46330 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0034] 

RIN 1905–AE56 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial prerinse spray 

valves (‘‘CPSVs’’). EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ 

or ‘‘the Department’’) to periodically 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notification of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves are not needed. DOE requests 

comment on this proposed 

determination and the associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Wednesday, September 1, 2021, from 

10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section VII, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before October 18, 2021. 

See section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ 

for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments by email to the 

following address: CPSV2019STD0034@

ee.doe.gov. Include a docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0034 and/or RIN 

number 1904–AE56 in the subject line 

of the message. Submit electronic 

comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and 

avoid the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, DOE 

has found it necessary to make 

temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently accepting only electronic 

submissions at this time. If a commenter 

finds that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

(202) 586–1445 to discuss the need for 

alternative arrangements. Once the 

Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is 

resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all 

of its regular options for public 

comment submission, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if one is 

held), comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. See 

section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

further information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

F. Further Considerations 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Technology Options 

3. Screening Analysis 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

b. Remaining Technologies 

4. Product Classes 

5. Market Assessment 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

2. Cost Analysis 

a. Cost-Efficiency Results 

C. Markups Analysis 

D. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

E. Shipments Analysis 

1. Nearest Neighbor Switch Scenario 

2. Product Switch Scenario 

F. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Product Costs 

b. Shipment Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Manufacturer Markup 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46331 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

3Because Congress included commercial prerinse 

spray valves in Part B of Title III of EPCA, the 

consumer product provisions of Part B (not the 

industrial equipment provisions of Part C) apply to 

commercial prerinse spray valves. However, 

because commercial prerinse spray valves are 

commonly considered to be commercial equipment, 

as a matter of administrative convenience and to 

minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE 

placed the requirements for commercial prerinse 

spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. Part 

431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and 

industrial equipment. DOE refers to commercial 

prerinse spray valves as either ‘‘products’’ or 

‘‘equipment.’’ 

2. Direct Impacts on Employment 

3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

4. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

C. National Impact Analysis 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

D. Proposed Determination 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Cost Effectiveness 

3. Significant Conservation of Energy 

4. Additional Consideration 

5. Summary 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

Title III, Part B1 of EPCA,2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

These products include commercial 

prerinse spray valves, the subject of this 

NOPD.3

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the EPCA requirement that not later 

than 6 years after issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed commercial prerinse spray 

valves subject to standards specified in 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) § 431.266. 

DOE first analyzed the technological 

feasibility of more energy (water) 

efficient commercial prerinse spray 

valves and commercial prerinse spray 

valves with lower energy use. For those 

commercial prerinse spray valves for 

which DOE determined higher 

standards to be technologically feasible, 

DOE estimated energy savings that 

would result from potential energy 

conservation standards by conducting a 

national impacts analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE 

evaluated whether higher standards 

would be cost effective by conducting 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback 

period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses and estimated 

the net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of the 

total costs and benefits experienced by 

consumers. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, and comments received in 

response to the early assessment request 

for information (‘‘RFI’’) published in 

June 2020 (‘‘June 2020 RFI’’; see 85 FR 

35383 (Jun. 10, 2020)), DOE has 

tentatively determined that current 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves do not need to be amended 

because any potential benefits are 

outweighed by the risk of increased 

energy and water usage due to the 

increased risk of product switching, 

costs, and additional burden to 

manufacturers. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include commercial 

prerinse spray valves, the subject of this 

document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)) EPCA 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards (in terms of flow rate) for 

these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) and 

directs DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

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

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

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

procedures for commercial prerinse 

spray valves appear at 10 CFR 431.264. 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) 

California, however, has a statutory 

exemption to preemption for 

commercial prerinse spray valve 

standards adopted by the California 

Energy Commission before January 1, 

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

while Federal commercial prerinse 

spray valve standards apply in 

California, California’s commercial 

prerinse spray valve standards also 

apply for standards adopted before 

January 1, 2005, as they were exempt 

from preemption. In 2018, California 

revised its regulations so that the 

maximum flow rate requirements align 

with those implemented by DOE for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46332 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

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

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

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

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) Because commercial 

prerinse spray valves only consume 

energy and water in active mode, DOE’s 

test procedures for commercial prerinse 

spray valves do not address standby 

mode and off mode energy use as they 

are not applicable for this product. 

DOE must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product no later 

than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)– 

(B)) EPCA further provides that, not 

later than 3 years after the issuance of 

a final determination not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 

DOE must make the analysis on which 

a determination is based publicly 

available and provide an opportunity for 

written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) for any type (or 

class) of covered product shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency which 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE 

considers in evaluating whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified includes whether the proposed 

standard at that level is cost-effective, as 

defined under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness requires DOE to 

consider savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

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

DOE is publishing this NOPD in 

satisfaction of the 6-year review 

requirement in EPCA. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on January 

27, 2016, (‘‘January 2016 Final Rule’’), 

DOE prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves manufactured on 

and after January 28, 2019. 81 FR 4748. 

These standards prescribe a maximum 

flow rate in gallons per minute (‘‘gpm’’) 

for each product class and are set forth 

in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.266 

and repeated in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES

Product class (spray force in 

ounce-force, ozf) 

Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Product Class 1 (≤5.0 ozf) ....... 1.00 

Product Class 2 (>5.0 ozf and 

≤8.0 ozf) ................................ 1.20 

Product Class 3 (>8.0 ozf) ....... 1.28 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

In support of the present review of the 

CPSV energy conservation standards, on 

June 10, 2020, DOE published the June 

2020 RFI, which identified various 

issues on which DOE sought comment 

to inform its determination of whether 

the standards need to be amended. 85 

FR 35383. DOE was specifically 

interested in collecting data and 

information that could enable the 

agency to determine whether it should 

propose a ‘‘no new standard’’ 

determination because a more stringent 

standard: (1) Would not result in a 

significant savings of energy, (2) is not 

technologically feasible, (3) is not 

economically justified, or (4) any 

combination of foregoing. Id. at 85 FR 

35385. In response to a comment 

received, DOE published on July 20, 

2020, a reopening of public comment 

period extending the comment period 

for an additional 30 days. 85 FR 43748. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2020 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table II.2. 

TABLE II.2—JUNE 2020 RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Organization(s) Reference in this NOPD Organization type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project ................................................ ASAP ............................................. Efficiency Organization. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..................................................... NEEA ............................................. Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and 

Southern California Edison.

CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

Plumbing Manufacturers Inc ................................................................... PMI ................................................ Trade Association. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46333 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0034, which is maintained at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0034). The references are arranged as follows: 

(commenter name, comment docket ID number, 

page of that document). 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering 

comments, data, and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. This document 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

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

6295(q)) The CPSV classes for this 

proposed determination are discussed 

in further detail in section IV.A.4 of this 

document. This proposed determination 

covers commercial prerinse spray valves 

defined as a handheld device that has a 

release-to-close valve and is suitable for 

removing food residue from food service 

items before cleaning them in 

commercial dishwashing or ware 

washing equipment. 10 CFR 431.262 

The scope of coverage is discussed in 

further detail in section IV.A.1 of this 

document. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) DOE will finalize a test 

procedure establishing methodologies 

used to evaluate proposed energy 

conservation standards at least 180 days 

prior to publication of a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Section 8(d) of 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C (‘‘Process Rule’’). DOE’s current 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

expressed in terms of gpm. 10 CFR 

431.266 

DOE published a test procedure final 

rule on December 30, 2015, which 

incorporated by reference the 2013 

version of ASTM International 

(‘‘ASTM’’) Standard F2324 (‘‘ASTM 

F2324–13’’). 80 FR 81441 (‘‘December 

2015 Final Rule’’). In the December 

2015 Final Rule, DOE also revised the 

definition of ‘‘commercial prerinse 

spray valve,’’ made minor changes to 

the DOE flow rate test method, and 

added a definition and test method for 

‘‘spray force.’’ The test procedures for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

codified in 10 CFR 431.264. 

On June 5, 2020, DOE published an 

RFI soliciting public comment and data 

on all aspects of the existing DOE test 

procedure for commercial prerinse 

spray valves, including (1) the scope 

and definition of the test procedure, (2) 

incorporation of the reaffirmed industry 

standard, and (3) the representativeness 

of the test water pressure. 85 FR 34541 

On May 20, 2021 DOE published a test 

procedure NOPR, which proposed 

updates to incorporate the 2019 

reaffirmed version of ASTM Standard 

F2324, ASTM F2324–13 (2019). 86 FR 

27298, 27302. DOE has initially 

determined that this change to the 

version referenced would not impact the 

measured flow rate. Id. DOE also 

proposed revising the definition of 

‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve’’ to 

clarify which valves are covered 

products but did not propose to change 

the scope of valves that are covered. Id. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the determination. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Sections 

6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C. Section IV.A.3 of this document 

discusses the results of the screening 

analysis for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this proposed 

determination, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPD technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 

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

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

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

efficiency for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, using the design parameters for 

the most efficient products available on 

the market or in working prototypes. 

The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this analysis are 

described in section IV.B of this 

document and in chapter 5 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

evaluated, DOE projected energy savings 

from application of the efficiency level 

to the commercial prerinse spray valves 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the assumed year of 

compliance with the potential standards 

(2027–2056). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of the 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

purchased in the previous 30-year 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each efficiency 

level as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the no-new-standards case. 

The no-new-standards case represents a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46334 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

5The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement 

of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 

51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). 

6On January 20, 2021, the President issued 

Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis. Exec. Order No. 13,990, 

86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021) (‘‘E.O. 13990’’). E.O. 

13990 affirms the Nation’s commitment to empower 

our workers and communities; promote and protect 

our public health and the environment; and 

conserve our national treasures and monuments. To 

that end, the stated policies of E.O. 13990 include: 

Improving public health and protecting our 

environment; ensuring access to clean air and 

water; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. E.O. 

13990 section 1. Section 2 of E.O. 13990 directs 

agencies, in part, to immediately review all existing 

regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, 

and any other similar agency actions (‘‘agency 

actions’’) promulgated, issued, or adopted between 

January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or 

may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, 

the policy set forth in the Executive Order. E.O. 

13990 section 2. In addition, section 2(iii) of E.O. 

13990 specifically directs DOE to, as appropriate 

and consistent with applicable law, publishing for 

notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, 

revising, or rescinding the updated Process Rule. In 

response to this directive, DOE has undertaken a 

review of the updated Process Rule. See, 86 FR 

18901 (Apr. 12, 2021) and 86 FR 35668 (July 7, 

2021). 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for a product 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate national energy savings 

(‘‘NES’’) from potential amended or new 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section IV.G of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of 

both site and primary energy savings, 

which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity. DOE also calculates NES in 

terms of full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

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

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.5 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of 

this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether such standards will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) On 

February 14, 2020, DOE published an 

update to its procedures, 

interpretations, and policies for 

consideration in new or revised energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedure, i.e., ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Certain Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment’’ (see 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A).6 85 FR 8626. In 

the updated Process Rule, DOE 

established a significance threshold for 

energy savings under which DOE 

employs a two-step approach that 

considers both an absolute site energy 

savings threshold and a threshold that is 

a percent reduction in the energy use of 

the covered product. Section 6(a) of the 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C. 

DOE first evaluates the projected 

energy savings from a potential maxtech standard over a 30-year period 

against a 0.3 quadrillion British thermal 

units (‘‘quads’’) of site energy savings 

threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A 

to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C. If the 0.3- 

quad threshold is not met, DOE then 

compares the max-tech savings to the 

total energy usage of the covered 

product to calculate a percentage 

reduction in energy usage. Section 

6(b)(3) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C. If this comparison does 

not yield a reduction in site energy use 

of at least 10 percent over a 30-year 

period, the analysis will end and DOE 

will propose to determine that no 

significant energy savings would likely 

result from setting new or amended 

standards. Section 6(b)(4) of appendix A 

to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C. If either 

one of the thresholds is reached, DOE 

will conduct analyses to ascertain 

whether a standard can be prescribed 

that produces the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and still 

constitutes significant energy savings at 

the level determined to be economically 

justified. Section 6(b)(5) of appendix A 

to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C. This twostep approach allows DOE to ascertain 

whether a potential standard satisfies 

EPCA’s significant energy savings 

requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) 

to ensure that DOE avoids setting a 

standard that ‘‘will not result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as 

the ratio of the useful output of services 

from a consumer product to the energy 

use of such product, measured 

according to the Federal test procedures. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(5), emphasis added) 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy use’’ as the 

quantity of energy directly consumed by 

a consumer product at point of use, as 

measured by the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further, 

EPCA uses a household energy 

consumption metric as a threshold for 

setting standards for new covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) Given 

this context, DOE relies on site energy 

as the appropriate metric for evaluating 

the significance of energy savings. 

DOE noted in the June 2020 RFI that 

the significant water savings 

requirement does not apply to prerinse 

spray valves. 85 FR 35383, 35385. DOE 

cites 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B), which 

specifies significant conservation of 

water for only ‘‘showerheads, faucets, 

water closets, or urinals’’. DOE also 

stated that the prohibition on amending 

a standard to allow greater water use 

does not apply to prerinse spray valves. 

Id. DOE cites 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), 

which similarly prohibits the 

prescription of any amended standard 

that increases the maximum allowable 

water use of only showerheads, faucets, 

water closets, or urinals. 

The CA IOUs commented that 

because commercial prerinse spray 

valves use heated water, any standard 

that increased the flow rate would be in 

conflict with EPCA’s prohibition on 

increasing maximum allowable energy 

use as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4) 

As discussed, DOE is not proposing to 

amend the energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves (i.e., DOE is not proposing to 

amend the maximum flow rates). For 

this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed the maximum possible savings 

relative to the potential for consumers to 

switch to equipment or products with a 

higher flow rate, such as faucets, in 

response to more stringent standards. 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

In making a determination of whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

are needed, EPCA requires DOE to 

consider the cost effectiveness of 

amended standards in the context of the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

product that are likely to result from a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2), and 42 U.S.C. 

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

In determining cost effectiveness of 

amending standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, DOE conducted 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46335 

LCC and PBP analyses that estimate the 

costs and benefits to users from 

standards. To further inform DOE’s 

consideration of the cost effectiveness of 

amended standards, DOE considered the 

NPV of total costs and benefits 

estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs 

for determining the NPV of the total 

costs and benefits experienced by 

consumers are (1) total annual installed 

cost, (2) total annual operating costs 

(energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

F. Further Considerations 

As stated previously, pursuant to 

EPCA, absent DOE publishing a 

notification of determination that energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves do not need to be 

amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that 

includes new proposed standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The new proposed 

standards in any such NOPR must be 

based on the criteria established under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and follow the 

procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that 

standards be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency, which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

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

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

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

As discussed in the January 2016 

Final Rule, DOE found that amended 

standards at a level more stringent than 

those adopted would not be 

economically justified under the 

considerations of the seven factors 

prescribed in EPCA. 81 FR 4748, 4794. 

Specifically, the Secretary concluded 

that at the more stringent standards 

levels the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

reduction in manufacturer industry 

value. Id. Consequently, the Secretary 

concluded that standards more stringent 

than those adopted were not 

economically justified. Id. For the 

determination proposed in this 

document, DOE has considered 

potential manufacturer impacts 

associated with amended energy 

conservation standards (See section 

IV.H of this document). 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

determination with regard to 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. DOE 

used several analytical tools to estimate 

the impact of potential energy 

conservation standards. The first tool is 

a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC 

savings and PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The NIA uses a 

second spreadsheet set that provides 

shipments projections and calculates 

NES and NPV of total consumer costs 

and savings expected to result from 

potential energy conservation standards. 

These spreadsheet tools are available on 

the website: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0034. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

determination include (1) a 

determination of the scope and product 

classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure, (3) existing efficiency 

programs, (4) shipments information, (5) 

market and industry trends, and (6) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. The 

key findings of DOE’s market 

assessment are summarized in the 

following sections. See chapter 3 of the 

NOPD TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

In this analysis, DOE relied on the 

definition of commercial prerinse spray 

valves in 10 CFR 431.262, which defines 

commercial prerinse spray valve as ‘‘a 

handheld device that has a release-toclose valve and is suitable for removing 

food residue from food service items 

before cleaning them in commercial 

dishwashing or ware washing 

equipment.’’ Any product meeting the 

definition of commercial prerinse spray 

valve is included in DOE’s scope of 

coverage. 

In response to the June 2020 RFI, 

NEEA and Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (ASAP) commented 

that many valves marketed on online 

retailers’ and manufacturers’ websites 

appear to meet DOE’s definition of a 

commercial prerinse spray valve but 

have flow rates above DOE’s limits. 

(ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 7 at p. 

2) ASAP provided website links to 

products it asserted meet DOE’s 

definition but have flow rates above 

DOE’s energy conservation standard 

limits and models that are advertised as 

complying with DOE standards are not 

included in DOE’s compliance database. 

(ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2–4) ASAP 

commented that the current definition 

means that a product does not have to 

be explicitly marketed as a commercial 

prerinse spray valve in order to be 

covered, so long as it is suitable for use 

in washing dishes. (Id. at p. 2) 

In the May 20, 2021 CPSV test 

procedure NOPR, DOE addressed 

similar comments and proposed to 

update the definition to codify in the 

CFR existing guidance on the 

application of the current definition in 

10 CFR 431.262. 86 FR 27298. DOE 

reiterated that adopting this guidance is 

not intended to change the scope of 

valves covered in the CPSV definition, 

only to codify existing guidance. Id. 

2. Technology Options 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE identified 

several technology options that would 

be expected to improve the efficiency of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46336 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

7A venturi meter is a nozzle where the fluid 

accelerates through a converging cone of 15–20 

degrees. An orifice plate is a flat plate with a 

circular hole drilled in it. 

8 In the CA IOUs comment, Figure 2 also shows 

that at the DOE test procedure test pressure (60 

pounds per square inch, or psi), the flow rate 

continues to be at 1.28 gpm for fixed orifice, PCA 

high performance, and PCA basic. (CA IOUs, No. 6 

at p. 3) 

commercial prerinse spray valves, as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 

The complete list of technology options 

identified are as follows: 

(1) Addition of flow control insert, 

(2) Smaller spray hole area, 

(3) Aerators, 

(4) Additional valves, 

(5) Changing spray hole shape, and 

(6) Venturi meter to orifice plate 

nozzle geometries.7

DOE requested comment on the 

applicability of these technologies to the 

efficiency and performance 

characteristics of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. DOE also requested 

comment and data on any new 

technologies that should be considered 

in its analysis. 85 FR 35383, 35386– 

35387. 

In response to the June 2020 RFI, PMI 

commented that it is not aware of any 

significant technological advances that 

would vastly alter the water and energy 

savings from the products currently 

being produced. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 1) CA 

IOUs commented that pressure 

compensating aerator (‘‘PCA’’) 

technology represents an opportunity 

for further efficiency gains from 

commercial prerinse spray valves and 

recommended DOE investigate the 

energy saving potential of these 

technologies. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) 

PCAs typically use an O-ring that 

compresses and relaxes in response to 

system pressure. When there is no 

pressure, the O-ring is relaxed and 

allows the aerator to be fully opened. As 

the pressure increases, the O-ring is 

compressed into the aerator opening to 

partially block water passage. This 

establishes an inverse relationship 

between the area of the aerator opening 

and the water pressure, and can be 

designed such that the water flow rate 

is approximately constant with 

pressure. 

CA IOUs commented that because the 

flow rate of commercial prerinse spray 

valves varies with pressure, low water 

pressure can reduce user satisfaction 

and result in consumers trying to alter 

their spray valve or replace it with a 

higher flow-rate spray valve. (Id. at p. 1– 

2) They stated that using a PCA 

decouples the flow rate of commercial 

prerinse spray valves from water supply 

pressure, increasing consumer 

satisfaction. (Id. at p. 3) CA IOUs 

commented that PCAs became widely 

adopted around 2010 and were not 

previously considered by DOE in the 

context of a CPSV rulemaking. They 

urged DOE to consider PCAs as a 

technology option in this rulemaking. 

(Id. at p. 3) 

An initial review of the technology 

indicates that PCAs represent an 

opportunity to increase consumer 

satisfaction at low water pressure, as 

PCAs would ensure that consumers get 

their desired spray force across the 

entire range of in-field water pressures. 

However, DOE does not initially find 

PCAs to represent a technology option 

that would improve the water efficiency 

of commercial prerinse spray valves as 

measured by DOE’s test procedure. 

DOE’s test procedure measures flow rate 

and spray force at a singular, 

representative water pressure. Adding a 

PCA would not change the flow rate or 

spray force at DOE’s test pressure.8

In summary, for this analysis, DOE 

considers the technology options shown 

in Table IV.1. Detailed descriptions of 

these technology options can be found 

in chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD. 

TABLE IV.1—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE

SPRAY VALVES TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Technology Option 

Addition of Flow Control Insert 

Smaller Spray Hole Area 

Aerators 

Additional Valves 

Changing Spray Hole Shape 

Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle Geometries 

DOE seeks comment on its 

determination that PCAs would not 

change the flow rate or spray force at 

DOE’s test pressure. 

3. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 

adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of appendix 

A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C. 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE presented 

the screened-out technology options 

from the January 2016 Final Rule and 

sought comment regarding whether 

these technology options would 

continue to be screened out. 85 FR 

35383, 35387. In response to the June 

2020 RFI, DOE did not receive any 

comments suggesting these technologies 

should no longer be screened out. DOE’s 

review of the market also suggests that 

these technologies are not suitable for 

further consideration, as discussed in 

chapter 4 of the TSD. Therefore, for this 

analysis, DOE has maintained the 

January 2016 Final Rule conclusions 

and has screened out the same 

technology options as presented in 

Table IV.2. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46337 

9EPA’s notification of sunset of the WaterSense 

Specification for commercial prerinse spray valves 

can be found at the following link: https://

www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial-pre-rinsespray-valves-specification-and-certification. 

TABLE IV.2—SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Screened technology option 

Screening criteria 

(X = basis for screening out) 

Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, install, 

and service 

Adverse impact 

on product utility 

Adverse impacts on 

health and safety 

Unique-pathway 

proprietary 

technologies 

Addition of Flow Control Insert ............ X .................................... ............................ .................................... ............................

Aerators ................................................ X .................................... ............................ .................................... ............................

Additional Valves ................................. X .................................... ............................ .................................... ............................

b. Remaining Technologies 

After reviewing each technology, DOE 

did not screen out the following 

technology options and considers them 

as design options in the engineering 

analysis: 

(1) Smaller spray hole area. 

(2) Changing spray hole shape, and 

(3) Venturi meter to orifice plate 

nozzle geometries. 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. Also these 

remaining technology options meet the 

other screening criteria (i.e., practicable 

to manufacture, install, and service and 

do not result in adverse impacts on 

consumer utility, product availability, 

health, or safety). For additional details, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD. 

4. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides the covered 

product into classes by (1) the type of 

energy used, (2) the capacity of the 

product, or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy 

efficiency and justifies different 

standard levels, considering factors such 

as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

For commercial prerinse spray valves, 

the current energy conservation 

standards specified in 10 CFR 431.266 

are based on three product classes 

determined according to spray force, 

which is a performance-related feature 

that provides utility to the consumer. 

‘‘Spray force’’ is defined as the amount 

of force exerted onto the spray disc, 

measured in ounce-force (‘‘ozf’’). 10 CFR 

431.262 Table IV.3 lists the current 

three product classes for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

TABLE IV.3—CURRENT COMMERCIAL

PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE PRODUCT

CLASSES

Product class Spray force in 

ounce-force, ozf 

Product Class 1 ........ ≤5.0 ozf. 

Product Class 2 ........ >5.0 ozf and ≤8.0 ozf. 

Product Class 3 ........ >8.0 ozf. 

These product classes were based on 

previous market research that identified 

three distinct end-user applications 

requiring differing amounts of spray 

force: (1) Cleaning delicate glassware 

and removing loose food particles from 

dishware (which require the least 

amount of spray force), (2) cleaning wet 

food, and (3) cleaning baked-on foods 

(which requires the greatest amount of 

spray force). 81 FR 4748, 4758–4759. 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE sought 

feedback regarding whether there had 

been any changes to the end-user 

applications of each product classes and 

if any of the existing product classes 

should be merged or separated. Further, 

DOE requested any data on additional 

performance-related features, in 

addition to spray force, that provide 

unique consumer utility that would 

justify additional product classes. 85 FR 

35386. 

In response, PMI commented that it 

was not aware of any data or market 

feedback that would warrant changes to 

the end-user applications of each 

product class or changes to the current 

product class structure. (PMI, No. 4 at 

p. 4) Further, it was not aware of any 

data or market feedback that would 

warrant additional product classes. (Id.) 

DOE did not receive any comments or 

data suggesting that changes to the 

existing product class structure were 

needed and therefore maintained the 

existing product class structure in this 

analysis. 

5. Market Assessment 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE stated that 

preliminary research indicated some of 

the ‘‘shower-type’’ basic models since 

the January 2016 Final Rule had been 

redesigned to have flow rates and spray 

force in product class 2 (≤5.0 ozf and 

≤8.0 ozf), with few commercial prerinse 

spray valves remaining in product class 

3 (≤8.0 ozf). 85 FR 35383, 35386. 

In response to the RFI, PMI 

commented that the total number of 

commercial prerinse spray valves that 

meet the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (‘‘EPA’s’’) WaterSense 

standards continues to grow. (PMI, No. 

4 at p. 3) It further commented that 

industry needs more time to evaluate 

the impact the current DOE standards 

have had on the market. (Id. at p. 1) 

Specifically, PMI stated that the 

relatively recent compliance date has 

not allowed manufacturers time to 

recoup their investments associated 

with the most recent redesigns, and 

some manufacturers and distributors 

need time to sell-through the existing 

products they have in stock. (Id. at p. 4) 

PMI commented in support of a no-newstandards determination due to any 

improvement in efficiency being 

negligible when compared to the current 

standard’s improvement from the 

previous 1.6 gpm flow rate limitation. 

(Id. at p. 5) 

DOE notes that EPA’s WaterSense 

program was sunset in 2019, with the 

implementation of the energy 

conservation standard prescribed in the 

January 2016 Final Rule, after 

participants expressed an 

‘‘overwhelming preference for canceling 

the WaterSense specification, indicating 

limited potential for further 

efficiency.’’ 9

NEEA reiterated DOE’s observation 

that significantly fewer spray valves are 

currently manufactured in product class 

3 and expressed concern that the 

absence of high flow-rate valves could 

drive certain manufacturers to select out 

of scope products with flow rates above 

energy conservation standards. (NEEA, 

No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA recommended DOE 

investigate any potential product class 

switching and any switching to 

equipment that may be out of scope. (Id. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46338 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

10The new max-tech model utilizes smaller spray 

hole area to further reduce flow rate. This is not a 

new technology option; rather, it is further utilizing a technology option considered during the January 

2016 Final Rule. 

at p. 4) DOE modeled potential product 

class switching and any switching to 

out-of-scope equipment as discussed in 

section IV.F of this document. 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

initially relied on government 

databases, retail listings, and industry 

publications (e.g., manufacturer 

catalogs) to assess the overall state of the 

industry. DOE used this market analysis 

to generate the shipments analysis, 

discussed in section IV.F of this 

document. DOE maintained the nearest 

neighbor switching assumptions from 

the previous rulemaking, as discussed 

in section IV.F of this document. 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. There 

are two elements to consider in the 

engineering analysis: The selection of 

efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the 

‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

NEEA recommended DOE set the 

efficiency standards to the maximum 

available flow rate currently on the 

market in each product class. (NEEA, 

No. 7 at p. 4) As described in the 

following analyses, DOE evaluated the 

savings potential of higher efficiency 

standards. 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

Relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency-level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘max 

tech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In this proposed determination, 

similar to the January 2016 Final Rule, 

DOE is adopting a design-option 

approach. The analysis is performed in 

terms of incremental increases in 

efficiency (decreases in flow rate) due to 

implementation of selected design 

options. 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

For each product class, DOE generally 

selects a baseline model as a reference 

point for each class, and measures 

changes resulting from potential energy 

conservation standards against the 

baseline. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of a product typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. 

The current minimum energy 

conservation standards represent the 

baseline efficiency levels for each 

product class. The current standards for 

each product class are based on flow 

rate in gpm. DOE requested comment in 

the June 2020 RFI regarding whether 

using the current energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves are an appropriate baseline 

efficiency level. 85 FR 35383, 35388. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this issue. Therefore, DOE is using the 

current energy conservations standards 

as the baseline efficiency level in this 

analysis. 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency (i.e., lowest water 

use in a given product class) unit 

currently available on the market. DOE 

also defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency 

level to represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE presented 

the max-tech efficiency level from the 

January 2016 Final Rule and requested 

comment as to whether these max-tech 

options were appropriate. 85 FR 35383, 

35388. DOE did not receive any 

comment suggesting they were not. 

Based on a review of recent 

manufacturer catalogs, DOE identified a 

new max-tech commercial prerinse 

spray valve for product class 1, which 

has a flow rate of 0.45 gpm as compared 

to the flow rate of 0.62 gpm presented 

in the June 2020 RFI.10 As such, DOE 

has used the max-tech efficiency level 

flow rates presented in Table IV.4 in 

this analysis. 

TABLE IV.4—MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY

LEVELS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

Product class Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Product Class 1 ........................ 0.45 

Product Class 2 ........................ 0.73 

Product Class 3 ........................ 1.13 

DOE seeks comment on its new maxtech efficiency level for product class 1. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

presented a theoretical linear 

relationship between CPSV flow rate 

and spray force, derived from both 

Bernoulli’s principle of incompressible 

flow and the concept of conservation of 

mass in a fluid system. Further, DOE 

had verified this linear relationship 

through market testing of available 

products and close matching between 

the theoretical relationship and the flow 

rates and spray forces of available 

products. 81 FR 4748, 4762. The 

relationship between flow rate and 

spray force is given below: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46339 

11See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD. 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment regarding whether this 

equation was still applicable. PMI 

commented that this relationship was 

still accurate and that it supports using 

the equation for determining flow rate 

or spray force. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 5) DOE 

did not receive any other comments on 

the equation, and therefore continues to 

apply this equation in the engineering 

analysis. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the product on the market. 

The cost approaches are summarized as 

follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for 

the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the BOM for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

developed cost-efficiency curves by 

creating a BOM using physical and 

catalog teardowns of commercial 

prerinse spray valves and concluded 

that manufacturing production cost was 

unaffected by efficiency level, both 

within product classes and across 

product classes. 81 FR 4748, 4765. In 

the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment as to whether this conclusion 

had changed since DOE’s previous 

analysis. 85 FR 35383, 35389. DOE did 

not receive any comment suggesting this 

conclusion has changed. 

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

document, DOE did not observe any 

new technology options from the 

January 2016 Final Rule. Therefore, for 

this proposed determination, DOE 

updated the cost analysis from the 

January 2016 Final Rule to be 

representative of the market in 2020. 

This included updating the material 

prices of each component of the 

previously torn down commercial 

prerinse spray valves and updating the 

labor, depreciation, utilities, 

maintenance, tax, and insurance costs. 

DOE did not include any commercial 

prerinse spray valves that have exited 

the market or had their design modified 

since they were torn down. The 

resulting BOM provides the basis for the 

manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’) 

estimates. 

These updated costs reaffirm that 

there are differences in manufacturing 

costs between units from different 

manufacturers. However, none of the 

differences were directly related to the 

efficiency of a commercial prerinse 

spray valve. Rather, the differences were 

primarily due to differences in the type 

and amount of material used (e.g., 

plastic versus brass or stainless steel 

spray nozzles). As such, the resulting 

cost analysis provided the basis for the 

MPC estimates. However, DOE has 

initially concluded that MPC is 

unaffected by efficiency level, similar to 

the conclusion from the January 2016 

Final Rule; i.e., MPC remains constant 

across all product classes. 81 FR 4748, 

4765. 

DOE seeks comment and data 

regarding any changes in MPC that 

would not be accounted for by updating 

the cost analysis of the previously 

conducted product teardowns. 

Specifically, DOE seeks any data that 

would contradict its determination of no 

incremental cost associated with 

improvements in efficiency of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

a. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as cost-efficiency data and 

indicate that manufacturing production 

costs are unaffected by efficiency level 

within a product class and across 

product classes. Therefore, DOE 

assumed the final MPC as the average 

MPC of all commercial prerinse spray 

valves. The summary of the cost 

efficiency relationships for product 

class 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Table 

IV.5, Table IV.6, and Table IV.7, 

respectively. See TSD chapter 5 for 

additional detail on the engineering 

analysis and complete cost-efficiency 

results. 

TABLE IV.5—COST EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 

[Spray force ≤5.0 ozf] 

Efficiency level Efficiency level description Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2020$) 

Incremental 

cost over 

baseline 

($) 

Baseline .................................. Current Federal standard ....................................................... 1.00 $26.91 $0.00 

Level 1 .................................... 15% improvement over Federal standard .............................. 0.85 26.91 0.00 

Level 2 .................................... 25% improvement over Federal standard .............................. 0.75 26.91 0.00 

Level 3 .................................... Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) ....................... 0.45 26.91 0.00 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18AU21.000</GPH>

[Flow Rate (gpm)] = 0.15 * [Spray Force (ozf)] 

Equation 111 
46340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.6—COST EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2 

[Spray force >5.0 ozf and ≤8.0 ozf] 

Efficiency level Efficiency level description Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2020$) 

Incremental 

cost over 

Baseline 

($) 

Baseline .......................................................... Current Federal standard ............................... 1.20 $26.91 $0.00 

Level 1 ............................................................ 15% improvement over Federal standard ..... 1.02 26.91 0.00 

Level 2 ............................................................ 25% improvement over Federal standard ..... 0.90 26.91 0.00 

Level 3 ............................................................ Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) 0.73 26.91 0.00 

TABLE IV.7—COST EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3 

[Spray force >8.0 ozf] 

Efficiency level Efficiency level description Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2020$) 

Incremental 

cost over 

baseline 

($) 

Baseline .......................................................... Current Federal standard ............................... 1.28 26.91 0.00 

Level 1 ............................................................ Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) 1.13 26.91 0.00 

See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for 

additional detail on the engineering 

analysis and complete cost-efficiency 

results. 

C. Markups Analysis 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a non-production cost multiplier 

(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. 

The resulting manufacturer selling price 

(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the 

manufacturer distributes a unit into 

commerce. DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed 

by publicly-traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance 

manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes commercial 

prerinse spray valves. The manufacturer 

mark-up is discussed in more detail in 

section IV.H.2.d of this document. 

The markups analysis also develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis and in the manufacturer impact 

analysis (‘‘MIA’’). At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. 

DOE requested comment in the June 

2020 RFI regarding markups per 

distribution channel as well as the 

portion of equipment sold via each 

distribution channel. 85 FR 35383, 

35390. DOE did not receive any 

comments related to markups per 

distribution channel. 

For commercial prerinse spray valves, 

the main parties in the distribution 

chain are manufacturers, distributors, 

retailers, and service company. Each 

party in the distribution chain sells to 

the final consumer. Table IV.8 provides 

the portion of equipment passing 

through different distribution channels. 

TABLE IV.8—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

Channel Pathway Percentage 

through channel 

A .............................................. Manufacturer → Final Consumer (Direct Sales) ....................................................................... 17 

B .............................................. Manufacturer → Authorized Distributor → Final Consumer ..................................................... 33 

C .............................................. Manufacturer → Retailer → Final Consumer ............................................................................ 17 

D .............................................. Manufacturer → Service Company → Final Consumer ............................................................ 33 

DOE developed baseline markups for 

each entity in the distribution chain. 

Baseline markups are multipliers that 

convert the MSP of equipment at the 

baseline efficiency level to consumer 

purchase price. Incremental markups 

are multipliers that convert the 

incremental increase in MSP for a 

product at each higher efficiency level 

(compared to the MSP at the baseline 

efficiency level) to the corresponding 

purchase price. In the analysis for this 

proposed determination, DOE used only 

baseline markups, as the engineering 

analysis indicated that there is no price 

increase with improvements in 

efficiency for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

DOE relied on annual reports and SEC 

10–K reports from public companies in 

the different distribution channels to 

estimate average baseline markups. 

Table IV.9 provides the markups for 

each distribution channel. 

TABLE IV.9—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE BASELINE CHANNELS

Channel Pathway Baseline markup 

A .............................................. Manufacturer → Final Consumer (Direct Sales) ....................................................................... 1.72 

B .............................................. Manufacturer → Authorized Distributor → Final Consumer ..................................................... 1.72 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46341 

12U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration. Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey. 2020. Washington, DC. 

Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

commercial/data/2012/. 

13ASHRAE Standard 12–2020: Minimizing the 

Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building 

Water Systems (March 2020). 

TABLE IV.9—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE BASELINE CHANNELS—Continued 

Channel Pathway Baseline markup 

C .............................................. Manufacturer → Retailer → Final Consumer ............................................................................ 1.52 

D .............................................. Manufacturer → Service Company → Final Consumer ............................................................ 1.87 

DOE seeks comment on the markup 

channels, the percentage through each 

channel, and the baseline markup of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

D. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of commercial 

prerinse spray valves at different 

efficiencies in representative U.S. 

commercial buildings, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

CPSV efficiency. The energy use 

analysis estimates the range of energy 

use of commercial prerinse spray valves 

in the field (i.e., as they are actually 

used by consumers). The energy use 

analysis provides the basis for other 

analyses DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. The energy 

use analysis for this NOPD is the same 

process as DOE used in the January 

2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 4748, 4765– 

4766. 

As discussed in section IV.B.1, DOE 

developed flow rates for each efficiency 

level analyzed in the engineering 

analysis. DOE calculated the energy and 

water use by determining the 

representative daily operating time of 

the product by major building types that 

contain commercial kitchens found in 

the 2012 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’).12 The 

daily CPSV operating time was 

annualized based on operating 

schedules for each building type. In the 

June 2020 RFI, DOE presented CPSV 

annual operating hours and requested 

comment on those hours. 85 FR 35383, 

35390. DOE did not receive any 

comments related to operating hours. 

Water use for each equipment class 

was determined by multiplying the 

annual operating time by the flow rate 

and operating pressure of 60 pounds per 

square inch (‘‘psi’’) for each efficiency 

level. DOE requested comment in the 

June 2020 RFI requesting feedback 

related to the typical operating pressure 

of the water typically supplied to 

commercial prerinse spray valves and 

DOE’s assumption of 60 psi. 85 FR 

35383, 35390. PMI concurred with this 

operating pressure and stated that 60 ± 

2 psi is representative of the average 

U.S. water pressure in commercial 

kitchens. (PMI, No. 4 at pp. 4–5) DOE 

did not receive any further comments 

and therefore maintained the 60 psi 

operating pressure for each efficiency 

level. 

Energy use was calculated by 

multiplying the annual water use in 

gallons by the energy required to heat 

each gallon of water to an end-use 

temperature of 108 °F. DOE requested 

comment in the June 2020 RFI related 

to the end-use water temperature of the 

water leaving the prerinse spray valves 

and any related supporting data. 85 FR 

35383, 35390. PMI stated that it was not 

aware of any data or market information 

that suggested a different temperature 

than the 108 °F end-use temperature. 

(PMI, No. 4 at p. 5) Cold water supply 

temperatures used in this calculation 

were derived for the nine U.S. census 

regions based on ambient air 

temperatures, and hot water supply 

temperature was assumed to be 140 °F 

based on ASHRAE Standard 12–2020.13

DOE seeks comment on the methods 

to improve DOE’s energy-use analysis, 

as well as any supporting alternate 

operating hour estimates for operation 

of commercial prerinse spray valves. 

DOE seeks comment on water pressure 

and the end-use temperature. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis4764–4765. For purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ....................................................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. 

Installation Costs ................................................ Baseline installation cost determined with data from U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Annual Energy Use ............................................. The energy use multiplied by the average hours per year. Average number of hours based on 

field data. 

Variability: Based on the 2012 CBECS. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (‘‘EIA’’) Form 861 data for 

2020. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 27 regions. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... Based on the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (‘‘AEO2021’’) price projections. 

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

Product Lifetime .................................................. Average: 5 years 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46342 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

14Available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ 

page/eia861.html. 

15Available at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_

pri_sum_a_EPG0_PCS_DMcf_m.htm. 

16U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. 

Washington, DC. (AEO2021). Available at 

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 

17Available at https://www.awwa.org/Store/2019- 

Water-and-Wastewater-Rate-Survey—Digital-Set/ 

ProductDetail/79004009. 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs Source/method 

Discount Rates ................................................... Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was 

the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Compliance Date ................................................ 2027. 

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

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the 

distribution channel markups described 

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

As stated earlier in this notice, DOE 

used baseline markups, but did not 

apply incremental markups, because the 

engineering analysis indicated that there 

is no price increase with improvements 

in efficiency for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. 

In prior energy conservation 

standards rulemakings, DOE estimated 

the total installed costs per unit for 

product and then assumed that costs 

remain constant throughout the analysis 

period. This assumption is conservative 

because product costs tend to decrease 

over time. In 2011, DOE published a 

notice of data availability (‘‘NODA’’) 

titled Equipment Process Forecasting in 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). In 

the NODA, DOE proposed a 

methodology for determining whether 

equipment process have trended 

downward in real terms. The 

methodology examines so-called price 

or experimental learning, wherein, with 

ever-increasing experience with the 

production of a product, manufacturers 

are able to reduce their production costs 

through innovations in technology and 

process. 

Commercial prerinse spray valves are 

formed metal devices. Neither changes 

in technology nor process are expected 

to occur to change the price of the 

product in this analysis. For this 

analysis DOE assumed that product 

costs remain constant over the analysis 

period. This is consistent with the 

January 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 4748, 

4767. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE used data from U.S. 

Department of Labor to estimate the 

baseline installation cost for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. Consistent with 

the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE found 

no evidence that installation costs 

would be affected by increased 

efficiency levels. 81 FR 4748, 4767. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled CPSV user, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a commercial prerinse spray valve at 

different efficiency levels using the 

approach described previously in 

section IV.D of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average annual 

commercial electricity prices for 27 

geographic regions using data from the 

U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(‘‘EIA’’) Form EIA–861 database (based 

on ‘‘Annual Electric Power Industry 

Report’’).14 The NOPD analysis used the 

data for 2020 DOE derived average 

natural gas prices using data from EIA’s 

natural gas prices.15

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices by a projection of 

annual change in national-average 

commercial energy price in 

AEO2021.16 AEO2021 has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2040 through 

2050. 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

DOE obtained data on water and 

wastewater prices from the 2019 

American Water Works Association 

(‘‘AWWA’’) surveys for this analysis.17

For each state and the District of 

Columbia, DOE combined all individual 

utility observations within the state to 

develop one value for water and 

wastewater service. Because water and 

wastewater charges are frequently tied 

to the same metered commodity values, 

DOE combined the prices for water and 

wastewater into one total dollar per 

thousand gallons figure. This figure is 

referred to as the combined water price. 

DOE used the consumer price index 

(‘‘CPI’’) data for water related 

consumption (1974–2019) in developing 

a real growth rate for combined water 

price forecasts. DOE requested comment 

in the June 2020 RFI whether a different 

water price dataset should be 

considered. 85 FR 35383, 35391. DOE 

received no comments related to water 

price datasets. Chapter 8 of the NOPD 

TSD provides more detail about DOE’s 

approach to developing water and 

wastewater prices. 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency produce no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. DOE requested comment in 

the June 2020 RFI on the assumption of 

zero maintenance and repair costs upon 

failure. DOE assumed that consumers 

would replace the commercial prerinse 

spray valve upon failure rather than 

repairing the product. 85 FR 35383, 

35391. DOE also requested comment if 

these changes would differ per 

efficiency level. Id. DOE received no 

comments related to maintenance nor 

repair costs. For this NOPD, DOE 

modeled commercial prerinse spray 

valves as not being repaired, and no 

maintenance costs. Additionally, DOE 

modeled no changes in maintenance or 

repair costs between different efficiency 

levels. 

7. Product Lifetime 

For commercial prerinse spray valves, 

DOE used lifetime estimates from 

manufacturer datasheets and other 

published data sources. DOE requested 

comment in the June 2020 RFI regarding 

lifetime and lifetime distributions. In 

the June 2020 RFI, DOE restated the 

values from the January 2016 Final 

Rule, an average lifetime of 5 years and 

maximum of 10 years. 85 FR 35383, 

35391. DOE did not receive any 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46343 

18The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in NPV of 

lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence 

of several factors: transaction costs, risk premiums 

and response to uncertainty, time preferences, and 

interest rates at which a consumer is able to borrow 

or lend. 

19 Damodaran Online. Available at http://

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ (accessed April 

2020). 

20 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

comments related to lifetime of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE 

developed a Weibull distribution with 

an average lifetime of 5 years and a 

maximum lifetime of 10 years. The use 

of a lifetime distribution for this 

analysis helps account for the variability 

in product lifetimes. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

CPSV users to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of commercial 

discount rates for commercial prerinse 

spray valves based on consumer 

financing costs and the opportunity cost 

of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.18 DOE notes 

that the LCC does not analyze the 

appliance purchase decision, so the 

implicit discount rate is not relevant in 

this model. The LCC estimates NPV over 

the lifetime of the product, so the 

appropriate discount rate will reflect the 

general opportunity cost of commercial 

consumer funds, taking this time scale 

into account. Given the long-time 

horizon modeled in the LCC, the 

application of a marginal interest rate 

associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish commercial discount 

rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 

identified all relevant commercial 

consumer debt or asset classes in order 

to approximate a commercial 

consumer’s opportunity cost of funds 

related to appliance energy cost savings. 

It estimated the average percentage 

shares of the various types of debt and 

equity by commercial consumer 

building type using data from 

Damodaran Online 19 for 1998–2019. 

Using Damodaran Online and the 

Federal Reserve, DOE developed a 

distribution of rates for each type of 

debt and asset by building type to 

represent the rates that may apply in the 

year in which amended standards 

would take effect. DOE assigned each 

sample building a specific discount rate 

drawn from one of the distributions. 

The average rate across all types of 

commercial consumer debt and equity, 

weighted by the shares of each type, 

given business size, is 7.0 percent. See 

chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for further 

details on the development of consumer 

discount rates. 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of commercial prerinse 

spray valves for 2027 (the first year of 

the analysis period), DOE conducted 

general internet searches and examined 

manufacturer literature to understand 

the characteristics of the spray values 

currently offered on the market. DOE 

assumed that the no-new-standards case 

percentages in 2027 would stay the 

same through the analysis period. The 

estimated market shares by product 

class for the no-new-standards case for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

shown in Table IV.11. The estimated 

market shares within each product class 

for the no-new-standards case for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

shown in Table IV.12. See chapter 8 of 

the NOPD TSD for further information 

on the derivation of the efficiency 

distributions. 

TABLE IV.11—PRODUCT CLASS DISTRIBUTION IN NO-NEW-STANDARDS

CASE

Product class Portion of shipments 

(% of shipments) 

1 10 

2 70 

3 20 

TABLE IV.12—EFFICIENCY LEVEL DISTRIBUTION WITHIN EACH PRODUCT CLASS IN NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE

Efficiency level Product class 1 

(% of shipments) 

Product class 2 

(% of shipments) 

Product class 3 

(% of shipments) 

0 ................................................................................................................................. 3.1 74.2 86.0 

1 ................................................................................................................................. — 24.2 14.0 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 87.5 .............................. ..............................

3 ................................................................................................................................. 9.4 1.5 ..............................

10. Payback Period Analysis 

The PBP is the amount of time it takes 

the consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more-efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. The PBP is 

expressed in years. The PBP that 

exceeds the life of the product means 

that the increased total installed cost is 

not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

E. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.20 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach in tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46344 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

21Available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

ccms. 

22EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field 

Study Report, as 24–25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available 

at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 

02/documents/ws-background-prsv-field-studyreport.pdf). 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the number of 

commercial prerinse spray valves in 

operation during that year. 

Historical CPSV shipment data come 

from industry reports as well as DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management 

System.21 DOE used the commercial 

floorspace growth rate to make 

projections through year 2056. PMI 

commented that at least 20,000 

restaurants closed in 2020 as a result of 

the COVID–19 pandemic. (PMI, No. 4 at 

pp. 3–4) DOE modeled flat growth in 

2020 through 2022 for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. DOE assumes that 

growth will increase by the time the 

analysis period starts in 2027. 

Previous research by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) identified low spray force as 

one of the primary drivers of user 

dissatisfaction for some application of 

commercial prerinse spray valves.22 The 

relationship between consumer 

satisfaction and spray force for 

commercial prerinse spray valves makes 

it possible that consumers may opt to 

switch product classes if they are 

unsatisfied with the spray force 

available to them in their current 

product class. In some cases, consumers 

may opt to switch to a commercial 

prerinse spray valve that consumes 

more water and energy than their 

current product. 

If the current choices of product 

under the current regulations 

correspond to the consumers’ optimal 

product, it is probable that some 

consumers would switch from product 

class 1 to product class 2 or from 

product class 2 to product class 3 in 

response to amended standards in order 

to maintain their satisfaction with the 

product. In more extreme cases, 

consumers may also opt to exit the 

CPSV market and purchase a different 

type of product (e.g., a faucet) with a 

higher flow rate. The economics 

resulting from product-class and 

product-type switching may result in 

lower optimal efficiency levels and 

reduced estimates of water and energy 

savings, as compared to the case 

without class switching. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

acknowledged both the possibility that 

consumers would switch between 

product classes and the possibility that 

a subset of consumers would exit the 

CPSV market and purchase higher flowrate products (e.g., faucets). 81 FR 4748, 

4769. DOE previously implemented a 

nearest neighbor switching mechanism 

and a product switch scenario in the 

shipments model to estimate such 

consumer choices. 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment and information on whether 

product class switching occurred as a 

result of the previous amended rule as 

well as any potential switching as the 

result of a new amended rule. 85 FR 

35883, 35392. NEEA recommended DOE 

examine potential product-class 

switching in the product class 3 CPSV 

market. (NEEA, No. 7 at pp. 1–2) In the 

shipment model in this analysis, DOE 

developed a method for modeling 

product class switching where 

consumers opted for the nearest 

neighbor and the possibility of some 

consumers exiting the CPSV market for 

higher flow-rate products, similar to the 

previous rulemaking. 

1. Nearest Neighbor Switch Scenario 

The first scenario can be characterized 

as a ‘‘nearest neighbor’’ approach, in 

that consumers would choose the 

product with the flow rate that is closest 

to their current product flow rate, even 

if it has a higher spray force (thus 

product class switching). Under the 

nearest neighbor scenario, DOE assumed 

100 percent of consumers would choose 

the closest flow rate. Table IV.13 lists 

the flow rate for the potential efficiency 

levels evaluated in this NOPD, which 

are the consumer’s potential options for 

product switching. 

TABLE IV.13—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVE FLOW RATES

Efficiency level 

Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3 

Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Flow rate 

(gpm) 

Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 1.00 1.20 1.28 

Level 1 ....................................................................................................................... * 0.85 1.02 1.13 

Level 2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.75 * 0.90 ..............................

Level 3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.45 0.73 ..............................

* Market data do not indicate currently available product that meet this efficiency level. 

This scenario was included within the 

Reference case when DOE analyzed any 

potential amended standards, similar to 

the January 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 

4748, 4769. A detailed discussion of 

DOE’s method to model product class 

switching is contained in chapter 9 of 

the TSD. 

DOE seeks comment on the productclass switching methodology used in 

this analysis, including any logic 

consumers may employ when switching 

as well as the portion of consumers that 

may switch. 

2. Product Switch Scenario 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

include an alternate analysis (Trial 

Standard Level 4a) where consumers of 

product class 3 might opt for other 

products such as a faucet. 81 FR 4748, 

4779. The Federal standard for that 

product has a flow rate of 2.2 gpm. 10 

CFR 430.32(o) 

In response to the June 2020 RFI, 

NEEA requested DOE examine potential 

switching to products above DOE 

standards. (NEEA, No. 7 at pp. 1–3) 

In this NOPD, DOE also included a 

sensitivity analysis (known as a product 

switch scenario) in which some 

consumers exit the CPSV market and 

instead use other products like faucets, 

with greater flow rates than applicable 

to commercial prerinse spray valves. In 

this sensitivity analysis, a subset of 

consumers currently using the highest 

efficiency level of product class 3 (e.g., 

consumers currently purchasing valves 

at EL0 of product class 3) would exit the 

CPSV market and instead use faucets 

with a flow rate of 2.2 gpm. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46345 

23The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and Washington, DC. 

As noted in section IV.A.5, since the 

January 2016 Final Rule, some of the 

high flow rates (and correspondingly 

high spray force) units identified during 

the last rulemaking have been 

redesigned as product class 2 

commercial prerinse spray valves, with 

lower spray forces. As a result, few units 

are currently available in product class 

3. The lack of units available in product 

class 3 makes it more likely that 

customers seeking the product utility 

associated with a high spray force unit 

would not be satisfied with their 

commercial prerinse spray valve if more 

efficient standards are considered in 

product class 3. Therefore, the 

likelihood of customers opting for 

alternative products in response to 

amended standards is more likely 

during this rulemaking than it was 

during the January 2016 Final Rule. 

A detailed discussion of DOE’s 

method to model this sensitivity 

analysis is contained in chapter 9 of the 

TSD. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

used to analyze the possibility of some 

consumers exiting the CPSV market for 

higher flow-rate products, including any 

logic consumers may employ when 

switching as well as the portion of 

consumers that may switch. 

F. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.23 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the equipment 

being regulated.) DOE calculates the 

NES and NPV for the potential standard 

levels considered based on projections 

of annual product shipments, along 

with the annual energy consumption 

and total installed cost data from the 

energy use and LCC analyses. For the 

present analysis, DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of commercial 

prerinse spray valves sold from 2027 

through 2056. 

DOE evaluates the effects of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each CPSV product 

class in the absence of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each CPSV product class if DOE 

adopted new or amended standards at 

specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 

ELs or standards cases) for that class. 

For the standards cases, DOE considers 

how a given standard would likely 

affect the market shares of commercial 

prerinse spray valves with lower flow 

rates than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each EL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.14 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD 

for details. 

TABLE IV.14—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

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

Modeled Compliance Date of Standard ...................... 2027. 

Efficiency Trends ......................................................... No-new-standards case. 

Standards cases. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ......................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each EL. 

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

Annual Energy Cost per Unit ....................................... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit 

and energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ....................... Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Prices .............................................................. AEO2021 projections (to 2050) and extrapolation through 2056. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .............. A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2021. 

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

Present Year ................................................................ 2021. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.E.9 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with an 

amended or new standard. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ switching scenario to establish 

the shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2027). In this 

scenario, the market shares of product 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level or switch to the ‘‘nearest 

neighbor’’ based on the flow rate of the 

valves that were originally used. The 

market share of product above the 

standard would remain unchanged. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered product 

between each potential standards case 

(EL) and the case with no new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46346 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

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

Available at https://www.eia.gov/analysis/ 

pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php. 

25United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03- 

21.html. 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from AEO2021. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

The use of a higher-efficiency product 

is occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. For 

commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE 

did not use a rebound effect estimate. 

DOE does not include the rebound effect 

in the NPV analysis because it reasons 

that the increased service from greater 

use of the product has an economic 

value that is reflected in the value of the 

foregone energy savings. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the NIA and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is 

the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 24 that EIA uses to 

prepare its AEO. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production, and 

delivery in the case of natural gas, 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the NOPD TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average commercial energy 

price changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2021, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2020 through 

2050. As part of the NIA, DOE also 

analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO2021 Reference 

case that have lower and higher 

economic growth. Those cases have 

lower and higher energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case. NIA 

results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPD 

TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPD, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.25 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE conducted a MIA for commercial 

prerinse spray valves to estimate the 

financial impacts of analyzed amended 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 

quantitative part of the MIA relies on 

the Government Regulatory Impact 

Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow 

model customized for the commercial 

prerinse spray valves covered in this 

proposed determination. The key GRIM 

inputs are data on the industry cost 

structure, MPCs, and shipments, as well 

as assumptions about manufacturer 

markups and manufacturer conversion 

costs. The key MIA output is industry 

net present value (‘‘INPV’’), which is the 

sum of industry annual cash flows over 

the analysis period, discounted using 

the industry-weighted average cost of 

capital, and the impact to domestic 

manufacturing employment. The GRIM 

calculates annual cash flows using 

standard accounting principles. DOE 

used the GRIM to compare changes in 

INPV between the no-new-standards 

case and various ELs, the standards 

cases. The difference in INPV between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on CPSV 

manufacturers. Different sets of 

assumptions (conversion cost scenarios) 

produce different INPV results. The 

qualitative part of the MIA addresses 

factors such as manufacturing capacity; 

characteristics of, and impacts on, any 

particular subgroup of manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers; the 

cumulative regulatory burden placed on 

CPSV manufacturers; and any impacts 

on competition. 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flows over time due to 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. These changes in cash flows 

result in either a higher or lower INPV 

for the standards cases compared to the 

no-new-standards case. The GRIM uses 

a standard annual cash-flow analysis 

that incorporates MPCs, manufacturer 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. It then 

models changes in manufacturer 

investments that may result from the 

analyzed amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses these inputs 

to calculate a series of annual cash flows 

beginning with the reference year of the 

analysis, 2021, and continuing to the 

terminal year of the analysis, 2056. DOE 

computes INPV by summing the stream 

of annual discounted cash flows during 

the analysis period. DOE used a real 

discount rate of 6.89 percent, the same 

discount rate used in the January 2016 

Final Rule, for CPSV manufacturers in 

this NOPD. 81 FR 4748, 4749. Many of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46347 

the GRIM inputs come from the 

engineering analysis, the shipments 

analysis, and other research conducted 

during the MIA. The major GRIM inputs 

are described in detail in the following 

sections. 

DOE seeks comment on the use of 

6.89 as a real discount rate for CPSV 

manufacturers. 

a. Manufacturer Product Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

products is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline products. 

However, as discussed in section IV.B.2 

of this document, the MPCs for all 

commercial prerinse spray valves is 

constant at every efficiency level and for 

every product class. In the MIA, DOE 

used the MPCs calculated in the 

engineering analysis, as described in 

section IV.B.2 of this document and 

further detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD 

for this NOPD. 

b. Shipment Projections 

INPV, the key GRIM output, depends 

on industry revenue, which depends on 

the quantity and prices of commercial 

prerinse spray valves shipped in each 

year of the analysis period. Industry 

revenue calculations require forecasts of 

(1) total annual shipment volume of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, (2) 

the distribution of shipments across the 

product classes, and (3) the distribution 

of shipments across ELs. 

In the MIA, DOE used the shipments 

calculated as part of the shipments 

analysis discussion in section IV.F of 

this document and chapter 9 of the TSD 

for this NOPD. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

DOE expects the analyzed amended 

CPSV energy conservation standards 

would cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with potential 

amended standards. For the MIA, DOE 

classified these conversion costs into 

two groups: (1) Capital conversion costs 

and (2) product conversion costs. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities so new product 

designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, certification, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with 

potential amended standards. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of a 

potential final rule and the year by 

which manufacturers must comply with 

potential amended standards. DOE 

created estimates of industry capital and 

product conversion costs using the 

engineering cost model and information 

gained during product teardowns. 

Product conversion costs depend on the 

number of CPSV models that need to be 

redesigned and re-tested as well as the 

number of manufacturers that need to 

update brochures and marketing 

materials. Capital conversion costs are 

based on the number of plastic spray 

patterns that would need to be 

fabricated by CPSV manufacturers. The 

conversion cost estimates are presented 

in section V.B of this document. 

d. Manufacturer Markup 

As discussed in section IV.H.2.a of 

this document, the MPCs for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

the manufacturers’ costs for those 

products. The MPCs include materials, 

direct labor, depreciation, and overhead, 

which are collectively referred to as the 

cost of goods sold. The MSP is the price 

received by CPSV manufacturers from 

the first sale of those products, typically 

to a distributor, regardless of the 

downstream distribution channel 

through which the commercial prerinse 

spray valves are ultimately sold. The 

MSP is not the price the end-user pays 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

because there are typically multiple 

sales along the distribution chain and 

various markups applied to each sale. 

The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by 

the manufacturer markup. The 

manufacturer markup covers all the 

CPSV manufacturer’s non-production 

costs (i.e., selling, general, and 

administrative expenses; research and 

development; and interest) as well as 

profit. Total industry revenue for CPSV 

manufacturers equals the MSPs at each 

efficiency level multiplied by the 

number of shipments at that efficiency 

level for all product classes. As 

previously discussed in section IV.B.2 

of this document, the MPC for all 

commercial prerinse spray valves is the 

same at each ELs for all product classes. 

Therefore, total industry revenue equals 

the MSP multiplied by the number of 

shipments. 

In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the manufacturer 

markup of 1.30 from the January 2016 

Final Rule is still appropriate to 

represent the market share weighted 

average value. 85 FR 35383, 35389. DOE 

did not receive any comments on this 

topic. Therefore, in this NOPD MIA, 

DOE used the same manufacturer 

markup of 1.30 that was used in the 

January 2016 Final Rule. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. It addresses the 

ELs examined by DOE and the projected 

impacts of each of these levels. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the NOPD 

TSD supporting this document. 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness 

(i.e., the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

compared to any increase in the price 

of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the 

commercial prerinse spray valves) that 

is likely to result from the imposition of 

a standard at an efficiency level by 

considering the LCC and PBP at each 

EL. DOE also examined the impacts of 

potential standards on selected 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed in the following sections. 

Typically, a higher-efficiency product 

can affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. In the case of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, there 

is no incremental cost associated with 

the higher-efficiency product. Inputs 

used for calculating the LCC and PBP 

include total installed costs (i.e., 

product price plus installation costs) 

and operating costs (i.e., annual energy 

use, energy prices, energy price trends, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs). 

The LCC calculation also uses product 

lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 

of the NOPD TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.1 shows the average LCC and 

PBP results for the ELs considered for 

commercial prerinse spray valves in this 

analysis. 

TABLE V.1—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL

Efficiency level LCC savings 

2020$ 

Simple payback 

period 

years 

EL 1 ...................... $379.05 0 

EL 2 ...................... 739.23 0 

EL 3 ...................... 751.50 0 

The average LCC results in Table V.1 

reflect the assumption of a consumer 

opting to stay within the same product 

class and not incorporating the 

switching between product classes that 

is modeled when assessing national 

impacts. The results in Table V.1 also 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 
46348 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

assume a consumer purchases a product 

from an efficiency level that exists in 

the market as shown in Table IV.13. As 

a result, product class 1 consumers at 

baseline efficiency level purchase 

efficiency level 2 products in the LCC 

analysis, and product class 2 consumers 

at efficiency level 1 purchase efficiency 

level 3 in the LCC analysis. 

B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed a MIA to estimate the 

impact of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. The following sections 

describe the expected impacts on CPSV 

manufacturers at each EL. Chapter 11 of 

the NOPD TSD explains the MIA in 

further detail. 

1. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides MIA 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

could result from new and amended 

standards. Table V.2 and Table V.3 

depict the estimated financial impacts 

(represented by changes in INPV) of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on CPSV manufacturers, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers would incur at 

each EL. To evaluate the range of cash 

flow impacts on the CPSV industry, 

DOE modeled two conversion cost 

scenarios that correspond to the range of 

potential manufacturer investments that 

may occur in responses to potential 

amended standards. Each conversion 

cost scenario results in a unique set of 

cash flows and corresponding industry 

values at each EL. 

In the following discussion, the INPV 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the no-new-standards 

case and the standards cases that result 

from the sum of discounted cash flows 

from the reference year (2021) through 

the end of the analysis period (2056). 

The results also discuss the difference 

in cash flows between the no-newstandards case and the standards cases 

in the year before the analyzed 

compliance date for potential amended 

energy conservation standards. This 

differential represents the size of the 

required conversion costs relative to the 

cash flow generated by the CPSV 

industry in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on 

CPSV manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

sourced conversion cost scenario. This 

scenario assumes that the majority of 

CPSV manufacturers, but not all CPSV 

manufacturers, source components 

(including the nozzle) from component 

suppliers and simply assemble the 

commercial prerinse spray valves. In 

this scenario, the CPSV manufacturers 

that DOE assumed source components 

would not incur capital conversion cost 

related to the fabrication of plastic 

nozzles if CPSV manufacturers must 

redesign nozzle molds due to the 

analyzed energy conservation standards. 

To assess the lower (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on 

CPSV manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

fabricated conversion cost scenario. 

This scenario assumes that all of the 

CPSV manufacturers currently selling 

products with plastic spray nozzles 

fabricate these nozzles in-house. In this 

scenario, all CPSV manufacturers incur 

capital conversion costs related to the 

fabrication of plastic nozzles if CPSV 

manufacturers must redesign nozzle 

molds due to analyzed energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

methodology for estimating 

manufacturer conversion costs used in 

the two conversion cost scenarios (the 

sourced conversion cost scenario and 

the fabricated conversion cost scenario). 

Additionally, DOE seeks comment of 

how many manufacturers fabricate 

plastic nozzles in-house verses how 

many manufacturers out-source the 

production of the plastic nozzles for 

their commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Table V.2 and Table V.3 present the 

projected results for commercial 

prerinse spray valves under the sourced 

and fabricated conversion cost 

scenarios. DOE examined results for all 

product classes together since most 

manufacturers sell products across a 

variety of the analyzed product classes. 

TABLE V.2—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES—SOURCED CONVERSION

COST SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Efficiency level * 

1 2 3 

INPV .................................................. (2020$ millions) ................................ 11.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 

Change in INPV ................................ (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) 

(%) .................................................... ........................ (7.5) (7.5) (7.6) 

Product Conversion Costs ................ (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Capital Conversion Costs ................. (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Total Conversion Costs .................... (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 1.4 1.4 1.4 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

TABLE V.3—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES—FABRICATED CONVERSION

COST SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Efficiency level * 

1 2 3 

INPV .................................................. (2020$ millions) ................................ 11.5 10.5 10.5 10.4 

Change in INPV ................................ (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ (1.0) (1.0) (1.1) 

(%) .................................................... ........................ (8.5) (8.5) (9.5) 

Product Conversion Costs ................ (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Capital Conversion Costs ................. (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 0.3 0.3 0.4 

Total Conversion Costs .................... (2020$ millions) ................................ ........................ 1.6 1.6 1.7 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46349 

At EL 1, DOE estimates the impacts 

on INPV to range from ¥$1.0 million to 

¥$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥8.5 percent to ¥7.5 percent. At EL 1, 

industry free cash flow (operating cash 

flow minus capital expenditures) is 

estimated to decrease to $0.1 million, or 

a drop of up to 88.2 percent, compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$0.7 million in 2026, the year leading 

up to the analyzed compliance date of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately negative at EL 1. DOE 

projects that in the analyzed year of 

compliance (2027), 97 percent of CPSV 

shipments in product class 1, 26 percent 

of CPSV shipments in product class 2, 

and 14 percent of CPSV shipments in 

product class 3 will meet EL 1. DOE 

expects CPSV manufacturers to incur 

approximately $1.3 million in product 

conversion costs to update brochures 

and marketing material and re-test and 

redesigned CPSV models that would 

need to be redesigned if standards were 

set at EL 1. Additionally, CPSV 

manufacturers would incur between 

$0.3 million and $0.1 million in capital 

conversion costs to fabricate new plastic 

nozzle molds to accommodate spray 

patterns that could meet potential 

standards set at EL 1. 

At EL 2, DOE estimates the impacts 

on INPV to range from ¥$1.0 million to 

¥$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥8.5 percent to ¥7.5 percent. At EL 2, 

industry free cash flow (operating cash 

flow minus capital expenditures) is 

estimated to decrease to $0.1 million, or 

a drop of up to 88.2 percent, compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$0.7 million in 2026, the year leading 

up to the analyzed compliance date of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately negative at EL 2. DOE 

projects that in the analyzed year of 

compliance (2027), 97 percent of CPSV 

shipments in product class 1 and 2 

percent of CPSV shipments in product 

class 2 will meet or exceed EL 2. 

Product class 3 is already at max-tech, 

and 14 percent of product class 3 CPSV 

shipments will meet max-tech. DOE 

expects CPSV manufacturers to incur 

approximately $1.3 million in product 

conversion costs to update brochures 

and marketing material and re-test and 

redesigned CPSV models that would 

need to be redesigned if standards were 

set at EL 2. Additionally, CPSV 

manufacturers would incur between 

$0.3 million and $0.1 million in capital 

conversion costs to fabricate new plastic 

nozzle molds to accommodate spray 

patterns that could meet potential 

standards set at EL 2. 

At EL 3, max-tech for all product 

classes, DOE estimates the impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$1.1 million to 

¥$0.9 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥9.5 percent to ¥7.6 percent. At EL 3, 

industry free cash flow (operating cash 

flow minus capital expenditures) is 

estimated to decrease to less than $0.1 

million, or a drop of up to 99.0 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $0.7 million in 2026, the year 

leading up to the analyzed compliance 

date of potential amended energy 

conservation standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately negative at EL 3. DOE 

projects that in the analyzed year of 

compliance (2027), 9 percent of CPSV 

shipments in product class 1, 2 percent 

of CPSV shipments in product class 2, 

and 14 percent of CPSV shipments in 

product class 3 will meet max-tech. 

DOE expects CPSV manufacturers to 

incur approximately $1.3 million in 

product conversion costs to update 

brochures and marketing material and 

re-test and redesigned CPSV models that 

would need to be redesigned if 

standards were set at EL 3. Additionally, 

CPSV manufacturers would incur 

between $0.4 million and $0.1 million 

in capital conversion costs to fabricate 

new plastic nozzle molds to 

accommodate spray patterns that could 

meet potential standards set at EL 3. 

2. Direct Impacts on Employment 

The design option specified for 

achieving greater ELs (i.e., changing the 

total spray hole area of the CPSV nozzle) 

does not increase the labor content 

(measured in dollars) of commercial 

prerinse spray valves at any EL, nor 

does it increase total MPC or labor 

associated with manufacturing 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Additionally, total industry shipments 

are forecasted to be constant at all the 

analyzed standard levels. Therefore, 

DOE predicts no change in domestic 

manufacturing employment levels due 

to any of the analyzed standard levels. 

3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Not every CPSV manufacturer makes 

CPSV models that could meet all the 

analyzed amended energy conservation 

standards for all product classes. 

However, DOE believes that 

manufacturers would not need to make 

substantial platform changes or 

significant investments for their CPSV 

products to meet any of the amended 

energy conservation standards analyzed 

in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE does 

not foresee any significant impact on 

manufacturing capacity due to any of 

the analyzed amended energy 

conservation standards. 

4. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche product 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts on small 

businesses in section VI.B of this 

document. DOE did not identify any 

other manufacturer subgroups for this 

rulemaking. 

5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product. While any one 

regulation may not impose a significant 

burden on manufacturers, the combined 

effects of several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Assessing the impact of a 

single regulation may overlook this 

cumulative regulatory burden. In 

addition to energy conservation 

standards, other regulations can 

significantly affect manufacturers’ 

financial operations. Multiple 

regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE typically conducts 

an analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

However, given the tentative conclusion 

discussed in section V.D of this 

document, DOE did not conduct a 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis. 

C. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the ELs considered as potential 

amended standards. 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves, DOE compared their energy 

consumption under the no-newVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Aug 17, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18AUP2.SGM 18AUP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46350 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

26U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/. 

27Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE 

makes a determination that amended standards are 

not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review 

within three years following such a determination. 

As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the 

standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the 

review timeframe associated with amended 

standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3- 

year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE 

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time 

within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

standards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each EL. The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of product purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with amended 

standards (2027–2056). Table V.4 

presents DOE’s projections of the NES 

for each efficiency level considered for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. The 

savings were calculated using the 

nearest neighbor switch scenario as 

described in section IV.F.1 of this 

document. The savings were calculated 

using the approach described in section 

IV.G of this document. 

TABLE V.4—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2056) 

Efficiency level 

National energy savings National water 

savings 

(billion gal) Site energy 

(quads) 

Primary energy 

(quads) 

FFC energy 

(quads) 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.014 0.052 0.055 53.153 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.010 0.037 0.039 37.882 

3 ............................................................................................... 0.011 0.039 0.041 39.435 

Table V.5 presents DOE’s projections 

of the NES for each efficiency level 

considered for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. The savings were 

calculated using the product switch 

scenario as described in section IV.F.2 

of this document. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.G of this document. 

TABLE V.5—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2056)—PRODUCT SWITCH SCENARIO

Efficiency level 

National energy savings * National water 

savings * 

(billion gal) Site energy 

(quads) 

Primary energy 

(quads) 

FFC energy 

(quads) 

1 ............................................................................................... (0.028) (0.102) (0.108) (104.043) 

2 ............................................................................................... (0.032) (0.117) (0.123) (119.313) 

3 ............................................................................................... (0.032) (0.116) (0.122) (117.761) 

* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values. 

OMB Circular A–4 26 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

determination, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.27 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to commercial prerinse 

spray valves. Thus, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in Table 

V.6. The saving values in Table V.6 

were calculated using the nearest 

neighbor product class switching 

scenario as described in section IV.F.1 

of this document. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of commercial 

prerinse spray valves purchased in 

2027–2035. 

TABLE V.6—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 9 YEARS

OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2035) 

Efficiency level 

National energy savings National water 

savings 

(billion gal) Site energy 

(quads) 

Primary energy 

(quads) 

FFC energy 

(quads) 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.004 0.014 0.015 14.315 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.003 0.010 0.011 10.203 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46351 

28U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/. 

TABLE V.6—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 9 YEARS

OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2035)—Continued 

Efficiency level 

National energy savings National water 

savings 

(billion gal) Site energy 

(quads) 

Primary energy 

(quads) 

FFC energy 

(quads) 

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

The savings in Table V.7 were 

calculated using the product switch 

scenario as described in section IV.F.2 

of this document. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of commercial 

prerinse spray valves purchased in 

2027–2035. 

TABLE V.7—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 9 YEARS

OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2035)—PRODUCT SWITCH SCENARIO

Efficiency level 

National energy savings * National water 

savings * 

(billion gal) Site energy 

(quads) 

Primary energy 

(quads) 

FFC energy 

(quads) 

1 ............................................................................................... (0.008) (0.028) (0.029) (28.022) 

2 ............................................................................................... (0.009) (0.032) (0.033) (32.134) 

3 ............................................................................................... (0.009) (0.031) (0.033) (31.716) 

* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values. 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

ELs considered for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. In accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,28

DOE calculated NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. Table V.8 shows the consumer 

NPV results with impacts counted over 

the lifetime of product purchased in 

2027–2056. Values in Table V.8 are 

based on the shipments as described in 

section IV.F.1 of this document. 

TABLE V.8—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2056) 

Efficiency level 

Net present value 

(billion $2020) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.350 0.770 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.249 0.549 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.259 0.572 

DOE also calculated the NPV for the 

alternate shipment scenario (as 

described in section IV.F.1) using both 

a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. Table V.9 shows the 

consumer NPV results with impacts 

counted over the lifetime of product 

purchased in 2027–2056. 

TABLE V.9—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2056)—PRODUCT SWITCH SCENARIO

Efficiency level 

Net present value 

(billion $2020) * 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.684) (1.508) 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.785) (1.729) 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.774) (1.707) 

* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46352 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.10. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

product purchased in 2027–2035. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.10—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 9 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2035) 

Efficiency level 

Net present value 

(billion $2020) 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.160 0.246 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.112 0.176 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.116 0.183 

The NPV results based on the 9-year 

analytical period (2027–2035) for the 

alternate shipment scenario (as 

described in section IV.F.1) are 

presented in Table V.11. 

TABLE V.11—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES; 9 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2035)—PRODUCT SWITCH SCENARIO

Efficiency level 

Net present value 

(billion $2020) * 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.306) (0.482) 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.351) (0.553) 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... (0.347) (0.546) 

* Values in parenthesis indicate negative values. 

D. Proposed Determination 

As required by EPCA, this NOPD 

analyzes whether amended standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy, be technologically feasible, 

and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 

Additionally, DOE also estimated the 

impact on manufacturers. The criteria 

considered under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional 

analysis are discussed in the following 

subsections. Because an analysis of 

potential cost effectiveness and energy 

savings first require an evaluation of the 

relevant technology, DOE first discusses 

the technological feasibility of amended 

standards. DOE then addresses the cost 

effectiveness and energy savings 

associated with potential amended 

standards. 

1. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves would be technologically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has 

tentatively determined that there are 

technology options that would improve 

the efficiency of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. These technology options 

are being used in commercially 

available commercial prerinse spray 

valves and therefore are technologically 

feasible. (See section IV.A.2 for further 

information.) Hence, DOE has 

tentatively determined that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves are 

technologically feasible. 

2. Cost Effectiveness 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

whether energy conservation standards 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

would be cost effective through an 

evaluation of the savings in operating 

costs throughout the estimated average 

life of the covered product compared to 

any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product which 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE 

conducted an LCC analysis to estimate 

the net costs/benefits to users from 

increased efficiency in the considered 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (See 

results in Table V.1.) DOE then 

aggregated the results from the LCC 

analysis to estimate the NPV of the total 

costs and benefits experienced by the 

Nation. (See results in Table V.8 and 

Table V.10.) As noted, the inputs for 

determining the NPV are (1) total annual 

installed cost, (2) total annual operating 

costs (energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

DOE considered each of the efficiency 

levels. All efficiency levels would result 

in positive NPV at the 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rates. However, in 

DOE’s sensitivity analysis, wherein a 

subset of consumers exit the CPSV 

market and switch to higher flow-rate 

products such as faucets (product 

switch scenario), all efficiency levels 

would result in a negative NPV at the 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rates. 

DOE notes that the lack of 

incremental costs to consumers 

associated with higher-efficiency 

products makes LCC and NPV values 

cost-effective. However, the potential 

reduction in consumer utility risks 

driving consumers to alternative 

products with higher flow-rates. As 

discussed in section IV.F.2 of this 

document, the change in product 

availability since the January 2016 Final 

Rule makes it more likely that certain 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46353 

consumers would switch to higher flowrate products in response to amended 

standards. This shift increases the 

likelihood that amended standards 

could result in a negative NPV. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended standards 

would not be economically justified at 

any efficiency level due to the increased 

likelihood of consumers switching 

products to higher flow-rate products as 

a result of decreased consumer utility 

due to potential amended standards, 

and the corresponding negative NPV of 

this product switch scenario. 

3. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves would result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(A)) To estimate the energy 

savings attributable to potential 

amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, DOE compared 

their energy consumption under the nonew-standards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each 

potential standard level. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

product purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the year of anticipated 

compliance with amended standards 

(2027–2056). 

DOE estimates that amended 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves would result in maximum energy 

savings of 0.014 site energy quads and 

0.055 FFC energy savings at EL1 over a 

30-year analysis period (2027–2056). 

(See results in Table V.4 of this 

document.) However, in DOE’s 

sensitivity analysis, wherein a subset of 

consumers exit the CPSV market and 

switch to higher flow-rate products such 

as faucets (product switch scenario), 

amended standards could result in an 

increase in national site energy use 

between 0.028 (EL1) and 0.032 (EL3) 

quads and an increase in FFC energy 

use between 0.108 (EL1) and 0.124 (EL3) 

quads over a 30-year analysis period 

(2027–2056). (See results in Table V.5.) 

As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this 

document, the change in product 

availability since the January 2016 Final 

Rule makes it more likely that certain 

consumers would switch to higher flowrate products in response to amended 

standards. This shift increases the 

likelihood that amended standards 

could result in increased energy and 

water usage. 

4. Additional Consideration 

EPCA lists several additional factors 

for DOE to consider in deciding whether 

to amend energy conservation 

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

(VII)) In this analysis, DOE investigated 

the manufacturer impacts of any 

potential amended standards. DOE 

estimates that amended standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves would 

result in a reduction in INPV between 

7.5 and 9.5 percent. (See results in Table 

V.2 and Table V.3 of this document) 

DOE also considers any lessening of 

the utility or the performance of the 

covered products likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As noted in 

section IV.F, spray force is a driving 

factor of consumer utility and consumer 

satisfaction. As discussed in section 

IV.B.1.b, there is a direct relationship 

between flow rate and spray force. 

Therefore, the relationship between 

consumer satisfaction and spray force 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

makes it possible that consumers may 

opt to switch product classes if they are 

unsatisfied with the spray force 

available to them in their current 

product class due to amended 

standards. In some cases, consumers 

react to amended standards by 

switching to a commercial prerinse 

spray valve, or alternative product, that 

consumes more water and energy than 

their current product. DOE accounted 

for this potential reduction in utility in 

its shipments analysis by considering 

the possibility of both the nearest 

neighbor switch scenario (section 

IV.F.1) and the product switch scenario 

(section IV.F.2). 

5. Summary 

In this proposed determination, 

although some energy savings are 

possible in the standards case analysis, 

there is risk that amended standards 

could result in increased energy 

consumption if consumers switch to 

higher water usage products, like 

faucets (product switch scenario). 

Similarly, the product switch scenario 

would also result in a negative NPV for 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers. As discussed in section 

IV.F.2 of this document, the change in 

product availability since the 2016 Final 

Rule makes in more likely that 

consumers would switch to higher 

water usage products in the presence of 

amended standards. Therefore, it is 

more likely that amended standards 

could result in increases in water, 

energy, and costs. The risk of these 

potential increases outweigh the cost 

effectiveness of any new or amended 

standards. 

As such, any potential benefits from 

amended standards are outweighed by 

this risk and the additional burden on 

manufacturers. DOE has tentatively 

determined based on the estimated 

negative NIA values resulting from 

product switching and the estimated 

additional burden on manufacturers, 

new or amended standards would not 

be economically justified. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

amended standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves are not needed. 

DOE will consider all comments 

received on this proposed determination 

in issuing any final determination. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This proposed determination has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

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

a result, the OMB did not review this 

proposed determination. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, if 

adopted, the determination would not 

amend any energy conservation 

standards. On the basis of the foregoing, 

DOE certifies that the proposed 

determination, if adopted, would have 

no significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an 

IRFA for this proposed determination. 

DOE will transmit this certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46354 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial product, including 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (See 

generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations. 10 CFR part 

1021 DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4 DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed determination 

and has tentatively determined that it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no 

further action is required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed determination meets the 

relevant standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at https://www.energy.gov/ 

sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/

umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46355 

29 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0. 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20

Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE 

has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 12866, or any successor Executive 

Order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

prerinse spray valves, is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.29 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. DOE has determined 

that the peer-reviewed analytical 

process continues to reflect current 

practice, and the Department followed 

that process for considering amended 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present action. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website at https://cms.doe.gov/eere/ 

buildings/public-meetings-andcomment-deadlines. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit such 

request to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46356 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar. There shall 

not be discussion of proprietary 

information, costs or prices, market 

share, or other commercial matters 

regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 

the webinar and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed determination. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the webinar, allow time 

for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this proposed 

determination. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

determination. The official conducting 

the webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this NOPD 

and will be accessible on the DOE 

website. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE seeks comment on its 

determination that PCAs would not change 

the flow rate or spray force at DOE’s test 

pressure. 

2. DOE seeks comment on its new maxtech efficiency level for product class 1. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46357 

3. DOE seeks comment and data regarding 

any changes in MPC that would not be 

accounted for by updating the cost analysis 

of the previously conducted product 

teardowns. Specifically, DOE seeks any data 

that would contradict its determination of no 

incremental cost associated with 

improvements in efficiency of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

4. DOE seeks comment on the markup 

channels, the percentage through each 

channel, and the baseline markup of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

5. DOE seeks comment on the methods to 

improve DOE’s energy-use analysis, as well 

as any supporting alternate operating hour 

estimates for operation of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. DOE seeks comment 

on water pressure and the end-use 

temperature. 

6. DOE seeks comment on the productclass switching methodology used in this 

analysis, including any logic consumers may 

employ when switching as well as the 

portion of consumers that may switch. 

7. DOE seeks comment on the approach 

used to analyze the possibility of some 

consumers exiting the CPSV market for 

higher flow-rate products, including any 

logic consumers may employ when switching 

as well as the portion of consumers that may 

switch. 

8. DOE seeks comment on the use of 6.89 

as a real discount rate for CPSV 

manufacturers. 

9. DOE seeks comment on the methodology 

for estimating manufacturer conversion costs 

used in the two conversion cost scenarios 

(the sourced conversion cost scenario and the 

fabricated conversion cost scenario). 

Additionally, DOE seeks comment of how 

many manufacturers fabricate plastic nozzles 

in-house verses how many manufacturers 

out-source the production of the plastic 

nozzles for their commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on August 3, 2021, 

by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 5, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16995 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2