Quiero saber acerca de...

27302

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 96 / Thursday, May 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 considered suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment as compared to a product sold exclusively through outlets catering to pet care. Id. Similarly, a product marketed outside of the United States as suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment would be considered similarly suitable if distributed in the United States. Id. DOE
also considers 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. Id. Additionally, DOE
considers actual sales, including whether the end-users are restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens, even if those sales are indirect through an entity such as a distributor. Id.
In order to provide further certainty as to the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve DOE is proposing to amend the definition to include previously provided guidance on determining whether equipment is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment.
Specifically, DOE proposes to define a commercial prerinse spray valve as a handheld device that has a releaseto-close valve and is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment. DOE may determine that a device is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment based on any or all of the following: 1 Equipment design and representations for example, whether equipment is represented as being capable of rinsing dishes as compared to equipment that is represented exclusively for washing walls and floors; 2 Channels of marketing and sales for example, whether equipment is marketed or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities; 3 Actual sales.
The proposed amendment to the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve is not intended to change the scope of the definition. DOE is not proposing to cover equipment as a CPSV

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:57 May 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

that is not already covered under the current definition. The proposal would codify in the CFR existing guidance on the application of the current definition.
By codifying the guidance, manufacturers would have further certainty as to the application of the definition.
DOE requests comments on the proposed definition of CPSVs.
B. Updates to Industry Standards Currently, DOEs test procedure for CPSVs at 10 CFR 431.263 incorporates by reference ASTM F232413. The specific sections of ASTM F232413
that are applicable to the test method in 10 CFR 431.264 are the test methods for measuring flow rate at sections 6.1
through 6.9 except 6.4 and 6.7, 9.1
through 9.4, and 10.1 through 10.2.5 of ASTM F232413. 10 CFR 431.264b1.
The DOE test procedure incorporates the corresponding calculations in section 11.3.1 of ASTM F234313. For the spray force test method, the DOE
test procedure incorporates by reference sections 6.2, 6.4 through 6.9, 9.1
through 9.5.3.2, and 10.3.1 through 10.3.8 of ASTM F232413. 10 CFR
431.264b2.
Since publication of the December 2015 Final Rule, ASTM F232413 has been reaffirmed as the industry test procedure ASTM F232413 2019. The 2019 version contains no changes from the 2013 version. In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on updating the referenced industry standard to ASTM F232413 2019 and confirmation that this change would not result in any changes to the DOE test procedure. 85 FR 34541, 34543. In response, PMI commented that it supports incorporating the reaffirmed industry standard. PMI, No. 5 at p. 4
DOE did not receive any comments in opposition to this inquiry. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update the CPSV test procedure to reference the reaffirmed industry standard, ASTM F232413
2019.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to update the CPSV test procedure references to incorporate the reaffirmed industry standard ASTM
F232413 2019, and confirmation that such an update would not result in any substantive changes to the current test procedure.
C. Water Pressure EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended by DOE be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy and water efficiency, energy and water use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
42 U.S.C. 6293b3 ASTM F232413
specifies testing with a water pressure of 60 2 pounds per square inch psi.7
In the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE
concluded that 60 psi is representative of the water pressures observed across the nation, based on review of water pressure data for commercial kitchens across the U.S. 80 FR 81441, 81446
81447.
In the June 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment or any data on whether the test pressure of 60 2 psi continues to be representative of the average U.S.
water pressures in commercial kitchen settings. 85 FR 34541, 34544.
CA IOUs and NEEA both commented that low water pressure is the leading cause of reduced user satisfaction and can lead to consumers seeking other products or retrofit alterations. CA
IOUs, No. 3 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 6 at p. 2 Citing that the range of pressures can vary, CA IOUs and NEEA
recommended reducing the test pressure to 40 psi to ensure that CPSVs meet performance expectation for consumers with below-average water pressure. CA
IOUs, No. 3 at p. 13; NEEA, No. 6 at p. 2 CA IOUs stated that because flow rate increases with water pressure, if CPSVs can meet performance expectations at the lowest water pressure likely to be available in a building, then it is highly likely that the CPSV will also meet performance requirements at the higher water pressure. CA IOUs, No. 3 at p. 23 CA
IOUs and NEEA stated that lower water test pressure would ensure consumer utility, reduce user dissatisfaction, ensure higher retention rates of compliant CPSVs and low-flow CPSVs, and prevent customers from seeking out higher flowrate valves instead. CA
IOUs, No. 3 at p. 13; NEEA, No. 6 at p. 2
PMI commented that it believes the current test pressure of 60 2 psi is representative and it is not aware of any data or market feedback that would warrant revising the current test pressure. PMI, No. 5 at p. 4
As an accompaniment to the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE
provided a separate report titled Analysis of Water Pressure for Testing Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Final Report, 8 in which DOE collected data from studies that reported operating 7 The latest version of the industry standard, ASTM F232413 2019, that DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference in this document also specifies testing with a water pressure at 60 2 psi.
8 The water pressure sensitivity analysis is available at www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE2014BTTP0055.

E:FRFM20MYP1.SGM

20MYP1