Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 81441-81454 [2015-32805]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
§ 2900.13
Intangible property.
In addition to the guidance set forth
in 2 CFR 200.315(d), the Department of
Labor requires intellectual property
developed under a competitive Federal
award process to be licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution license.
This license allows subsequent users to
copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the
copyrighted work and requires such
users to attribute the work in the
manner specified by the recipient.
■ 7. Revise § 2900.15 to read as follows:
§ 2900.15
Closeout.
In addition to the guidance set forth
in 2 CFR 200.343(b), for Federal awards
from the Department of Labor, the nonFederal entity must liquidate all
obligations and/or accrued expenditures
incurred under the Federal award. For
non-Federal entities reporting on an
accrual basis and operating on an
expenditure period, unless otherwise
noted in the grant agreement, the only
liquidation that can occur during
closeout is the liquidation of accrued
expenditures (NOT obligations) for
goods and/or services received during
the grant period.
■ 8. Revise § 2900.16 to read as follows:
In addition to the guidance set forth
in 2 CFR 200.407, for Federal awards
from the Department of Labor, the nonFederal entity must request prior
written approval which should include
the timeframe or scope of the agreement
and be submitted not less than 30 days
before the requested action is to occur.
Unless otherwise noted in the grant
agreement, the Grant Officer is the only
official with the authority to provide
prior written approval (prior approval).
Items included in the statement of work
or budget as awarded does not
constitute prior approval.
■ 9. Amend § 2900.20 by revising the
introductory text to read as follows.
§ 2900.20 Federal Agency Audit
Responsibilities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
In the DOL, in addition to 2 CFR
200.513, the department employs a
collaborative resolution process with
non-federal entities.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Revise § 2900.21 to read as
follows:
In the DOL, ordinarily, a management
decision is issued within six months of
receipt of an audit from the audit liaison
of the Office of the Inspector General
and is extended an additional six
months when the audit contains a
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
[FR Doc. 2015–32725 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FM–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0055]
RIN 1904–AD41
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Commercial Prerinse
Spray Valves
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
On June 23, 2015, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
to amend the test procedure for
commercial prerinse spray valves. That
proposed rulemaking serves as the basis
for this final rule. Specifically, this final
rule incorporates by reference relevant
portions of the latest version of the
industry testing standard from the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324–13,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Prerinse
Spray Valves,’’ including the procedure
for measuring spray force. This final
rule also adopts a revised definition of
‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve,’’
clarifies the test procedure for products
with multiple spray settings, establishes
rounding requirements for flow rate and
spray force measurements, and removes
irrelevant portions of statistical methods
for certification, compliance, and
enforcement.
SUMMARY:
The effective date of this rule is
January 29, 2016. The final rule changes
will be mandatory for representations
starting June 27, 2016. The
incorporation by reference of certain
material listed in this rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register
as of January 29, 2016.
DATES:
Management decision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
December, 2015.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor.
AGENCY:
§ 2900.16 Prior written approval (prior
approval).
§ 2900.21
finding involving a subrecipient of the
pass-through entity being audited. The
pass-through entity responsible for
issuing a management decision must do
so within twelve months of acceptance
of the audit report by the FAC. The
auditee must initiate and proceed with
corrective action as rapidly as possible
and should begin corrective action no
later than upon receipt of the audit
report. (See 2 CFR 200.521(d))
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81441
Docket: The docket, which
includes Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the 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.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at DOE’s rulemaking Web page at:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx
?ruleid=119. This Web page will contain
a link to the docket for this document
on the www.regulations.gov site. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will
contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Raba, 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) 586–8654. Email:
commercial_pre-rinse_spray_valves@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6307.
Email: Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule incorporates by reference into part
431 the following industry standard:
ASTM Standard F2324–13, (‘‘ASTM
F2324–13’’), Standard Test Method for
Prerinse Spray Valves, approved June 1,
2013.
Copies of ASTM Standard F2324–13
can be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or by
going to https://www.astm.org/Standard/
standards-and-publications.html.
See section IV.M. for additional
information about this standard.
ADDRESSES:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definitions
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
2. Spray Force
B. Industry Standards Incorporated by
Reference
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
81442
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
1. Clarifications
C. Additional Test Methods
1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray
Force
2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a
Requirement To Measure Flow Rate and
Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
D. Rounding Requirements
1. Flow Rate
2. Spray Force
E. Sampling Plan for Representative Values
IV. 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 of 1995
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 Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),1 sets
forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part B of title
III 2 establishes the ‘‘Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles,’’
which includes commercial prerinse
spray valves (CPSVs). EPCA provides
definitions for commercial prerinse
spray valves under 42 U.S.C. 6291(33),
the test procedure under 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(14), and energy conservation
standards for flow rate under 42 U.S.C.
6295(dd).3
1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as
amended through the Energy Efficiency
Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11
(April 30, 2015).
2 For editorial reasons, Part B was codified as Part
A in the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as
codified).
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 more
commonly considered to be commercial equipment,
as a matter of administrative convenience and to
minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE
adopted CPSV provisions into subpart O of 10 CFR
part 431. 71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006). Part
431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and
industrial equipment. The location of provisions
within the CFR does not affect either their
substance or applicable procedure, and DOE refers
to commercial prerinse spray valves as either
‘‘products’’ or ‘‘equipment.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
Under EPCA, the energy conservation
program consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. The testing requirements
consist of a test procedure that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE
that their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA, and (2)
making representations about the
efficiency of those products. Similarly,
DOE must use the test procedure to
determine whether the products comply
with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
EPCA sets forth the current maximum
flow rate of not more than 1.6 gallons
per minute for commercial prerinse
spray valves. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) EPCA
also requires DOE to use the ASTM
Standard F2324 as the basis for the test
procedure for measuring flow rate. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(14))
In the December 8, 2006 final rule,
DOE incorporated by reference ASTM
Standard F2324–03 into regulatory text
under section 431.263 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431
(10 CFR part 431), and prescribed it as
the uniform test method to measure
flow rate of commercial prerinse spray
valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR
71340, 71374. Later, on October 23,
2013, DOE published a final rule
(October 2013 final rule) that
incorporated by reference ASTM
Standard F2324–03 (2009) for testing
commercial prerinse spray valves,
which updated the 2003 version to the
2009 version of the same test standard.
78 FR 62970, 62980.
Since the October 2013 final rule,
ASTM has published a revised version
of the F2324 test standard, ASTM
F2324–13. In addition, DOE has
initiated a rulemaking to consider
amended water conservation standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves
(Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027). DOE published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the
test procedure on June 23, 2015,
presenting DOE’s proposals to amend
the CPSV test procedure (80 FR 35874–
5886) (hereafter, the ‘‘2015 CPSV TP
NOPR’’). DOE held a public meeting
related to this NOPR on July 28, 2015
(hereafter, the ‘‘NOPR public meeting’’).
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
EPCA sets forth in 42 U.S.C. 6293 the
criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA provides that any test procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
shall not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a
test procedure amendment is warranted,
it must publish proposed test
procedures and offer the public an
opportunity to present oral and written
comments on them. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to
amend a test procedure, DOE must
determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency of any
covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1))
In this final rule, DOE amends the
commercial prerinse spray valve test
procedure to be based on the current
industry standard, ASTM Standard
F2324–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Prerinse Spray Valves,’’ which
continues to measure water use based
on a maximum flow rate. By
incorporating the newest version of
ASTM Standard F2324–13, DOE is
adding testing requirements for spray
force. In addition, DOE is also
specifying provisions governing
representations of commercial prerinse
spray valves with multiple spray
settings. In addition, DOE concludes
that amendments adopted in this final
rule do not change the measured energy
and water use of commercial prerinse
spray valves compared to the current
test procedure. As such, all test
procedure amendments adopted in this
final rule are effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register and
required for representations regarding
the water consumption of covered
equipment 180 days after publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.
This final rule fulfills DOE’s
obligation to periodically review its test
procedures under 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its
next evaluation of this test procedure
will occur in a manner consistent with
the timeline set out in this provision.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR
431.264, ‘‘Uniform test method for the
measurement of flow rate for
commercial prerinse spray valves,’’ as
follows:
• Modifies the definition of
‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve,’’ and
adds a definition for ‘‘spray force;’’
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
• Incorporates by reference certain
provisions (sections 6.1–6.9, 9.1–9.5.3.2,
10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8, and 11.3.1)
of the current revision to the applicable
industry standard—ASTM Standard
F2324–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Prerinse Spray Valves’’—pertaining to
flow rate and spray force measurement;
• Adds clarification addressing minor
inconsistencies between the proposed
test procedure and ASTM Standard
F2324–13, and sources of ambiguity
within ASTM Standard F2324–13;
• Modifies the current test method for
measuring flow rate to reference
sections 10.1–10.2.5 and 11.3.1 of
ASTM Standard F2324–13;
• Adds a test method for measuring
spray force that references sections
10.3.1–10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324–
13;
• Adds a requirement for measuring
the flow rate and spray force of each
spray setting for commercial prerinse
spray valves with multiple spray
settings;
• Modifies the rounding requirement
for flow rate measurement and specifies
the rounding requirement for spray
force measurement; and
• Modifies the existing CPSV
sampling requirements to remove the
provisions related to determining
represented values where consumers
would favor higher values.
III. Discussion
The following sections describe DOE’s
amendments to the test procedure,
including definitions, industry
standards incorporated by reference,
modifications to the test procedure,
additional test measurements, rounding
requirements, and certification and
compliance requirements.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Definitions
In this final rule, DOE amends the
definition of ‘‘commercial prerinse
spray valve’’ and adds a definition for
the term ‘‘spray force.’’ A detailed
discussion of these terms follows.
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
EPCA currently defines a
‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve’’ as a
handheld device designed and marketed
for use with commercial dishwashing
and ware washing equipment that
sprays water on dishes, flatware, and
other food service items for the purpose
of removing food residue before
cleaning the items. (42 U.S.C.
6291(33)(A), 10 CFR 431.262) EPCA
allows DOE to modify the CPSV
definition to include products (1) that
are used extensively in conjunction
with commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment, (2) to which the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
application of standards would result in
significant energy savings, and (3) to
which the application of standards
would not be likely to result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type currently available on the market.
(42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(i)) EPCA also
allows DOE to modify the CPSV
definition to exclude products (1) that
are used for special food service
applications, (2) that are unlikely to be
widely used in conjunction with
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment, and (3) to which
the application of standards would not
result in significant energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(ii))
As described in the 2015 CPSV TP
NOPR, DOE has observed the existence
of products distributed in the U.S. with
brochures describing them as ‘‘prerinse
spray’’ or ‘‘prerinse spray valve;’’ these
are often marketed (usually by third
parties) to rinse dishes before washing,
to pre-rinse items in a dish room in
preparation for running them through a
commercial dishwasher, or to be used
with pre-rinse assemblies and/or as
ware washing equipment. 80 FR 35874,
35876–77 (June 23, 2015). DOE has also
observed products marketed as ‘‘pulldown kitchen faucets’’ or ‘‘commercial
style prerinse,’’ which, generally
speaking, are handheld devices that can
be used for commercial dishwashing or
ware washing regardless of installation
location. Further, DOE has observed
instances where products designed by
the manufacturer for other specific
applications are marketed on retailer’s
Web sites for commercial dishwashing
and ware washing. In DOE’s view, this
illustrates that such products are also
‘‘suitable for use’’ as commercial
prerinse spray valves and are marketed
and used in commercial dishwashing
and ware washing applications.
To ensure a level and fair playing
field for all products serving
commercial prerinse spray valve
applications, all products that are used
in such an application should be held
to the same standard. As a result, in the
2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to
modify the CPSV definition such that
these categories of products would meet
the definition of commercial prerinse
spray valve and would be subject to the
associated regulations. Id. Specifically,
DOE stated that installation location is
not a factor in determining whether a
given model meets the definition of
commercial prerinse spray valve. Id.
Therefore, DOE proposed defining
‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve’’ as ‘‘a
handheld device . . . suitable for use
with commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment for the purpose of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81443
removing food residue before cleaning
items.’’ Id. at 35877.
Although DOE understands that
manufacturers may market different
categories of spray valves for various
uses, such as cleaning floors or walls or
filling glasses, DOE believes any such
device that is suitable for use in
conjunction with commercial
dishwashing and ware washing
equipment to spray water for the
purpose of removing food residue
should fall within the CPSV definition.
Similarly, DOE believes products that
are appropriate for removing food
residue in dishwashing and ware
washing applications should be subject
to DOE standards and certification
requirements, even if they are marketed
without the term ‘‘commercial
dishwashing and ware washing
equipment.’’ Therefore, after reviewing
the current CPSV definition and
products currently being distributed in
the market as appropriate for
dishwashing and ware washing
applications, DOE proposed to replace
the phrase ‘‘designed and marketed for
use’’ with the phrase ‘‘suitable for use’’
in the CPSV definition. 80 FR 35874,
35876–77 (June 23, 2015).
During the NOPR public meeting, T&S
Brass stated that manufacturers can only
control what they design, intend, or
market their product for. Specifically,
T&S Brass stated that manufacturers
generally use the words ‘‘designed’’ or
‘‘intended for’’ when they qualify
commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S
Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3
at p. 13) 4 T&S Brass provided the
examples of a garden hose spray nozzle
or pet grooming spray valves, which are
identical in look and feel to commercial
prerinse spray valves, but require much
higher flow rates due to different
factors, such as the sensitivity of the
pet’s skin when used in pet grooming.
T&S Brass expressed concern that these
other products could be interpreted as
being suitable for washing dishes,
despite the manufacturer’s intent for
product use. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14–16)
DOE also received written comments
related to the term ‘‘suitable’’ in the
proposed definition. Plumbing
Manufacturers International (PMI) and
Fisher Manufacturing Co. (Fisher) stated
that the DOE proposed term ‘‘suitable’’
4 A notation in the form ‘‘T&S Brass, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14–16’’ identifies
a comment that DOE has received and has included
in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular
notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by T&S
Brass; (2) as recorded in the public meeting
transcript, which is document number 3 of the
docket; and (3) on pages 14 through 16 of that
document.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
81444
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
should be replaced with the phrase
‘‘designed and marketed,’’ as a
manufacturer designs, develops, and
markets a product with a specific end
use in mind. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 1; Fisher,
No. 5 at p. 1) PMI commented that the
term ‘‘suitable’’ is ambiguous and could
imply that a device be considered a
commercial prerinse spray valve even
though it may have not been designed
or developed for that intended purpose.
(PMI, No. 4 at p. 1) T&S Brass added
that the term ‘‘suitable’’ subjects the
definition to misrepresentation and that
a product that is defined for use with
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment is ‘‘designed and
marketed’’ specifically for that
application. (T&S Brass, No. 7 at p. 1)
During the NOPR public meeting,
DOE clarified its proposal and requested
additional information regarding the
specific design changes that
manufacturers implement to distinguish
products that are ‘‘intended’’ for
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing applications from products that
are never ‘‘intended’’ for those
applications. DOE explained it has
experienced instances where the term
‘‘designed and marketed’’ in a definition
creates ambiguity and inequitable
equipment coverage, since such
coverage is subject to marketing
materials rather than objective design
criteria. (DOE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14–16) DOE has
seen instances in the market where a
manufacturer’s self-declaration of intent
varies greatly from how products are
sold by retailers. DOE urged
manufacturers to provide distinct design
information or product characteristics
that could be used to clearly distinguish
products that are manufactured for
dishwashing and ware washing
installations. Thus, because the
suggestion from T&S Brass of using
‘‘designed and/or intended for’’ does not
differ functionally from the current
definition of ‘‘designed and marketed
for,’’ it would still perpetuate a
fundamental problem DOE seeks to
remedy. In fact, by removing the term
‘‘marketed,’’ T&S Brass’s suggestion
would increase ambiguity by requiring
DOE or other parties to divine intent,
without any express tie to objective
criteria. Id. DOE requested that
interested parties provide additional
comments on how to clarify the
definition to alleviate any unintended
consequences. Id. Specifically, DOE
requested comments on how to
distinguish between products that are
intended to be commercial prerinse
spray valves versus those that are not,
but may have similar design features
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
and characteristics. Id. DOE did not
receive any additional comments about
using an alternative phrase to replace
‘‘designed and marketed.’’
In response to T&S Brass’s
observation that certain products exist
that are identical to commercial prerinse
spray valves, but are advertised and/or
intended to perform in different
applications, such as pet grooming, DOE
reviewed the comments from interested
parties and different models of spray
valves available on the market. DOE
could not identify any differentiating
characteristics among commercial
prerinse spray valves and spray valves
intended for other applications that
would indicate that such products were
not regularly used as commercial
prerinse spray valves or that such
products serve a unique utility in those
applications. In addition, DOE has
found spray valves that manufacturers
market for specific applications listed
on retailer’s Web sites as appropriate for
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing.
Conversely, in a joint comment,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),
Southern California Gas Company
(SCGC), Southern California Edison
(SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E) company (referred to as the
California Investor Owned Utilities, or
CA IOUs), pointed out that there are
products currently marketed as pot
fillers, which have very high flow rates
(greater than 3 gallons per minute
(gpm)), that can be used in a similar
function to CPSVs. According to the CA
IOUs, because these products are listed
as ‘‘pot fillers,’’ they would not be
subject to standards. The CA IOUs
stated that the definition of commercial
prerinse spray valve should ensure that
any product that may be used as a
commercial prerinse spray valve is
appropriately covered by the standard.
The CA IOUs cautioned that there is a
loophole that allows manufacturers to
sell commercial prerinse spray valves
that do not meet the flow rate standard
and encouraged DOE to define the
products carefully to eliminate the
loophole. (EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027,
CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2)
DOE is aware that ‘‘pot fillers’’ that
have many of the same physical
characteristics as commercial prerinse
spray valves. However, DOE does not
agree that most of these products can be
used extensively in commercial
dishwashing. Under the definition
proposed in the CPSV TP NOPR, a pot
filler would not be considered a
commercial prerinse spray valve
because it is not suitable to be used for
rinsing dishware before washing in a
commercial dishwasher. A pot filler is
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
used to fill a container with water,
while a commercial prerinse spray valve
is used to remove food residue from
dishware. DOE believes that a
reasonable consumer would not install
a pot filler to be used as a commercial
prerinse spray valve. In addition, most
pot fillers are usually rigidly mounted to
a wall with a swing arm, and are thus
not handheld devices. Therefore, DOE
believes that the proposed definition is
adequate in distinguishing pot fillers
from commercial prerinse spray valves.
When evaluating whether a spray
valve model is suitable for removing
food residue from food service items
before cleaning them in commercial
dishwashing or ware washing
equipment, DOE would consider
various factors including channels of
marketing and sales, product design and
descriptions, and actual sales to
determine whether the spray valve is
used extensively in conjunction with
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment. For example, a
product marketed or sold through
outlets that market or sell to food
service entities such as restaurants or
commercial or institutional kitchens is
more likely to be used as a commercial
prerinse spray valve than one marketed
or sold through outlets catering to pet
care. Similarly, a product marketed
outside of the United States as a
commercial prerinse spray valve, or for
similar use in a kitchen-type setting,
would be considered suitable for use as
a commercial prerinse spray valve. In
evaluating whether a spray valve is
suitable for use as a commercial
prerinse spray valve, DOE would
consider how a product is marketed and
sold to end-users, including how the
product is identified and described in
product catalogs, brochures,
specification sheets, and
communications with prospective
purchasers. DOE would also consider
actual sales, including whether the endusers are restaurants or commercial or
institutional kitchens, even if those
sales are indirectly through an entity
such as a distributor.
For the reasons stated previously,
DOE is modifying the CPSV definition
in part by replacing the term ‘‘designed
and marketed for use’’ with the phrase
‘‘suitable for use.’’ By relying on
suitability, DOE effectively
differentiates products that are used in
commercial dishwashing applications
(and therefore fall under the DOE
regulations) from products that are
unlikely to be used to wash dishes. DOE
believes that such a definition also
removes the loophole noted by the CA
IOUs in its comment by avoiding the
ambiguity associated with determining
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
product coverage based on manufacturer
intent or marketing materials. DOE
recognizes that this definition change
will alter the range of products subject
to standards. Therefore, DOE maintains
in this final rule that any equipment
meeting the previous definition of
commercial prerinse spray valve is
subject to DOE’s applicable standards
and test procedure for such equipment.
For clarity, DOE has moved the relevant
portion of the previous CPSV definition
to the current standard in 10 CFR
431.266 to ensure manufacturers
understand the range of equipment
subject to the current Federal energy
conservation standards. Any
representations with regard to water use
for equipment meeting the revised
definition must be based on the DOE
test procedure as of 180 days following
publications of this final rule. As of the
compliance date for any amended
standards, any equipment meeting the
revised definition of commercial
prerinse spray valve will be subject to
DOE’s applicable standards.
DOE also reviewed the prerinse spray
valve definition in ASTM Standard
F2324–13, which defines the term
‘‘prerinse spray valve’’ as ‘‘a handheld
device containing a release to close
mechanism that is used to spray water
on dishes, flatware, etc.’’ The ‘‘releaseto-close’’ mechanism included in the
ASTM definition means a manually
actuated, normally closed valve, which
is a typical feature of commercial
prerinse spray valves. In the 2015 CPSV
TP NOPR, DOE proposed a different
definition that would include the term
normally closed; that is DOE proposed
to define commercial prerinse spray
valve as ‘‘a handheld device containing
a normally closed valve that is suitable
for use with commercial dishwashing
and ware washing equipment for the
purpose of removing food residue before
cleaning items.’’ 80 FR 35874, 35877
(June 23, 2015).
DOE received one written comment
regarding including the term ‘‘normally
closed’’ in its proposed definition. The
Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE)
does not support the inclusion of the
phrase ‘‘normally closed valve’’ in the
CPSV definition. AWE commented that
many non-dishwashing products,
similar to prerinse spray valves, include
‘‘normally closed valves,’’ and that the
proposed phrase would not distinguish
commercial prerinse spray valves from
other similar devices. Additionally,
AWE stated that products sold and used
to prerinse dishware could be deemed
not subject to the proposed rule because
the valve is not a ‘‘normally closed’’
valve. (AWE, No. 6, p. 2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
DOE is not currently aware of any
commercial prerinse spray valves that
lack a release to close valve, but agrees
with AWE that including the term
‘‘normally closed valve’’ in the
definition could result in a CPSV model
not being considered a covered product
if its design does not include such a
valve. Therefore, DOE is not including
the term ‘‘normally closed valve’’ in the
definition and is instead replacing it
with the term ‘‘release-to-close,’’
consistent with the definition in ASTM
F2324¥13.
In summary, in this final rule, DOE
adopts a modified version of the
definition of ‘‘commercial prerinse
spray valve’’ than what was proposed in
the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR. 80 FR 35874,
35877 (June 23, 2015). Specifically, DOE
defines ‘‘commercial prerinse spray
valve’’ as ‘‘a handheld device that has
a release-to-close valve and is suitable
for removing food residue from food
service items before cleaning them in
commercial dishwashing or ware
washing equipment.’’ DOE has
concluded that this definition satisfies
the requirements at 42 U.S.C.
6291(33)(B) because (1) the products
covered by this definition are used
extensively in conjunction with
commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment, (2) the application
of standards to such products would
result in significant energy savings, and
(3) the application of standards to such
products would not be likely to result in
the unavailability of any covered
product type currently available on the
market.5
2. Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed adding a definition for the
term ‘‘spray force,’’ as ‘‘the amount of
force exerted onto the spray disc,
measured in ounce-force (ozf).’’ 80 FR
35874, 35878–79, 35886 (June 23, 2015).
DOE understands spray force to be an
important differentiating feature in
commercial prerinse spray valves.
DOE received several written
comments about adding a definition for
spray force. DOE will finalize its
decision regarding the use of spray force
as it relates to the proposed amended
energy conservation standards, and will
address any comments related to spray
force and product classes, in the
ongoing CPSV standards rulemaking
5 The analyses of the energy savings potential of
standards and the impact of standards on the
availability of any covered product type currently
on the market are being conducted as part of DOE’s
concurrent energy conservation standards
rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81445
(Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027).
During the NOPR public meeting,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
supported adding spray force
requirements because doing so could
aid in saving water and energy. (PG&E,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p.
17) The Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) asked if DOE would be
adding a definition for the term ounceforce. (NRDC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at p. 17) In this final
rule, DOE does not include a definition
for the unit ounce-force. Ounce-force is
used by ASTM Standard F2324–13 and
is a commonly understood unit of
measurement.
As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts
the term ‘‘spray force,’’ defined as ‘‘the
amount of force exerted onto the spray
disc, measured in ounce-force (ozf).’’
Adopting this new term in the CPSV test
procedure does not affect any amended
CPSV energy conservation standards
and does not guarantee or require its use
in such standards.
B. Industry Standards Incorporated by
Reference
EPCA prescribes that the test
procedure for measuring flow rate for
commercial prerinse spray valves be
based on ASTM Standard F2324,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Pre-Rinse
Spray Valves.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(14))
Pursuant to this statutory requirement,
DOE incorporated by reference ASTM
Standard F2324–03 in a final rule
published on December 8, 2006. 71 FR
71340, 71374. DOE last updated its
CPSV test procedure to reference the
updated ASTM Standard F2324–03
(2009) in a final rule published on
October 23, 2013. 78 FR 62970, 62980.
The 2009 version was a reaffirmation of
the 2003 standard and contained no
changes to the test method. The current
version of the ASTM industry standard
for CPSVs is the version published in
2013, ASTM Standard F2324–13.
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
noted that the most significant
difference between ASTM Standard
F2324–13 and the ASTM standard
currently referenced by the DOE test
procedure (ASTM Standard F2324–03
(2009)) is that ASTM Standard F2324–
13 replaces the cleanability test with a
spray force test and moves the
cleanability test to a normative (i.e.,
non-mandatory) appendix. 80 FR 35874,
35878 (June 23, 2015). During the NOPR
public meeting, T&S Brass requested
DOE’s assistance in updating
California’s Title 20 requirements
related to commercial prerinse spray
valves because California Title 20
currently includes a cleanability
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
81446
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
requirement (Title 20, Section
1605.3(h)(3)(A)), which has now been
moved to the appendix of ASTM
Standard F2324–13. T&S Brass stated
that, under the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR,
manufacturers who sell products in
California must test for both cleanability
and spray force. (T&S Brass, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 18) DOE
appreciates T&S Brass’s comments;
however, DOE’s adoption of any
amendments to the Federal CPSV test
procedure does not preclude California
from adopting amendments to a rule
California had in place prior to January
1, 2005, if that amendment is developed
to align California regulations with
changes in ASTM F2324. See 42 U.S.C.
6297(c)(7). Nonetheless, DOE welcomes
any discussion with manufacturers and
the State of California regarding any
potential amendments to California’s
CPSV test procedure or requirements.
DOE also identified minor differences
between ASTM Standard F2324–03
(2009) and ASTM Standard F2324–13,
which include (1) tolerance on water
pressure required for testing, (2)
minimum flow rate of flex tubing, (3)
water temperature for testing, and (4)
length of water pipe required to be
insulated.
Table III.1 summarizes changes
between ASTM Standard F2324–03
(2009) and F2324–13 as they apply to
DOE’s test procedure.
TABLE III.1—CHANGES TO ASTM STANDARD F2324
Current DOE test procedure
(ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009))
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Water pressure ................................
Minimum flow rate of flex tubing .....
Water temperature for testing .........
Minimum insulation requirement of
water pipe.
60 ± 1 psi and 60 ± 2 psi ......................................................................
7 gpm .....................................................................................................
120 ± 4 °F ..............................................................................................
Requires any insulation to have a thermal resistance (R) of 4 °F x ft2
x h/Btu for the entire length of the water pipe, from the mixing
valve to the inlet of the flex tubing.
DOE discussed the rationale for the
changes between the ASTM Standards
and the effects on testing results in the
2015 CPSV TP NOPR. 80 FR 35874,
35878–79 (June 23, 2015). In the 2015
CPSV TP NOPR, DOE concluded that
the updates do not affect the
measurement of flow rate for
commercial prerinse spray valves.
However, in this final rule, DOE is
clarifying that the water temperature
measurement for both spray force and
flow rate tests is an instantaneous
temperature measurement of the water
at the start of the test, not the average
temperature of the water over the
duration of the test. Additionally, DOE
clarifies that the water temperature will
have no impact on the measured value
of flow rate and spray force.
DOE received a written comment
concerning the incorporation by
reference of ASTM Standard F2324–13.
AWE supports, in part, the use of this
ASTM standard as a method to test
commercial prerinse spray valves.
However, AWE opposes this test
method as the sole means to determine
compliance with a maximum flow rate
of 1.28 gallons per minute (gpm). AWE
stated that the ASTM Standard F2324–
13 was developed and modified for flow
rates not exceeding 1.6 gpm. AWE
expressed concern whether the same
test criteria would be adequate for
testing commercial prerinse spray
valves operating at flows significantly
less than 1.28 gpm, because as water
flow is reduced, the margin of error for
performance narrows. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3)
Currently, section 10 from ASTM
Standard F2324–13 is the generally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Amended DOE test procedure
(ASTM Standard F2324–13)
Jkt 238001
accepted test procedure for the CPSV
industry, and is used to certify
commercial prerinse spray valves at all
flow rates, including flow rates at less
than 1.28 gpm. The ASTM flow rate test
method specifies an allowable range of
supply water temperature and pressure,
which are the two physical parameters
that would have the biggest effect on the
accuracy and repeatability of the water
flow rate measurement of a commercial
prerinse spray valve. DOE has no
evidence that the accuracy or
repeatability of flow rate measurements
lower than 1.28 gpm would be
significantly different than flow rate
measurements greater than 1.28 gpm.
Additionally, DOE tested a range of
commercial prerinse spray valves as
part of the ongoing CPSV energy
conservation standards rulemaking, and
found the test method to be sufficiently
accurate for spray valves with low flow
rates. In a comment submitted by the
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), ASAP,
and NRDC in response to the energy
conservation standard NOPR, the
commenters stated that they support
incorporating provisions of ASTM
Standard F2324–13 pertaining to flow
rate and spray force into the DOE test
procedure, including test methods and
definitions. (EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027,
ASE, ASAP, NRDC, No. 32 at p. 2)
Finally, EPCA requires DOE to use the
ASTM Standard F2324 as a basis for the
test procedure for measuring flow rate.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14)) Therefore, DOE
incorporates by reference the specified
sections of ASTM Standard F2324–13 in
this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60 ± 2 psi.
3.5 gpm.
60 ± 10 °F.
No requirement.
DOE also received comments
regarding its proposal to incorporate by
reference elements of the water supply
pressure specified in sections 9.3, 10.2.2
and 10.3.2 of ASTM Standard F2324–
13. In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed to test commercial prerinse
spray valves at a water pressure of 60 ±
2 psi when water is flowing through the
commercial prerinse spray valve, as
required by ASTM Standard F2324–13.
As part of that proposal, DOE included
a discussion on reports on water
pressure across the country and the
different aspects of testing at multiple
water pressures. 80 FR 35873, 35878
(June 23, 2015). DOE also acknowledged
that supply pressure will affect the flow
rate of a commercial prerinse spray
valve once installed. Typically, lower
pressures result in lower flow rates and
higher pressures result in higher flow
rates. Nevertheless, DOE noted that
testing at a single specific supply
pressure to demonstrate compliance
with the maximum allowable flow rate
would create a consistent and
standardized reference that would be
comparable across all products. Id.
Testing at multiple supply pressures
would also increase test burden. DOE
also reviewed the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard
A112.18.1–2012, ‘‘Plumbing Supply
Fittings,’’ which contains testing
parameters for other plumbing products,
such as faucets and showerheads, and
found that it requires testing at lower
supply pressures only when
determining a minimum flow rate. 80
FR 35873, 35878 (June 23, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
In comments provided for the related
CPSV energy conservation standards
rulemaking, AWE supported the use of
the ASTM Standard F2324–13 test
procedure and testing at a supply
pressure of 60 psi. (Docket No. EERE–
2014–BT–STD–0027, AWE, No. 8 at p.
2) During the NOPR public meeting, the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP) and NRDC both requested that
DOE test at multiple water pressure
values. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at p. 27; NRDC, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 19–20)
In response to the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR,
AWE commented that water pressure
can vary from one water utility service
area to another, impacting the
performance of commercial prerinse
spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p. 2) AWE
also suggested that DOE suspend its
rulemaking efforts until a
comprehensive study is conducted to
determine the effects of water pressure
on performance of commercial prerinse
spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p.4)
In response to AWE’s comment
regarding the effect of varied water
pressures on performance, DOE
acknowledged in the 2015 CPSV TP
NOPR that supply pressures have an
impact on flow rate. Consistent with
what was described in Chapter 5 of the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for
the CPSV energy conservation standards
NOPR (Docket EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027), DOE observed that flow rate
increases with the square root of
pressure. DOE compiled data from
various field studies that demonstrated
the performance of prerinse spray valves
rated between 0.51 gpm and 1.88 gpm
installed in commercial kitchen
locations. While the water pressure
measured in these locations ranged
between 38 psi and 83 psi, the average
water pressure observed in the
commercial kitchens included in the
studies was 55 psi, which is very close
to the 60 psi supply pressure specified
in ASTM Standard F2324–13. DOE
provides the full results of its data
analysis in a separate report
accompanying this final rule, titled
‘‘Analysis of Water Pressure for Testing
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Final
Report.’’ 6 From the analysis, DOE found
that although the flow rate of CPSVs can
vary by almost 40 percent when the
water pressure changes from the
analyzed range of 40 psi to 80 psi, the
weighted average flow rate for CPSVs
installed with varying supply pressures
results in a 5-percent decrease in flow
rate as compared to the flow rate of a
6 The water pressure sensitivity analysis is
available at regulations.gov under docket number
EERE–2014–BT–TP–0055.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
CPSV installed with a water pressure of
60 psi. Based on this information, DOE
determined that 60 psi is representative
of the water pressures observed across
the nation. Therefore, this final rule
incorporates the single water pressure
supply requirement of ASTM Standard
F2324–13, 60 ± 2 psi.
Specifically, DOE is incorporating by
reference the following sections of
ASTM Standard F2324–13: 6.1–6.9, 9.1–
9.5.3.2, 10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8,
11.3.1 (replacing the plural ‘‘nozzles’’
with ‘‘nozzle’’), and excluding
references to ‘‘Annex A1.’’
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed replacing the plural ‘‘nozzles’’
with ‘‘nozzle’’ because ‘‘nozzles’’ refers
to Section 8.1 of the ASTM Standard
F2324–13, which requires three
representative production units to be
selected for all performance testing.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal, therefore DOE
is incorporating this change in this final
rule. DOE also clarifies in this final rule
that the term ‘‘nozzle’’ means a CPSV
unit. Also, DOE is retaining the existing
CPSV sampling plan at 10 CFR
429.51(a), and therefore is not
incorporating by reference Section 8.1 of
ASTM Standard F2324–13. Section III.E
of this document provides more details
on the selection of units to test.
DOE is also excluding any references
to ‘‘Annex A1’’ from incorporation by
reference because the annex provides a
procedure for determining the
uncertainty in reported test results.
DOE’s required statistical methods for
determination of the representative
value of flow rate for each basic model
is in 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2). Therefore,
DOE is not incorporating by reference
Annex A1 in this test procedure, and
any references to the annex in the
incorporated ASTM Standard F2324–13
sections are invalid. The referenced
sections describe the testing apparatus,
test method, and calculations pertaining
to flow-rate measurement.
1. Clarifications
In analyzing ASTM Standard F2324–
13 and DOE’s proposed test provisions
when responding to comments
submitted by interested parties and
formulating the final test procedure
adopted in this document, DOE noticed
several minor inconsistencies and
sources of ambiguity in the proposed
test procedure and industry standard.
As such, in this final rule, DOE is also
clarifying several minor issues regarding
terminology and conducting the
amended DOE test procedure, so as to
improve the repeatability and
consistency of the test procedure.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81447
Throughout ASTM F2324–13, various
terms are used to refer to flow rate:
water consumption flow rate, water
consumption, water flow rate, flow rate,
and nozzle flow rate. Additionally,
regulatory text in 10 CFR 429.51, 10
CFR 431.264, and 10 CFR 431.266 refers
to flow rate using both the terms water
consumption flow rate and flow rate.
For this final rule, DOE is clarifying that
all of the aforementioned terms are
equivalent to the term flow rate.
Section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324–
13, instructs the test lab to attach the
prerinse spray valve to a 36-inch,
spring-style (flex tubing) prerinse spray
valve in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions. DOE is
clarifying that the second instance of
‘‘prerinse spray valve’’ refers to the
spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit
that is previously defined in section 6.8
of ASTM F2324–13. DOE is also
clarifying that it does not believe that
using the manufacturer’s instructions or
packaging are necessary to connect the
nozzle for testing as the manufacturer’s
instructions typically describe how to
install the entire prerinse spray valve,
not just the nozzle.
Section 10.1.1 of ASTM Standard
F2324–13 directs the test lab to record
the water temperature (°F), dynamic
water pressure (psi), time (min) and the
flow rate (gpm) for each run of every
test. For this final rule, DOE is clarifying
that water temperature and dynamic
water pressure values must be recorded
one time at the start of each run when
testing for both flow rate and spray
force. The time is measured throughout
the flow rate test and recorded after the
test to indicate the duration of testing.
DOE clarifies that the flow rate is
calculated afterwards using the
normalized weight of the carboy, as
discussed in the next paragraph, and the
measured time of testing.
In section 10.2.4 of ASTM F2324–13,
the flow rate test requires that the water
flow be stopped at the end of one
minute. However, section 6.9 of ASTM
F2324–13 requires time measurement
instruments accurate ± 0.1 second and
it will likely be difficult for an operator
to stop the stopwatch and CPSV at
precisely 1:00.0 min every test.
Therefore, DOE is clarifying that the
recorded weight of the water will be
normalized to 60.0 seconds for every
test, to ensure that each flow rate is
calculated using the same time period.
Normalize the weight using Equation 1,
where Wwater is the weight normalized to
a 1 minute time period, W1 is the weight
of the water in the carboy at the
conclusion of the flow rate test, and t1
is the total recorded time of the flow
rate test.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
C. Additional Test Methods
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Adding Test Method To Measure
Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed a test procedure for measuring
the spray force of a commercial prerinse
spray valve. DOE discussed how the test
is conducted, the apparatus used, a
review of the procedure, the applicable
sections of ASTM F2324–13 to
incorporate by reference. DOE also
explained that it proposed the test to
support the forthcoming proposed
revisions to the CPSV product class
structure in the ongoing energy
conservation standard for commercial
prerinse spray valves (Docket No.
EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027). 80 FR
35874, 35879 (June 23, 2015).
As discussed previously in this final
rule, DOE received several written
comments about using spray force to
define product classes. Specifically, in a
joint comment submitted by ASE,
ASAP, and NRDC and in the CA IOUs
joint comment, the parties stated that
they support incorporating provisions of
ASTM Standard F2324–13 pertaining to
spray force into the DOE test procedure,
including test methods and definitions.
The commenters additionally supported
a requirement to measure and report
spray force. (EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027, ASE, ASAP, NRDC, No. 32 at p.
2; EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, CA IOUs,
No. 34 at p. 3)
In this final rule, DOE clarifies how to
record average spray force. Section
10.3.6 of ASTM F2324–13 requires the
average spray force to be recorded over
a 15-second time period after the
prerinse spray valve has flowed for at
least 5 seconds. DOE interprets
‘‘average’’ spray force to require at least
two spray force readings during the test.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE
clarifies that this requires recording at
least two spray force readings to
calculate the average spray force over
the 15-second time period.
2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a
Requirement To Measure Flow Rate and
Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed adding a requirement at 10
CFR 431.264(b)(3) to measure and
record each available spray pattern if a
sample unit has multiple spray patterns
or spray settings. DOE identified several
commercial prerinse spray valves on the
market with multiple spray patterns that
can be selected by the end user.
Additionally, section 10.3.7 of ASTM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
Standard F2324–13, which DOE
proposed in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to
incorporate by reference, specifies that
force shall be tested for each mode (i.e.,
spray setting). 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June
23, 2015).
In this final rule, DOE intended the
term ‘‘spray pattern’’ mean a userselectable setting on a commercial
prerinse spray valve; however, DOE
realizes that some people might
interpret the term ‘‘spray pattern’’ to
mean the shape of the water spray as it
exits the unit, such as shower, knife,
solid stream, etc. For this final rule,
DOE clarifies that the term ‘‘spray
pattern’’ refers to a user-selectable
setting on a commercial prerinse spray
valve and uses the term ‘‘spray setting’’
instead of ‘‘spray pattern.’’ Although
DOE used the term ‘‘spray pattern’’ in
the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, for clarity,
DOE is using the term ‘‘spray setting’’
throughout this discussion of comments
received in response to the 2015 CPSV
TP NOPR and in the regulatory text.
During the NOPR public meeting,
Chicago Faucet sought clarification
related to testing of multiple settings.
Specifically, Chicago Faucet asked
whether each setting on a model with
multiple settings would need to be
tested and meet a minimum spray force
value. (Chicago Faucet, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3, pp. 25–26) DOE
clarified during the public meeting that
DOE was not proposing mandatory
minimum spray force requirements, but
rather was proposing to use the spray
force measurement to define product
classes. DOE further confirmed that a
unit with multiple settings would need
to be tested at each spray setting, and
each spray setting would need to meet
the applicable flow rate requirements.
In its written comments, AWE agreed
that all of the emitters of a valve must
comply with maximum allowable flow
requirements. AWE added that it is only
necessary for at least one of the emitters
to meet a minimum spray force
requirement. AWE stated that requiring
all emitters to meet a certain minimum
spray force will likely result in
excessive water use when used in
applications that do not require high
force. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3) As previously
mentioned, DOE is not establishing a
mandatory minimum spray force
requirement but, rather, has proposed
using the spray force measurement to
define product classes. Further
discussion on how DOE proposed to use
spray force to define product classes is
presented in the forthcoming CPSV
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standards rulemaking final rule (Docket
No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027).
T&S Brass stated that if the ‘‘suitable
for use’’ language in DOE’s proposed
definition (based on suitability) were
finalized, only one of the spray patterns
would need to be tested and meet the
requirements of a commercial prerinse
spray valve. According to T&S Brass,
one setting on the spray valve could
meet the proposed definition even
though the rest of the spray pattern
selections may be non-compliant. T&S
Brass also recommended that all spray
modes of the commercial prerinse spray
valve be tested for compliance. (T&S
Brass, No. 7 at p. 2)
As stated in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR,
DOE is aware that some commercial
prerinse spray valves may have multiple
flow rate settings (which may or may
not have the same water spray shape) or
multiple, exchangeable faces to alter the
spray force and flow rate of the product.
80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). In
this final rule, DOE adopts its proposal
in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to require
testing of spray force and flow rate for
each of the spray settings in CPSVs with
multiple settings. Similarly, in this final
rule, DOE is also adopting a definition
of basic model to clarify how spray
settings can be grouped for the purposes
of making representations and certifying
compliance to the Department. The
basic model definition allows
manufacturers to group spray settings
within a given product class as long as
the individual spray settings have
similar physical and functional (or
hydraulic) characteristics that affect
water consumption or water efficiency
for the purposes of testing and certifying
compliance with the applicable
standard. DOE also notes that consistent
with DOE’s basic model grouping
provisions discussed in the certification,
compliance, and enforcement final rule,
manufacturers may elect to certify
multiple spray settings under the same
basic model, provided that (1) all
individual spray settings identified as
the same basic model have the same
certified flow rate, (2) all
representations are based on the tested
performance of the least efficient
individual model in that basic model,
and (3) all spray settings are in the same
product class. 76 FR 12422, 12429
(March 7, 2011). Specifically, for
commercial prerinse spray valves,
manufacturers may certify a CPSV unit
with multiple spray settings as a single
basic model if all the spray settings fall
into the same product class and all
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
ER30DE15.001</GPH>
81448
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
representations regarding the
performance of that basic model are
based on the most consumptive spray
setting. In such a case, manufacturers
may not make differing representations
regarding the performance of different
spray settings for those individual
models within the basic model.
However, to the extent manufacturers
wish to make representations regarding
the spray force or flow rate at spray
settings other than the most
consumptive flow rate, manufacturers
may instead elect to certify individual
spray settings as unique basic models.
In addition, if the spray settings on a
CPSV unit fall into multiple product
classes, manufacturers must certify
separate basic models for each product
class and may only group individual
spray settings into basic models within
each product class. In the ongoing
energy conservation standard
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2014–
BT–STD–0027), DOE proposed to adopt
amended standards for commercial
prerinse spray values and establish
different product classes and standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves as
a function of spray force. 80 FR 39486
(July 9, 2015). As such, a commercial
prerinse spray value that contains
multiple spray settings, or is sold with
multiple spray faces, may fall into
different product classes. In such a case,
the commercial prerinse spray valve
would meet both product class
definitions and, as such, would be
required to meet an appropriate energy
conservation standard for both product
classes. For example, if product classes
were differentiated at 5-ozf and 8-ozf,
the maximum flow rate setting with a
spray force below 5-ozf would have to
meet the standard associated with a
spray force below 5-ozf, and the
maximum flow rate setting between 5and 8-ozf would have to meet the
standard associated with a spray force
between 5- and 8-ozf. This is consistent
with DOE’s treatment of other products
and equipment that fall into multiple
product classes or equipment categories.
For example, dual-temperature
commercial refrigeration equipment that
can operate as both a commercial
refrigerator and a commercial freezer
must be tested as, and meet the energy
conservation standard for, both
equipment categories. 77 FR 10292
(February 21, 2012). Similarly, if a spray
valve has at least one setting that meets
the definition of a commercial prerinse
spray valve, then the entire unit is a
commercial prerinse spray valve and all
settings must meet the flow rate
standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
D. Rounding Requirements
1. Flow Rate
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed to change the rounding
requirements for recording flow rate
measurements from one decimal place
to two decimal places. 80 FR 35873,
35880 (June 23, 2015). During the NOPR
public meeting, T&S Brass agreed with
this proposal and stated that the
WaterSense program also requires flow
rate to be rounded to two decimal
places. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at p. 23) DOE did not
receive any comments objecting to this
proposal. Therefore, DOE amends the
flow rate measurement rounding
requirements to two decimal places in
10 CFR 431.264(b)(1).
2. Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed to adopt Section 11.4.2 of the
ASTM Standard F2324–13 that specifies
that the spray force be rounded to one
decimal place. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June
23, 2015). DOE received no comments
related to this proposal. Therefore, DOE
adopts spray force rounding
requirements of one decimal place in 10
CFR 431.264(b)(2).
E. Sampling Plan for Representative
Values
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed retaining the existing CPSV
sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a). 80
FR 35874, 35880 (June 23, 2015).
Although Section 8.1 of ASTM Standard
F2324–13 requires three representative
production units to be selected for all
performance testing, in the 2015 CPSV
TP NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt
this requirement. DOE only proposed to
adopt the testing methodology (i.e.,
applicable to testing of a unit)—not the
rating methodology (i.e., applicable to a
basic model)—found in ASTM Standard
F2324–13. However, DOE notes that the
DOE test procedure for commercial
prerinse spray valves adopted in this
final rule incorporates by reference
ASTM F2324–13, which requires
performing three test runs on each unit
and the measured flow rate or spray
force to be calculated as the average of
the flow rate or spray force value
determined during each of the three
runs. DOE is retaining this requirement
as is it improves the accuracy and
precision of the test. The representative
value of flow rate and spray force for
each CPSV model is then calculated as
the values determined from each test,
subject to the sampling plan and
rounding requirements presented in at
10 CFR 431.51(a) and 10 CFR
431.264(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81449
CPSV testing is subject to DOE’s
general certification regulations at 10
CFR 429.11. These require a
manufacturer to randomly select and
test a sample of sufficient size to ensure
that the represented value of water
consumption adequately represents
performance of all of the units within
the basic model, but no fewer than two
units. (10 CFR 429.11(b)) The purpose of
these requirements is to achieve a
realistic representation of the water
consumption of the basic model, and to
mitigate the risk of noncompliance,
without imposing undue test burden.
DOE did not receive any comments
related to this proposal.
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed to revise the statistical
methods for determination of the
representative value of flow rate for
each basic model of commercial
prerinse spray valve in 10 CFR
429.51(a)(2). 80 FR 35874, 35880 (June
23, 2015). Specifically, DOE proposed to
remove the lower confidence limit (LCL)
formula from the sampling plan for the
selection of units for testing and retain
only the provision for an upper
confidence limit (UCL) under 10 CFR
429.51(a)(2)(i). The original statistical
methods allowed for two options that
were exclusive; however, because the
energy conservation standard for
commercial prerinse spray valves
specifies a maximum water flow rate,
only the UCL provision is used for
certification and compliance purposes.
DOE received no comments related to
this proposal. Therefore, DOE removes
the LCL formula from the sampling plan
in this final rule and retains the
remainder of the sampling plan at 10
CFR 429.51(a).
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly,
this action was not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act
of 1996) requires preparation of an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
81450
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(IRFA) for any rule that by law must be
proposed for public comment and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis
examines the impact of the rule on
small entities and considers alternative
ways of reducing negative effects. As
required by Executive Order 13272.
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 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 DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site: https://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. DOE has concluded that the rule
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is
as follows.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) considers a business entity to be
a small business, if, together with its
affiliates, it employs less than a
threshold number of workers specified
in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards
and codes are established by the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The threshold number
for NAICS classification code 332919,
which applies to ‘‘other metal valve and
pipe fitting manufacturing’’ and
includes CPSV manufacturers, is 500
employees.7
Based on a search of DOE’s
Compliance and Certification Database,
individual company Web sites, and
various marketing research tools (e.g.,
Dun and Bradstreet reports, Manta, and
Hoovers), DOE identified 13
manufacturers of commercial prerinse
spray valves, of which 9 are domestic
small businesses. Table IV.1 lists the
eight small businesses that DOE
identified, according to the number of
employees.
TABLE IV.1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Number of
small
businesses
Number of employees
1–50 .........................................................................................................................................................................
51–100 .....................................................................................................................................................................
101–150 ...................................................................................................................................................................
151–250 ...................................................................................................................................................................
251–500 ...................................................................................................................................................................
Percentage of
small
businesses *
3
3
1
1
1
33
33
11
11
11
* Note: Because of rounding, the values in this column do not sum to 100%.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DOE estimated the labor burden
associated with testing, in view of the
2012 (most recent) median annual pay
for (1) environmental engineering
technicians ($45,350), (2) mechanical
engineering technicians ($51,980), and
(3) plumbers, pipefitters, and
steamfitters ($49,140) for an average
annual salary of $48,823.8 9 DOE divided
the average by 1,920 hours per year (40
hours per week for 48 weeks per year)
to develop an hourly rate of $25.43.
DOE adjusted the hourly rate by 31percent to account for benefits, resulting
in an estimated total hourly rate of
$33.31.10 11 DOE used this hourly rate to
assess the labor costs for testing units
according to the amendments to the test
procedures.
Currently, 10 CFR 431.264 prescribes
measurements for flow rate and requires
commercial prerinse spray valves with
multiple spray settings to comply with
the applicable Federal energy
conservation standard. DOE is clarifying
in this final rule that CPSV models with
multiple spray patterns must
demonstrate compliance through
certifying each discrete spray pattern or
through the application of the basic
model concept (see section III.C.2).
The amendments to the test
procedures adopted in today’s final rule
do not modify the time or burden
associated with conducting the CPSV
test procedure, except for including an
additional test for spray force. During
the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass
commented that only the manufacturers
participating in the WaterSense program
typically perform this test. (T&S Brass,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp.
24–25) Out of 13 total CPSV
manufacturers that DOE identified, only
2 currently participate in the
WaterSense program. DOE concludes,
therefore, that most manufacturers do
not currently test for spray force. DOE
estimates that an additional hour of
labor time per basic model is required
to conduct the spray force test.
In addition to the labor time, DOE
assumed that manufacturers would have
to either construct or purchase an
apparatus to measure spray force. DOE
researched the materials necessary for
the spray force test and estimates the
cost of these materials to be $575.
Another amendment to the test
procedure includes clarifying that all
spray settings must be tested on units
that offer multiple spray settings. While
CPSV models with multiple spray
settings are currently required to
demonstrate compliance, which
requires testing of all spray settings,
DOE understands that testing multiple
spray settings requires more testing time
than testing units with only one spray
setting and that some manufacturers
may not have been testing each spray
setting. Therefore, DOE is also
estimating the cost associated with
testing units with multiple spray
settings. DOE’s review of commercial
prerinse spray valves with multiple
spray settings indicates that these units
7 U.S. Small Business Administration Table of
Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes. See
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_
Standards_Table.pdf (last accessed September 10,
2015).
8 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook,
Architecture and Engineering. www.bls.gov/ooh/
Architecture-and-Engineering/home.htm (last
accessed September 10, 2015).
9 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook,
Construction and Extraction Occupations.
www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/
home.htm (last accessed September 10, 2015).
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release:
Employer Cost For Employee Compensation.
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. (last
accessed September 10, 2015).
11 Additional benefits include paid leave,
supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and
savings, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment
insurance, and workers compensation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
have an average of three settings. DOE
estimated that the time to measure both
flow rate and spray force for all three
spray settings is greater than 2 hours but
typically less than 3 hours.
Based on this analysis, DOE estimated
that up to 3 hours of total testing time
is required for each basic model.
Therefore, up to 6 hours of total testing
time might be required to test two
production units per basic model in the
final test procedure, which results in a
total labor cost of $199.88. As
previously stated, DOE estimated that
the cost of complying with the current
test procedure is $66.63. Therefore, the
amended test procedure reflects an
increase in cost of $133.25 per basic
model, and an additional one-time
equipment setup cost of $575, compared
to the current test procedure.
AWE commented that the additional
manufacturer cost burden for requiring
multiple spray force tests would
negatively affect product innovation and
consumer choice. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3). As
described earlier, DOE has accounted
for the multiple spray force tests costs
by determining the added cost for
increased testing time, labor, and
purchase of equipment for the spray
force test.
DOE’s analysis determined that 69percent of all CPSV manufacturers
could be classified as small entities
according to SBA classification
guidelines. DOE believes that small
manufacturers would not be
differentially affected by the proposed
amendments to the test procedure. In
fact, DOE does not believe the
amendments adopted in today’s final
rule as they relate to testing will result
in any significant differential impact as
compared to the testing currently
required by DOE’s regulations.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost
effects accruing from the final rule
would not have a ‘‘significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities,’’ and that the preparation of an
FRFA is not warranted. DOE has
submitted a certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, 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 30 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
In this final rule, DOE amends its test
procedure for commercial prerinse
spray valves. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that
are categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81451
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
examined this final rule and determined
that it will 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 final 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(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
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. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 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 Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 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 final rule
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
81452
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
regulatory action resulting 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 small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at https://energy.
gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE
examined this final rule according to
UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements 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
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final rule will 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
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under 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 agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this final rule 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
Executive Order 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 OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor 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 significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test
procedure addressed by this action
incorporate testing methods contained
in the following commercial standards:
ASTM F2324–13, Standard Test Method
for Prerinse Spray Valves, sections 6.1–
6.9, 9.1–9.5.3.2, 10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–
10.3.8, 11.3.1 (replacing ‘‘nozzles’’ with
‘‘nozzle’’), and disregarding references
to Annex A1. DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review).
DOE has consulted with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition and has
received no comments objecting to their
use.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the test standard published by
ASTM, titled, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Prerinse Spray Valves,’’ ASTM
Standard F2324–13. ASTM Standard
F2324–13 is an industry-accepted test
procedure that measures water flow rate
and spray force for prerinse spray
valves, and is applicable to products
sold in North America. ASTM Standard
F2324–13 specifies testing conducted in
accordance with other industry
accepted test procedures (already
incorporated by reference). The test
procedure in this final rule references
various sections of ASTM Standard
F2324–13 that address test setup,
instrumentation, test conduct, and
calculations. ASTM Standard F2324–13
is readily available at ASTM’s Web site
at www.astm.org/Standard/standardsand-publications.html.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
sample of sufficient size must be
randomly selected and tested to ensure
that any represented value of flow rate
must be greater than or equal to the
higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
81453
Spray force means the amount of force
exerted onto the spray disc, measured in
ounce-force (ozf).
5. Section 431.263 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.263 Materials incorporated by
reference.
List of Subjects
*
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
¯
and, x is the sample mean;
n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample; Or,
(ii) The upper 95-percent confidence
limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by
1.10, where:
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Incorporation by reference,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
¯
and, x is the sample mean;
s is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of samples; and
t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95-percent twotailed confidence interval with n-1
degrees of freedom (from Appendix A of
this subpart).
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM Standard F2324–13,
(‘‘ASTM F2324–13’’), Standard Test
Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,
approved June 1, 2013; IBR approved for
§ 431.264.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 431.264 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 431.264 Uniform test method to measure
flow rate and spray force of commercial
prerinse spray valves.
instrumentation. Perform three runs on
each unit, as specified in section 10.2.5
of ASTM F2324–13, but disregard any
references to Annex A1. Then, for each
unit, calculate the mean of the three
flow rate values determined from each
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
2. In § 429.51, paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
3. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 431.262
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
Commercial pre-rinse spray
Jkt 238001
*
4. Section 431.262 is revised to read
as follows:
■
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
*
■
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
■
§ 429.51
valves.
*
PO 00000
Definitions.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
ER30DE15.004</GPH>
(min), the normalized weight of water in
the carboy (lb) and the resulting flow
rate (gpm) once at the end of each run
of the test. Record flow rate
measurements of time (min) and weight
(lb) at the resolutions of the test
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
*
ER30DE15.003</GPH>
(ii) Perform calculations in
accordance with section 11.3.1
(Calculation and Report). Record the
water temperature (°F) and dynamic
water pressure (psi) once at the start for
each run of the test. Record the time
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
18, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
ER30DE15.002</GPH>
(a) Sampling plan for selection of
units for testing. (1) The requirements of
§ 429.11 apply to commercial prerinse
spray valves; and
(2) For each basic model of
commercial prerinse spray valve, a
As used in this subpart:
Basic model means all spray settings
of a given class manufactured by one
manufacturer, which have essentially
identical physical and functional (or
hydraulic) characteristics that affect
water consumption or water efficiency.
Commercial prerinse spray valve
means 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.
(a) Scope. This section provides the
test procedure to measure the flow rate
and spray force of a commercial
prerinse spray valve.
(b) Testing and calculations for a unit
with a single spray setting—(1) Flow
rate. (i) Test each unit in accordance
with the requirements of sections 6.1
through 6.9 (Apparatus) (except 6.4 and
6.7), 9.1 through 9.4 (Preparation of
Apparatus), and 10.1 through 10.2.5
(Procedure) of ASTM F2324–13,
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.263). Precatory language in the
ASTM F2324–13 is to be treated as
mandatory for the purpose of testing. In
section 9.1 of ASTM F2324–13, the
second instance of ‘‘prerinse spray
valve’’ refers to the spring-style deckmounted prerinse unit defined in
section 6.8. In lieu of using
manufacturer installation instructions or
packaging, always connect the
commercial prerinse spray valve to the
flex tubing for testing. Normalize the
weight of the water to calculate flow
rate using Equation 1, where Wwater is
the weight normalized to a 1 minute
time period, W1 is the weight of the
water in the carboy at the conclusion of
the flow rate test, and t1 is the total
recorded time of the flow rate test.
81454
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
run. Round the final value for flow rate
to two decimal places and record that
value.
(2) Spray force. Test each unit in
accordance with the test requirements
specified in sections 6.2 and 6.4 through
6.9 (Apparatus), 9.1 through 9.5.3.2
(Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.3.1
through 10.3.8 (Procedure) of ASTM
F2324–13. In section 9.1 of ASTM
F2324–13, the second instance of
‘‘prerinse spray valve’’ refers to the
spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit
defined in section 6.8. In lieu of using
manufacturer installation instructions or
packaging, always connect the
commercial prerinse spray valve to the
flex tubing for testing. Record the water
temperature (°F) and dynamic water
pressure (psi) once at the start for each
run of the test. In order to calculate the
mean spray force value for the unit
under test, there are two measurements
per run and there are three runs per test.
For each run of the test, record a
minimum of two spray force
measurements and calculate the mean of
the measurements over the 15-second
time period of stabilized flow during
spray force testing. Record the time
(min) once at the end of each run of the
test. Record spray force measurements
at the resolution of the test
instrumentation. Conduct three runs on
each unit, as specified in section 10.3.8
of ASTM F2324–13, but disregard any
references to Annex A1. Ensure the unit
has been stabilized separately during
each run. Then for each unit, calculate
and record the mean of the spray force
values determined from each run.
Round the final value for spray force to
one decimal place.
(c) Testing and calculations for a unit
with multiple spray settings. If a unit
has multiple user-selectable spray
settings, or includes multiple spray
faces that can be installed, for each
possible spray setting or spray face:
(1) Measure both the flow rate and
spray force according to paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section (including
calculating the mean flow rate and mean
spray force) for each spray setting; and
(2) Record the mean flow rate for each
spray setting, rounded to two decimal
places. Record the mean spray force for
each spray setting, rounded to one
decimal place.
7. Section 431.266 is revised to read
as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
purposes of this standard, a commercial
prerinse spray valve is a handheld
device designed and marketed for use
with commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment that sprays water on
dishes, flatware, and other food service
items for the purpose of removing food
residue before cleaning the items.
[FR Doc. 2015–32805 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
PART 242—REGULATIONS M, SHO,
ATS, AC, NMS AND SCI AND
CUSTOMER MARGIN REQUIREMENTS
FOR SECURITY FUTURES—
[CORRECTED]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
■
1. The authority citation for Part 242
continues to read as follows:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 242
[Release No. 34–73639A; File No. S7–01–
13]
RIN 3235–AL43
Regulation Systems Compliance and
Integrity; Correction
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is making
a technical correction to its rules
concerning Regulation Systems
Compliance and Integrity (‘‘Regulation
SCI’’) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) and
conforming amendments to Regulation
ATS under the Exchange Act, which
applies to certain self-regulatory
organizations (including registered
clearing agencies), alternative trading
systems (‘‘ATSs’’), plan processors, and
exempt clearing agencies (collectively,
‘‘SCI entities’’).
DATES: Effective December 30, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Hawkins, Special Counsel, Office of
Market Supervision, at (202) 551–5523
and Alexander Zozos, Attorney-Adviser,
Office of Market Supervision, at (202)
551–6932, Division of Trading and
Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–7010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission is making a technical
correction to final rules that were
published in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72251) as part
of Regulation SCI under the Exchange
Act and conforming amendments to
Regulation ATS under the Exchange
Act.
SUMMARY:
§ 431.266 Energy conservation standards
and their effective dates.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR 242
Commercial prerinse spray valves
manufactured on or after January 1,
2006, shall have a flow rate of not more
than 1.6 gallons per minute. For the
Brokers; Confidential business
information; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements; and
Securities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
Accordingly, 17 CFR Part 242 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendment:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a),
78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2), 78i(a), 78j, 78k–1(c), 78l,
78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g), 78q(a),
78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd–1, 78mm, 80a–
23, 80a–29, and 80a–37.
§ 242.1000
[Amended]
2. Amend § 242.1000 in paragraph (3)
of the definition of SCI alternative
trading system or SCI ATS, by revising
the phrase ‘‘until six months after
satisfying any of paragraphs (a) or (b) of
this section’’ to read ‘‘until six months
after satisfying any of paragraphs (1) or
(2) of this definition’’.
■
Dated: December 22, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–32646 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 519
RIN 1010–AD65
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
30 CFR Part 1219
[Docket ID: ONRR–2011–0024; DS63610000
DR2PS0000.CH7000 156D0102R2]
RIN 1012–AA11
Allocation and Disbursement of
Royalties, Rentals, and Bonuses—Oil
and Gas, Offshore
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and Office of Natural
Resources Revenue, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this final rule, the
Department of the Interior moves the
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of
2006’s Phase I regulations from the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s
(BOEM) title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) chapter V to the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue’s
(ONRR) title 30 CFR chapter XII and
clarifies and adds minor definition
changes to these current revenue-
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81441-81454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32805]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0055]
RIN 1904-AD41
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial
Prerinse Spray Valves
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedure for
commercial prerinse spray valves. That proposed rulemaking serves as
the basis for this final rule. Specifically, this final rule
incorporates by reference relevant portions of the latest version of
the industry testing standard from the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse
Spray Valves,'' including the procedure for measuring spray force. This
final rule also adopts a revised definition of ``commercial prerinse
spray valve,'' clarifies the test procedure for products with multiple
spray settings, establishes rounding requirements for flow rate and
spray force measurements, and removes irrelevant portions of
statistical methods for certification, compliance, and enforcement.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 29, 2016. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for representations starting June 27,
2016. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January
29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
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.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at DOE's rulemaking Web
page at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=119. This Web page will contain a link to the
docket for this document on the www.regulations.gov site. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Raba, 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)
586-8654. Email: commercial_pre-rinse_spray_valves@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
into part 431 the following industry standard: ASTM Standard F2324-13,
(``ASTM F2324-13''), Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,
approved June 1, 2013.
Copies of ASTM Standard F2324-13 can be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or
by going to https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.
See section IV.M. for additional information about this standard.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definitions
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
2. Spray Force
B. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference
[[Page 81442]]
1. Clarifications
C. Additional Test Methods
1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow
Rate and Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
D. Rounding Requirements
1. Flow Rate
2. Spray Force
E. Sampling Plan for Representative Values
IV. 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 of 1995
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 Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA),\1\ sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Part B of title III \2\ establishes the ``Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,''
which includes commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs). EPCA provides
definitions for commercial prerinse spray valves under 42 U.S.C.
6291(33), the test procedure under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), and energy
conservation standards for flow rate under 42 U.S.C. 6295(dd).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended
through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law
114-11 (April 30, 2015).
\2\ For editorial reasons, Part B was codified as Part A in the
U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified).
\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 more commonly considered to be commercial
equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize
confusion among interested parties, DOE adopted CPSV provisions into
subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. 71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006).
Part 431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and industrial
equipment. The location of provisions within the CFR does not affect
either their substance or applicable procedure, and DOE refers to
commercial prerinse spray valves as either ``products'' or
``equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
testing requirements consist of a test procedure that manufacturers of
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use the test procedure to
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
EPCA sets forth the current maximum flow rate of not more than 1.6
gallons per minute for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C.
6295(dd)) EPCA also requires DOE to use the ASTM Standard F2324 as the
basis for the test procedure for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(14))
In the December 8, 2006 final rule, DOE incorporated by reference
ASTM Standard F2324-03 into regulatory text under section 431.263 of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431 (10 CFR part
431), and prescribed it as the uniform test method to measure flow rate
of commercial prerinse spray valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR 71340,
71374. Later, on October 23, 2013, DOE published a final rule (October
2013 final rule) that incorporated by reference ASTM Standard F2324-03
(2009) for testing commercial prerinse spray valves, which updated the
2003 version to the 2009 version of the same test standard. 78 FR
62970, 62980.
Since the October 2013 final rule, ASTM has published a revised
version of the F2324 test standard, ASTM F2324-13. In addition, DOE has
initiated a rulemaking to consider amended water conservation standards
for commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027). DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the
test procedure on June 23, 2015, presenting DOE's proposals to amend
the CPSV test procedure (80 FR 35874-5886) (hereafter, the ``2015 CPSV
TP NOPR''). DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on July 28,
2015 (hereafter, the ``NOPR public meeting'').
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
EPCA sets forth in 42 U.S.C. 6293 the criteria and procedures DOE
must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered
products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended
under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results
which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered
product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1))
In this final rule, DOE amends the commercial prerinse spray valve
test procedure to be based on the current industry standard, ASTM
Standard F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,''
which continues to measure water use based on a maximum flow rate. By
incorporating the newest version of ASTM Standard F2324-13, DOE is
adding testing requirements for spray force. In addition, DOE is also
specifying provisions governing representations of commercial prerinse
spray valves with multiple spray settings. In addition, DOE concludes
that amendments adopted in this final rule do not change the measured
energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray valves compared to
the current test procedure. As such, all test procedure amendments
adopted in this final rule are effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register and required for representations regarding the
water consumption of covered equipment 180 days after publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.
This final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review
its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that
its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner
consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 431.264, ``Uniform test
method for the measurement of flow rate for commercial prerinse spray
valves,'' as follows:
Modifies the definition of ``commercial prerinse spray
valve,'' and adds a definition for ``spray force;''
[[Page 81443]]
Incorporates by reference certain provisions (sections
6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5, 10.3.1-10.3.8, and 11.3.1) of the
current revision to the applicable industry standard--ASTM Standard
F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves''--
pertaining to flow rate and spray force measurement;
Adds clarification addressing minor inconsistencies
between the proposed test procedure and ASTM Standard F2324-13, and
sources of ambiguity within ASTM Standard F2324-13;
Modifies the current test method for measuring flow rate
to reference sections 10.1-10.2.5 and 11.3.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13;
Adds a test method for measuring spray force that
references sections 10.3.1-10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324-13;
Adds a requirement for measuring the flow rate and spray
force of each spray setting for commercial prerinse spray valves with
multiple spray settings;
Modifies the rounding requirement for flow rate
measurement and specifies the rounding requirement for spray force
measurement; and
Modifies the existing CPSV sampling requirements to remove
the provisions related to determining represented values where
consumers would favor higher values.
III. Discussion
The following sections describe DOE's amendments to the test
procedure, including definitions, industry standards incorporated by
reference, modifications to the test procedure, additional test
measurements, rounding requirements, and certification and compliance
requirements.
A. Definitions
In this final rule, DOE amends the definition of ``commercial
prerinse spray valve'' and adds a definition for the term ``spray
force.'' A detailed discussion of these terms follows.
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
EPCA currently defines a ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as a
handheld device designed and marketed for use with commercial
dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on dishes,
flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food
residue before cleaning the items. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A), 10 CFR
431.262) EPCA allows DOE to modify the CPSV definition to include
products (1) that are used extensively in conjunction with commercial
dishwashing and ware washing equipment, (2) to which the application of
standards would result in significant energy savings, and (3) to which
the application of standards would not be likely to result in the
unavailability of any covered product type currently available on the
market. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(i)) EPCA also allows DOE to modify the
CPSV definition to exclude products (1) that are used for special food
service applications, (2) that are unlikely to be widely used in
conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment, and
(3) to which the application of standards would not result in
significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(ii))
As described in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE has observed the
existence of products distributed in the U.S. with brochures describing
them as ``prerinse spray'' or ``prerinse spray valve;'' these are often
marketed (usually by third parties) to rinse dishes before washing, to
pre-rinse items in a dish room in preparation for running them through
a commercial dishwasher, or to be used with pre-rinse assemblies and/or
as ware washing equipment. 80 FR 35874, 35876-77 (June 23, 2015). DOE
has also observed products marketed as ``pull-down kitchen faucets'' or
``commercial style prerinse,'' which, generally speaking, are handheld
devices that can be used for commercial dishwashing or ware washing
regardless of installation location. Further, DOE has observed
instances where products designed by the manufacturer for other
specific applications are marketed on retailer's Web sites for
commercial dishwashing and ware washing. In DOE's view, this
illustrates that such products are also ``suitable for use'' as
commercial prerinse spray valves and are marketed and used in
commercial dishwashing and ware washing applications.
To ensure a level and fair playing field for all products serving
commercial prerinse spray valve applications, all products that are
used in such an application should be held to the same standard. As a
result, in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the CPSV
definition such that these categories of products would meet the
definition of commercial prerinse spray valve and would be subject to
the associated regulations. Id. Specifically, DOE stated that
installation location is not a factor in determining whether a given
model meets the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve. Id.
Therefore, DOE proposed defining ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as
``a handheld device . . . suitable for use with commercial dishwashing
and ware washing equipment for the purpose of removing food residue
before cleaning items.'' Id. at 35877.
Although DOE understands that manufacturers may market different
categories of spray valves for various uses, such as cleaning floors or
walls or filling glasses, DOE believes any such device that is suitable
for use in conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware washing
equipment to spray water for the purpose of removing food residue
should fall within the CPSV definition. Similarly, DOE believes
products that are appropriate for removing food residue in dishwashing
and ware washing applications should be subject to DOE standards and
certification requirements, even if they are marketed without the term
``commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment.'' Therefore, after
reviewing the current CPSV definition and products currently being
distributed in the market as appropriate for dishwashing and ware
washing applications, DOE proposed to replace the phrase ``designed and
marketed for use'' with the phrase ``suitable for use'' in the CPSV
definition. 80 FR 35874, 35876-77 (June 23, 2015).
During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass stated that manufacturers
can only control what they design, intend, or market their product for.
Specifically, T&S Brass stated that manufacturers generally use the
words ``designed'' or ``intended for'' when they qualify commercial
prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at
p. 13) \4\ T&S Brass provided the examples of a garden hose spray
nozzle or pet grooming spray valves, which are identical in look and
feel to commercial prerinse spray valves, but require much higher flow
rates due to different factors, such as the sensitivity of the pet's
skin when used in pet grooming. T&S Brass expressed concern that these
other products could be interpreted as being suitable for washing
dishes, despite the manufacturer's intent for product use. (T&S Brass,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14-16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A notation in the form ``T&S Brass, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14-16'' identifies a comment that DOE has
received and has included in the docket of this rulemaking. This
particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by T&S Brass;
(2) as recorded in the public meeting transcript, which is document
number 3 of the docket; and (3) on pages 14 through 16 of that
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also received written comments related to the term ``suitable''
in the proposed definition. Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI)
and Fisher Manufacturing Co. (Fisher) stated that the DOE proposed term
``suitable''
[[Page 81444]]
should be replaced with the phrase ``designed and marketed,'' as a
manufacturer designs, develops, and markets a product with a specific
end use in mind. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 1; Fisher, No. 5 at p. 1) PMI
commented that the term ``suitable'' is ambiguous and could imply that
a device be considered a commercial prerinse spray valve even though it
may have not been designed or developed for that intended purpose.
(PMI, No. 4 at p. 1) T&S Brass added that the term ``suitable''
subjects the definition to misrepresentation and that a product that is
defined for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment
is ``designed and marketed'' specifically for that application. (T&S
Brass, No. 7 at p. 1)
During the NOPR public meeting, DOE clarified its proposal and
requested additional information regarding the specific design changes
that manufacturers implement to distinguish products that are
``intended'' for commercial dishwashing and ware washing applications
from products that are never ``intended'' for those applications. DOE
explained it has experienced instances where the term ``designed and
marketed'' in a definition creates ambiguity and inequitable equipment
coverage, since such coverage is subject to marketing materials rather
than objective design criteria. (DOE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3
at pp. 14-16) DOE has seen instances in the market where a
manufacturer's self-declaration of intent varies greatly from how
products are sold by retailers. DOE urged manufacturers to provide
distinct design information or product characteristics that could be
used to clearly distinguish products that are manufactured for
dishwashing and ware washing installations. Thus, because the
suggestion from T&S Brass of using ``designed and/or intended for''
does not differ functionally from the current definition of ``designed
and marketed for,'' it would still perpetuate a fundamental problem DOE
seeks to remedy. In fact, by removing the term ``marketed,'' T&S
Brass's suggestion would increase ambiguity by requiring DOE or other
parties to divine intent, without any express tie to objective
criteria. Id. DOE requested that interested parties provide additional
comments on how to clarify the definition to alleviate any unintended
consequences. Id. Specifically, DOE requested comments on how to
distinguish between products that are intended to be commercial
prerinse spray valves versus those that are not, but may have similar
design features and characteristics. Id. DOE did not receive any
additional comments about using an alternative phrase to replace
``designed and marketed.''
In response to T&S Brass's observation that certain products exist
that are identical to commercial prerinse spray valves, but are
advertised and/or intended to perform in different applications, such
as pet grooming, DOE reviewed the comments from interested parties and
different models of spray valves available on the market. DOE could not
identify any differentiating characteristics among commercial prerinse
spray valves and spray valves intended for other applications that
would indicate that such products were not regularly used as commercial
prerinse spray valves or that such products serve a unique utility in
those applications. In addition, DOE has found spray valves that
manufacturers market for specific applications listed on retailer's Web
sites as appropriate for commercial dishwashing and ware washing.
Conversely, in a joint comment, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), Southern California Edison
(SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) company (referred to as
the California Investor Owned Utilities, or CA IOUs), pointed out that
there are products currently marketed as pot fillers, which have very
high flow rates (greater than 3 gallons per minute (gpm)), that can be
used in a similar function to CPSVs. According to the CA IOUs, because
these products are listed as ``pot fillers,'' they would not be subject
to standards. The CA IOUs stated that the definition of commercial
prerinse spray valve should ensure that any product that may be used as
a commercial prerinse spray valve is appropriately covered by the
standard. The CA IOUs cautioned that there is a loophole that allows
manufacturers to sell commercial prerinse spray valves that do not meet
the flow rate standard and encouraged DOE to define the products
carefully to eliminate the loophole. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, CA IOUs,
No. 34 at p. 2)
DOE is aware that ``pot fillers'' that have many of the same
physical characteristics as commercial prerinse spray valves. However,
DOE does not agree that most of these products can be used extensively
in commercial dishwashing. Under the definition proposed in the CPSV TP
NOPR, a pot filler would not be considered a commercial prerinse spray
valve because it is not suitable to be used for rinsing dishware before
washing in a commercial dishwasher. A pot filler is used to fill a
container with water, while a commercial prerinse spray valve is used
to remove food residue from dishware. DOE believes that a reasonable
consumer would not install a pot filler to be used as a commercial
prerinse spray valve. In addition, most pot fillers are usually rigidly
mounted to a wall with a swing arm, and are thus not handheld devices.
Therefore, DOE believes that the proposed definition is adequate in
distinguishing pot fillers from commercial prerinse spray valves.
When evaluating whether a spray valve model is suitable for
removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in
commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment, DOE would consider
various factors including channels of marketing and sales, product
design and descriptions, and actual sales to determine whether the
spray valve is used extensively in conjunction with commercial
dishwashing and ware washing equipment. For example, a product marketed
or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities
such as restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens is more
likely to be used as a commercial prerinse spray valve than one
marketed or sold through outlets catering to pet care. Similarly, a
product marketed outside of the United States as a commercial prerinse
spray valve, or for similar use in a kitchen-type setting, would be
considered suitable for use as a commercial prerinse spray valve. In
evaluating whether a spray valve is suitable for use as a commercial
prerinse spray valve, DOE would consider how a product is marketed and
sold to end-users, including how the product is identified and
described in product catalogs, brochures, specification sheets, and
communications with prospective purchasers. DOE would also consider
actual sales, including whether the end-users are restaurants or
commercial or institutional kitchens, even if those sales are
indirectly through an entity such as a distributor.
For the reasons stated previously, DOE is modifying the CPSV
definition in part by replacing the term ``designed and marketed for
use'' with the phrase ``suitable for use.'' By relying on suitability,
DOE effectively differentiates products that are used in commercial
dishwashing applications (and therefore fall under the DOE regulations)
from products that are unlikely to be used to wash dishes. DOE believes
that such a definition also removes the loophole noted by the CA IOUs
in its comment by avoiding the ambiguity associated with determining
[[Page 81445]]
product coverage based on manufacturer intent or marketing materials.
DOE recognizes that this definition change will alter the range of
products subject to standards. Therefore, DOE maintains in this final
rule that any equipment meeting the previous definition of commercial
prerinse spray valve is subject to DOE's applicable standards and test
procedure for such equipment. For clarity, DOE has moved the relevant
portion of the previous CPSV definition to the current standard in 10
CFR 431.266 to ensure manufacturers understand the range of equipment
subject to the current Federal energy conservation standards. Any
representations with regard to water use for equipment meeting the
revised definition must be based on the DOE test procedure as of 180
days following publications of this final rule. As of the compliance
date for any amended standards, any equipment meeting the revised
definition of commercial prerinse spray valve will be subject to DOE's
applicable standards.
DOE also reviewed the prerinse spray valve definition in ASTM
Standard F2324-13, which defines the term ``prerinse spray valve'' as
``a handheld device containing a release to close mechanism that is
used to spray water on dishes, flatware, etc.'' The ``release-to-
close'' mechanism included in the ASTM definition means a manually
actuated, normally closed valve, which is a typical feature of
commercial prerinse spray valves. In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
proposed a different definition that would include the term normally
closed; that is DOE proposed to define commercial prerinse spray valve
as ``a handheld device containing a normally closed valve that is
suitable for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment
for the purpose of removing food residue before cleaning items.'' 80 FR
35874, 35877 (June 23, 2015).
DOE received one written comment regarding including the term
``normally closed'' in its proposed definition. The Alliance for Water
Efficiency (AWE) does not support the inclusion of the phrase
``normally closed valve'' in the CPSV definition. AWE commented that
many non-dishwashing products, similar to prerinse spray valves,
include ``normally closed valves,'' and that the proposed phrase would
not distinguish commercial prerinse spray valves from other similar
devices. Additionally, AWE stated that products sold and used to
prerinse dishware could be deemed not subject to the proposed rule
because the valve is not a ``normally closed'' valve. (AWE, No. 6, p.
2)
DOE is not currently aware of any commercial prerinse spray valves
that lack a release to close valve, but agrees with AWE that including
the term ``normally closed valve'' in the definition could result in a
CPSV model not being considered a covered product if its design does
not include such a valve. Therefore, DOE is not including the term
``normally closed valve'' in the definition and is instead replacing it
with the term ``release-to-close,'' consistent with the definition in
ASTM F2324-13.
In summary, in this final rule, DOE adopts a modified version of
the definition of ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' than what was
proposed in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR. 80 FR 35874, 35877 (June 23, 2015).
Specifically, DOE defines ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as ``a
handheld device that has a release-to-close valve and is suitable for
removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in
commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment.'' DOE has concluded
that this definition satisfies the requirements at 42 U.S.C.
6291(33)(B) because (1) the products covered by this definition are
used extensively in conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware
washing equipment, (2) the application of standards to such products
would result in significant energy savings, and (3) the application of
standards to such products would not be likely to result in the
unavailability of any covered product type currently available on the
market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The analyses of the energy savings potential of standards
and the impact of standards on the availability of any covered
product type currently on the market are being conducted as part of
DOE's concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for
commercial prerinse spray valves. Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed adding a definition for the
term ``spray force,'' as ``the amount of force exerted onto the spray
disc, measured in ounce-force (ozf).'' 80 FR 35874, 35878-79, 35886
(June 23, 2015). DOE understands spray force to be an important
differentiating feature in commercial prerinse spray valves.
DOE received several written comments about adding a definition for
spray force. DOE will finalize its decision regarding the use of spray
force as it relates to the proposed amended energy conservation
standards, and will address any comments related to spray force and
product classes, in the ongoing CPSV standards rulemaking (Docket No.
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027).
During the NOPR public meeting, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
supported adding spray force requirements because doing so could aid in
saving water and energy. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p.
17) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asked if DOE would be
adding a definition for the term ounce-force. (NRDC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at p. 17) In this final rule, DOE does not include a
definition for the unit ounce-force. Ounce-force is used by ASTM
Standard F2324-13 and is a commonly understood unit of measurement.
As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the term ``spray force,''
defined as ``the amount of force exerted onto the spray disc, measured
in ounce-force (ozf).'' Adopting this new term in the CPSV test
procedure does not affect any amended CPSV energy conservation
standards and does not guarantee or require its use in such standards.
B. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference
EPCA prescribes that the test procedure for measuring flow rate for
commercial prerinse spray valves be based on ASTM Standard F2324,
``Standard Test Method for Pre-Rinse Spray Valves.'' (42 U.S.C.
6293(14)) Pursuant to this statutory requirement, DOE incorporated by
reference ASTM Standard F2324-03 in a final rule published on December
8, 2006. 71 FR 71340, 71374. DOE last updated its CPSV test procedure
to reference the updated ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) in a final rule
published on October 23, 2013. 78 FR 62970, 62980. The 2009 version was
a reaffirmation of the 2003 standard and contained no changes to the
test method. The current version of the ASTM industry standard for
CPSVs is the version published in 2013, ASTM Standard F2324-13.
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE noted that the most significant
difference between ASTM Standard F2324-13 and the ASTM standard
currently referenced by the DOE test procedure (ASTM Standard F2324-03
(2009)) is that ASTM Standard F2324-13 replaces the cleanability test
with a spray force test and moves the cleanability test to a normative
(i.e., non-mandatory) appendix. 80 FR 35874, 35878 (June 23, 2015).
During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass requested DOE's assistance in
updating California's Title 20 requirements related to commercial
prerinse spray valves because California Title 20 currently includes a
cleanability
[[Page 81446]]
requirement (Title 20, Section 1605.3(h)(3)(A)), which has now been
moved to the appendix of ASTM Standard F2324-13. T&S Brass stated that,
under the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, manufacturers who sell products in
California must test for both cleanability and spray force. (T&S Brass,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 18) DOE appreciates T&S Brass's
comments; however, DOE's adoption of any amendments to the Federal CPSV
test procedure does not preclude California from adopting amendments to
a rule California had in place prior to January 1, 2005, if that
amendment is developed to align California regulations with changes in
ASTM F2324. See 42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(7). Nonetheless, DOE welcomes any
discussion with manufacturers and the State of California regarding any
potential amendments to California's CPSV test procedure or
requirements.
DOE also identified minor differences between ASTM Standard F2324-
03 (2009) and ASTM Standard F2324-13, which include (1) tolerance on
water pressure required for testing, (2) minimum flow rate of flex
tubing, (3) water temperature for testing, and (4) length of water pipe
required to be insulated.
Table III.1 summarizes changes between ASTM Standard F2324-03
(2009) and F2324-13 as they apply to DOE's test procedure.
Table III.1--Changes to ASTM Standard F2324
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test Amended DOE test
procedure (ASTM procedure (ASTM
Standard F2324-03 Standard F2324-
(2009)) 13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water pressure................ 60 1 psi 60
and 60 2 2 psi.
psi.
Minimum flow rate of flex 7 gpm................. 3.5 gpm.
tubing.
Water temperature for testing. 120 4 60
[deg]F. 10 [deg]F.
Minimum insulation requirement Requires any No requirement.
of water pipe. insulation to have a
thermal resistance
(R) of 4 [deg]F x
ft\2\ x h/Btu for the
entire length of the
water pipe, from the
mixing valve to the
inlet of the flex
tubing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discussed the rationale for the changes between the ASTM
Standards and the effects on testing results in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR.
80 FR 35874, 35878-79 (June 23, 2015). In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE
concluded that the updates do not affect the measurement of flow rate
for commercial prerinse spray valves. However, in this final rule, DOE
is clarifying that the water temperature measurement for both spray
force and flow rate tests is an instantaneous temperature measurement
of the water at the start of the test, not the average temperature of
the water over the duration of the test. Additionally, DOE clarifies
that the water temperature will have no impact on the measured value of
flow rate and spray force.
DOE received a written comment concerning the incorporation by
reference of ASTM Standard F2324-13. AWE supports, in part, the use of
this ASTM standard as a method to test commercial prerinse spray
valves. However, AWE opposes this test method as the sole means to
determine compliance with a maximum flow rate of 1.28 gallons per
minute (gpm). AWE stated that the ASTM Standard F2324-13 was developed
and modified for flow rates not exceeding 1.6 gpm. AWE expressed
concern whether the same test criteria would be adequate for testing
commercial prerinse spray valves operating at flows significantly less
than 1.28 gpm, because as water flow is reduced, the margin of error
for performance narrows. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3)
Currently, section 10 from ASTM Standard F2324-13 is the generally
accepted test procedure for the CPSV industry, and is used to certify
commercial prerinse spray valves at all flow rates, including flow
rates at less than 1.28 gpm. The ASTM flow rate test method specifies
an allowable range of supply water temperature and pressure, which are
the two physical parameters that would have the biggest effect on the
accuracy and repeatability of the water flow rate measurement of a
commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE has no evidence that the accuracy
or repeatability of flow rate measurements lower than 1.28 gpm would be
significantly different than flow rate measurements greater than 1.28
gpm. Additionally, DOE tested a range of commercial prerinse spray
valves as part of the ongoing CPSV energy conservation standards
rulemaking, and found the test method to be sufficiently accurate for
spray valves with low flow rates. In a comment submitted by the
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), ASAP, and NRDC in response to the energy
conservation standard NOPR, the commenters stated that they support
incorporating provisions of ASTM Standard F2324-13 pertaining to flow
rate and spray force into the DOE test procedure, including test
methods and definitions. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, ASE, ASAP, NRDC, No.
32 at p. 2) Finally, EPCA requires DOE to use the ASTM Standard F2324
as a basis for the test procedure for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(14)) Therefore, DOE incorporates by reference the specified
sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13 in this final rule.
DOE also received comments regarding its proposal to incorporate by
reference elements of the water supply pressure specified in sections
9.3, 10.2.2 and 10.3.2 of ASTM Standard F2324-13. In the 2015 CPSV TP
NOPR, DOE proposed to test commercial prerinse spray valves at a water
pressure of 60 2 psi when water is flowing through the
commercial prerinse spray valve, as required by ASTM Standard F2324-13.
As part of that proposal, DOE included a discussion on reports on water
pressure across the country and the different aspects of testing at
multiple water pressures. 80 FR 35873, 35878 (June 23, 2015). DOE also
acknowledged that supply pressure will affect the flow rate of a
commercial prerinse spray valve once installed. Typically, lower
pressures result in lower flow rates and higher pressures result in
higher flow rates. Nevertheless, DOE noted that testing at a single
specific supply pressure to demonstrate compliance with the maximum
allowable flow rate would create a consistent and standardized
reference that would be comparable across all products. Id. Testing at
multiple supply pressures would also increase test burden. DOE also
reviewed the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard
A112.18.1-2012, ``Plumbing Supply Fittings,'' which contains testing
parameters for other plumbing products, such as faucets and
showerheads, and found that it requires testing at lower supply
pressures only when determining a minimum flow rate. 80 FR 35873, 35878
(June 23, 2015).
[[Page 81447]]
In comments provided for the related CPSV energy conservation
standards rulemaking, AWE supported the use of the ASTM Standard F2324-
13 test procedure and testing at a supply pressure of 60 psi. (Docket
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) During the NOPR public
meeting, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and NRDC both
requested that DOE test at multiple water pressure values. (ASAP,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 27; NRDC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 19-20) In response to the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR,
AWE commented that water pressure can vary from one water utility
service area to another, impacting the performance of commercial
prerinse spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p. 2) AWE also suggested that DOE
suspend its rulemaking efforts until a comprehensive study is conducted
to determine the effects of water pressure on performance of commercial
prerinse spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p.4)
In response to AWE's comment regarding the effect of varied water
pressures on performance, DOE acknowledged in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR
that supply pressures have an impact on flow rate. Consistent with what
was described in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
the CPSV energy conservation standards NOPR (Docket EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027), DOE observed that flow rate increases with the square root of
pressure. DOE compiled data from various field studies that
demonstrated the performance of prerinse spray valves rated between
0.51 gpm and 1.88 gpm installed in commercial kitchen locations. While
the water pressure measured in these locations ranged between 38 psi
and 83 psi, the average water pressure observed in the commercial
kitchens included in the studies was 55 psi, which is very close to the
60 psi supply pressure specified in ASTM Standard F2324-13. DOE
provides the full results of its data analysis in a separate report
accompanying this final rule, titled ``Analysis of Water Pressure for
Testing Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Final Report.'' \6\ From the
analysis, DOE found that although the flow rate of CPSVs can vary by
almost 40 percent when the water pressure changes from the analyzed
range of 40 psi to 80 psi, the weighted average flow rate for CPSVs
installed with varying supply pressures results in a 5-percent decrease
in flow rate as compared to the flow rate of a CPSV installed with a
water pressure of 60 psi. Based on this information, DOE determined
that 60 psi is representative of the water pressures observed across
the nation. Therefore, this final rule incorporates the single water
pressure supply requirement of ASTM Standard F2324-13, 60
2 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The water pressure sensitivity analysis is available at
regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2014-BT-TP-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, DOE is incorporating by reference the following
sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13: 6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5,
10.3.1-10.3.8, 11.3.1 (replacing the plural ``nozzles'' with
``nozzle''), and excluding references to ``Annex A1.''
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed replacing the plural
``nozzles'' with ``nozzle'' because ``nozzles'' refers to Section 8.1
of the ASTM Standard F2324-13, which requires three representative
production units to be selected for all performance testing. DOE did
not receive any comments regarding this proposal, therefore DOE is
incorporating this change in this final rule. DOE also clarifies in
this final rule that the term ``nozzle'' means a CPSV unit. Also, DOE
is retaining the existing CPSV sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a), and
therefore is not incorporating by reference Section 8.1 of ASTM
Standard F2324-13. Section III.E of this document provides more details
on the selection of units to test.
DOE is also excluding any references to ``Annex A1'' from
incorporation by reference because the annex provides a procedure for
determining the uncertainty in reported test results. DOE's required
statistical methods for determination of the representative value of
flow rate for each basic model is in 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2). Therefore,
DOE is not incorporating by reference Annex A1 in this test procedure,
and any references to the annex in the incorporated ASTM Standard
F2324-13 sections are invalid. The referenced sections describe the
testing apparatus, test method, and calculations pertaining to flow-
rate measurement.
1. Clarifications
In analyzing ASTM Standard F2324-13 and DOE's proposed test
provisions when responding to comments submitted by interested parties
and formulating the final test procedure adopted in this document, DOE
noticed several minor inconsistencies and sources of ambiguity in the
proposed test procedure and industry standard. As such, in this final
rule, DOE is also clarifying several minor issues regarding terminology
and conducting the amended DOE test procedure, so as to improve the
repeatability and consistency of the test procedure.
Throughout ASTM F2324-13, various terms are used to refer to flow
rate: water consumption flow rate, water consumption, water flow rate,
flow rate, and nozzle flow rate. Additionally, regulatory text in 10
CFR 429.51, 10 CFR 431.264, and 10 CFR 431.266 refers to flow rate
using both the terms water consumption flow rate and flow rate. For
this final rule, DOE is clarifying that all of the aforementioned terms
are equivalent to the term flow rate.
Section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13, instructs the test lab to
attach the prerinse spray valve to a 36-inch, spring-style (flex
tubing) prerinse spray valve in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. DOE is clarifying that the second instance of ``prerinse
spray valve'' refers to the spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit
that is previously defined in section 6.8 of ASTM F2324-13. DOE is also
clarifying that it does not believe that using the manufacturer's
instructions or packaging are necessary to connect the nozzle for
testing as the manufacturer's instructions typically describe how to
install the entire prerinse spray valve, not just the nozzle.
Section 10.1.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 directs the test lab to
record the water temperature ([deg]F), dynamic water pressure (psi),
time (min) and the flow rate (gpm) for each run of every test. For this
final rule, DOE is clarifying that water temperature and dynamic water
pressure values must be recorded one time at the start of each run when
testing for both flow rate and spray force. The time is measured
throughout the flow rate test and recorded after the test to indicate
the duration of testing. DOE clarifies that the flow rate is calculated
afterwards using the normalized weight of the carboy, as discussed in
the next paragraph, and the measured time of testing.
In section 10.2.4 of ASTM F2324-13, the flow rate test requires
that the water flow be stopped at the end of one minute. However,
section 6.9 of ASTM F2324-13 requires time measurement instruments
accurate 0.1 second and it will likely be difficult for an
operator to stop the stopwatch and CPSV at precisely 1:00.0 min every
test. Therefore, DOE is clarifying that the recorded weight of the
water will be normalized to 60.0 seconds for every test, to ensure that
each flow rate is calculated using the same time period. Normalize the
weight using Equation 1, where Wwater is the weight
normalized to a 1 minute time period, W1 is the weight of
the water in the carboy at the conclusion of the flow rate test, and
t1 is the total recorded time of the flow rate test.
[[Page 81448]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.001
C. Additional Test Methods
1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure for
measuring the spray force of a commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE
discussed how the test is conducted, the apparatus used, a review of
the procedure, the applicable sections of ASTM F2324-13 to incorporate
by reference. DOE also explained that it proposed the test to support
the forthcoming proposed revisions to the CPSV product class structure
in the ongoing energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse
spray valves (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027). 80 FR 35874, 35879
(June 23, 2015).
As discussed previously in this final rule, DOE received several
written comments about using spray force to define product classes.
Specifically, in a joint comment submitted by ASE, ASAP, and NRDC and
in the CA IOUs joint comment, the parties stated that they support
incorporating provisions of ASTM Standard F2324-13 pertaining to spray
force into the DOE test procedure, including test methods and
definitions. The commenters additionally supported a requirement to
measure and report spray force. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, ASE, ASAP,
NRDC, No. 32 at p. 2; EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 3)
In this final rule, DOE clarifies how to record average spray
force. Section 10.3.6 of ASTM F2324-13 requires the average spray force
to be recorded over a 15-second time period after the prerinse spray
valve has flowed for at least 5 seconds. DOE interprets ``average''
spray force to require at least two spray force readings during the
test. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE clarifies that this requires
recording at least two spray force readings to calculate the average
spray force over the 15-second time period.
2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow Rate
and Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed adding a requirement at 10
CFR 431.264(b)(3) to measure and record each available spray pattern if
a sample unit has multiple spray patterns or spray settings. DOE
identified several commercial prerinse spray valves on the market with
multiple spray patterns that can be selected by the end user.
Additionally, section 10.3.7 of ASTM Standard F2324-13, which DOE
proposed in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to incorporate by reference,
specifies that force shall be tested for each mode (i.e., spray
setting). 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015).
In this final rule, DOE intended the term ``spray pattern'' mean a
user-selectable setting on a commercial prerinse spray valve; however,
DOE realizes that some people might interpret the term ``spray
pattern'' to mean the shape of the water spray as it exits the unit,
such as shower, knife, solid stream, etc. For this final rule, DOE
clarifies that the term ``spray pattern'' refers to a user-selectable
setting on a commercial prerinse spray valve and uses the term ``spray
setting'' instead of ``spray pattern.'' Although DOE used the term
``spray pattern'' in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, for clarity, DOE is using
the term ``spray setting'' throughout this discussion of comments
received in response to the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR and in the regulatory
text.
During the NOPR public meeting, Chicago Faucet sought clarification
related to testing of multiple settings. Specifically, Chicago Faucet
asked whether each setting on a model with multiple settings would need
to be tested and meet a minimum spray force value. (Chicago Faucet,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3, pp. 25-26) DOE clarified during the
public meeting that DOE was not proposing mandatory minimum spray force
requirements, but rather was proposing to use the spray force
measurement to define product classes. DOE further confirmed that a
unit with multiple settings would need to be tested at each spray
setting, and each spray setting would need to meet the applicable flow
rate requirements.
In its written comments, AWE agreed that all of the emitters of a
valve must comply with maximum allowable flow requirements. AWE added
that it is only necessary for at least one of the emitters to meet a
minimum spray force requirement. AWE stated that requiring all emitters
to meet a certain minimum spray force will likely result in excessive
water use when used in applications that do not require high force.
(AWE, No. 6, p. 3) As previously mentioned, DOE is not establishing a
mandatory minimum spray force requirement but, rather, has proposed
using the spray force measurement to define product classes. Further
discussion on how DOE proposed to use spray force to define product
classes is presented in the forthcoming CPSV standards rulemaking final
rule (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027).
T&S Brass stated that if the ``suitable for use'' language in DOE's
proposed definition (based on suitability) were finalized, only one of
the spray patterns would need to be tested and meet the requirements of
a commercial prerinse spray valve. According to T&S Brass, one setting
on the spray valve could meet the proposed definition even though the
rest of the spray pattern selections may be non-compliant. T&S Brass
also recommended that all spray modes of the commercial prerinse spray
valve be tested for compliance. (T&S Brass, No. 7 at p. 2)
As stated in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE is aware that some
commercial prerinse spray valves may have multiple flow rate settings
(which may or may not have the same water spray shape) or multiple,
exchangeable faces to alter the spray force and flow rate of the
product. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). In this final rule, DOE
adopts its proposal in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to require testing of
spray force and flow rate for each of the spray settings in CPSVs with
multiple settings. Similarly, in this final rule, DOE is also adopting
a definition of basic model to clarify how spray settings can be
grouped for the purposes of making representations and certifying
compliance to the Department. The basic model definition allows
manufacturers to group spray settings within a given product class as
long as the individual spray settings have similar physical and
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect water consumption
or water efficiency for the purposes of testing and certifying
compliance with the applicable standard. DOE also notes that consistent
with DOE's basic model grouping provisions discussed in the
certification, compliance, and enforcement final rule, manufacturers
may elect to certify multiple spray settings under the same basic
model, provided that (1) all individual spray settings identified as
the same basic model have the same certified flow rate, (2) all
representations are based on the tested performance of the least
efficient individual model in that basic model, and (3) all spray
settings are in the same product class. 76 FR 12422, 12429 (March 7,
2011). Specifically, for commercial prerinse spray valves,
manufacturers may certify a CPSV unit with multiple spray settings as a
single basic model if all the spray settings fall into the same product
class and all
[[Page 81449]]
representations regarding the performance of that basic model are based
on the most consumptive spray setting. In such a case, manufacturers
may not make differing representations regarding the performance of
different spray settings for those individual models within the basic
model. However, to the extent manufacturers wish to make
representations regarding the spray force or flow rate at spray
settings other than the most consumptive flow rate, manufacturers may
instead elect to certify individual spray settings as unique basic
models.
In addition, if the spray settings on a CPSV unit fall into
multiple product classes, manufacturers must certify separate basic
models for each product class and may only group individual spray
settings into basic models within each product class. In the ongoing
energy conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027), DOE proposed to adopt amended standards for commercial prerinse
spray values and establish different product classes and standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves as a function of spray force. 80 FR
39486 (July 9, 2015). As such, a commercial prerinse spray value that
contains multiple spray settings, or is sold with multiple spray faces,
may fall into different product classes. In such a case, the commercial
prerinse spray valve would meet both product class definitions and, as
such, would be required to meet an appropriate energy conservation
standard for both product classes. For example, if product classes were
differentiated at 5-ozf and 8-ozf, the maximum flow rate setting with a
spray force below 5-ozf would have to meet the standard associated with
a spray force below 5-ozf, and the maximum flow rate setting between 5-
and 8-ozf would have to meet the standard associated with a spray force
between 5- and 8-ozf. This is consistent with DOE's treatment of other
products and equipment that fall into multiple product classes or
equipment categories. For example, dual-temperature commercial
refrigeration equipment that can operate as both a commercial
refrigerator and a commercial freezer must be tested as, and meet the
energy conservation standard for, both equipment categories. 77 FR
10292 (February 21, 2012). Similarly, if a spray valve has at least one
setting that meets the definition of a commercial prerinse spray valve,
then the entire unit is a commercial prerinse spray valve and all
settings must meet the flow rate standard.
D. Rounding Requirements
1. Flow Rate
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to change the rounding
requirements for recording flow rate measurements from one decimal
place to two decimal places. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). During
the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass agreed with this proposal and stated
that the WaterSense program also requires flow rate to be rounded to
two decimal places. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p.
23) DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this proposal.
Therefore, DOE amends the flow rate measurement rounding requirements
to two decimal places in 10 CFR 431.264(b)(1).
2. Spray Force
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt Section 11.4.2 of
the ASTM Standard F2324-13 that specifies that the spray force be
rounded to one decimal place. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). DOE
received no comments related to this proposal. Therefore, DOE adopts
spray force rounding requirements of one decimal place in 10 CFR
431.264(b)(2).
E. Sampling Plan for Representative Values
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed retaining the existing CPSV
sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a). 80 FR 35874, 35880 (June 23, 2015).
Although Section 8.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 requires three
representative production units to be selected for all performance
testing, in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt this
requirement. DOE only proposed to adopt the testing methodology (i.e.,
applicable to testing of a unit)--not the rating methodology (i.e.,
applicable to a basic model)--found in ASTM Standard F2324-13. However,
DOE notes that the DOE test procedure for commercial prerinse spray
valves adopted in this final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2324-
13, which requires performing three test runs on each unit and the
measured flow rate or spray force to be calculated as the average of
the flow rate or spray force value determined during each of the three
runs. DOE is retaining this requirement as is it improves the accuracy
and precision of the test. The representative value of flow rate and
spray force for each CPSV model is then calculated as the values
determined from each test, subject to the sampling plan and rounding
requirements presented in at 10 CFR 431.51(a) and 10 CFR 431.264(b)(2).
CPSV testing is subject to DOE's general certification regulations
at 10 CFR 429.11. These require a manufacturer to randomly select and
test a sample of sufficient size to ensure that the represented value
of water consumption adequately represents performance of all of the
units within the basic model, but no fewer than two units. (10 CFR
429.11(b)) The purpose of these requirements is to achieve a realistic
representation of the water consumption of the basic model, and to
mitigate the risk of noncompliance, without imposing undue test burden.
DOE did not receive any comments related to this proposal.
In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the statistical
methods for determination of the representative value of flow rate for
each basic model of commercial prerinse spray valve in 10 CFR
429.51(a)(2). 80 FR 35874, 35880 (June 23, 2015). Specifically, DOE
proposed to remove the lower confidence limit (LCL) formula from the
sampling plan for the selection of units for testing and retain only
the provision for an upper confidence limit (UCL) under 10 CFR
429.51(a)(2)(i). The original statistical methods allowed for two
options that were exclusive; however, because the energy conservation
standard for commercial prerinse spray valves specifies a maximum water
flow rate, only the UCL provision is used for certification and
compliance purposes. DOE received no comments related to this proposal.
Therefore, DOE removes the LCL formula from the sampling plan in this
final rule and retains the remainder of the sampling plan at 10 CFR
429.51(a).
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
[[Page 81450]]
(IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that
an agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis
examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers
alternative ways of reducing negative effects. As required by Executive
Order 13272. ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 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 DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site:
https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for
this certification is as follows.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
These size standards and codes are established by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS
classification code 332919, which applies to ``other metal valve and
pipe fitting manufacturing'' and includes CPSV manufacturers, is 500
employees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification
System Codes. See www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf (last accessed September 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a search of DOE's Compliance and Certification Database,
individual company Web sites, and various marketing research tools
(e.g., Dun and Bradstreet reports, Manta, and Hoovers), DOE identified
13 manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves, of which 9 are
domestic small businesses. Table IV.1 lists the eight small businesses
that DOE identified, according to the number of employees.
Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percentage of
Number of employees small small
businesses businesses *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-50.................................... 3 33
51-100.................................. 3 33
101-150................................. 1 11
151-250................................. 1 11
251-500................................. 1 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Because of rounding, the values in this column do not sum to
100%.
DOE estimated the labor burden associated with testing, in view of
the 2012 (most recent) median annual pay for (1) environmental
engineering technicians ($45,350), (2) mechanical engineering
technicians ($51,980), and (3) plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters
($49,140) for an average annual salary of $48,823.8 9 DOE
divided the average by 1,920 hours per year (40 hours per week for 48
weeks per year) to develop an hourly rate of $25.43. DOE adjusted the
hourly rate by 31-percent to account for benefits, resulting in an
estimated total hourly rate of $33.31.10 11 DOE used this
hourly rate to assess the labor costs for testing units according to
the amendments to the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Architecture and Engineering.
www.bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-Engineering/home.htm (last accessed
September 10, 2015).
\9\ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Construction and Extraction
Occupations. www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/home.htm
(last accessed September 10, 2015).
\10\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release: Employer Cost For
Employee Compensation. www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. (last
accessed September 10, 2015).
\11\ Additional benefits include paid leave, supplemental pay,
insurance, retirement and savings, Social Security, Medicare,
unemployment insurance, and workers compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, 10 CFR 431.264 prescribes measurements for flow rate and
requires commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple spray settings
to comply with the applicable Federal energy conservation standard. DOE
is clarifying in this final rule that CPSV models with multiple spray
patterns must demonstrate compliance through certifying each discrete
spray pattern or through the application of the basic model concept
(see section III.C.2).
The amendments to the test procedures adopted in today's final rule
do not modify the time or burden associated with conducting the CPSV
test procedure, except for including an additional test for spray
force. During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass commented that only
the manufacturers participating in the WaterSense program typically
perform this test. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp.
24-25) Out of 13 total CPSV manufacturers that DOE identified, only 2
currently participate in the WaterSense program. DOE concludes,
therefore, that most manufacturers do not currently test for spray
force. DOE estimates that an additional hour of labor time per basic
model is required to conduct the spray force test.
In addition to the labor time, DOE assumed that manufacturers would
have to either construct or purchase an apparatus to measure spray
force. DOE researched the materials necessary for the spray force test
and estimates the cost of these materials to be $575.
Another amendment to the test procedure includes clarifying that
all spray settings must be tested on units that offer multiple spray
settings. While CPSV models with multiple spray settings are currently
required to demonstrate compliance, which requires testing of all spray
settings, DOE understands that testing multiple spray settings requires
more testing time than testing units with only one spray setting and
that some manufacturers may not have been testing each spray setting.
Therefore, DOE is also estimating the cost associated with testing
units with multiple spray settings. DOE's review of commercial prerinse
spray valves with multiple spray settings indicates that these units
[[Page 81451]]
have an average of three settings. DOE estimated that the time to
measure both flow rate and spray force for all three spray settings is
greater than 2 hours but typically less than 3 hours.
Based on this analysis, DOE estimated that up to 3 hours of total
testing time is required for each basic model. Therefore, up to 6 hours
of total testing time might be required to test two production units
per basic model in the final test procedure, which results in a total
labor cost of $199.88. As previously stated, DOE estimated that the
cost of complying with the current test procedure is $66.63. Therefore,
the amended test procedure reflects an increase in cost of $133.25 per
basic model, and an additional one-time equipment setup cost of $575,
compared to the current test procedure.
AWE commented that the additional manufacturer cost burden for
requiring multiple spray force tests would negatively affect product
innovation and consumer choice. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3). As described
earlier, DOE has accounted for the multiple spray force tests costs by
determining the added cost for increased testing time, labor, and
purchase of equipment for the spray force test.
DOE's analysis determined that 69-percent of all CPSV manufacturers
could be classified as small entities according to SBA classification
guidelines. DOE believes that small manufacturers would not be
differentially affected by the proposed amendments to the test
procedure. In fact, DOE does not believe the amendments adopted in
today's final rule as they relate to testing will result in any
significant differential impact as compared to the testing currently
required by DOE's regulations. Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost
effects accruing from the final rule would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that
the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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 equipment, 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 30 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
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for commercial
prerinse spray valves. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this
rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on 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 examined this final
rule and determined that it will 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 final 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(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 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. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 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 final rule
[[Page 81452]]
meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 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 regulatory action resulting 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 small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements 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
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will 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
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under 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 agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed this final rule 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
Executive Order 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 OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor 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 significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test procedure addressed by this action
incorporate testing methods contained in the following commercial
standards: ASTM F2324-13, Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray
Valves, sections 6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5, 10.3.1-10.3.8,
11.3.1 (replacing ``nozzles'' with ``nozzle''), and disregarding
references to Annex A1. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable
to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section
32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE has
consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard
published by ASTM, titled, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray
Valves,'' ASTM Standard F2324-13. ASTM Standard F2324-13 is an
industry-accepted test procedure that measures water flow rate and
spray force for prerinse spray valves, and is applicable to products
sold in North America. ASTM Standard F2324-13 specifies testing
conducted in accordance with other industry accepted test procedures
(already incorporated by reference). The test procedure in this final
rule references various sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13 that address
test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. ASTM
Standard F2324-13 is readily available at ASTM's Web site at
www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation
[[Page 81453]]
of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it
has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. In Sec. 429.51, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 429.51 Commercial pre-rinse spray valves.
(a) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (1) The
requirements of Sec. 429.11 apply to commercial prerinse spray valves;
and
(2) For each basic model of commercial prerinse spray valve, a
sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to
ensure that any represented value of flow rate must be greater than or
equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.002
and, x is the sample mean;
n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample; Or,
(ii) The upper 95-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.003
and, x is the sample mean;
s is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of samples; and
t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95-percent two-tailed
confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from Appendix A of
this subpart).
* * * * *
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
3. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
4. Section 431.262 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.262 Definitions.
As used in this subpart:
Basic model means all spray settings of a given class manufactured
by one manufacturer, which have essentially identical physical and
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect water consumption
or water efficiency.
Commercial prerinse spray valve means 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.
Spray force means the amount of force exerted onto the spray disc,
measured in ounce-force (ozf).
0
5. Section 431.263 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.263 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM Standard F2324-13, (``ASTM F2324-13''), Standard Test
Method for Prerinse Spray Valves, approved June 1, 2013; IBR approved
for Sec. 431.264.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.264 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.264 Uniform test method to measure flow rate and spray force
of commercial prerinse spray valves.
(a) Scope. This section provides the test procedure to measure the
flow rate and spray force of a commercial prerinse spray valve.
(b) Testing and calculations for a unit with a single spray
setting--(1) Flow rate. (i) Test each unit in accordance with the
requirements of sections 6.1 through 6.9 (Apparatus) (except 6.4 and
6.7), 9.1 through 9.4 (Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.1 through
10.2.5 (Procedure) of ASTM F2324-13, (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.263). Precatory language in the ASTM F2324-13 is to be
treated as mandatory for the purpose of testing. In section 9.1 of ASTM
F2324-13, the second instance of ``prerinse spray valve'' refers to the
spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit defined in section 6.8. In lieu
of using manufacturer installation instructions or packaging, always
connect the commercial prerinse spray valve to the flex tubing for
testing. Normalize the weight of the water to calculate flow rate using
Equation 1, where Wwater is the weight normalized to a 1
minute time period, W1 is the weight of the water in the
carboy at the conclusion of the flow rate test, and t1 is
the total recorded time of the flow rate test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.004
(ii) Perform calculations in accordance with section 11.3.1
(Calculation and Report). Record the water temperature ([deg]F) and
dynamic water pressure (psi) once at the start for each run of the
test. Record the time (min), the normalized weight of water in the
carboy (lb) and the resulting flow rate (gpm) once at the end of each
run of the test. Record flow rate measurements of time (min) and weight
(lb) at the resolutions of the test instrumentation. Perform three runs
on each unit, as specified in section 10.2.5 of ASTM F2324-13, but
disregard any references to Annex A1. Then, for each unit, calculate
the mean of the three flow rate values determined from each
[[Page 81454]]
run. Round the final value for flow rate to two decimal places and
record that value.
(2) Spray force. Test each unit in accordance with the test
requirements specified in sections 6.2 and 6.4 through 6.9 (Apparatus),
9.1 through 9.5.3.2 (Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.3.1 through
10.3.8 (Procedure) of ASTM F2324-13. In section 9.1 of ASTM F2324-13,
the second instance of ``prerinse spray valve'' refers to the spring-
style deck-mounted prerinse unit defined in section 6.8. In lieu of
using manufacturer installation instructions or packaging, always
connect the commercial prerinse spray valve to the flex tubing for
testing. Record the water temperature ([deg]F) and dynamic water
pressure (psi) once at the start for each run of the test. In order to
calculate the mean spray force value for the unit under test, there are
two measurements per run and there are three runs per test. For each
run of the test, record a minimum of two spray force measurements and
calculate the mean of the measurements over the 15-second time period
of stabilized flow during spray force testing. Record the time (min)
once at the end of each run of the test. Record spray force
measurements at the resolution of the test instrumentation. Conduct
three runs on each unit, as specified in section 10.3.8 of ASTM F2324-
13, but disregard any references to Annex A1. Ensure the unit has been
stabilized separately during each run. Then for each unit, calculate
and record the mean of the spray force values determined from each run.
Round the final value for spray force to one decimal place.
(c) Testing and calculations for a unit with multiple spray
settings. If a unit has multiple user-selectable spray settings, or
includes multiple spray faces that can be installed, for each possible
spray setting or spray face:
(1) Measure both the flow rate and spray force according to
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section (including calculating the
mean flow rate and mean spray force) for each spray setting; and
(2) Record the mean flow rate for each spray setting, rounded to
two decimal places. Record the mean spray force for each spray setting,
rounded to one decimal place.
0
7. Section 431.266 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.266 Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.
Commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on or after January
1, 2006, shall have a flow rate of not more than 1.6 gallons per
minute. For the purposes of this standard, a commercial prerinse spray
valve is a handheld device designed and marketed for use with
commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on
dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of
removing food residue before cleaning the items.
[FR Doc. 2015-32805 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
