[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35874-35886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15376]


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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend the test 
procedures for commercial prerinse spray valves to consider the latest 
version of the industry standard that is incorporated by reference and 
to consider a procedure for measuring the spray force. DOE also 
proposes to revise the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve 
and the current test procedure as they relate to various spray valves 
currently on the market, including those with multiple spray patterns. 
DOE does not believe the proposed changes will affect the measured 
water use. As part of this proposal, DOE is announcing a public meeting 
to collect comments and data on its proposal.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 from 
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be 
broadcast as a webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
instructions and information concerning meeting attendance and webinar 
participation.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rulemaking before and after the public meeting, but no later 
than September 8, 2015. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for test procedures 
for commercial prerinse spray valves, and provide docket number EERE-
2014-BT-TP-0055 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) number 1904-
AD41. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    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 www.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: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/54. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice 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. See section V for information 
on how to submit comments through regulations.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: [email protected].
    Ms. Johanna Hariharan, 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: 
[email protected].
    For further information about how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate

[[Page 35875]]

in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 
by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends to incorporate by reference the 
following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431: 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 http://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.
    For further discussion of this standard, see III.B and IV.M of this 
proposed rule.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Definitions
    1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
    2. Normally-Closed Valve
    3. Spray Force
    B. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference
    C. Proposed Additional Test Methods
    1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
    2. Multiple Spray Patterns: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow 
Rate and Spray Force of Each Spray Pattern
    D. Rounding Requirements
    1. Flow Rate
    2. Spray Force
    E. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement
    1. Selection of Units to Test
    2. Representative Value Formula
    F. Effective and Compliance Date
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
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statement for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.\1\ Part B of title 
III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon 
incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), 
establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles.'' The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 
109-58 (August 8, 2005) amended EPCA to add ``Energy Conservation 
Standards For Additional Products,'' which includes commercial prerinse 
spray valves (CPSV), and provided the definitions under 42 U.S.C. 
6291(33), test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), and energy 
conservation standards for flow rate under 42 U.S.C. 6295(dd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) 
Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy and water conservation 
standards, and (4) compliance certification and enforcement procedures. 
The testing requirements consist of test procedures 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. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c), 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE uses these test procedures to determine compliance with relevant 
standards established under EPCA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because Congress included CPSV in Part A of Title III of 
EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial 
equipment provisions of Part A-1) 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 CPSV as either 
``products'' or ``equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth criteria and procedures that 
DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures 
for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part 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. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, EPCA 
requires DOE to 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)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would 
alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2))
    EPCA, as amended, 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 American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324 as a 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 (10 CFR 431.263), 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 incorporated by reference ASTM 
Standard F2324-03 (2009) for testing commercial prerinse spray valves, 
which updated the 2003 version. 78 FR 62970, 62980.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to 
update 10 CFR 431.264, ``Uniform test method for the measurement of 
flow rate for commercial prerinse spray valves,'' as follows:
    (1) Incorporate 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''--

[[Page 35876]]

pertaining to flow rate and spray force measurement;
    (2) Modify the current definition of the term ``commercial prerinse 
spray valve,'' and add definitions for the terms ``normally-closed 
valve'' and ``spray force;''
    (3) Modify 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;
    (4) Add a test method for measuring spray force that references 
sections 10.3.1-10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324-13;
    (5) Add a requirement for measuring flow rate and spray force of 
each spray pattern for commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple 
spray patterns;
    (6) Modify the rounding requirement for flow rate measurement and 
specify the rounding requirement for spray force measurement; and
    (7) Modify the current CPSV sampling requirements to remove the 
provisions related to determining represented values where consumers 
would favor higher values.
    DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of 
this NOPR.

III. Discussion

    The following sections focus on DOE's proposed changes 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 document, DOE proposes to amend the existing definition for 
commercial prerinse spray valve and add definitions for the terms 
``normally closed valve'' and ``spray force.'' A detailed discussion of 
these terms follows.
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
    According to EPCA, 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. (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) 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.
    As a companion to this test procedure rulemaking, on September 11, 
2014, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of public meeting 
and availability of the Framework document to initiate a rulemaking to 
consider amending the energy conservation standards for commercial 
prerinse spray valves. 79 FR 54213 (Sept. 11, 2014).\3\ In the 
Framework document, DOE explained that it was considering modifying the 
CPSV definition to change the scope of the products subject to 
regulation. (Framework document, pp. 2-3) DOE received several comments 
in response to the Framework document about potential modifications to 
the current CPSV definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of Framework 
document, 79 FR 54213 (Sept. 11, 2014). See also Docket No. EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0027, Framework document, No. 1, available at 
www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006481864b06&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf (hereinafter ``Framework document'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) commented that prerinse spray 
valves are used in non-prerinse activities (e.g., supermarket vegetable 
displays, pet grooming, etc.), and suggested that non-prerinse 
applications be considered separately from the current CPSV rulemaking. 
(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) Similarly, T&S 
Brass and Bronze Works, Inc. (T&S Brass) commented that the CPSV 
definition should remain specific to the commercial applications 
currently defined, noting that similar equipment used in non-CPSV 
applications may not satisfy CPSV performance requirements. (Docket No. 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 2) As discussed in the 
following paragraphs, DOE is proposing to modify the CPSV definition to 
redefine the scope of coverage for equipment used in conjunction with 
commercial dishwashing and ware washing, as authorized under 42 U.S.C. 
6291(33)(B).
    EPCA's definition includes three key elements: ``a handheld 
device,'' ``sprays water,'' and ``purpose of removing food residue.'' 
Consider a commercial dishwasher, which might spray water on items that 
are placed inside for the purpose of removing food residue. This would 
not be covered under this definition because it is not a handheld 
device. Only a handheld device that sprays water for the purpose of 
removing food residue before cleaning the items would be covered.
    DOE has observed the existence of products distributed in U.S. 
commerce with brochures describing them as ``prerinse spray'' or 
``prerinse spray valve,'' and that are marketed (often by third 
parties) to rinse dishes before washing, to make a difference in 
washing dirty dishes, 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. DOE has also 
observed products marketed as ``pull-down kitchen faucet'' or 
``commercial style prerinse,'' which generally speaking are handheld 
devices that can be used for commercial dishwashing or ware washing 
regardless of installation location. DOE proposes to modify the 
definition such that these categories of products would meet the 
definition of commercial prerinse spray valve and would be subject to 
the associated regulations. Installation location is not a factor in 
determining whether a given model meets the definition of commercial 
prerinse spray valve. Although DOE understands that manufacturers may 
market different categories of prerinse spray valves for various uses 
such as cleaning floors or walls or filling glasses, DOE proposes that 
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, falls within the CPSV definition. This also 
includes commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple spray patterns.
    However, spray valves used only for other purposes, such as spray 
valves designed and marketed for use only in cleaning custodial 
materials or washing walls and floors would not be covered under the 
definition of commercial prerinse spray valves, if they are not 
suitable for using in conjunction with dishwashing or ware washing 
equipment to remove food residue.
    Therefore, after reviewing the current CPSV definition and products 
currently being distributed in the market as appropriate for 
dishwashing and ware washing applications, DOE is proposing to replace 
the phrase ``designed and marketed for use'' with the phrase ``suitable 
for use.'' DOE believes products that are intended for and/or

[[Page 35877]]

actually are used to remove 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.''
    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 [sic] that 
is used to spray water on dishes, flatware, etc.'' DOE believes that 
the ``release-to-close'' mechanism included in the ASTM definition 
means a manually actuated, normally closed valve. DOE believes that 
this is a typical feature of commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE has 
considered whether to include this feature in the definition or whether 
this would then create a market-incentive to create commercial prerinse 
spray valves that do not normally, fully, close. If DOE were to include 
this feature in the definition, DOE prefers the term ``normally 
closed,'' because it refers to a physical characteristic of the 
internal valve within a CPSV, which is intrinsic to its operation; 
whereas, ``release-to-close'' refers to a manual action required to 
operate a CPSV, which could create ambiguity when considering a CPSV 
with an atypical design for manually activating the spray valve. 
Therefore, DOE, in the alternative, proposes to include the term 
``normally closed'' in an amended CPSV definition.
    In summary, DOE proposes to define ``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 the items.'' In the alternative, DOE would 
consider defining ``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 the items.''
    DOE preliminarily concludes that this proposed definition would 
satisfy 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.\4\ To the extent that 
the definition change would change the scope of products subject to 
standards, DOE proposes that any products that would be newly within 
the scope of coverage would be subject to standards concurrent with the 
compliance date of any standards established or revised in the 
companion standards rulemaking proceeding currently underway. DOE seeks 
comment on the potential for an expanded scope of coverage resulting 
from this proposed definition and, should DOE determine that additional 
products would be subject to standards, DOE would include regulatory 
text in a final rule in this proceeding making clear that expanded 
scope and the future compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE invites comments from interested parties about this proposed 
definition. See section V.E.1.a of this NOPR.
2. Normally-Closed Valve
    If DOE were to adopt a definition of commercial prerinse spray 
valve that included the term ``normally-closed valve,'' DOE would also 
add a definition of the term ``normally-closed valve.'' In the ASTM 
Standard F2324-13 definition of a commercial prerinse spray valve, the 
phrase ``. . .containing a release to close mechanism. . .'' is 
included. DOE believes that a release to close mechanism is a common 
feature of commercial prerinse spray valves that is better described by 
the term ``normally-closed valve.'' Unlike the term ``release-to-
close,'' the term ``normally-closed valve'' is more commonly used in 
hydraulic engineering and characterizes the valve itself, rather than 
the actuation mechanism.
    Therefore, DOE proposes to define ``normally-closed valve'' as ``a 
valve that opens when an external force is exerted upon it and 
automatically closes when the external force is removed.''
    DOE invites comments about the proposed definition. See section 
V.E.1.b of this NOPR.
3. Spray Force
    In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to add a definition for the term 
``spray force.'' Currently, all commercial prerinse spray valves belong 
to one product class and are subject to a single standard. (10 CFR 
431.266) As part of the ongoing CPSV standards rulemaking (Docket No. 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027), DOE is considering whether to retain the single 
product class or to establish separate product classes, in view of the 
statutory criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and (q). (Framework 
document, pp. 17-18)
    In particular, DOE is considering using spray force to delineate 
potential product classes when proposing flow rate standards. As 
addressed earlier, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM 
Standard F2324-13, which prescribes a test method for measuring spray 
force.
    ASTM Standard F2324-13 amends ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009), in 
part, by replacing the cleanability test with a spray force test. As 
previously mentioned, DOE proposes in this NOPR to incorporate by 
reference ASTM Standard F2324-13 and to add spray force testing to the 
test procedure both to be consistent with current industry practice and 
support potential amended CPSV standards. The term ``spray force'' is 
defined in ASTM Standard F2324-13 as ``the amount of force exerted onto 
the spray disc.'' DOE proposes to adopt this definition. Water 
measurements for force typically use kilogram-force. However, kilograms 
are not a common unit of measurement in the United States and are too 
large for the spray force exerted by a CPSV. In addition, ASTM Standard 
F2324 uses ounce-force. Thus, DOE proposes to specify this measurement 
unit.
    DOE invites comments about the proposed definition. See section 
V.E.1.c of this NOPR.

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.
    EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to review test procedures for 
all covered products at least once every 7 years, and either to (1) 
amend a test procedure if the Secretary determines that the amended 
test procedure would more accurately or fully produce test results 
which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated 
annual operating cost during a representative average use cycle, and 
shall not be unduly burdensome to

[[Page 35878]]

conduct; or (2) publish a notice in the Federal Register of any 
determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
    In 2013, ASTM amended Standard F2324-03 (2009) to replace the 
cleanability test with a spray force test, based on research conducted 
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
WaterSense[supreg] program.\5\ Where the cleanability test evaluated 
cleaning time of a standard dinner plate, the current ASTM Standard 
F2324-13 prescribes spray force, measured in ounce-force (ozf).\6\ In 
addition, where ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) required measuring the 
prerinse spray valve flow rate at water pressures of both 60  1 pounds per square inch (psi) and 60  2 psi (in 
sections 4.2 and 10.2.2, respectively), ASTM Standard F2324-13 requires 
measuring commercial prerinse spray valve flow rate only at 60  2 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA WaterSense program, September 19, 2013. WaterSense 
Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting 
Statement, Version 1.0. (see: www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html).
    \6\ The cleanability test and its results were not repeatable 
and reproducible. There also was low user satisfaction with valves 
that scored well on the cleanability test. Users indicated that 
spray force may be a better metric for assessing product 
effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that rulemaking, DOE received a number of comments related to 
the test procedure in response to the September 2014 Framework 
document. A joint comment submitted by the Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and 
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) (collectively referred to as 
``Advocates'') expressed concern that commercial prerinse spray valves 
designed ``to the test'' to meet efficiency standards at 60 psi may 
perform below user expectations at locations where only 40 or 35 psi is 
available. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, Advocates, No. 11 at p. 
2) \7\ Similarly, AWE suggested that 50 percent of all DOE testing of 
commercial prerinse spray valves be conducted on food service 
installations, to account for various supply pressures. (Docket No. 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, AWE, No. 8 at p. 4). Nevertheless, AWE also 
supported 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy 
conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket 
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027), which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that the statement 
preceding the reference is document number 11 in the docket for the 
CPSV energy conservation standards rulemaking, and appears at page 2 
of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE understands that supply pressures vary across the country. Some 
pressures are lower and some are higher than the 60 psi test pressure 
prescribed in ASTM Standard F2324-13. Limited research by DOE suggests 
that supply pressures vary at the municipal level across the nation, 
and at the facility level within a building. Typical range of 
acceptable water pressure is between 35 psi to 80 psi.8 9 
DOE also notes that facilities in a field study conducted by WaterSense 
in support of their specification for commercial prerinse spray valves 
showed a pressure range between 38 psi and 83 psi.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Friedman et.al. 2010. Criteria for Optimized Distribution 
Systems. Water Research Foundation. Denver, CO.
    \9\ International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical 
Officials. Uniform Plumbing Code. 2012. Ontario, Canada.
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) WaterSense 
Program. Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Field Study Report. 2011. pp. 16-17. 
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE understands that supply pressures affect the flow rate of a 
commercial prerinse spray valve once installed. Typically, lower 
pressures result in lower flow rates of the commercial prerinse spray 
valves, and higher pressures result in higher flow rates. Nevertheless, 
testing at a single specific supply pressure to demonstrate compliance 
with the maximum allowable flow rate would enable a user to compare 
different commercial prerinse spray valves at this pressure, thus 
reducing testing burden. DOE has 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. In contrast, ASTM Standard F2324-13 prescribes the commercial 
prerinse spray valve flow rate to be measured at a supply pressure of 
60  2 psi to determine only the maximum flow rate. DOE 
proposes to test commercial prerinse spray valves at a flowing supply 
pressure of 60  2 psi, as required by ASTM Standard F2324-
13.
    DOE has also identified other differences between ASTM Standard 
F2324-03 (2009) and ASTM Standard F2324-13, which include: (1) Minimum 
flow rate of flex tubing, (2) water temperature for testing, and (3) 
length of water pipe required to be insulated. Table III.1 summarizes 
changes between ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) and 2013 that apply to 
DOE's test procedure.

                                   Table III.1--Changes to ASTM Standard F2324
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           ASTM Standard F2324-2003 (2009)          ASTM Standard  F2324-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate of flex tubing.............  7 gpm..................................  3.5 gpm.
Water temperature for testing........  120  4 [deg]F..............  60  10 [deg]F.
Length of water pipe to be insulated.  Any insulation to have a thermal         No requirement.
                                        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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 reduced the minimum required 
flow rate of the flex tubing when no commercial prerinse spray valve is 
connected from 7 gpm to 3.5 gpm. ASTM Standard F2324-13 includes a note 
(#3) that a minimum flow rate for the tubing is specified to prevent 
the flexible tubing from dictating the flow rate of the prerinse spray 
valve. The required flow rate for commercial prerinse spray valves 
under 10 CFR 431.266 is less than the flow rate of the flex tubing 
specified in the ASTM standards. Therefore, because the test procedure 
measures the flow rate of the commercial prerinse spray valve, which is 
connected after the tubing, the flow rate of the tubing should not 
affect the measurement of the flow rate of the commercial prerinse 
spray valve. DOE believes that the flex tubing flow rate change from 7 
gpm to 3.5 gpm (ATSM Standard F2324-2003 (2009) and 2013, respectively) 
will have no effect on the measured water consumption under the DOE 
test procedure. Accordingly, DOE

[[Page 35879]]

proposes to adopt section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 for a 3.5 gpm 
flow rate for flex tubing when not connected to the CPSV.
    ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) required the water temperature for 
testing to be 120  4 [deg]F. ASTM Standard F2324-13 reduces 
to 60[emsp14][deg]F with an increased tolerance of  10 
[deg]F. DOE believes that this difference may reflect removal of the 
cleanability test because water temperature affects cleanability under 
the old approach/standard but not measuring force under the new 
approach/standard. DOE's research indicates that measurements of flow 
rate and spray force will be the same under either water temperature. 
Because the temperature will not affect these measurements, DOE 
proposes to incorporate the temperature requirements from ASTM Standard 
F2324-13 (section 10.2.2) into the DOE test procedure for commercial 
prerinse spray valves.
    Additionally, ASTM Standard F2324-13 removes the ASTM Standard 
F2324-03 (2009) requirement for any 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. ASTM 
Standard F2324-03 required using 120 [deg]F water; however, ASTM 
Standard F2324-13 requires using 60 [deg]F water. DOE believes ASTM 
removed the insulation requirement in 2013 in conjunction with the 
water temperature reduction because the insulation is unnecessary when 
the test water temperature is 60 [deg]F. Insulating the water pipe from 
the mixing valve to the inlet of the flex tubing is not required with 
60 [deg]F water because the water is below room temperature. DOE 
believes that removing the requirement to insulate the water pipe will 
have no effect on the measurement of either the flow rate or spray 
force because insulation only affects temperature, not water flow rate. 
DOE thus proposes to adopt the change not to require insulation.
    Finally, Section 4.1 Summary of Test Method, of ASTM Standard 
F2324-13 states, ``If the measured flow rate is not within 5 percent of 
the rated flow rate, all further testing ceases and the manufacturer is 
contacted. The manufacturer may make appropriate changes or adjustments 
to the prerinse spray valve.'' DOE notes that it is not incorporating 
this section of ASTM Standard F2324-13 into the DOE test procedure.
    In view of all the above, to align with current industry practice 
and to be consistent with test procedure requirements under EPCA, DOE 
proposes to incorporate 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, 
and 11.3.1 (replacing the plural ``nozzles'' with ``nozzle''), and 
excluding references to the ``Annex.'' When ASTM Standard F2324-03 
(2009) was updated to the current 2013 version, certain sections for 
measuring flow rate were renumbered. To reflect this renumbering, DOE 
is proposing to update the current flow rate test method to reference 
the appropriate sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13. The referenced 
sections describe the testing apparatus, test method, and calculations 
pertaining to flow-rate measurement.

C. Proposed Additional Test Methods

1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
    As described previously, ASTM Standard F2324-13 includes a test for 
measuring the spray force of a commercial prerinse spray valve. The 
test is conducted by mounting a 10-inch rigid disc to a force gauge, 
located eight inches from the prerinse spray valve, as shown in Figure 
4 in section 9.5.2 of ASTM Standard F2324-13. The plate is mounted in a 
vertical orientation parallel to the face of the commercial prerinse 
spray valve. After water flow is initiated, the water exits the 
commercial prerinse spray valve and strikes the disc, creating a force 
on the disc, which in turn depresses the force gauge. The average force 
gauge measurement over a 15-second period is recorded.
    During the September 30, 2014 Framework public meeting regarding 
the energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, 
DOE invited comment on using spray force as a potential characteristic 
by which to separate product classes (Framework document, pp.17-18; 
Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at 
p.38). DOE also invited comments about an alternative metric for spray 
force, gallons per minute divided by ounce-force (gpm/ozf). (Framework 
Document, p. 3)
    Comments from interested parties during the Framework public 
meeting, comments submitted to the EPA WaterSense program, and other 
research by DOE indicate that spray force is an important 
characteristic in defining the performance of a commercial prerinse 
spray valve because it relates to the product's application and user 
satisfaction. During the Framework public meeting, T&S Brass stated 
that the maximum technologically feasible model (max-tech model) 
performance should not be evaluated solely based on flow rate, but 
should include at least one other variable. T&S Brass mentioned that, 
depending on application, spray force is a characteristic that is 
considered when determining commercial prerinse spray valve 
performance. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, T&S Brass, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p.52)
    DOE also found through research that spray force is related to the 
utility of commercial prerinse spray valves.\11\ For example, a high 
spray force is required to clean heavy stains, such as baked-on foods, 
from silverware, dishes, pots, and pans. By contrast, a commercial 
prerinse spray valve with lower spray force may be sufficient for food 
service establishments where baked-on foods are less common. T&S Brass 
stated that applications of commercial prerinse spray valves range from 
light rinsing to heavy-duty cleaning. Heavy-duty cleaning applications 
require more spray force than light rinsing. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-
STD-0027, T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 40-41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA WaterSense. Response to Public Comments Received on 
February 2013 WaterSense Draft Specification for Commercial Pre-
Rinse Spray Valves, 5-7. September 19, 2013. United States 
Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_publiccommentresponse_09.19.13_final_508.pdf 
(accessed May. 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spray force also is important because a WaterSense field study 
found that low water pressure, or spray force, is a source of user 
dissatisfaction. WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray 
valve models and collected 56 customer satisfaction reviews, of which 
nine were unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine unsatisfactory scores were 
attributed, among other factors, to the pressure (here, the subjective, 
user-perceived force) of the spray.\12\ DOE, however, proposes to 
measure spray force objectively, as in ASTM Standard F2324-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA WaterSense. Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, 
pages 24-25. March 31, 2011. United States Environmental Protection 
Agency www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf (accessed Oct. 31, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, spray force is a characteristic essential to evaluating 
the performance of commercial prerinse spray valves because there is a 
relationship between spray force and both the application of a 
commercial prerinse spray valve and user satisfaction. As a result, DOE 
proposes to incorporate by reference the spray force test method 
contained in sections 10.3.1-10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324-14 into the 
DOE commercial prerinse spray valve test procedure. DOE seeks

[[Page 35880]]

comment on the addition of the spray force test method. See section 
V.E.2 of this NOPR.
2. Multiple Spray Patterns: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow Rate 
and Spray Force of Each Spray Pattern
    DOE has identified several commercial prerinse spray valves on the 
market with multiple spray patterns. On average, these prerinse spray 
valves provide up to three spray patterns. DOE's research showed a 
maximum number of five spray patterns for commercial prerinse spray 
valves. Each spray pattern is obtained by turning the adjustable spray 
head to select one of the available spray patterns at a time.
    For these commercial prerinse spray valves, each spray pattern can 
be used in distinct prerinsing applications. The applications range 
from washing off baked-on food to light washing, as each spray pattern 
can provide different flow rates and spray forces.
    Because a commercial prerinse spray valve with multiple spray 
patterns can give different flow rates and spray forces, DOE proposes 
to test each spray pattern using the flow rate and spray force test 
methods described in sections III.B and III.C.1, respectively. 
Additionally, section 10.3.7 from ASTM Standard F2324-13, which is 
incorporated by reference in this NOPR, also specifies that force shall 
be tested for each mode (i.e. spray pattern). DOE seeks comment about 
whether manufacturers should be required to test commercial prerinse 
spray valves with multiple spray patterns in all spray pattern modes. 
See section V.E.3 of this NOPR.

D. Rounding Requirements

1. Flow Rate
    DOE proposes to change the rounding requirements for recording flow 
rate measurements from one decimal place to two decimal places. 
Currently, 10 CFR 431.264(b) requires rounding to one decimal place. 
However, the current WaterSense standard for commercial prerinse spray 
valves is rounded to two decimal places (1.28 gpm).\13\ DOE believes 
that rounding to one decimal place is insufficiently precise for the 
low magnitude flow rate measurements that may be needed for the 
forthcoming energy conservation standard. Therefore, DOE proposes to 
amend the flow rate measurement rounding requirements to two decimal 
places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) WaterSense 
program, September 9, 2013. WaterSense Specification for Commercial 
Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement, Version 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Spray Force
    Section 11.4.2 of the ASTM Standard F2324-13 specifies that the 
spray force is rounded to one decimal place. DOE proposes to adopt the 
same spray force rounding requirements (i.e., one decimal place) in 
newly created 10 CFR 431.264(b)(2).
    DOE seeks comment about the proposed rounding requirements for flow 
rate and spray force. See section V.E.4 of this NOPR.

E. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement

1. Selection of Units to Test
    DOE proposes to retain the existing CPSV sampling plan at 10 CFR 
429.51(a). 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. 429.11(b). The purposes of these requirements are 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.
    Section 8.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 requires three representative 
production units to be selected for all performance testing. DOE is not 
proposing to adopt this requirement. DOE is only proposing 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. Accordingly, where ASTM Standard F2324-13 references 
testing of multiple units, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the 
standard subject to the limitation that the DOE test procedure applies 
to testing of one unit in each sample set (e.g., product class).
2. Representative Value Formula
    DOE proposes to revise the statistical methods for certification, 
compliance, and enforcement for commercial prerinse spray valves in 10 
CFR 429.51(a)(2). Currently, 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(i) and (ii) provide 
that for any represented value of water consumption of a basic model 
for which consumers would favor lower values, the upper confidence 
level (UCL) is used and where consumers would favor higher values, the 
lower confidence limit (LCL) is used. Where the standard for commercial 
prerinse spray valves is expressed as a maximum rate of water 
consumption (gpm) rather than water efficiency, customers would favor a 
lower value. Therefore, the LCL formula in 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(ii) is 
unnecessary. DOE proposes to remove the LCL formula from the sampling 
plan for the selection of units for testing and retain only the 
provision for a UCL under 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(i). DOE seeks comment 
about amending 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(ii) by removing the formula for LCL. 
See section V.E.5 of this NOPR.

F. Effective and Compliance Date

    In view of the above, any amendments to the commercial prerinse 
spray valve test procedure, under 10 CFR 431.264, would become 
effective 30 days after the date of the final rule. Representations 
would be required to be based on the amended test procedure 180 days 
after the effective date.

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 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review by the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    The potential burden on manufacturers related to commercial 
prerinse spray values has been analyzed in previous rules. The 
following analysis is informed by previous rules, but also includes 
additional analysis.

[[Page 35881]]

    When the DOE test procedure was initially adopted in 2006, the test 
procedure was identical to ENERGY STAR's test procedure. DOE stated in 
the 2006 test procedure final rule that many manufacturers had been 
redesigning the products covered under that final rule. These products 
were tested for compliance with existing voluntary performance 
standards such as ENERGY STAR program requirements, using industry-
developed test procedures that were the basis for the test procedures 
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). DOE stated that 
manufacturers would experience no additional burdens if DOE adopted the 
test procedure (ASTM Standard F2324-03) referenced in EPAct 2005. 71 FR 
71340, 71363 (Dec. 8, 2006). In the final rule that last updated DOE's 
test procedure, DOE did not adopt any changes to the referenced test 
procedure, thus DOE determined that there was no incremental cost 
burden to manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves. 78 FR 
62970, 62983 (Oct. 23, 2013). Historically, when DOE has adopted the 
industry's test procedure, it has not resulted in any incremental cost 
burden to manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves.
    For this proposed rule, DOE made inquiry into small business 
manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves. In its market 
assessment, DOE used public information to identify potential small 
manufacturers. DOE reviewed the Department of Energy Compliance 
Database, individual company Web sites, and various marketing research 
tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list of 
companies that import or otherwise manufacture commercial prerinse 
spray valves covered by this rulemaking.\14\ DOE identified 11 distinct 
manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves--the smallest 
business had two employees and the largest had 237 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Certification Database is part of DOE's Compliance 
Certification Management System. See www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ (last accessed November 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the collected data, DOE considered what manufacturers 
met the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition of the term 
``small business'' as it relates to the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 332919 (SBA sets the size standard 
of 500 or fewer employees),\15\ and to screen out (1) companies that do 
not offer commercial prerinse spray valves covered by this rulemaking, 
(2) do not meet the definition of the term ``small business,'' or (3) 
are foreign owned and operated. As a result of its review, DOE 
identified eight manufacturers that would be considered small 
businesses. The number of small businesses and the applicable NAICS 
code 332919 are consistent with the Certification, Compliance, and 
Enforcement final rule at 76 FR 12422, 12488 (March 7, 2011). Thus, DOE 
has determined that amending the test procedures under 10 CFR 431.264 
would have minimal, if any, effect on covered small businesses, and 
that an IRFA was not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 February 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.1 lists the eight small businesses covered by this 
proposed rulemaking, according to the number of employees. DOE 
estimated that the average revenue per small business is approximately 
$21 million and the combined total annual revenues associated with 
these small businesses is about $124 million. Further, DOE analyzed the 
CPSV industry to determine what manufacturers would be covered under a 
test procedure rulemaking, and determined that 8 of the 11 CPSV 
manufacturers, or 72 percent, may qualify as a ``small business'' under 
SBA classification guidelines.

         Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of    Percentage
             Number of  employees                 small       of small
                                                businesses   businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-10.........................................            1          12.5
21-30........................................            1          12.5
31-40........................................            1          12.5
41-50........................................            2          25
61-70........................................            1          12.5
101-150......................................            2          25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $48,823.16 17 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 $33.31.18 19 DOE used this 
hourly rate to assess the labor costs for testing units according to 
the proposed amendments to the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 
November 4, 2014).
    \17\ 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 November 4, 2014).
    \18\ Obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release: 
Employer Cost For Employee Compensation--December 2012, December 
2012. U.S. Department of Labor. www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    \19\ 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 a flow rate, 
but does not address testing flow rate for commercial prerinse spray 
valves with multiple spray patterns. Instead, it requires testing to be 
repeated three times for the same unit. As such, DOE believes that 
testing could be completed in less than an hour per commercial prerinse 
spray valve. To assess the potential burden of the proposed amended 
test procedures, DOE rounds the current duration for testing up to a 
whole hour, for cases where the testing technician needs to document 
the results or cannot allot his or her labor hours. In view of the 
foregoing, DOE believes that the current testing process costs, on 
average, are $66.62 for labor for a total of two basic models to meet 
the testing requirements of 10 CFR 429.11 and 429.51.
    The proposed amendments to the test procedures include an 
additional test for spray force. DOE believes that the additional time 
required to test spray force is not significant but, understandably, 
the number of spray patterns could potentially increase any testing 
time. DOE's review of commercial prerinse spray valves yielded an 
average of three patterns per commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE 
estimates that the time to measure both flow rate and spray force for 
all three spray patterns to be greater than one hour but typically less 
than two hours. DOE again presumes that testing staff may not easily 
apportion their testing time between product, and rounds the total 
testing time to two hours per unit tested. Thus, DOE estimates the 
total labor time to test for two basic models of commercial prerinse 
spray valves each with multiple spray patterns to be $133.24.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Basic model means all units of a given type of covered 
product (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having 
the same primary energy source, and which have essentially identical 
electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics 
that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water 
consumption, or water efficiency. (10 CFR 431.262)

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

[[Page 35882]]

    DOE examined the CPSV industry to identify the manufacturers of 
commercial prerinse spray valves covered in this NOPR, and determined 
that 72 percent of all CPSV manufacturers could be classified as small 
entities according to SBA classification guidelines. Although 72 
percent of the market could be considered a significant portion of the 
overall industry, DOE believes that small manufacturers would not be 
substantially affected by the proposed amendments to the test 
procedure, because there would be no significant incremental costs to 
any entity. The cost of testing for each small business analyzed was 
less than or equal to 0.01 percent of revenue for a sample size of two 
commercial prerinse spray valves. The current industry standard used 
for commercial prerinse spray valves (ASTM Standard F2324-13) requires 
three representative production models be selected for performance 
testing. However, the DOE sample size of a minimum of two units remains 
unchanged with this proposed rule. Therefore, DOE concludes that the 
cost effects accruing from the proposed rule would not have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE 
will submit 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).
    DOE seeks comments about whether the proposed test procedure 
amendments would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. See section V.E.6 of this NOPR.

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. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedures for commercial prerinse 
spray valves, 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. (76 
FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). 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 proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards 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 proposed rule would 
amend the existing test procedures without affecting the amount, 
quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would 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 (Aug. 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 has examined this proposed rule and has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can 
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and 
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(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 (Feb. 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, 
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

[[Page 35883]]

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect 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 http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this 
proposed 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 rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    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 would 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 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring 
the energy efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves 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 proposed rule incorporates 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 the Annex. 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 will consult with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures 
on competition prior to prescribing a final rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test 
standard published by ASTM, titled, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse 
Spray Valves,'' ASTM Standard F2324-2013. ASTM Standard F2324-2013 is 
an industry-accepted test procedure that measures water flow rate and 
spray force for prerinse spray valves, and is applicable to product 
sold in North America. ASTM Standard F2324-2013 specifies testing 
conducted in accordance with other industry accepted test procedures 
(already incorporated by reference). The test procedure proposed in 
this NOPR references various sections of ASTM Standard F2324-2013 that 
address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. 
ASTM Standard F2324-2013 is readily available at ASTM's Web site at 
www.astm.org/

[[Page 35884]]

Standard/standards-and-publications.html.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public 
meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which 
require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. Any 
foreign national wishing to participate in the public meeting should 
advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting [email protected] to 
initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that any person 
wishing to bring a laptop into the Forrestal Building will be required 
to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or 
allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting 
via webinar.
    Because of the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding 
identification (ID) requirements for individuals wishing to enter 
Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. As a 
result, driver's licenses from the following States or territory will 
not be accepted for building entry, and instead, one of the alternate 
forms of ID listed below will be required.
    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) 
from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE 
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. 
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued 
by the States of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 
issued by these States are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's 
License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID 
card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/54. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring that their systems are compatible with the 
webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statement for Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in portable document format 
(PDF) (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text in 
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) file format, 
to the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 
beginning of this document. The request and advance copy of statements 
must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court 
reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a 
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the DOCKET section at the beginning 
of this proposed rule. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule not later than the date provided in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through

[[Page 35885]]

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the 
Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For 
information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business 
Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or postal mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or postal 
mail also will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your 
personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it 
in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your 
contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last 
names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. 
The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not 
include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:

1. Definitions Discussed and Proposed
    a. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
    DOE seeks comments on its proposal to revise the definition of 
``commercial prerinse spray valve'' in this NOPR; see section III.A.1.
    b. Normally-Closed Valve DOE seeks comment on its tentative 
proposal to add a definition for ``normally-closed valve'' in this 
NOPR; see section III.A.2.
    c. Spray Force
    DOE seeks comments on its proposal add the definition of ``spray 
force'' in this NOPR; see section III.A.3.
2. DOE seeks comment on the addition of the spray force test method; 
see section III.C.1.
3. Spray Patterns
    DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers should be required to 
test commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple spray patterns in 
all spray pattern modes, see section III.C.2.
4. DOE seeks comment on changing the flow rate measurement rounding 
requirements from one decimal place to two decimal places, see section 
III.D.
5. DOE seeks comment on the removal of 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(ii), see 
section III.E.
6. Small Entities
    DOE seeks comments on its reasoning that the proposed test 
procedures will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities; see section IV.B.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
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 June 5, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
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 prerinse 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 valves, a 
sample of sufficient size must be

[[Page 35886]]

randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value of 
water consumption or other measure of water consumption of a basic 
model for which consumers would favor lower values must be greater than 
or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JN15.022
    
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JN15.023

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.

    Basic model means all units of a given type of covered product (or 
class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same 
primary energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical, 
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect 
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water 
efficiency.
    Commercial prerinse spray valve means a handheld device, containing 
a normally-closed valve, suitable for use with commercial dishwashing 
and ware washing equipment for the purpose of removing food residue 
before cleaning the items.
    Normally-closed valve means a valve that opens when an external 
force is exerted upon it and automatically closes when the external 
force is removed.
    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 
as follows, 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 (replacing ``nozzles'' with ``nozzle''), excluding 
reference to the Annex, 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 
water consumption flow rate and spray force of a commercial prerinse 
spray valve.
    (b) Testing and Calculations.--(1) Flow rate. Test a sample 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), and perform 
calculations in accordance with section 11.3.1 (Calculation and Report) 
of ASTM F2324-13, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.263). 
Disregard any references to the Annex. Record flow rate measurements at 
the resolutions of the test instrumentation. For the sample unit, 
calculate the mean of the flow rate measurements. Round the final value 
for flow rate to two decimal places.
    (2) Spray force. Test each sample 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. Disregard any references to the 
Annex. Record spray force measurements at the resolution of the test 
instrumentation. For each sample unit, calculate the mean of the spray 
force measurements. Round the spray force to one decimal place.
    (3) Multiple spray patterns. If a sample unit has multiple spray 
patterns, for each possible spray pattern:
    (i) Measure both the flow rate and spray force according to 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section (including calculating the 
mean flow rate and spray force for each spray pattern); and
    (ii) Record the mean flow rate for each spray pattern, rounded to 
two decimal places. Record the mean spray force for each spray pattern, 
rounded to one decimal place.

[FR Doc. 2015-15376 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P