[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35383-35394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information and early assessment review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an early
assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards
would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended
energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves
(``CPSVs''). Specifically, through this request for information
(``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency
to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; is not technologically feasible; is not
economically justified; or any combination of foregoing. DOE also
welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the
scope of this document (including those topics not specifically
raised), as well as the submission of data and other relevant
information concerning this early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before July 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0034, by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0034. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[[Page 35384]]
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
H. Shipments
I. National Impact Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
1. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency and water efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include commercial prerinse spray valves, the subject of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), 42 U.S.C.
6295(dd)) EPCA prescribed the initial energy conservation standards (in
terms of flow rate) for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C.
6295(dd)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves
in Part B of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of
Part B (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part C) apply to
commercial prerinse spray valves. However, because commercial
prerinse spray valves are commonly considered to be commercial
equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize
confusion among interested parties, DOE placed the requirements for
commercial prerinse spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431.
Part 431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and industrial
equipment. DOE refers to commercial prerinse spray valves as either
``products'' or ``equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy and water efficiency requirements for covered
products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy and water conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
EPCA requires that, not later than six years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In making a
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy and water, (2) are technologically feasible, and
(3) are cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the
benefits of a standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent
practicable, considering the savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges
for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely
to result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE determines not to
amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, not later than three
years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend
standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make
the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and
provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
2. Background
DOE codified the energy conservation standards initially prescribed
by EPCA, which established a maximum flow rate of 1.6 gallons per
minute (gpm) for commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured
beginning January 1, 2006. 70 FR 60407 (October 18, 2005). On January
26, 2016, DOE issued a final rule establishing three product classes of
commercial prerinse spray valves (defined by spray force in ounce-force
(ozf)) and associated energy conservation standards for each product
class. 81 FR 4748 (``January 2016 CPSV Final Rule''). The current
energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, section 266. The currently
applicable DOE test procedures for commercial prerinse spray valves
appear at 10 CFR 431.264.
DOE is publishing this early assessment review RFI to collect data
and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
B. Rulemaking Process
Pursuant to DOE's recently amended ``Process Rule'' (85 FR 8626;
Feb. 14, 2020), DOE stated that as a first step in a proceeding to
consider establishing or amending an energy conservation standard, such
as the existing standards for CPSVs at issue in this notice, DOE would
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that DOE is
considering the initiation of a
[[Page 35385]]
proceeding, and as part of that notice, DOE would request the
submission of related comments, including data and information showing
whether any new or amended standard would satisfy the relevant
requirements in EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard.
Based on the information received in response to the notice and its own
analysis, DOE would determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for
a new or amended standard, or issue a proposed determination that the
standards do not need to be amended.
When prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, DOE
must follow specific statutory criteria. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or, in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, or
urinals, water efficiency, which is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE notes that the
significant energy (water) savings requirement does not apply to
prerinse spray valves. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) (specifying
significant conservation of water for only ``showerheads, faucets,
water closets, or urinals''); see also 85 FR 8626, 8671. Likewise, the
prohibition on amending a standard to allow greater water use does not
apply to prerinse spray valves. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) (prohibiting
the prescription of any amended standard which increases the maximum
allowable water use of only showerheads, faucets, water closets or
urinals).
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 of
this early assessment review RFI shows the individual analyses that are
performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
and Consumers. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Markups for Product Price Determination.
Compared to Increased Cost for the Energy and Water Use Determination.
Product.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings.. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Competition.
6. Need for National Energy and Shipments Analysis.
Water Conservation.
National Impact Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Employment Impact Analysis.
Considers Relevant. Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in Section I.A, DOE is publishing this early assessment
review RFI to collect data and information that could enable the agency
to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
foregoing.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE has identified a variety
of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the
technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves may be warranted.
Issue 1: As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there
have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most
recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider
more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information
that could enable the
[[Page 35386]]
agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy or water; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
the foregoing.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition of commercial
prerinse spray valve, as codified at 10 CFR 431.262. The definition of
commercial prerinse spray valve was most recently amended in a test
procedure final rule. 80 FR 81441 (December 30, 2015). A commercial
prerinse spray valve is ``a handheld device that has a release-to-close
valve and is suitable for removing food residue from food service items
before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing and ware washing
equipment.'' 10 CFR 431.262.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the CPSV industry that
will be used to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new
standard'' determination. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative
information to characterize the structure of the industry and market.
DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends,
addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve
energy and water efficiency or reduce energy and water consumption, and
explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and
manufacturing of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE also reviews
product literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
commercial prerinse spray valves.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a standard higher or lower than that which applies (or would apply) for
such type (or class) for any group of covered products that have the
same function or intended use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a separate product class, DOE must consider such factors as
the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id.
For commercial prerinse spray valves, the current energy
conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 431.266 are based on three
product classes determined according to spray force, which is a
performance-related feature that provides utility to the consumer.
``Spray force'' is defined as the amount of force exerted onto the
spray disc, measured in ozf. 10 CFR 431.262. Table II.1 lists the
current three product classes for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Table II.1--Current Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray force in ounce-force,
Product class ozf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1........................... <=5.0 ozf.
Product Class 2........................... >5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf.
Product Class 3........................... >8.0 ozf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE referenced an
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense[supreg] field study,
which found that low water pressure, or spray force, can be a source of
user dissatisfaction. 81 FR 4748, 4758-4759. Further, DOE explained
that their market research had identified three distinct end-user
applications requiring differing amounts of spray force: (1) Cleaning
delicate glassware and removing loose food particles from dishware
(which require the least amount of spray force), (2) cleaning wet food,
and (3) cleaning baked-on foods (which requires the greatest amount of
spray force). Id
Issue 2: DOE requests feedback and data on any changes to the end-
user applications of each product class (1) cleaning delicate glassware
and removing loose food particles from dishware, (2) cleaning wet food,
(3) cleaning baked-on food. Further, DOE requests feedback on the
commercial sectors purchasing commercial prerinse spray valves in each
product class.
The spray force boundaries for the three product classes were
determined based on an analyses of commercial prerinse spray valves on
the market including a wide range of manufacturers, flow rates, and
spray hole shapes and test results of commercial prerinse spray valves
with shower-type spray shapes. 81 FR 4748, 4759-4760. DOE stated that
shower-type spray shapes provide the distinct utility of minimizing
``splash back'' that can be associated with nozzle-type designs at
higher flow rates. Id. Preliminary research indicates that many of
these shower-type commercial prerinse spray valves are in product class
2 (>5.0 ozf and <=8.0 ozf), with few in product class 3 (>8.0 ozf).
Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the current CPSV product classes
and whether changes to these individual product classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged
or separated (e.g., merging product class 2 and 3, further
distinguishing commercial prerinse spray valves in product class 1
based on levels of efficiency, etc.). DOE further requests feedback on
whether combining certain classes could impact product utility by
eliminating any performance-related features or by impacting the
stringency of the current energy conservation standard for these
products. DOE also requests comment on separating any of the existing
product classes and whether it would impact product utility by
eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any compliance
burdens.
Issue 4: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically,
DOE requests information on other performance-related features (e.g.,
cleanability, equipment usage time, splash-back, spray distance, etc.)
that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the
corresponding impacts on energy and water use that would justify
separate product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of
these performance-related features would increase or decrease energy or
water consumption).
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves. A complete list of
those prior technology options are as follows:
(1) Addition of flow control insert,
(2) Smaller spray hole area,
(3) Aerators,
(4) Additional valves,
(5) Changing spray hole shape, and
[[Page 35387]]
(6) Venturi meter to orifice plate nozzle geometries.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A venturi meter is a nozzle where the fluid accelerates
through a converging cone of 15-20 degrees. An orifice plate is a
flat plate with a circular hole drilled in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is not aware of any new technology options for reducing CPSV
flow rate since the publication of the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.
Issue 5: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed regarding
their applicability to the current market and how these technologies
may impact the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves as
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were
considered in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
that are currently available for each technology option.
Issue 6: DOE seeks information on any new technologies for reducing
the flow rate of commercial prerinse spray valves, including their
market adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating them into
products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns,
manufacturing/production/implementation issues, etc.).
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact product features or consumer utility.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
In this early assessment RFI, DOE seeks data and information with
respect to technologies previously screened out or retained that could
enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
the foregoing.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Adverse Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability.
If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further. See 85 FR 8626, 8705.
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Table II.2 of this RFI summarizes the technology options that DOE
screened out in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, and the applicable
screening criteria.
Table II.2--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening criteria (X = basis for screening out)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screened technology option Practicability to Adverse impact Unique-pathway
Technological manufacture, on product Adverse impacts on proprietary
feasibility install, and service utility health and safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addition of Flow Control Insert......................... X .................... ................ .................... ................
Aerators................................................ X .................... ................ .................... ................
Additional Valves....................................... X .................... ................ .................... ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in section II.B.2 with respect to commercial
prerinse spray valves. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how
these same criteria would affect any other technology options not
already identified in this document with respect to their potential use
in commercial prerinse spray valves.
Issue 9: With respect to the screened-out technology options listed
in Table II.2 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether these
options would, based on current and projected assessments regarding
each of them, remain screened out under the five screening criteria
described in this section. With respect to each of these technology
options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) taken to
facilitate the introduction of each option to improve the energy
performance of commercial prerinse spray valves and the potential to
impact consumer utility of the commercial prerinse spray valves.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for
[[Page 35388]]
consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the cost-
efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') associated with increasing the efficiency of
products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible
(``max-tech'') efficiency level for each product class. In this early
assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information with respect to
these cost-benefit calculations that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs)'' for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up''
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as
a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or
typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that
meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides
basic consumer utility.
The current minimum energy conservations standards (for which
compliance has been required beginning January 28, 2019) represent the
current efficiency levels for each product class. The current standards
for each product class are based on flow rate in gpm. The current
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are found at 10 CFR
431.266.
Issue 10: DOE requests feedback on whether the current energy
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves are
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to consider in
evaluating whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination.
Issue 11: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed product classes that are not
currently in place or for the contemplated combined product classes, as
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. For
the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE analyzed all three CPSV product
classes. The maximum available efficiencies for these three analyzed
product classes are included in Table II.3 of this early assessment
review RFI.
Table II.3--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Flow rate percentage
(gpm) below current
standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1......................... 0.62 38.0
Product Class 2......................... 0.73 39.2
Product Class 3......................... 1.13 11.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech
efficiency levels based on the least consumptive tested commercial
prerinse spray valve in each product class. See chapter 5 of the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule technical support document (TSD) \5\ for
the analysis of max-tech efficiency levels in that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For
Consumer Products And Commercial And Industrial Equipment:
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves,'' is available at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 12: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for
potential consideration in determining whether DOE could propose a ``no
new standard determination'' for the products at issue--and if not, why
not.
Issue 13: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE presented a theoretical
linear relationship between CPSV flow rate and spray force, derived
from both Bernoulli's principle of incompressible flow and the concept
of conservation of mass in a fluid system. Further, DOE verified this
linear relationship through market testing of available products and
close matching between the theoretical relationship and the flow rates
and spray forces of available products. 81 FR 4748, 4762. The
relationship between flow rate and spray force is given below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For
Consumer Products And Commercial And Industrial Equipment:
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, p. 5-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN20.005
[[Page 35389]]
Issue 14: DOE requests comment and data on whether Eq. 1 continues
to be applicable for determining the flow rate or spray force of a
commercial prerinse spray valve on the market. If not, include any
characteristics or technologies which would allow CPSV flow rates to be
greater or lesser than that predicted by Eq. 1.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product
classes. For the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships by conducting teardowns of existing products
and estimating the efficiency improvements and costs associated with
incorporating specific design options into the assumed baseline model
for each analyzed product class.
For the three product classes analyzed in the January 2016 CPSV
Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves and concluded that
manufacturing production cost was unaffected by efficiency level, both
within product classes and across product classes. See chapter 5 of the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for the cost-efficiency curves
developed in that rulemaking.
Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in section II.B.2 of this
document to increase energy efficiency in CPSVs beyond the baseline.
This includes information on the order in which manufacturers would
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the
efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the
increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that
would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information
regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's
ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response
to consumer demand.
Issue 16: DOE also seeks input on whether there is an increase in
MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option.
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated
for design options in the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule have changed
since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the
investments necessary to incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue 17: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific product
classes.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used a manufacturer
markup of 1.30 for all commercial prerinse spray valves as the market
share weighted average value for the industry. See chapter 6 of the
2016 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the manufacturer markup
of 1.30 is an appropriate markup to represent the market share weighted
average value for the industry. DOE also seeks data on any changes to
the manufacturer markup since the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.
E. Markups Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to markups for commercial prerinse spray valves that could
enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
the foregoing.
DOE derives customer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''). Table II.4 provides
the portion of equipment passing through different distribution
channels, and Table II.5 provides the associated markups used in the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.
Table II.4--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Channel Pathway through channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Manufacturer [rarr] Final 17
Consumer (Direct Sales).
B Manufacturer [rarr] 33
Authorized Distributor
[rarr] Final Consumer.
C Manufacturer [rarr] 17
Retailer [rarr] Final
Consumer.
D Manufacturer [rarr] 33
Service Company [rarr]
Final Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.5--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve Baseline Markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Pathway Baseline markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Manufacturer [rarr] 1.67*
Final Consumer (Direct
Sales).
B Manufacturer [rarr] 1.67
Authorized Distributor
[rarr] Final Consumer.
C Manufacturer [rarr] 1.52
Retailer [rarr] Final
Consumer.
D Manufacturer [rarr] 1.92
Service Company [rarr]
Final Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Direct sales baseline markup assumed equal to that for distributors
(i.e., manufacturers would not undercut authorized distributors).
[[Page 35390]]
Issue 19: DOE requests information on the markups per distribution
channel as well as the portion of equipment sold that pass through each
distribution channel.
F. Energy and Water Use Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray
valves that could enable the agency to determine whether to propose a
``no new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard:
(1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing.
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water
use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy and water
efficiency improvements. DOE bases the energy and water consumption of
commercial prerinse spray valves on the rated annual energy and water
consumption as determined by the DOE test procedure. Along similar
lines, the energy and water use analysis is meant to represent typical
energy and water consumption in the field. To develop annual energy and
water use estimates, DOE multiplies annual usage (in hours per year) by
the flow rate (gpm). DOE characterizes representative commercial
prerinse spray valves in the engineering analysis, which provide
measured flow rates. In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, to
characterize the country's average use of commercial prerinse spray
valves for a typical year, DOE developed annual operating hours, using
data from Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Table II.6 of
this early assessment review RFI lists the operating hours from the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule.
Table II.6--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Annual Operating Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
annual CPSV
Building type Schedule operating time
hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education:
K-12.......................... Weekday only........ 135
K-12.......................... 7 days per week..... 188
College/University............ 7 days per week..... 282
Food Retail:
All groups.................... 7 days per week..... 39
Healthcare:
Outpatient.................... 7 days per week..... 587
Inpatient..................... 7 days per week..... 978
Lodging:
Dormitory..................... 7 days per week..... 463
Motel/Hotel................... 7 days per week..... 540
Restaurant:
All groups.................... Weekday only........ 259
All groups.................... 7 days per week..... 544
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Operating Time Across Building Groups.. 426
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, annual water use was
determined by multiplying the annual operating time by the flow rate at
an operating pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi). Annual site
energy use was calculated by multiplying the annual water use in
gallons by the energy required to each gallon of water to an end-use
temperature of 108 [deg]F. 81 FR 4748, 4766.
Issue 20: DOE seeks feedback on the annual CPSV operating times as
shown in Table II.6.
Issue 21: DOE seeks feedback on operating pressure of the water
typically supplied to commercial prerinse spray valves and DOE's
assumption of an operating pressure of 60 psi. If DOE should consider
use of a different operating pressure, DOE requests data in support of
the alternate value. Additionally, DOE seeks information and data on
how the water operating pressure affects energy and water use of
commercial prerinse spray valves.
Issue 22: DOE seeks feedback on the assumed end-use water
temperature of the water leaving the commercial prerinse spray valves.
If DOE should consider a different water temperature, DOE requests data
in support of the alternate temperature.
G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to life-cycle cost and payback periods for commercial
prerinse spray valves that could enable the agency to determine whether
to propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2)
is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or
(4) any combination of the foregoing.
DOE conducts the LCC and the payback period (``PBP'') analysis to
evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves on individual customers.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in
LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total
customer expense over the life of the equipment, consisting of
purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for energy and
water use). Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include
the cost of the equipment (which includes MSPs, distribution channel
markups, and sales taxes) and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses include annual energy and water
consumption, energy and water prices and price projections, equipment
lifetimes, discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and
amended standards is required.
Based on the nature of commercial prerinse spray valves, in the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE established several assumptions
specific to this equipment. First, commercial prerinse spray valves are
typically replaced entirely upon failure rather than
[[Page 35391]]
repaired. Because of this feature, there were no repair or maintenance
costs included in operating costs calculations. Second, purchasing
price and installed costs were estimated to be the same across all
product classes and efficiency levels. With the purchasing price and
the installed cost, which are the same for the baseline and efficiency
levels, those costs cancel each other out in the LCC calculation.
Therefore, LCC savings come entirely from the operating cost savings.
Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether the assumptions of zero
maintenance and repair costs and fixed installed costs across all
product classes are still valid.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE defined equipment lifetime
as the age when a commercial prerinse spray valve is retired from
service. Based on data and Weibull distribution, the average lifetime
was 4.9 years. In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, lifetime did not
vary across product classes or by efficiency level. DOE assumed that
around 10 percent of new food establishments fail within the first year
and the commercial prerinse spray valve was no longer in use.
Therefore, the lifetime distribution had a 10 percent failure rate in
the first year followed by conventional Weibull distribution with
average life of 5 years and maximum life of 10 years.
Issue 24: DOE requests the information on the failure rates and
lifetime distribution for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Issue 25: DOE seeks feedback on whether the CPSV average operating
lifetime is valid for use in the present analyses and if not, why not?
If an alternate value (or values) should be used, what value (or
values) should DOE use instead and why? Please provide relevant data in
support of any alternative values that DOE should use.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used water prices from the
American Water Works Association (``AWWA'') and energy prices from the
Energy Information Administration (``EIA'') database of commercial
electricity and natural gas prices.
Issue 26: DOE seeks feedback on whether alternate water and energy
price datasets should be considered. DOE requests relevant data and
sources in support of any alternative values or methods that are
suggested.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, the installation costs
consisted only of the labor costs of the individual installing the
commercial prerinse spray valve and were assumed to be the same for
each product class and efficiency level. To determine the labor costs
associated with the installation of commercial prerinse spray valves,
DOE assumed that the consumer maintenance personnel would be installing
the equipment and that it would take a single employee 1 hour to
completely install the equipment. Because maintenance employees for
different types of businesses and buildings have different hourly
wages, the installation costs varied by building type. In the January
2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE used hourly wage data for grounds maintenance
employees via the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as national
minimum wage data, as presented in Table II.7. For restaurant and
retail consumers, installation costs for all product classes and
efficiency levels were the value of 1 hour of minimum wage. For
healthcare, lodging, and education consumers, installation costs for
all product classes and efficiency levels were the value of 1 hour of
grounds maintenance employee mean wages.
Table II.7--Labor Cost by Building Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Lodging Education Restaurants Retail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$16.75...................................... $16.75 $16.75 $7.25 $7.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See chapter 8 of the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for the
installation cost estimates developed for the January 2016 CPSV Final
Rule.
Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on the costs associated with
installing a commercial prerinse spray valve, specifically the number
of hours (or fraction thereof) to install a commercial prerinse spray
valve as well as labor rates DOE should use to analyze the costs of
installation. If DOE should consider alternate assumptions, DOE
requests the corresponding references and data.
H. Shipments Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to CPSV shipments that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
DOE develops shipments forecasts of commercial prerinse spray
valves to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy
conservation standards on energy and water consumption, net present
value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments
projections are based on available historical data broken out by
product class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow
for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE relied on historic data
from the EPA's WaterSense[supreg] Field Study and an industry source to
develop the projections presented in Table II.8 of this RFI. EPA's
Field Study estimates 1.35 million units installed circa 2010 based on
the assumption of one commercial prerinse spray valve per restaurant
and restaurants representing 70 percent of the market. See Chapter 9 of
the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD.
Table II.8--Projected Shipments From January 2016 CPSV Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of
Product class 2017 shipments 2018 shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray Force <= 5 ozf............................ 22,426 10 22,874 10
Spray Force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf................ 67,278 30 68,623 30
Spray Force > 8 ozf............................. 134,556 60 137,247 60
---------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35392]]
Total....................................... 224,259 100 228,744 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 28: DOE seeks shipment data on commercial prerinse spray
valves shipped over the last 5-year period, separated by spray force.
DOE also seeks feedback on how the projected shipments in Table II.8
compare to actual shipments of commercial prerinse spray valves in
these years. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not
available at the product type level, DOE requests more aggregated
fractions of annual sales at the category level.
Issue 29: DOE seeks feedback on how common it is for food
establishments (e.g., restaurants or food sales) to have more than one
commercial prerinse spray valve and the factors of why of commercial
prerinse spray valves are chosen for purchase (e.g., spray force,
intended function such as washing glass vs. pots, etc.).
Product class switching can occur when consumers opt to choose a
different product than they would normally purchase because of a
perceived change. This change may be an amended standard, the costs
associated with the new product, or features (e.g., need for greater
flow rate or spray force for commercial prerinse spray valves). As a
result of product class switching, consumers purchase more products of
a different product class than originally projected.
Issue 30: DOE seeks information about whether product class
switching occurred as a result of the previous amended rule, and if so
to what extent. DOE also seeks information about if product class
switching would be expected under possible amended standards and if so,
which directions and what key metrics would induce the product class
switching. DOE requests information on the evidence of such switching
and the extent of it.
I. National Impact Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to national impacts that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The
NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total customer costs and
savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards
at specific efficiency levels.
In the January 2016 CPSV Final Rule, DOE evaluated the impacts of
new and amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves by
comparing no-new-standards-case projections with standards-case
projections. The no-new-standards-case projections characterize energy
use and customer costs for each product class in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. DOE compared these projections
with projections characterizing the market for each product class if
DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency
levels (i.e., the trial standards levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases)
for that class. In charactering the no-new-standards and standards
cases, DOE considered historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies
sold in the absence of amended standards, and how that mix may change
over time. In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE assumed no rebound
effect for commercial prerinse spray valves.\7\ See chapter 10 of the
January 2016 CPSV Final Rule TSD for additional discussion of the NIA
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The rebound effect refers to the tendency of a customer to
respond to the cost savings associated with more efficient equipment
in a manner that leads to marginally greater equipment usage,
thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated benefits related to
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 31: DOE seeks comment and information on whether a rebound
rate of 0 percent is appropriate for commercial prerinse spray valves.
If an alternate rebound rate should be used, DOE requests information
and data in support of the alternate rate.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to manufacturer impacts that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves, and to evaluate
the potential impact of such standards on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies
on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-
flow model adapted for each product in this analysis, with the key
output of industry net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part
of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well
as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular
subgroups of manufacturers, and important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\8\ Manufacturing of commercial prerinse spray valves
is classified under NAICS 332919, ``Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a
[[Page 35393]]
significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several
existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for
some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
efficiency.
Issue 32: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute commercial prerinse spray valves in the United States.
Issue 33: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's
size threshold, of commercial prerinse spray valves that manufacture
products in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any
other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted
by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue 34: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray
valves associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different
products that these manufacturers may also make and (2) product-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also
requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that
would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market trends and issues in the
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to
ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment. As part of this early assessment
review RFI, DOE seeks comments, data, and information on the issues
presented in this document as they may be applicable to energy
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this early assessment review that may not specifically be
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to
provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable
to commercial prerinse spray valves while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the public comments received, and may
begin collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this
document.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://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 http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the CBI
section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://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 http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be
[[Page 35394]]
publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a
cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address,
telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will
not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process or would like to
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 8,
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on June 4, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-12438 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P