS.

Power plants may emit particulates from the smoke stack, which are known as direct 

particulate matter (PM) emissions. NEMS does not account for direct PM emissions from power 

plants. DOE is investigating the possibility of using other methods to estimate reduction in PM 

emissions due to standards. The great majority of ambient PM associated with power plants is in 

the form of secondary sulfates and nitrates, which are produced at a significant distance from 

power plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous 

emissions of power plants, mainly SO2 and NOX. The monetary benefits that DOE estimates for 

reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions resulting from standards are in fact primarily related to the 

health benefits of reduced ambient PM.
42

DOE recognizes that there are emissions reductions related to reduction in water 

production and distribution. However, currently, no standardized models or tools adequately 

account for emissions reductions as a result of water savings.

Item 15-1 DOE seeks comment about its approach to conduct the emissions analysis for 

the equipment that would be covered under this proposed rulemaking.

Item 15-2 DOE seeks comment and information on potential methods and data sources 

that can be used to assess emissions reductions as a result of water savings.

16. MONETIZING REDUCED CO2 AND OTHER EMISSIONS

DOE plans to consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from each of the standard levels 

considered.

To estimate the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of CO2, 

DOE plans to use the most current social cost of carbon (SCC) values developed and/or agreed to 

by an interagency process. The SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental 

damage resulting from GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, net agricultural 

productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from sea level rise, and changes in 

ecosystem services. Any effort to quantify and to monetize the harms associated with climate 

change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics. However, with full regard 

for the limits of both quantification and monetization, the SCC can be used to provide estimates 

of the social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions.

The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon released an update of its 

previous report in 2013.35 The most recent estimates of the SCC in 2015, expressed in 2013$, are

$12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton of CO2 avoided. For emissions reductions that occur 

in later years, these values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group 

determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global 

SCC to calculate domestic effects, although DOE will give preference to consideration of the 

global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

DOE multiplies the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SCC value 

for that year in each of the four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounts the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates that had been 

used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

 

35 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, U. S. Gov’t, Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.(May 2013, revised Nov. 2013), available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf.
43

DOE recognizes that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly as to 

the contribution of CO2 and other GHG to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy. Thus, these values are subject to change.

DOE also estimates the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions resulting 

from the standard levels it considers. For NOX emissions, estimates suggest a very wide range of

monetary values, ranging from $476 to $4,893 per ton in 2013$.

36 DOE calculated monetary 

benefits using a medium value for NOX emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 2013$), and real 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.

DOE is evaluating the appropriate valuation of avoided SO2 and Hg emissions. Whether 

monetization of reduced SO2 and Hg emissions will occur as part of any proposed rule that DOE 

issues for commercial prerinse spray valves is yet to be determined.

Item 16-1 DOE requests comment about the approach it plans to use for estimating 

monetary benefits associated with emissions reductions.

17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

If DOE issues a proposal to amend standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, it will 

prepare a regulatory impact analysis to address the potential for non-regulatory approaches to 

supplant or augment energy conservation standards to improve the efficiency of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. DOE recognizes that voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by 

manufacturers, utilities, and other interested parties can result in substantial improvements in 

efficiency. DOE intends to analyze the likely effects of non-regulatory initiatives on equipment 

water and energy use, customer utility, and LCC. DOE will attempt to base its assessment on the 

impacts of any such initiatives to date, but will also consider information presented regarding the 

impacts that an initiative might have in the future.

If DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, and the NOPR constitutes a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), DOE 

will prepare and submit to OMB for review the assessment of costs and benefits required under 

section 6(a)(3) of the order.

 

36 For additional information, see U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on

State, Local, and Tribal Entities (2006), available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf.
44

APPENDIX A – LIST OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT

Item 1-1 DOE requests comment on the modification of the definition of 

“commercial prerinse spray valve” to include additional covered equipment 

types........................................................................................................................... 3

Item 1-2 DOE requests comment on potential metrics other than flow rate that may 

be used to achieve greater water savings in commercial prerinse spray 

valves and if there is sufficient benefit to using an alternative metric to 

justify changing from the current flow rate (gpm) metric. ........................................ 4

Item 1-3 DOE requests comment on the potential use of ASTM F2324-13 as the test 

method required for certification of commercial prerinse spray valves. ................... 8

Item 1-4 DOE seeks comment on whether it should establish a labeling requirement 

for commercial prerinse spray valves. ....................................................................... 8

Item 3-1 DOE requests information that would contribute to the market assessment, 

including information on current equipment types available on the market, 

range of rated flow rates of equipment, current equipment features, and 

designs related to efficiency. ................................................................................... 12

Item 3-2 DOE welcomes input on estimates of market shares, products, features, and 

trends for the prerinse spray valves covered in this rulemaking.............................. 12

Item 3-3 DOE seeks information regarding which trade organizations represent the 

commercial prerinse spray valve industry. .............................................................. 12

Item 3-4 DOE seeks information on retailers and retailer market share for commercial 

prerinse spray valves................................................................................................ 13

Item 3-5 DOE seeks information on major manufacturers that may have been 

overlooked in this Framework document. ............................................................... 15

Item 3-6 DOE requests information on nationwide historical equipment shipments 

and prices for commercial prerinse spray valves..................................................... 16

Item 3-7 DOE seeks input and data on prerinse spray valve product lifetime and the 

relationship between spray valve usage and life expectancy................................... 16

Item 3-8 DOE requests input from interested parties about the design characteristics 

and criteria that it is considering using when creating equipment classes. In 

particular, should additional or fewer criteria beyond those identified above 

be used as a basis for developing equipment classes? ............................................. 18

Item 3-9 DOE seeks comment on whether spray force and cleanability are useful 

characteristics that could define the equipment classes of a prerinse spray 

valve......................................................................................................................... 18

Item 3-10 DOE requests comment on how ultra-low-flow spray valves differ from 

other spray valves in usage, functionality, features, and cleaning ability. .............. 18

Item 3-11 DOE seeks information from manufacturers on various nozzle designs and 

spray patterns and their impacts on flow rate, spray force, cleanability, or 

other related functionality of the equipment............................................................ 19

Item 3-12 DOE seeks information on what technology options are available to improve 

the performance of commercial prerinse spray valves. ........................................... 19

Item 4-1 DOE welcomes comments on any technologies listed in section 3.3 (or 

others not identified) that it should not consider based on any of the four 

screening criteria. If so, please provide details regarding the specific 
45

screening criteria that would preclude DOE from considering such 

technology options. DOE also welcomes comments on how the above four 

screening criteria might apply to any additional technology option(s) that an 

interested party recommends to DOE...................................................................... 20

Item 5-1 DOE seeks stakeholder comment on these and other potential approaches to 

determining the cost-efficiency relationship of commercial prerinse spray 

valves. ...................................................................................................................... 21

Item 5-2 DOE welcomes comments on its proposed approach to select baseline 

models for each equipment class. ............................................................................ 22

Item 5-3 DOE seeks information regarding the specific technological characteristics 

of baseline models. .................................................................................................. 22

Item 5-4 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regarding the range of efficiency levels 

that should be examined as part of its analysis for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. ...................................................................................................................... 22

Item 5-5 DOE seeks input from interested parties on a methodology that would be 

appropriate for determining the max-tech models for each commercial 

prerinse spray valve analyzed. ................................................................................. 22

Item 5-6 DOE seeks comments on its proposed methods for determining costs 

associated with incremental efficiency improvements in commercial 

prerinse spray valves................................................................................................ 23

Item 5-7 DOE seeks information on prerinse spray valve performance and related 

incremental manufacturing costs (e.g., material costs, labor costs, overhead 

costs, building conversion capital expenditures, capital expenditures for 

tooling or equipment conversion associated with more efficient designs, 

research and development expenses, and marketing expenses). ............................. 24

Item 5-8 DOE seeks comment on shipping expenses, markups, and any other factors 

that affect the manufacturer selling price of commercial prerinse spray 

valves. ...................................................................................................................... 24

Item 5-9 DOE welcomes comments on how commercial prerinse spray valve 

efficiency varies with spray force, cleanability, or any other parameter................. 24

Item 5-10 DOE seeks information on proprietary designs of which it should be aware 

for commercial prerinse spray valves under consideration in this 

rulemaking. If such proprietary designs exist, DOE would like to acquire the 

cost data necessary for evaluating those designs. .................................................... 24

Item 5-11 DOE welcomes comments on regulatory burdens and changes that should be 

considered in the engineering analysis of commercial prerinse spray valves. ........ 25

Item 5-12 DOE welcomes comments on other engineering issues that could affect the 

engineering analysis................................................................................................. 25

Item 6-1 DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels and the share of industry 

shipments for each distribution channel described in this document as it 

applies to the range of commercial prerinse spray valves that are covered by 

this potential rule. .................................................................................................... 26

Item 7-1 DOE requests input on operational patterns of commercial prerinse spray 

valves for different equipment classes and applications that may impact 

water consumption................................................................................................... 26
46

Item 7-2 DOE seeks recommendations on sources of data for regional potable water 

supply temperatures and typical operational water temperatures used in 

commercial prerinse spray valves for different applications and equipment 

classes. ..................................................................................................................... 27

Item 7-3 DOE seeks comments on the inclusion of associated reduction in wastewater 

discharge as a result of lower flow rate for prerinse spray valves........................... 27

Item 8-1 DOE seeks comment on whether installation costs for commercial prerinse 

spray valves increase with higher-efficiency equipment......................................... 28

Item 8-2 DOE seeks comment on whether installation costs for commercial prerinse 

spray valves are variable depending on equipment class and application............... 28

Item 8-3 DOE seeks comment on sources of data for determining marginal water and 

wastewater rates and methods to break out water and wastewater rates 

across different pricing segments (such as regionally or by state). ......................... 29

Item 8-4 DOE seeks data sources and methods to determine future trends in water 

and wastewater rate escalations. .............................................................................. 29

Item 8-5 DOE invites comment on whether repair costs may change for moreefficient commercial prerinse spray valves. ............................................................ 29

Item 8-6 DOE invites comment on whether commercial prerinse spray valves are 

typically replaced upon failure or repaired. ............................................................. 30

Item 8-7 DOE seeks comment on appropriate commercial prerinse spray valve 

lifetimes for the equipment under consideration, as well as data regarding 

correlation between hours of use and commercial prerinse spray valve 

lifetime..................................................................................................................... 30

Item 8-8 DOE seeks input on the proposed approach for estimating discount rates for 

commercial prerinse spray valve customers. ........................................................... 30

Item 9-1 DOE seeks comment on an appropriate shipments projection methodology, 

including the selection of appropriate economic drivers. ........................................ 31

Item 9-2 DOE requests historical shipments data for the equipment discussed in this 

Framework document, including shipments for differing equipment flow 

rates.......................................................................................................................... 31

Item 9-3 DOE seeks comment on how an energy conservation standard for 

commercial prerinse spray valves might impact shipments of the equipment. ....... 31

Item 10-1 DOE seeks comment on how the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray 

valves would be likely to change in the future in the absence of standards. ........... 32

Item 10-2 DOE seeks comment on the likelihood of increased commercial prerinse 

spray valve usage as a direct result of improved equipment efficiency. ................. 33

Item 11-1 DOE seeks comment on what, if any, user subgroups should be considered 

in evaluating potential standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. ................ 34

Item 12-1 DOE seeks comment on the appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if any, for 

commercial prerinse spray valves that DOE should consider in a 

manufacturer subgroup analysis. ............................................................................. 36

Item 12-2 DOE welcomes comments on what other existing regulations or pending 

regulations it should consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory 

burden. ..................................................................................................................... 37
47

Item 12-3 DOE seeks comment on small businesses that could be impacted by energy 

conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and what the 

impacts on small businesses of potential standards might be.................................. 38

Item 13-1 DOE seeks comment from interested parties about its proposed use of 

NEMS- BT to conduct the utility impact analysis................................................... 38

Item 13-2 DOE seeks comment and information on potential methods and data sources 

that can be used to assess the impacts on water and wastewater utilities as a 

result of energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. ...................................................................................................................... 38

Item 14-1 DOE seeks comments about its proposed approach to assessing national 

indirect employment impacts................................................................................... 39

Item 15-1 DOE seeks comment about its approach to conduct the emissions analysis 

for the equipment that would be covered under this proposed rulemaking............. 42

Item 15-2 DOE seeks comment and information on potential methods and data sources 

that can be used to assess emissions reductions as a result of water savings. ......... 42

Item 16-1 DOE requests comment about the approach it plans to use for estimating 

monetary benefits associated with emissions reductions......................................... 43
48

APPENDIX B – DRAFT PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

QUESTIONAIRE

1 Issues

1.1 What are the key issues for your company regarding a possible future product rulemaking?

2 Shipment Projections

2.1 What is your company’s approximate market share?

2.2 Would you expect your market share to change once standards become effective? Does 

your outlook change with higher efficiency levels?

2.3 How would you expect shipments to change for the industry as a whole as a function of 

standards and why?

2.4 Looking at price/cost effects only, how would you expect shipments to change for a 5 

percent, 10 percent, 25 percent, or 50 percent manufacturer price/cost increase?

3 Conversion Costs

3.1 What level of capital expenditure and product conversion costs would you anticipate to 

make at higher standard levels? Please describe what they are and provide your best 

estimate of their respective magnitudes.

3.2 How would the adoption of amended energy conservation standards affect capacity 

utilization and manufacturing assets at your domestic production facilities? Would an 

amended standard result in stranded capital assets? Would any facilities be closed or 

downsized? Added or upgraded?

3.3 How might an amended standard impact product innovation?

4 Product Mix and Profitability

4.1 How would your company’s product mix and marketing strategy change with changes in 

the efficiency standard?

4.2 What distribution channels are used from the manufacturer to the retail outlet? What is the 

share of product going through each distribution channel?

4.3 Generally, how would new product standards affect your customer mix, distribution 

channels, and corresponding profit margins?

4.4 How might a new standard affect the WaterSense program, and consequently your firm?
49

5 Market Shares and Industry Consolidation

5.1 In the absence of amended standards, do you expect any industry consolidation?

5.2 How would amended standards affect your ability to compete?

5.3 Could amended standards disproportionately advance or harm the competitive positions of 

some firms?

5.4 Are there concerns over intellectual property?

5.5 Could amended standards result in disproportionate economic or performance penalties for 

particular customer/user subgroups?

5.6 Beyond price and energy efficiency, could amended standards result in products that will 

be more or less desirable to customers due to changes in product functionality, utility, or 

other features?

6 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

6.1 Are there recent or impending regulations on your specific product or other products that 

impose a cumulative burden on the industry?

6.2 If so, what is the total expected impact of those other regulations?