[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81441-81454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32805]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0055]
RIN 1904-AD41


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial 
Prerinse Spray Valves

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedure for 
commercial prerinse spray valves. That proposed rulemaking serves as 
the basis for this final rule. Specifically, this final rule 
incorporates by reference relevant portions of the latest version of 
the industry testing standard from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse 
Spray Valves,'' including the procedure for measuring spray force. This 
final rule also adopts a revised definition of ``commercial prerinse 
spray valve,'' clarifies the test procedure for products with multiple 
spray settings, establishes rounding requirements for flow rate and 
spray force measurements, and removes irrelevant portions of 
statistical methods for certification, compliance, and enforcement.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 29, 2016. The final 
rule changes will be mandatory for representations starting June 27, 
2016. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 
29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, 
public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other 
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at 
regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at DOE's rulemaking Web 
page at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=119. This Web page will contain a link to the 
docket for this document on the www.regulations.gov site. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to 
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

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 Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into part 431 the following industry standard: ASTM Standard F2324-13, 
(``ASTM F2324-13''), Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves, 
approved June 1, 2013.
    Copies of ASTM Standard F2324-13 can be obtained from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or 
by going to http://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.
    See section IV.M. for additional information about this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Definitions
    1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
    2. Spray Force
    B. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference

[[Page 81442]]

    1. Clarifications
    C. Additional Test Methods
    1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
    2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow 
Rate and Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
    D. Rounding Requirements
    1. Flow Rate
    2. Spray Force
    E. Sampling Plan for Representative Values
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA),\1\ sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve 
energy efficiency. Part B of title III \2\ establishes the ``Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,'' 
which includes commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs). EPCA provides 
definitions for commercial prerinse spray valves under 42 U.S.C. 
6291(33), the test procedure under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), and energy 
conservation standards for flow rate under 42 U.S.C. 6295(dd).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-11 (April 30, 2015).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, Part B was codified as Part A in the 
U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified).
    \3\ Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves 
in Part B of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of 
Part B (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part C) apply to 
commercial prerinse spray valves. However, because commercial 
prerinse spray valves are more commonly considered to be commercial 
equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize 
confusion among interested parties, DOE adopted CPSV provisions into 
subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. 71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006). 
Part 431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and industrial 
equipment. The location of provisions within the CFR does not affect 
either their substance or applicable procedure, and DOE refers to 
commercial prerinse spray valves as either ``products'' or 
``equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of a test procedure that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use the test procedure to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.
    EPCA sets forth the current maximum flow rate of not more than 1.6 
gallons per minute for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(dd)) EPCA also requires DOE to use the ASTM Standard F2324 as the 
basis for the test procedure for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(14))
    In the December 8, 2006 final rule, DOE incorporated by reference 
ASTM Standard F2324-03 into regulatory text under section 431.263 of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431 (10 CFR part 
431), and prescribed it as the uniform test method to measure flow rate 
of commercial prerinse spray valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR 71340, 
71374. Later, on October 23, 2013, DOE published a final rule (October 
2013 final rule) that incorporated by reference ASTM Standard F2324-03 
(2009) for testing commercial prerinse spray valves, which updated the 
2003 version to the 2009 version of the same test standard. 78 FR 
62970, 62980.
    Since the October 2013 final rule, ASTM has published a revised 
version of the F2324 test standard, ASTM F2324-13. In addition, DOE has 
initiated a rulemaking to consider amended water conservation standards 
for commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027). DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the 
test procedure on June 23, 2015, presenting DOE's proposals to amend 
the CPSV test procedure (80 FR 35874-5886) (hereafter, the ``2015 CPSV 
TP NOPR''). DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on July 28, 
2015 (hereafter, the ``NOPR public meeting'').

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    EPCA sets forth in 42 U.S.C. 6293 the criteria and procedures DOE 
must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended 
under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results 
which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered 
product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(1))
    In this final rule, DOE amends the commercial prerinse spray valve 
test procedure to be based on the current industry standard, ASTM 
Standard F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,'' 
which continues to measure water use based on a maximum flow rate. By 
incorporating the newest version of ASTM Standard F2324-13, DOE is 
adding testing requirements for spray force. In addition, DOE is also 
specifying provisions governing representations of commercial prerinse 
spray valves with multiple spray settings. In addition, DOE concludes 
that amendments adopted in this final rule do not change the measured 
energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray valves compared to 
the current test procedure. As such, all test procedure amendments 
adopted in this final rule are effective 30 days after publication in 
the Federal Register and required for representations regarding the 
water consumption of covered equipment 180 days after publication of 
this final rule in the Federal Register.
    This final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review 
its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that 
its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner 
consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 431.264, ``Uniform test 
method for the measurement of flow rate for commercial prerinse spray 
valves,'' as follows:
     Modifies the definition of ``commercial prerinse spray 
valve,'' and adds a definition for ``spray force;''

[[Page 81443]]

     Incorporates by reference certain provisions (sections 
6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5, 10.3.1-10.3.8, and 11.3.1) of the 
current revision to the applicable industry standard--ASTM Standard 
F2324-13, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves''--
pertaining to flow rate and spray force measurement;
     Adds clarification addressing minor inconsistencies 
between the proposed test procedure and ASTM Standard F2324-13, and 
sources of ambiguity within ASTM Standard F2324-13;
     Modifies the current test method for measuring flow rate 
to reference sections 10.1-10.2.5 and 11.3.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13;
     Adds a test method for measuring spray force that 
references sections 10.3.1-10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324-13;
     Adds a requirement for measuring the flow rate and spray 
force of each spray setting for commercial prerinse spray valves with 
multiple spray settings;
     Modifies the rounding requirement for flow rate 
measurement and specifies the rounding requirement for spray force 
measurement; and
     Modifies the existing CPSV sampling requirements to remove 
the provisions related to determining represented values where 
consumers would favor higher values.

III. Discussion

    The following sections describe DOE's amendments to the test 
procedure, including definitions, industry standards incorporated by 
reference, modifications to the test procedure, additional test 
measurements, rounding requirements, and certification and compliance 
requirements.

A. Definitions

    In this final rule, DOE amends the definition of ``commercial 
prerinse spray valve'' and adds a definition for the term ``spray 
force.'' A detailed discussion of these terms follows.
1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve
    EPCA currently defines a ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as a 
handheld device designed and marketed for use with commercial 
dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on dishes, 
flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food 
residue before cleaning the items. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A), 10 CFR 
431.262) EPCA allows DOE to modify the CPSV definition to include 
products (1) that are used extensively in conjunction with commercial 
dishwashing and ware washing equipment, (2) to which the application of 
standards would result in significant energy savings, and (3) to which 
the application of standards would not be likely to result in the 
unavailability of any covered product type currently available on the 
market. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(i)) EPCA also allows DOE to modify the 
CPSV definition to exclude products (1) that are used for special food 
service applications, (2) that are unlikely to be widely used in 
conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment, and 
(3) to which the application of standards would not result in 
significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B)(ii))
    As described in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE has observed the 
existence of products distributed in the U.S. with brochures describing 
them as ``prerinse spray'' or ``prerinse spray valve;'' these are often 
marketed (usually by third parties) to rinse dishes before washing, to 
pre-rinse items in a dish room in preparation for running them through 
a commercial dishwasher, or to be used with pre-rinse assemblies and/or 
as ware washing equipment. 80 FR 35874, 35876-77 (June 23, 2015). DOE 
has also observed products marketed as ``pull-down kitchen faucets'' or 
``commercial style prerinse,'' which, generally speaking, are handheld 
devices that can be used for commercial dishwashing or ware washing 
regardless of installation location. Further, DOE has observed 
instances where products designed by the manufacturer for other 
specific applications are marketed on retailer's Web sites for 
commercial dishwashing and ware washing. In DOE's view, this 
illustrates that such products are also ``suitable for use'' as 
commercial prerinse spray valves and are marketed and used in 
commercial dishwashing and ware washing applications.
    To ensure a level and fair playing field for all products serving 
commercial prerinse spray valve applications, all products that are 
used in such an application should be held to the same standard. As a 
result, in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the CPSV 
definition such that these categories of products would meet the 
definition of commercial prerinse spray valve and would be subject to 
the associated regulations. Id. Specifically, DOE stated that 
installation location is not a factor in determining whether a given 
model meets the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve. Id. 
Therefore, DOE proposed defining ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as 
``a handheld device . . . suitable for use with commercial dishwashing 
and ware washing equipment for the purpose of removing food residue 
before cleaning items.'' Id. at 35877.
    Although DOE understands that manufacturers may market different 
categories of spray valves for various uses, such as cleaning floors or 
walls or filling glasses, DOE believes any such device that is suitable 
for use in conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware washing 
equipment to spray water for the purpose of removing food residue 
should fall within the CPSV definition. Similarly, DOE believes 
products that are appropriate for removing food residue in dishwashing 
and ware washing applications should be subject to DOE standards and 
certification requirements, even if they are marketed without the term 
``commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment.'' Therefore, after 
reviewing the current CPSV definition and products currently being 
distributed in the market as appropriate for dishwashing and ware 
washing applications, DOE proposed to replace the phrase ``designed and 
marketed for use'' with the phrase ``suitable for use'' in the CPSV 
definition. 80 FR 35874, 35876-77 (June 23, 2015).
    During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass stated that manufacturers 
can only control what they design, intend, or market their product for. 
Specifically, T&S Brass stated that manufacturers generally use the 
words ``designed'' or ``intended for'' when they qualify commercial 
prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at 
p. 13) \4\ T&S Brass provided the examples of a garden hose spray 
nozzle or pet grooming spray valves, which are identical in look and 
feel to commercial prerinse spray valves, but require much higher flow 
rates due to different factors, such as the sensitivity of the pet's 
skin when used in pet grooming. T&S Brass expressed concern that these 
other products could be interpreted as being suitable for washing 
dishes, despite the manufacturer's intent for product use. (T&S Brass, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14-16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A notation in the form ``T&S Brass, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 14-16'' identifies a comment that DOE has 
received and has included in the docket of this rulemaking. This 
particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by T&S Brass; 
(2) as recorded in the public meeting transcript, which is document 
number 3 of the docket; and (3) on pages 14 through 16 of that 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received written comments related to the term ``suitable'' 
in the proposed definition. Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) 
and Fisher Manufacturing Co. (Fisher) stated that the DOE proposed term 
``suitable''

[[Page 81444]]

should be replaced with the phrase ``designed and marketed,'' as a 
manufacturer designs, develops, and markets a product with a specific 
end use in mind. (PMI, No. 4 at p. 1; Fisher, No. 5 at p. 1) PMI 
commented that the term ``suitable'' is ambiguous and could imply that 
a device be considered a commercial prerinse spray valve even though it 
may have not been designed or developed for that intended purpose. 
(PMI, No. 4 at p. 1) T&S Brass added that the term ``suitable'' 
subjects the definition to misrepresentation and that a product that is 
defined for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment 
is ``designed and marketed'' specifically for that application. (T&S 
Brass, No. 7 at p. 1)
    During the NOPR public meeting, DOE clarified its proposal and 
requested additional information regarding the specific design changes 
that manufacturers implement to distinguish products that are 
``intended'' for commercial dishwashing and ware washing applications 
from products that are never ``intended'' for those applications. DOE 
explained it has experienced instances where the term ``designed and 
marketed'' in a definition creates ambiguity and inequitable equipment 
coverage, since such coverage is subject to marketing materials rather 
than objective design criteria. (DOE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 
at pp. 14-16) DOE has seen instances in the market where a 
manufacturer's self-declaration of intent varies greatly from how 
products are sold by retailers. DOE urged manufacturers to provide 
distinct design information or product characteristics that could be 
used to clearly distinguish products that are manufactured for 
dishwashing and ware washing installations. Thus, because the 
suggestion from T&S Brass of using ``designed and/or intended for'' 
does not differ functionally from the current definition of ``designed 
and marketed for,'' it would still perpetuate a fundamental problem DOE 
seeks to remedy. In fact, by removing the term ``marketed,'' T&S 
Brass's suggestion would increase ambiguity by requiring DOE or other 
parties to divine intent, without any express tie to objective 
criteria. Id. DOE requested that interested parties provide additional 
comments on how to clarify the definition to alleviate any unintended 
consequences. Id. Specifically, DOE requested comments on how to 
distinguish between products that are intended to be commercial 
prerinse spray valves versus those that are not, but may have similar 
design features and characteristics. Id. DOE did not receive any 
additional comments about using an alternative phrase to replace 
``designed and marketed.''
    In response to T&S Brass's observation that certain products exist 
that are identical to commercial prerinse spray valves, but are 
advertised and/or intended to perform in different applications, such 
as pet grooming, DOE reviewed the comments from interested parties and 
different models of spray valves available on the market. DOE could not 
identify any differentiating characteristics among commercial prerinse 
spray valves and spray valves intended for other applications that 
would indicate that such products were not regularly used as commercial 
prerinse spray valves or that such products serve a unique utility in 
those applications. In addition, DOE has found spray valves that 
manufacturers market for specific applications listed on retailer's Web 
sites as appropriate for commercial dishwashing and ware washing.
    Conversely, in a joint comment, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), 
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), Southern California Edison 
(SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) company (referred to as 
the California Investor Owned Utilities, or CA IOUs), pointed out that 
there are products currently marketed as pot fillers, which have very 
high flow rates (greater than 3 gallons per minute (gpm)), that can be 
used in a similar function to CPSVs. According to the CA IOUs, because 
these products are listed as ``pot fillers,'' they would not be subject 
to standards. The CA IOUs stated that the definition of commercial 
prerinse spray valve should ensure that any product that may be used as 
a commercial prerinse spray valve is appropriately covered by the 
standard. The CA IOUs cautioned that there is a loophole that allows 
manufacturers to sell commercial prerinse spray valves that do not meet 
the flow rate standard and encouraged DOE to define the products 
carefully to eliminate the loophole. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, CA IOUs, 
No. 34 at p. 2)
    DOE is aware that ``pot fillers'' that have many of the same 
physical characteristics as commercial prerinse spray valves. However, 
DOE does not agree that most of these products can be used extensively 
in commercial dishwashing. Under the definition proposed in the CPSV TP 
NOPR, a pot filler would not be considered a commercial prerinse spray 
valve because it is not suitable to be used for rinsing dishware before 
washing in a commercial dishwasher. A pot filler is used to fill a 
container with water, while a commercial prerinse spray valve is used 
to remove food residue from dishware. DOE believes that a reasonable 
consumer would not install a pot filler to be used as a commercial 
prerinse spray valve. In addition, most pot fillers are usually rigidly 
mounted to a wall with a swing arm, and are thus not handheld devices. 
Therefore, DOE believes that the proposed definition is adequate in 
distinguishing pot fillers from commercial prerinse spray valves.
    When evaluating whether a spray valve model is suitable for 
removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in 
commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment, DOE would consider 
various factors including channels of marketing and sales, product 
design and descriptions, and actual sales to determine whether the 
spray valve is used extensively in conjunction with commercial 
dishwashing and ware washing equipment. For example, a product marketed 
or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities 
such as restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens is more 
likely to be used as a commercial prerinse spray valve than one 
marketed or sold through outlets catering to pet care. Similarly, a 
product marketed outside of the United States as a commercial prerinse 
spray valve, or for similar use in a kitchen-type setting, would be 
considered suitable for use as a commercial prerinse spray valve. In 
evaluating whether a spray valve is suitable for use as a commercial 
prerinse spray valve, DOE would consider how a product is marketed and 
sold to end-users, including how the product is identified and 
described in product catalogs, brochures, specification sheets, and 
communications with prospective purchasers. DOE would also consider 
actual sales, including whether the end-users are restaurants or 
commercial or institutional kitchens, even if those sales are 
indirectly through an entity such as a distributor.
    For the reasons stated previously, DOE is modifying the CPSV 
definition in part by replacing the term ``designed and marketed for 
use'' with the phrase ``suitable for use.'' By relying on suitability, 
DOE effectively differentiates products that are used in commercial 
dishwashing applications (and therefore fall under the DOE regulations) 
from products that are unlikely to be used to wash dishes. DOE believes 
that such a definition also removes the loophole noted by the CA IOUs 
in its comment by avoiding the ambiguity associated with determining

[[Page 81445]]

product coverage based on manufacturer intent or marketing materials. 
DOE recognizes that this definition change will alter the range of 
products subject to standards. Therefore, DOE maintains in this final 
rule that any equipment meeting the previous definition of commercial 
prerinse spray valve is subject to DOE's applicable standards and test 
procedure for such equipment. For clarity, DOE has moved the relevant 
portion of the previous CPSV definition to the current standard in 10 
CFR 431.266 to ensure manufacturers understand the range of equipment 
subject to the current Federal energy conservation standards. Any 
representations with regard to water use for equipment meeting the 
revised definition must be based on the DOE test procedure as of 180 
days following publications of this final rule. As of the compliance 
date for any amended standards, any equipment meeting the revised 
definition of commercial prerinse spray valve will be subject to DOE's 
applicable standards.
    DOE also reviewed the prerinse spray valve definition in ASTM 
Standard F2324-13, which defines the term ``prerinse spray valve'' as 
``a handheld device containing a release to close mechanism that is 
used to spray water on dishes, flatware, etc.'' The ``release-to-
close'' mechanism included in the ASTM definition means a manually 
actuated, normally closed valve, which is a typical feature of 
commercial prerinse spray valves. In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE 
proposed a different definition that would include the term normally 
closed; that is DOE proposed to define commercial prerinse spray valve 
as ``a handheld device containing a normally closed valve that is 
suitable for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment 
for the purpose of removing food residue before cleaning items.'' 80 FR 
35874, 35877 (June 23, 2015).
    DOE received one written comment regarding including the term 
``normally closed'' in its proposed definition. The Alliance for Water 
Efficiency (AWE) does not support the inclusion of the phrase 
``normally closed valve'' in the CPSV definition. AWE commented that 
many non-dishwashing products, similar to prerinse spray valves, 
include ``normally closed valves,'' and that the proposed phrase would 
not distinguish commercial prerinse spray valves from other similar 
devices. Additionally, AWE stated that products sold and used to 
prerinse dishware could be deemed not subject to the proposed rule 
because the valve is not a ``normally closed'' valve. (AWE, No. 6, p. 
2)
    DOE is not currently aware of any commercial prerinse spray valves 
that lack a release to close valve, but agrees with AWE that including 
the term ``normally closed valve'' in the definition could result in a 
CPSV model not being considered a covered product if its design does 
not include such a valve. Therefore, DOE is not including the term 
``normally closed valve'' in the definition and is instead replacing it 
with the term ``release-to-close,'' consistent with the definition in 
ASTM F2324-13.
    In summary, in this final rule, DOE adopts a modified version of 
the definition of ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' than what was 
proposed in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR. 80 FR 35874, 35877 (June 23, 2015). 
Specifically, DOE defines ``commercial prerinse spray valve'' as ``a 
handheld device that has a release-to-close valve and is suitable for 
removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in 
commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment.'' DOE has concluded 
that this definition satisfies the requirements at 42 U.S.C. 
6291(33)(B) because (1) the products covered by this definition are 
used extensively in conjunction with commercial dishwashing and ware 
washing equipment, (2) the application of standards to such products 
would result in significant energy savings, and (3) the application of 
standards to such products would not be likely to result in the 
unavailability of any covered product type currently available on the 
market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The analyses of the energy savings potential of standards 
and the impact of standards on the availability of any covered 
product type currently on the market are being conducted as part of 
DOE's concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
commercial prerinse spray valves. Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Spray Force
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed adding a definition for the 
term ``spray force,'' as ``the amount of force exerted onto the spray 
disc, measured in ounce-force (ozf).'' 80 FR 35874, 35878-79, 35886 
(June 23, 2015). DOE understands spray force to be an important 
differentiating feature in commercial prerinse spray valves.
    DOE received several written comments about adding a definition for 
spray force. DOE will finalize its decision regarding the use of spray 
force as it relates to the proposed amended energy conservation 
standards, and will address any comments related to spray force and 
product classes, in the ongoing CPSV standards rulemaking (Docket No. 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027).
    During the NOPR public meeting, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 
supported adding spray force requirements because doing so could aid in 
saving water and energy. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 
17) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asked if DOE would be 
adding a definition for the term ounce-force. (NRDC, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 3 at p. 17) In this final rule, DOE does not include a 
definition for the unit ounce-force. Ounce-force is used by ASTM 
Standard F2324-13 and is a commonly understood unit of measurement.
    As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the term ``spray force,'' 
defined as ``the amount of force exerted onto the spray disc, measured 
in ounce-force (ozf).'' Adopting this new term in the CPSV test 
procedure does not affect any amended CPSV energy conservation 
standards and does not guarantee or require its use in such standards.

B. Industry Standards Incorporated by Reference

    EPCA prescribes that the test procedure for measuring flow rate for 
commercial prerinse spray valves be based on ASTM Standard F2324, 
``Standard Test Method for Pre-Rinse Spray Valves.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6293(14)) Pursuant to this statutory requirement, DOE incorporated by 
reference ASTM Standard F2324-03 in a final rule published on December 
8, 2006. 71 FR 71340, 71374. DOE last updated its CPSV test procedure 
to reference the updated ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) in a final rule 
published on October 23, 2013. 78 FR 62970, 62980. The 2009 version was 
a reaffirmation of the 2003 standard and contained no changes to the 
test method. The current version of the ASTM industry standard for 
CPSVs is the version published in 2013, ASTM Standard F2324-13.
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE noted that the most significant 
difference between ASTM Standard F2324-13 and the ASTM standard 
currently referenced by the DOE test procedure (ASTM Standard F2324-03 
(2009)) is that ASTM Standard F2324-13 replaces the cleanability test 
with a spray force test and moves the cleanability test to a normative 
(i.e., non-mandatory) appendix. 80 FR 35874, 35878 (June 23, 2015). 
During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass requested DOE's assistance in 
updating California's Title 20 requirements related to commercial 
prerinse spray valves because California Title 20 currently includes a 
cleanability

[[Page 81446]]

requirement (Title 20, Section 1605.3(h)(3)(A)), which has now been 
moved to the appendix of ASTM Standard F2324-13. T&S Brass stated that, 
under the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, manufacturers who sell products in 
California must test for both cleanability and spray force. (T&S Brass, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 18) DOE appreciates T&S Brass's 
comments; however, DOE's adoption of any amendments to the Federal CPSV 
test procedure does not preclude California from adopting amendments to 
a rule California had in place prior to January 1, 2005, if that 
amendment is developed to align California regulations with changes in 
ASTM F2324. See 42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(7). Nonetheless, DOE welcomes any 
discussion with manufacturers and the State of California regarding any 
potential amendments to California's CPSV test procedure or 
requirements.
    DOE also identified minor differences between ASTM Standard F2324-
03 (2009) and ASTM Standard F2324-13, which include (1) tolerance on 
water pressure required for testing, (2) minimum flow rate of flex 
tubing, (3) water temperature for testing, and (4) length of water pipe 
required to be insulated.
    Table III.1 summarizes changes between ASTM Standard F2324-03 
(2009) and F2324-13 as they apply to DOE's test procedure.

               Table III.1--Changes to ASTM Standard F2324
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current DOE test     Amended DOE test
                                    procedure (ASTM      procedure (ASTM
                                   Standard F2324-03     Standard F2324-
                                        (2009))                13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water pressure................  60  1 psi   60 
                                 and 60  2   2 psi.
                                 psi.
Minimum flow rate of flex       7 gpm.................  3.5 gpm.
 tubing.
Water temperature for testing.  120  4      60 
                                 [deg]F.                 10 [deg]F.
Minimum insulation requirement  Requires any            No requirement.
 of water pipe.                  insulation to have a
                                 thermal resistance
                                 (R) of 4 [deg]F x
                                 ft\2\ x h/Btu for the
                                 entire length of the
                                 water pipe, from the
                                 mixing valve to the
                                 inlet of the flex
                                 tubing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discussed the rationale for the changes between the ASTM 
Standards and the effects on testing results in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR. 
80 FR 35874, 35878-79 (June 23, 2015). In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE 
concluded that the updates do not affect the measurement of flow rate 
for commercial prerinse spray valves. However, in this final rule, DOE 
is clarifying that the water temperature measurement for both spray 
force and flow rate tests is an instantaneous temperature measurement 
of the water at the start of the test, not the average temperature of 
the water over the duration of the test. Additionally, DOE clarifies 
that the water temperature will have no impact on the measured value of 
flow rate and spray force.
    DOE received a written comment concerning the incorporation by 
reference of ASTM Standard F2324-13. AWE supports, in part, the use of 
this ASTM standard as a method to test commercial prerinse spray 
valves. However, AWE opposes this test method as the sole means to 
determine compliance with a maximum flow rate of 1.28 gallons per 
minute (gpm). AWE stated that the ASTM Standard F2324-13 was developed 
and modified for flow rates not exceeding 1.6 gpm. AWE expressed 
concern whether the same test criteria would be adequate for testing 
commercial prerinse spray valves operating at flows significantly less 
than 1.28 gpm, because as water flow is reduced, the margin of error 
for performance narrows. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3)
    Currently, section 10 from ASTM Standard F2324-13 is the generally 
accepted test procedure for the CPSV industry, and is used to certify 
commercial prerinse spray valves at all flow rates, including flow 
rates at less than 1.28 gpm. The ASTM flow rate test method specifies 
an allowable range of supply water temperature and pressure, which are 
the two physical parameters that would have the biggest effect on the 
accuracy and repeatability of the water flow rate measurement of a 
commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE has no evidence that the accuracy 
or repeatability of flow rate measurements lower than 1.28 gpm would be 
significantly different than flow rate measurements greater than 1.28 
gpm. Additionally, DOE tested a range of commercial prerinse spray 
valves as part of the ongoing CPSV energy conservation standards 
rulemaking, and found the test method to be sufficiently accurate for 
spray valves with low flow rates. In a comment submitted by the 
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), ASAP, and NRDC in response to the energy 
conservation standard NOPR, the commenters stated that they support 
incorporating provisions of ASTM Standard F2324-13 pertaining to flow 
rate and spray force into the DOE test procedure, including test 
methods and definitions. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, ASE, ASAP, NRDC, No. 
32 at p. 2) Finally, EPCA requires DOE to use the ASTM Standard F2324 
as a basis for the test procedure for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(14)) Therefore, DOE incorporates by reference the specified 
sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13 in this final rule.
    DOE also received comments regarding its proposal to incorporate by 
reference elements of the water supply pressure specified in sections 
9.3, 10.2.2 and 10.3.2 of ASTM Standard F2324-13. In the 2015 CPSV TP 
NOPR, DOE proposed to test commercial prerinse spray valves at a water 
pressure of 60  2 psi when water is flowing through the 
commercial prerinse spray valve, as required by ASTM Standard F2324-13. 
As part of that proposal, DOE included a discussion on reports on water 
pressure across the country and the different aspects of testing at 
multiple water pressures. 80 FR 35873, 35878 (June 23, 2015). DOE also 
acknowledged that supply pressure will affect the flow rate of a 
commercial prerinse spray valve once installed. Typically, lower 
pressures result in lower flow rates and higher pressures result in 
higher flow rates. Nevertheless, DOE noted that testing at a single 
specific supply pressure to demonstrate compliance with the maximum 
allowable flow rate would create a consistent and standardized 
reference that would be comparable across all products. Id. Testing at 
multiple supply pressures would also increase test burden. DOE also 
reviewed the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard 
A112.18.1-2012, ``Plumbing Supply Fittings,'' which contains testing 
parameters for other plumbing products, such as faucets and 
showerheads, and found that it requires testing at lower supply 
pressures only when determining a minimum flow rate. 80 FR 35873, 35878 
(June 23, 2015).

[[Page 81447]]

    In comments provided for the related CPSV energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, AWE supported the use of the ASTM Standard F2324-
13 test procedure and testing at a supply pressure of 60 psi. (Docket 
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) During the NOPR public 
meeting, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and NRDC both 
requested that DOE test at multiple water pressure values. (ASAP, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 27; NRDC, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 19-20) In response to the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, 
AWE commented that water pressure can vary from one water utility 
service area to another, impacting the performance of commercial 
prerinse spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p. 2) AWE also suggested that DOE 
suspend its rulemaking efforts until a comprehensive study is conducted 
to determine the effects of water pressure on performance of commercial 
prerinse spray valves. (AWE, No. 6 at p.4)
    In response to AWE's comment regarding the effect of varied water 
pressures on performance, DOE acknowledged in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR 
that supply pressures have an impact on flow rate. Consistent with what 
was described in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
the CPSV energy conservation standards NOPR (Docket EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027), DOE observed that flow rate increases with the square root of 
pressure. DOE compiled data from various field studies that 
demonstrated the performance of prerinse spray valves rated between 
0.51 gpm and 1.88 gpm installed in commercial kitchen locations. While 
the water pressure measured in these locations ranged between 38 psi 
and 83 psi, the average water pressure observed in the commercial 
kitchens included in the studies was 55 psi, which is very close to the 
60 psi supply pressure specified in ASTM Standard F2324-13. DOE 
provides the full results of its data analysis in a separate report 
accompanying this final rule, titled ``Analysis of Water Pressure for 
Testing Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Final Report.'' \6\ From the 
analysis, DOE found that although the flow rate of CPSVs can vary by 
almost 40 percent when the water pressure changes from the analyzed 
range of 40 psi to 80 psi, the weighted average flow rate for CPSVs 
installed with varying supply pressures results in a 5-percent decrease 
in flow rate as compared to the flow rate of a CPSV installed with a 
water pressure of 60 psi. Based on this information, DOE determined 
that 60 psi is representative of the water pressures observed across 
the nation. Therefore, this final rule incorporates the single water 
pressure supply requirement of ASTM Standard F2324-13, 60  
2 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The water pressure sensitivity analysis is available at 
regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2014-BT-TP-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, DOE is incorporating by reference the following 
sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13: 6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5, 
10.3.1-10.3.8, 11.3.1 (replacing the plural ``nozzles'' with 
``nozzle''), and excluding references to ``Annex A1.''
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed replacing the plural 
``nozzles'' with ``nozzle'' because ``nozzles'' refers to Section 8.1 
of the ASTM Standard F2324-13, which requires three representative 
production units to be selected for all performance testing. DOE did 
not receive any comments regarding this proposal, therefore DOE is 
incorporating this change in this final rule. DOE also clarifies in 
this final rule that the term ``nozzle'' means a CPSV unit. Also, DOE 
is retaining the existing CPSV sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a), and 
therefore is not incorporating by reference Section 8.1 of ASTM 
Standard F2324-13. Section III.E of this document provides more details 
on the selection of units to test.
    DOE is also excluding any references to ``Annex A1'' from 
incorporation by reference because the annex provides a procedure for 
determining the uncertainty in reported test results. DOE's required 
statistical methods for determination of the representative value of 
flow rate for each basic model is in 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2). Therefore, 
DOE is not incorporating by reference Annex A1 in this test procedure, 
and any references to the annex in the incorporated ASTM Standard 
F2324-13 sections are invalid. The referenced sections describe the 
testing apparatus, test method, and calculations pertaining to flow-
rate measurement.
1. Clarifications
    In analyzing ASTM Standard F2324-13 and DOE's proposed test 
provisions when responding to comments submitted by interested parties 
and formulating the final test procedure adopted in this document, DOE 
noticed several minor inconsistencies and sources of ambiguity in the 
proposed test procedure and industry standard. As such, in this final 
rule, DOE is also clarifying several minor issues regarding terminology 
and conducting the amended DOE test procedure, so as to improve the 
repeatability and consistency of the test procedure.
    Throughout ASTM F2324-13, various terms are used to refer to flow 
rate: water consumption flow rate, water consumption, water flow rate, 
flow rate, and nozzle flow rate. Additionally, regulatory text in 10 
CFR 429.51, 10 CFR 431.264, and 10 CFR 431.266 refers to flow rate 
using both the terms water consumption flow rate and flow rate. For 
this final rule, DOE is clarifying that all of the aforementioned terms 
are equivalent to the term flow rate.
    Section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13, instructs the test lab to 
attach the prerinse spray valve to a 36-inch, spring-style (flex 
tubing) prerinse spray valve in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions. DOE is clarifying that the second instance of ``prerinse 
spray valve'' refers to the spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit 
that is previously defined in section 6.8 of ASTM F2324-13. DOE is also 
clarifying that it does not believe that using the manufacturer's 
instructions or packaging are necessary to connect the nozzle for 
testing as the manufacturer's instructions typically describe how to 
install the entire prerinse spray valve, not just the nozzle.
    Section 10.1.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 directs the test lab to 
record the water temperature ([deg]F), dynamic water pressure (psi), 
time (min) and the flow rate (gpm) for each run of every test. For this 
final rule, DOE is clarifying that water temperature and dynamic water 
pressure values must be recorded one time at the start of each run when 
testing for both flow rate and spray force. The time is measured 
throughout the flow rate test and recorded after the test to indicate 
the duration of testing. DOE clarifies that the flow rate is calculated 
afterwards using the normalized weight of the carboy, as discussed in 
the next paragraph, and the measured time of testing.
    In section 10.2.4 of ASTM F2324-13, the flow rate test requires 
that the water flow be stopped at the end of one minute. However, 
section 6.9 of ASTM F2324-13 requires time measurement instruments 
accurate  0.1 second and it will likely be difficult for an 
operator to stop the stopwatch and CPSV at precisely 1:00.0 min every 
test. Therefore, DOE is clarifying that the recorded weight of the 
water will be normalized to 60.0 seconds for every test, to ensure that 
each flow rate is calculated using the same time period. Normalize the 
weight using Equation 1, where Wwater is the weight 
normalized to a 1 minute time period, W1 is the weight of 
the water in the carboy at the conclusion of the flow rate test, and 
t1 is the total recorded time of the flow rate test.

[[Page 81448]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.001

C. Additional Test Methods

1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray Force
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure for 
measuring the spray force of a commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE 
discussed how the test is conducted, the apparatus used, a review of 
the procedure, the applicable sections of ASTM F2324-13 to incorporate 
by reference. DOE also explained that it proposed the test to support 
the forthcoming proposed revisions to the CPSV product class structure 
in the ongoing energy conservation standard for commercial prerinse 
spray valves (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027). 80 FR 35874, 35879 
(June 23, 2015).
    As discussed previously in this final rule, DOE received several 
written comments about using spray force to define product classes. 
Specifically, in a joint comment submitted by ASE, ASAP, and NRDC and 
in the CA IOUs joint comment, the parties stated that they support 
incorporating provisions of ASTM Standard F2324-13 pertaining to spray 
force into the DOE test procedure, including test methods and 
definitions. The commenters additionally supported a requirement to 
measure and report spray force. (EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, ASE, ASAP, 
NRDC, No. 32 at p. 2; EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 3)
    In this final rule, DOE clarifies how to record average spray 
force. Section 10.3.6 of ASTM F2324-13 requires the average spray force 
to be recorded over a 15-second time period after the prerinse spray 
valve has flowed for at least 5 seconds. DOE interprets ``average'' 
spray force to require at least two spray force readings during the 
test. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE clarifies that this requires 
recording at least two spray force readings to calculate the average 
spray force over the 15-second time period.
2. Multiple Spray Settings: Adding a Requirement To Measure Flow Rate 
and Spray Force of Each Spray Setting
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed adding a requirement at 10 
CFR 431.264(b)(3) to measure and record each available spray pattern if 
a sample unit has multiple spray patterns or spray settings. DOE 
identified several commercial prerinse spray valves on the market with 
multiple spray patterns that can be selected by the end user. 
Additionally, section 10.3.7 of ASTM Standard F2324-13, which DOE 
proposed in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to incorporate by reference, 
specifies that force shall be tested for each mode (i.e., spray 
setting). 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015).
    In this final rule, DOE intended the term ``spray pattern'' mean a 
user-selectable setting on a commercial prerinse spray valve; however, 
DOE realizes that some people might interpret the term ``spray 
pattern'' to mean the shape of the water spray as it exits the unit, 
such as shower, knife, solid stream, etc. For this final rule, DOE 
clarifies that the term ``spray pattern'' refers to a user-selectable 
setting on a commercial prerinse spray valve and uses the term ``spray 
setting'' instead of ``spray pattern.'' Although DOE used the term 
``spray pattern'' in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, for clarity, DOE is using 
the term ``spray setting'' throughout this discussion of comments 
received in response to the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR and in the regulatory 
text.
    During the NOPR public meeting, Chicago Faucet sought clarification 
related to testing of multiple settings. Specifically, Chicago Faucet 
asked whether each setting on a model with multiple settings would need 
to be tested and meet a minimum spray force value. (Chicago Faucet, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3, pp. 25-26) DOE clarified during the 
public meeting that DOE was not proposing mandatory minimum spray force 
requirements, but rather was proposing to use the spray force 
measurement to define product classes. DOE further confirmed that a 
unit with multiple settings would need to be tested at each spray 
setting, and each spray setting would need to meet the applicable flow 
rate requirements.
    In its written comments, AWE agreed that all of the emitters of a 
valve must comply with maximum allowable flow requirements. AWE added 
that it is only necessary for at least one of the emitters to meet a 
minimum spray force requirement. AWE stated that requiring all emitters 
to meet a certain minimum spray force will likely result in excessive 
water use when used in applications that do not require high force. 
(AWE, No. 6, p. 3) As previously mentioned, DOE is not establishing a 
mandatory minimum spray force requirement but, rather, has proposed 
using the spray force measurement to define product classes. Further 
discussion on how DOE proposed to use spray force to define product 
classes is presented in the forthcoming CPSV standards rulemaking final 
rule (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027).
    T&S Brass stated that if the ``suitable for use'' language in DOE's 
proposed definition (based on suitability) were finalized, only one of 
the spray patterns would need to be tested and meet the requirements of 
a commercial prerinse spray valve. According to T&S Brass, one setting 
on the spray valve could meet the proposed definition even though the 
rest of the spray pattern selections may be non-compliant. T&S Brass 
also recommended that all spray modes of the commercial prerinse spray 
valve be tested for compliance. (T&S Brass, No. 7 at p. 2)
    As stated in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE is aware that some 
commercial prerinse spray valves may have multiple flow rate settings 
(which may or may not have the same water spray shape) or multiple, 
exchangeable faces to alter the spray force and flow rate of the 
product. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). In this final rule, DOE 
adopts its proposal in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR to require testing of 
spray force and flow rate for each of the spray settings in CPSVs with 
multiple settings. Similarly, in this final rule, DOE is also adopting 
a definition of basic model to clarify how spray settings can be 
grouped for the purposes of making representations and certifying 
compliance to the Department. The basic model definition allows 
manufacturers to group spray settings within a given product class as 
long as the individual spray settings have similar physical and 
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect water consumption 
or water efficiency for the purposes of testing and certifying 
compliance with the applicable standard. DOE also notes that consistent 
with DOE's basic model grouping provisions discussed in the 
certification, compliance, and enforcement final rule, manufacturers 
may elect to certify multiple spray settings under the same basic 
model, provided that (1) all individual spray settings identified as 
the same basic model have the same certified flow rate, (2) all 
representations are based on the tested performance of the least 
efficient individual model in that basic model, and (3) all spray 
settings are in the same product class. 76 FR 12422, 12429 (March 7, 
2011). Specifically, for commercial prerinse spray valves, 
manufacturers may certify a CPSV unit with multiple spray settings as a 
single basic model if all the spray settings fall into the same product 
class and all

[[Page 81449]]

representations regarding the performance of that basic model are based 
on the most consumptive spray setting. In such a case, manufacturers 
may not make differing representations regarding the performance of 
different spray settings for those individual models within the basic 
model. However, to the extent manufacturers wish to make 
representations regarding the spray force or flow rate at spray 
settings other than the most consumptive flow rate, manufacturers may 
instead elect to certify individual spray settings as unique basic 
models.
    In addition, if the spray settings on a CPSV unit fall into 
multiple product classes, manufacturers must certify separate basic 
models for each product class and may only group individual spray 
settings into basic models within each product class. In the ongoing 
energy conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-
0027), DOE proposed to adopt amended standards for commercial prerinse 
spray values and establish different product classes and standards for 
commercial prerinse spray valves as a function of spray force. 80 FR 
39486 (July 9, 2015). As such, a commercial prerinse spray value that 
contains multiple spray settings, or is sold with multiple spray faces, 
may fall into different product classes. In such a case, the commercial 
prerinse spray valve would meet both product class definitions and, as 
such, would be required to meet an appropriate energy conservation 
standard for both product classes. For example, if product classes were 
differentiated at 5-ozf and 8-ozf, the maximum flow rate setting with a 
spray force below 5-ozf would have to meet the standard associated with 
a spray force below 5-ozf, and the maximum flow rate setting between 5- 
and 8-ozf would have to meet the standard associated with a spray force 
between 5- and 8-ozf. This is consistent with DOE's treatment of other 
products and equipment that fall into multiple product classes or 
equipment categories. For example, dual-temperature commercial 
refrigeration equipment that can operate as both a commercial 
refrigerator and a commercial freezer must be tested as, and meet the 
energy conservation standard for, both equipment categories. 77 FR 
10292 (February 21, 2012). Similarly, if a spray valve has at least one 
setting that meets the definition of a commercial prerinse spray valve, 
then the entire unit is a commercial prerinse spray valve and all 
settings must meet the flow rate standard.

D. Rounding Requirements

1. Flow Rate
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to change the rounding 
requirements for recording flow rate measurements from one decimal 
place to two decimal places. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). During 
the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass agreed with this proposal and stated 
that the WaterSense program also requires flow rate to be rounded to 
two decimal places. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at p. 
23) DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this proposal. 
Therefore, DOE amends the flow rate measurement rounding requirements 
to two decimal places in 10 CFR 431.264(b)(1).
2. Spray Force
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt Section 11.4.2 of 
the ASTM Standard F2324-13 that specifies that the spray force be 
rounded to one decimal place. 80 FR 35873, 35880 (June 23, 2015). DOE 
received no comments related to this proposal. Therefore, DOE adopts 
spray force rounding requirements of one decimal place in 10 CFR 
431.264(b)(2).

E. Sampling Plan for Representative Values

    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed retaining the existing CPSV 
sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a). 80 FR 35874, 35880 (June 23, 2015). 
Although Section 8.1 of ASTM Standard F2324-13 requires three 
representative production units to be selected for all performance 
testing, in the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt this 
requirement. DOE only proposed to adopt the testing methodology (i.e., 
applicable to testing of a unit)--not the rating methodology (i.e., 
applicable to a basic model)--found in ASTM Standard F2324-13. However, 
DOE notes that the DOE test procedure for commercial prerinse spray 
valves adopted in this final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2324-
13, which requires performing three test runs on each unit and the 
measured flow rate or spray force to be calculated as the average of 
the flow rate or spray force value determined during each of the three 
runs. DOE is retaining this requirement as is it improves the accuracy 
and precision of the test. The representative value of flow rate and 
spray force for each CPSV model is then calculated as the values 
determined from each test, subject to the sampling plan and rounding 
requirements presented in at 10 CFR 431.51(a) and 10 CFR 431.264(b)(2).
    CPSV testing is subject to DOE's general certification regulations 
at 10 CFR 429.11. These require a manufacturer to randomly select and 
test a sample of sufficient size to ensure that the represented value 
of water consumption adequately represents performance of all of the 
units within the basic model, but no fewer than two units. (10 CFR 
429.11(b)) The purpose of these requirements is to achieve a realistic 
representation of the water consumption of the basic model, and to 
mitigate the risk of noncompliance, without imposing undue test burden. 
DOE did not receive any comments related to this proposal.
    In the 2015 CPSV TP NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the statistical 
methods for determination of the representative value of flow rate for 
each basic model of commercial prerinse spray valve in 10 CFR 
429.51(a)(2). 80 FR 35874, 35880 (June 23, 2015). Specifically, DOE 
proposed to remove the lower confidence limit (LCL) formula from the 
sampling plan for the selection of units for testing and retain only 
the provision for an upper confidence limit (UCL) under 10 CFR 
429.51(a)(2)(i). The original statistical methods allowed for two 
options that were exclusive; however, because the energy conservation 
standard for commercial prerinse spray valves specifies a maximum water 
flow rate, only the UCL provision is used for certification and 
compliance purposes. DOE received no comments related to this proposal. 
Therefore, DOE removes the LCL formula from the sampling plan in this 
final rule and retains the remainder of the sampling plan at 10 CFR 
429.51(a).

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

[[Page 81450]]

(IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and 
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that 
an agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 
examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers 
alternative ways of reducing negative effects. As required by Executive 
Order 13272. ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures 
and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts 
of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: 
http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for 
this certification is as follows.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity 
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs 
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. 
These size standards and codes are established by the North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS 
classification code 332919, which applies to ``other metal valve and 
pipe fitting manufacturing'' and includes CPSV manufacturers, is 500 
employees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business 
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification 
System Codes. See www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf (last accessed September 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a search of DOE's Compliance and Certification Database, 
individual company Web sites, and various marketing research tools 
(e.g., Dun and Bradstreet reports, Manta, and Hoovers), DOE identified 
13 manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves, of which 9 are 
domestic small businesses. Table IV.1 lists the eight small businesses 
that DOE identified, according to the number of employees.

         Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of     Percentage of
           Number of employees                 small           small
                                            businesses     businesses *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-50....................................               3              33
51-100..................................               3              33
101-150.................................               1              11
151-250.................................               1              11
251-500.................................               1              11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Because of rounding, the values in this column do not sum to
  100%.

    DOE estimated the labor burden associated with testing, in view of 
the 2012 (most recent) median annual pay for (1) environmental 
engineering technicians ($45,350), (2) mechanical engineering 
technicians ($51,980), and (3) plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters 
($49,140) for an average annual salary of $48,823.8 9 DOE 
divided the average by 1,920 hours per year (40 hours per week for 48 
weeks per year) to develop an hourly rate of $25.43. DOE adjusted the 
hourly rate by 31-percent to account for benefits, resulting in an 
estimated total hourly rate of $33.31.10 11 DOE used this 
hourly rate to assess the labor costs for testing units according to 
the amendments to the test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Architecture and Engineering. 
www.bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-Engineering/home.htm (last accessed 
September 10, 2015).
    \9\ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Construction and Extraction 
Occupations. www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/home.htm 
(last accessed September 10, 2015).
    \10\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. News Release: Employer Cost For 
Employee Compensation. www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. (last 
accessed September 10, 2015).
    \11\ Additional benefits include paid leave, supplemental pay, 
insurance, retirement and savings, Social Security, Medicare, 
unemployment insurance, and workers compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, 10 CFR 431.264 prescribes measurements for flow rate and 
requires commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple spray settings 
to comply with the applicable Federal energy conservation standard. DOE 
is clarifying in this final rule that CPSV models with multiple spray 
patterns must demonstrate compliance through certifying each discrete 
spray pattern or through the application of the basic model concept 
(see section III.C.2).
    The amendments to the test procedures adopted in today's final rule 
do not modify the time or burden associated with conducting the CPSV 
test procedure, except for including an additional test for spray 
force. During the NOPR public meeting, T&S Brass commented that only 
the manufacturers participating in the WaterSense program typically 
perform this test. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3 at pp. 
24-25) Out of 13 total CPSV manufacturers that DOE identified, only 2 
currently participate in the WaterSense program. DOE concludes, 
therefore, that most manufacturers do not currently test for spray 
force. DOE estimates that an additional hour of labor time per basic 
model is required to conduct the spray force test.
    In addition to the labor time, DOE assumed that manufacturers would 
have to either construct or purchase an apparatus to measure spray 
force. DOE researched the materials necessary for the spray force test 
and estimates the cost of these materials to be $575.
    Another amendment to the test procedure includes clarifying that 
all spray settings must be tested on units that offer multiple spray 
settings. While CPSV models with multiple spray settings are currently 
required to demonstrate compliance, which requires testing of all spray 
settings, DOE understands that testing multiple spray settings requires 
more testing time than testing units with only one spray setting and 
that some manufacturers may not have been testing each spray setting. 
Therefore, DOE is also estimating the cost associated with testing 
units with multiple spray settings. DOE's review of commercial prerinse 
spray valves with multiple spray settings indicates that these units

[[Page 81451]]

have an average of three settings. DOE estimated that the time to 
measure both flow rate and spray force for all three spray settings is 
greater than 2 hours but typically less than 3 hours.
    Based on this analysis, DOE estimated that up to 3 hours of total 
testing time is required for each basic model. Therefore, up to 6 hours 
of total testing time might be required to test two production units 
per basic model in the final test procedure, which results in a total 
labor cost of $199.88. As previously stated, DOE estimated that the 
cost of complying with the current test procedure is $66.63. Therefore, 
the amended test procedure reflects an increase in cost of $133.25 per 
basic model, and an additional one-time equipment setup cost of $575, 
compared to the current test procedure.
    AWE commented that the additional manufacturer cost burden for 
requiring multiple spray force tests would negatively affect product 
innovation and consumer choice. (AWE, No. 6, p. 3). As described 
earlier, DOE has accounted for the multiple spray force tests costs by 
determining the added cost for increased testing time, labor, and 
purchase of equipment for the spray force test.
    DOE's analysis determined that 69-percent of all CPSV manufacturers 
could be classified as small entities according to SBA classification 
guidelines. DOE believes that small manufacturers would not be 
differentially affected by the proposed amendments to the test 
procedure. In fact, DOE does not believe the amendments adopted in 
today's final rule as they relate to testing will result in any 
significant differential impact as compared to the testing currently 
required by DOE's regulations. Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost 
effects accruing from the final rule would not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that 
the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves must certify to 
DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test 
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
commercial prerinse spray valves. See generally 10 CFR part 429. The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for commercial 
prerinse spray valves. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a 
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 
rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final 
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition 
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on 
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule

[[Page 81452]]

meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, 
so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). 
DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications to the test procedure addressed by this action 
incorporate testing methods contained in the following commercial 
standards: ASTM F2324-13, Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray 
Valves, sections 6.1-6.9, 9.1-9.5.3.2, 10.1-10.2.5, 10.3.1-10.3.8, 
11.3.1 (replacing ``nozzles'' with ``nozzle''), and disregarding 
references to Annex A1. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable 
to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 
32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that 
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE has 
consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC 
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard 
published by ASTM, titled, ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray 
Valves,'' ASTM Standard F2324-13. ASTM Standard F2324-13 is an 
industry-accepted test procedure that measures water flow rate and 
spray force for prerinse spray valves, and is applicable to products 
sold in North America. ASTM Standard F2324-13 specifies testing 
conducted in accordance with other industry accepted test procedures 
(already incorporated by reference). The test procedure in this final 
rule references various sections of ASTM Standard F2324-13 that address 
test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. ASTM 
Standard F2324-13 is readily available at ASTM's Web site at 
www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation

[[Page 81453]]

of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it 
has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by 
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. In Sec.  429.51, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  429.51  Commercial pre-rinse spray valves.

    (a) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (1) The 
requirements of Sec.  429.11 apply to commercial prerinse spray valves; 
and
    (2) For each basic model of commercial prerinse spray valve, a 
sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to 
ensure that any represented value of flow rate must be greater than or 
equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.002
    
and, x is the sample mean;
n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample; Or,

    (ii) The upper 95-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.003

and, x is the sample mean;
s is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of samples; and
t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95-percent two-tailed 
confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from Appendix A of 
this subpart).
* * * * *

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
3. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
4. Section 431.262 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.262  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Basic model means all spray settings of a given class manufactured 
by one manufacturer, which have essentially identical physical and 
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect water consumption 
or water efficiency.
    Commercial prerinse spray valve means a handheld device that has a 
release-to-close valve and is suitable for removing food residue from 
food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or 
ware washing equipment.
    Spray force means the amount of force exerted onto the spray disc, 
measured in ounce-force (ozf).


0
5. Section 431.263 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.263  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ASTM Standard F2324-13, (``ASTM F2324-13''), Standard Test 
Method for Prerinse Spray Valves, approved June 1, 2013; IBR approved 
for Sec.  431.264.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 431.264 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.264  Uniform test method to measure flow rate and spray force 
of commercial prerinse spray valves.

    (a) Scope. This section provides the test procedure to measure the 
flow rate and spray force of a commercial prerinse spray valve.
    (b) Testing and calculations for a unit with a single spray 
setting--(1) Flow rate. (i) Test each unit in accordance with the 
requirements of sections 6.1 through 6.9 (Apparatus) (except 6.4 and 
6.7), 9.1 through 9.4 (Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.1 through 
10.2.5 (Procedure) of ASTM F2324-13, (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.263). Precatory language in the ASTM F2324-13 is to be 
treated as mandatory for the purpose of testing. In section 9.1 of ASTM 
F2324-13, the second instance of ``prerinse spray valve'' refers to the 
spring-style deck-mounted prerinse unit defined in section 6.8. In lieu 
of using manufacturer installation instructions or packaging, always 
connect the commercial prerinse spray valve to the flex tubing for 
testing. Normalize the weight of the water to calculate flow rate using 
Equation 1, where Wwater is the weight normalized to a 1 
minute time period, W1 is the weight of the water in the 
carboy at the conclusion of the flow rate test, and t1 is 
the total recorded time of the flow rate test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE15.004

    (ii) Perform calculations in accordance with section 11.3.1 
(Calculation and Report). Record the water temperature ([deg]F) and 
dynamic water pressure (psi) once at the start for each run of the 
test. Record the time (min), the normalized weight of water in the 
carboy (lb) and the resulting flow rate (gpm) once at the end of each 
run of the test. Record flow rate measurements of time (min) and weight 
(lb) at the resolutions of the test instrumentation. Perform three runs 
on each unit, as specified in section 10.2.5 of ASTM F2324-13, but 
disregard any references to Annex A1. Then, for each unit, calculate 
the mean of the three flow rate values determined from each

[[Page 81454]]

run. Round the final value for flow rate to two decimal places and 
record that value.
    (2) Spray force. Test each unit in accordance with the test 
requirements specified in sections 6.2 and 6.4 through 6.9 (Apparatus), 
9.1 through 9.5.3.2 (Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.3.1 through 
10.3.8 (Procedure) of ASTM F2324-13. In section 9.1 of ASTM F2324-13, 
the second instance of ``prerinse spray valve'' refers to the spring-
style deck-mounted prerinse unit defined in section 6.8. In lieu of 
using manufacturer installation instructions or packaging, always 
connect the commercial prerinse spray valve to the flex tubing for 
testing. Record the water temperature ([deg]F) and dynamic water 
pressure (psi) once at the start for each run of the test. In order to 
calculate the mean spray force value for the unit under test, there are 
two measurements per run and there are three runs per test. For each 
run of the test, record a minimum of two spray force measurements and 
calculate the mean of the measurements over the 15-second time period 
of stabilized flow during spray force testing. Record the time (min) 
once at the end of each run of the test. Record spray force 
measurements at the resolution of the test instrumentation. Conduct 
three runs on each unit, as specified in section 10.3.8 of ASTM F2324-
13, but disregard any references to Annex A1. Ensure the unit has been 
stabilized separately during each run. Then for each unit, calculate 
and record the mean of the spray force values determined from each run. 
Round the final value for spray force to one decimal place.
    (c) Testing and calculations for a unit with multiple spray 
settings. If a unit has multiple user-selectable spray settings, or 
includes multiple spray faces that can be installed, for each possible 
spray setting or spray face:
    (1) Measure both the flow rate and spray force according to 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section (including calculating the 
mean flow rate and mean spray force) for each spray setting; and
    (2) Record the mean flow rate for each spray setting, rounded to 
two decimal places. Record the mean spray force for each spray setting, 
rounded to one decimal place.


0
7. Section 431.266 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.266  Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

    Commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 
1, 2006, shall have a flow rate of not more than 1.6 gallons per 
minute. For the purposes of this standard, a commercial prerinse spray 
valve is a handheld device designed and marketed for use with 
commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on 
dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of 
removing food residue before cleaning the items.

[FR Doc. 2015-32805 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P