[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32351-32365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021]
RIN 1904-AE75
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Faucets and
Showerheads
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for faucets and showerheads to incorporate the current
version of the referenced industry standard, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Standard A112.18.1-2018, ``Plumbing Fixture
Fittings.'' DOE also proposes to add definitions for low-pressure water
dispensers and pot fillers, and exclude them from the faucet
definition. Finally, DOE proposes to provide further detail for
conducting the flow rate measurement. DOE is seeking comment from
interested parties on the proposal.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday, June 22, 2022, from
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this proposal no later than August 1, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to FaucetShowerhead2019TP0021. Include docket number
EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public
[[Page 32352]]
comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit
comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. Email [email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') A112.18.1/
Canadian Standards Association (``CSA'') B125.1-2018 (with 10/18
Errata), ``Plumbing Supply Fittings,'' approved 2018 (``ASME A112.18.1-
2018'').
Copies of ASME A112.18.1-2018 can be obtained from American Society
of Mechanical Engineers at Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, or
by going to www.asme.org.
For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.M of this
document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Faucets
2. Showerheads
B. Updates to Industry Standards
C. Additional Direction in Conducting ASME A112.18.1-2018
D. Flow Restrictor Retention Test Method
E. Reporting
F. Clarification to 10 CFR 430.23 and Appendix S
G. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization with Industry Standards
H. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Faucets and showerheads are included in the list of ``covered
products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(15) and
(16)) DOE's test procedures for faucets and showerheads are currently
prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''),
Sec. 430.23 (s) and (t), respectively, and 10 CFR part 430 subpart B,
appendix S (``appendix S''). DOE regulations codify the statutory
standards for faucets and showerheads. 10 CFR 430.32(o) and (p). The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures
for faucets and showerheads and relevant background information
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy and water efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy or water efficiency.
These products include faucets and showerheads, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(15) and (16))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those
consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section 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 not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA directs that the test procedures for faucets and showerheads
are to be the test procedures specified in American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') Standard A112.18.1M-1989, ``Plumbing
Fixture
[[Page 32353]]
Fittings.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(A)) EPCA further directs that, if the
test procedure requirements of ASME A112.18.1M-1989 are revised at any
time and approved by the American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''), DOE must amend the Federal test procedures to conform to
the revised ASME standard, unless DOE determines by rule that to do so
would not meet the requirements of EPCA that the test procedures be
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure water use
during a representative average use cycle as determined by DOE, and not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(B); 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including faucets and
showerheads, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)(ii))
DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of its statutory
obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) and (7)(B))
B. Background
DOE's existing test procedures for faucets and showerheads appear
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix S.
DOE last amended the test procedures for faucets and showerheads on
October 23, 2013 (``October 2013 Final Rule''). 78 FR 62970. In that
final rule, DOE adopted through reference certain provisions of the
2012 version of ASME A112.18.1 as part of the test procedures for
faucets and showerheads. 78 FR 62970, 62982. Since then, the 2012
version of the ASME standard was re-affirmed in 2017, and then updated
in 2018 to ASME A112.18.1-2018, which is the current version of the
industry standard.
On September 2, 2021, DOE initiated an early assessment review of
the showerhead and faucet test procedure through the publication of a
request for information (``RFI''). 86 FR 49261 (``September 2021
RFI''). DOE solicited public comments, data, and information on all
aspects of, and any issues or problems with, the existing DOE test
procedure, including whether the test procedure needs updates or
revisions. On September 24, 2021, in response to a stakeholder
request,\3\ DOE extended the comment period for an additional 15 days.
86 FR 53013 (Sept. 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Comment EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021-0002 available at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-TP-0021-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 RFI from
the interested parties listed in Table I.I.
Table I.I--List of Commenters with Written Submissions in Response to the September 2021 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Supply Association........ ASA.................................. Trade Organization.
Appliance Standards Awareness Efficiency Advocates................. Efficiency Organization.
Project, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs.............................. Utilities.
Southern California Edison, San
Diego Gas & Electric Company;
collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Plumbing Manufacturers PMI.................................. Trade Organization.
International.
Ziesenheim......................... Ziesenheim........................... Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for faucets and showerheads. (Docket No. EERE-2019-
BT-TP-0021, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for a test
procedure rulemaking. Section 8(b) of appendix A states that if DOE
determines that it is appropriate to continue the test procedure
rulemaking after the early assessment process, it will provide further
opportunities for early public input through Federal Register
documents, including notices of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is
opting to deviate from this provision by publishing a NOPR following
the early assessment review RFI because, as discussed previously, DOE
requested comment on a number of specific topics in the September 2021
RFI, and comments received in response to the September 2021 RFI
informed the proposals included in this NOPR.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to:
(1) Include definitions for low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers;
(2) Update the faucet definition by explicitly excluding low-
pressure water dispensers and pot fillers;
(3) Incorporate by reference the latest revision to the applicable
industry standard--ASME A112.18.1-2018, ``Plumbing Supply Fittings'' as
it pertains to flow rate measurement; and
(4) Add further direction for conducting the flow rate measurement.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.
[[Page 32354]]
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not define low-pressure Defines the terms low- Clarifies scope
water dispensers or pot pressure water of coverage.
fillers. dispensers and pot
fillers.
Does not explicitly exclude Explicitly excludes Clarifies scope
low-pressure water dispensers low-pressure water of coverage.
or pot fillers from the dispensers and pot
faucet definition. fillers from the
faucet definition.
Incorporates the 2012 version Incorporates the 2018 Harmonize with
of ASME A112.18.1 for version of ASME updated
measurement of flow rate. Standard A112.18.1. industry
standard.
Aside from referencing ASME Adds additional Response to
A112.18.1, includes limited guidance, in stakeholder
guidance as to how to conduct accordance with comment;
the flow measurement test current industry improve
procedure. practices, to ensure repeatability
appropriate equipment of test
is being used and to results.
ensure repeatability
of the industry
standards in both the
fluid meter and time/
volume flow rate test
methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured flow
rate of faucets and showerheads, or require retesting or
recertification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed
amendments to the test procedures, if made final. DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed amendments to the test procedure are
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating costs
during a representative average use cycle, as required by EPCA.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed
amendments, if made final, would not increase the cost of testing.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section
III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its
test procedures for faucets and showerheads. For each proposed
amendment, DOE provides relevant background information, explains why
the amendment merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments,
and proposes a potential approach.
A. Scope of Applicability
This proposed rulemaking applies to faucets and showerheads, which
are discussed in the following sections.
1. Faucets
EPCA and DOE define ``faucet'' as a lavatory faucet, kitchen
faucet, metering faucet, or replacement aerator for a lavatory or
kitchen faucet. (42 U.S.C. 6291(31)(E); 10 CFR 430.2). In the September
2021 RFI, DOE stated that it had identified products characterized in
the market as ``low-pressure water dispensers'' and ``pot fillers,''
which appear to be within the scope of the statutory term ``faucet.''
86 FR 49261, 49263. DOE stated that it did not consider low-pressure
water dispensers or pot fillers when establishing the current test
procedure and standards for faucets. 86 FR 49261, 49264. Further, the
purpose of these products is typically to fill a vessel and as such,
the water usage associated with these products is directly related to
the size of the vessel and is independent of the flow rate of these
products. Id. at 86 FR 49263. As such, application of a maximum flow
rate \5\ to these products would not save any water and could diminish
the usefulness of such products by taking longer to fill a given
vessel. Id. Therefore, DOE stated that although low-pressure water
dispensers appear to meet the DOE definition of a faucet, there is
currently no applicable DOE test procedure for testing low-pressure
water dispensers or pot fillers because the DOE test procedure requires
testing faucets at 60 psi whereas low-pressure water dispensers operate
at 15 psi. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The DOE water conservation standard for faucets specifies
that water use must be ``measured at a flowing water pressure of 60
pounds per square inch [(`psi')].'' 10 CFR 430.32(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments regarding low-pressure water dispensers and
pot fillers.
ASA explained that it agrees with DOE's understanding of the
differences between ``low-pressure water dispensers'' and ``pot
fillers'' compared to conventional kitchen faucets. These products are
specifically intended and marketed by manufacturers for filling
operations only and not for tasks associated with conventional kitchen
faucets. (ASA, No. 6 at p.1) ASA asserted that nothing would be gained
by regulating low-pressure water dispensers or pot fillers since the
primary purpose is filling vessels, which is independent of flow rate.
ASA stated that regulating such devices would have an undesirable
effect of extending filling time for pot fillers. (ASA, No. 6 at p. 2)
The Efficiency Advocates similarly commented that application of
flow rate standards to low-pressure water dispensers and pot fillers
would not yield water savings, since the volume of water used by such
products would be determined by the volume of the vessel being filled.
The Efficiency Advocates did not recommend establishing test procedures
for low-pressure water dispensers and pot fillers. (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) The Efficiency Advocates commented, however,
that it is possible that pot fillers could be marketed for installation
over a sink as a high-flow alternative to a covered kitchen faucet and
recommended that DOE consider amending the definition of a kitchen
faucet to encompass any terminal fitting designed for discharge into a
kitchen sink at a water supply pressure of 20 psi or more. (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1)
PMI agreed with DOE's understanding of the key differences between
low-pressure water dispensers, pot fillers, and conventional kitchen
faucets. PMI commented that test procedures should not be updated to
include testing for low-pressure water dispensers or pot fillers given
the function for those products and water conservation is not
applicable to these products, as their intended use is for filling
vessels with specific volumes of water, and that measuring the flow
rate would not result in significant water savings. (PMI, No. 5 at p.
2-4)
Ziesenheim suggested that low-pressure water dispensers have the
potential to conserve water, though in a slightly different capacity
than traditional faucets, because the low pressure aspect of such water
dispensers would allow for more precision in filling the vessel, which
would decrease the likelihood of dispensing more water than needed.
Ziesenheim recommended that DOE incorporate a definition of low-
pressure water dispensers into the Federal regulations for faucets and
showerheads and use this definition to develop testing procedures and
coverage
[[Page 32355]]
under energy conservation standards. (Ziesenheim, No. 3 at p. 1)
Further, DOE received several comments regarding potential test
procedures for both low-pressure water dispensers and pot fillers.
PMI commented that the test procedures should not be updated to
include testing for low-pressure water dispensers or pot fillers, given
the functions of these products. (PMI, No. 5 at p. 3) PMI added that
low-pressure water dispensers are intended to operate at or around 15
psi in the field, and that these products are tested for a maximum flow
rate of 1.5 gpm at 15 psi, per the ASME A112.18.1-2018 requirements.
PMI commented that manufacturers are already testing low-pressure water
dispensers to ASME A112.18.1-2018 for certification purposes. (PMI, No.
5 at p. 5)
ASA stated that there may not be a typical water pressure for low-
pressure water dispensers--other than a maximum pressure of 15 psi--
because the ASME definition requires the pressure reducing valve that
regulates the pressure to the dispenser to be 15 psi or less. ASA also
commented that the dispenser is typically part of a system of which the
inter-relationship between the dispensing system components is a design
choice by a manufacturer. ASA stated that if the DOE test procedure is
not consistent with the industry consensus standard, there would be
anticipated additional costs associated with having to test to two
different requirements for low-pressure water dispensers. (ASA, No. 6
at p. 3)
As characterized by DOE in the September 2021 RFI and consistent
with comments, the purpose of low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers is to fill a vessel with water (e.g., a glass or a cooking
vessel). Given this function, the amount of water provided by such
products during consumer use would be dependent on the volume of the
vessel and independent of the flow rate of the product. Establishing
conservation standards for such products in terms of a maximum flow
rate in gallons per minute (``gpm'') would not result in any water
savings because the volume of water provided by such products is
dictated by the vessel to be filled as opposed to the flow rate.
Furthermore, establishing conservation standards could diminish the
usefulness of such products by increasing the amount of time required
to fill a vessel with a particular volume of water. Further, a test
procedure that would measure the flow rate of such products would not
provide meaningful information to consumers related to water usage.
Based on the foregoing, DOE has tentatively determined that that
low-pressure water dispensers and pot fillers are not within the
definition of ``faucet'' for the purposed of Part A of EPCA.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend the definition of ``faucet'' at
10 CFR 430.2 to explicitly exclude low-pressure water dispensers and
pot fillers. DOE proposes to define a faucet as ``a lavatory faucet,
kitchen faucet, metering faucet, or replacement aerator, excluding low-
pressure water dispensers and pot fillers.''
DOE requests comment on its proposed amendment to the definition of
``faucet'' to explicitly exclude ``low-pressure water dispenses'' and
``pot fillers.''
DOE proposes to add a definition for low-pressure water dispensers
in 10 CFR 430.2. ASME A112.18.1-2018 defines a low-pressure water
dispenser as ``a terminal fitting located downstream of a pressure
reducing valve that dispenses drinking hot water above 71 [deg]C (160
[deg]F) or cold water or both at a pressure of 105 kPA (15 psi) or
less.'' DOE notes that its authority generally applies to products as
manufactured, not to the installation of products. (See generally 42
U.S.C. 6302) Therefore, DOE is proposing to modify the ASME A112.18.1-
2018 definition to reference a product as manufactured, as opposed to
its installation location. Additionally, DOE is proposing to exclude
the drinking water temperature references. DOE has tentatively
determined that the specified pressure is the relevant characteristic
that would distinguish a low-pressure water dispenser from a faucet as
defined for the purpose of applicability of the test procedure.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to define low-pressure water dispenser as
``a terminal fitting that dispenses drinking water at a pressure of 105
kPA (15 psi) or less.''
DOE requests comment on proposing to adopt the ASME A112.18.1-2018
definition for ``low-pressure water dispenser,'' with modification as
described.
DOE tries to identify physical features in its definitions that
would allow a third-party to easily distinguish between products. DOE
has stated that relying on a manufacturer's intent can reduce
regulatory transparency, and creates challenges for enforcement. 87 FR
13901, 13904. Due to these concerns with trying to interpret whether a
product is designed to operate downstream of a pressure reducing valve
or not, DOE is also considering including other physical features in
the definition that would allow low-pressure water dispensers to be
easily identified, absent any information from the manufacturer. Based
on research of these products, DOE understands that low-pressure water
dispensers tend to have smaller diameter fittings for water
connections. DOE observed that low-pressure water dispensers have \1/
4\'' compression fittings, which is slightly smaller than the typical
\3/8\'' compression fitting of a faucet.
DOE requests comment as to any additional physical features that
distinguish a low-pressure water dispenser from a faucet.
DOE requests comment as to whether a \1/4\'' compression fitting
could be universally identified as a universal characteristic of low-
pressure water dispensers that distinguishes it from faucets.
Unlike ``low-pressure water dispenser,'' ASME A.112.18.1-2018 does
not define pot filler. DOE notes the concern raised by the Efficiency
Advocates that pot fillers could be installed over a kitchen sink. DOE
assessed products marketed as residential pot fillers and observed
several characteristics that make it unlikely for a pot filler to be
installed for regular discharge into a kitchen sink.
All the residential pot fillers DOE observed have an articulated
arm. The reason pot fillers have an articulated arm is because it
allows the pot filler to extend over a cooking surface, such as burners
on a range, to fill pots. When not in use, the articulation allows the
pot filler to be pushed flat against the wall and out of the way of the
cooking surface. Further, DOE observed that pot fillers have two shut-
off valves, one located at or near the wall and the other located at or
near the output of the pot filler. Given that pot-fillers are typically
installed over locations that do not have a drain (i.e., over a stove),
the two shut-off valves minimize the chance of accidentally turning on
the pot filler when there is not a vessel underneath because an
accidental bumping of one shut-off valve from the off to the on
position does not turn on the pot filler. Lastly, DOE observed that pot
fillers are designed for a single supply line (e.g., cold water),
limiting their suitability for use as a kitchen faucet, which are
generally supplied with both hot and cold water.
Based on these identifying characteristics, DOE proposes to define
pot filler in 10 CFR 430.2 as ``a terminal fitting with an articulated
arm and two or more shut-off valves that can accommodate only a single
supply water inlet.''
DOE requests comments on the proposed definition of ``pot filler''
and whether other characteristics would
[[Page 32356]]
more appropriately distinguish pot fillers from faucets, as defined by
EPCA and DOE.
2. Showerheads
EPCA defines ``showerhead'' as ``any showerhead (including a
handheld showerhead), except a safety shower showerhead.'' (42 U.S.C
6291(31)(D))
DOE also defines ``hand-held showerhead'' to mean a showerhead that
can be held or fixed in place for the purpose of spraying water onto a
bather and that is connected to a flexible hose. 10 CFR 430.2. ``Safety
shower showerhead'' is defined as a showerhead designed to meet the
requirements of International Equipment Safety association (``ISEA'')
standard ISEA Z358.1, American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash
and Shower Equipment.'' Id.
On July 22, 2021, DOE issued a NOPR in which it proposed to
reinstate the 2013 definition of ``showerhead'' by amending the
regulatory definition of ``showerhead'' to mean ``a component or set of
components distributed in commerce for attachment to a single supply
fitting, for spraying water onto a bather, typically from an overhead
position, excluding safety shower showerheads.'' 86 FR 38594, 38597,
38607 (``July 2021 NOPR'').\6\ On December 20, 2021, DOE published a
final rule that adopted the definition of ``showerhead'' as proposed in
the July 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 71797 (``December 2021 Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE also proposed to remove the regulatory definition of
``body spray.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the
definitional updates in ASME A112.18.1-2018 as it relates to
showerheads. 86 FR 49261, 49264. Specifically, DOE discussed that ASME
A112.18.1-2018 added new definitions for ``hand-held shower'' and
``rain shower.'' Id. Regarding ``hand-held shower'' DOE stated the DOE
definition is almost identical to the definition in the ASME industry
standard, and therefore tentatively concluded that there is no reason
to update this definition now. Id. Regarding ``rain shower,'' DOE noted
that the new definition was added to ASME A112.18.1-2018 in light of
the standard's new spray force requirements specific to rain showers.
Id. However, DOE tentatively concluded that there is no reason to
include the term and definition for rain shower because the DOE test
procedure only measures maximum water consumption and not spray force.
Id.
PMI commented that it concurs with DOE's proposal from the July
2021 NOPR to adopt the definition of showerhead that was effective in
2013. (PMI, No. 5 at p. 6) ASA and PMI stated that DOE should complete
the new showerheads definition rulemaking before taking any further
action on showerheads. (ASA, No. 6 at p. 3; PMI, No. 5 at p. 6)) As
explained previously, DOE has published a final rule adopting the
proposed definition.
Regarding a definition of ``rain shower,'' PMI commented that there
is no reason to include the term and definition for rain shower because
testing of flow rate for a rain shower would be the same as testing a
showerhead. PMI stated that the ASME industry standard only added a
definition for rain shower to address unique spray force requirements.
(PMI, No. 5 at p. 4) PMI also commented that the current definitions
are effective and new definitions are not necessary. (PMI, No. 5 at p.
5) ASA commented that adding a definition for rain shower would not
serve a purpose because the definition was added in the ASME industry
standard to support a spray force test method, not flow rate. (ASA, No.
6 at p. 2) Separately, Efficiency Advocates stated that they agree that
there is no need to make any updates to the definition of ``hand-held
showerhead'' nor to provide a separate definition for the term rain
shower. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
For the reasons discussed by stakeholders in their public comments
and by DOE in the September 2021 RFI, DOE is not proposing to amend the
definition of ``hand-held showerhead'' and is not proposing to define
``rain shower.''
DOE also received several comments on body sprays. In response to
the September 2021 RFI, CA IOUs recommended that DOE clarify that body
sprays, regardless of orientation, are subject to regulatory coverage
and that they must meet the same flow rate requirement as showerheads.
The CA IOUs commented that the California Code of Regulations, Title 20
Appliance Efficiency Regulations states that a showerhead is ``a device
through which water is discharged for a shower bath and includes a body
sprayer and handheld showerhead but does not include a safety
showerhead.'' (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1-2) The Efficiency Advocates
commented that DOE should make clear that the products that DOE
describes as ``body sprays'' are showerheads and must meet the
showerhead definition. The Efficiency Advocates asserted that since
products marketed as body sprays may just as easily be installed in an
overhead position as in any other position, these products meet the
statutory definition of showerhead, i.e., that ``showerheads'' spray
water ``typically from an overhead position.'' Further, the Efficiency
Advocates stated that the use of ``typically'' may leave ambiguity for
products that spray from another position or from multiple positions,
depending simply on installation. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 at p. 4)
In the December 2021 Final Rule, DOE withdrew the definition for
body spray.\7\ 86 FR 71797, 71806. DOE stated that the definition was
inconsistent with the express purpose of EPCA to conserve water and
does not best address the relationship between body sprays and
showerheads. Id. at 86 FR 71799. Further, DOE stated that industry
standards and the marketplace treat ``showerheads'' and ``body sprays''
similarly, with the only difference being in the installation location.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On December 16, 2020, DOE published a final rule that
adopted a definition for ``body spray'' as ``a shower device for
spraying water onto a bather from other than the overhead position.
A body spray is not a showerhead.'' 85 FR 81341, 81359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the regulatory definition of showerhead includes the
provision ``typically from an overhead position.'' 10 CFR 430.2 Given
the ``typically from an overhead position'' language in the definition,
DOE cannot make a general statement that all body sprays are
showerheads as some body sprays are installed exclusively at body
height and exclusively spray horizontally (i.e., are not overhead). DOE
has previously stated that when testing a shower tower (also known as
``shower panel'') assemblies, which includes body sprays, the
components that are typically overhead (i.e., the main showerhead and
hand-held showerheads) are to be tested with the full flow diverted to
those components only. In addition, where it is not possible to isolate
the covered portion of the shower tower, DOE stated that all components
are to be flowing at the maximum rate and the showerhead (which
encompasses the component or set of components that are ``typically
from an overhead position'') measured separately. 78 FR 62970, 62975.
Consistent with this testing, the definition of ``showerhead'' only
includes products that are ``typically from an overhead position.'' To
the extent that a body spray meets the definition of ``showerhead,''
such product is subject to the 2.5 gpm standard regardless of the
consumer installation orientation.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
Appendix S currently references ASME A112.18.1-2012 for the flow
rate
[[Page 32357]]
test method. In the September 2021 RFI, DOE discussed that ASME
A112.18.1-2012 was updated to the 2018 version, and that the main
updates included provisions to accommodate testing low-pressure water
dispensers. 86 FR 49261, 49625. As discussed in section III.A.1 of this
document, DOE is proposing to define low-pressure water dispensers and
pot fillers, and explicitly exclude these from the faucets definition.
Therefore, DOE is not proposing to establish test procedures for low-
pressure water dispensers and pot fillers.
Regarding showerheads, DOE discussed in the September 2021 RFI that
ASME A112.18.1-2018 does not contain any updates to the water
consumption test method for showerheads. 86 FR 49261, 49265. ASA
commented that no amendments are needed for the current DOE test
procedure for showerheads. (ASA, No. 6 at p. 3) PMI stated that no
changes to the existing test procedure for showerheads are needed, once
the 2013 definition of showerhead is finalized, because the current
test procedures adequately assess the flow rate of showerheads. (PMI,
No. 5 at p. 6) The Efficiency Advocates asserted that the test
procedures for faucets and showerheads would more accurately and fully
produce results that measure water use, if DOE adopted modifications to
some elements of the water consumption test in the revised standard.
(Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) A discussion of this comment
appears in the next section.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to update the faucets and
showerheads test procedure to reference the latest version of the
industry standard, which is ASME A112.18.1-2018. As previously
discussed, the updated standard does not include any amendments to the
test procedures for faucets, as proposed to be defined by this NOPR, or
for showerheads. DOE has tentatively determined that referencing the
most recent version of ASME A112.18.1-2018 would not impact (1) the
measured values of water use for faucets or showerheads under appendix
S, (2) the representativeness of the results, or (3) the test burden.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
ASME A112.18.1-2018.
C. Additional Direction in Conducting ASME A112.18.1-2018
As discussed, DOE's current test procedure for evaluating the flow
rate of faucets and showerheads is at appendix S and references ASME
A112.18-1-2012. Specifically, DOE adopts through reference ASME
A112.18.1-2012 Sections 5.4 and 5.4.2.2 which specify two alternate
methods for measuring the flow rate of showerhead and faucets. One
method, described as the fluid meter test, relies on a fluid meter
installed upstream of the showerhead or faucet for measuring the flow
rate. The second method, described as the time/volume method, relies on
a container placed downstream of the showerhead or faucet that collects
the water output during a measured period of time. The flow rate
calculation divides the volume of water collected by the duration of
time.
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference ASME A112.18.1-2018. The two methods for
measuring flow rate in ASME A112.18.1-2018 are identical to those in
ASME A112.18.1-2012.
In response to the September 2021 RFI, the Efficiency Advocates
asserted that ASME A112.18.1-2018 carries forth several deficiencies in
both methods from early versions of the test procedure. (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) Regarding testing of flow rate using the
fluid meter test, the Efficiency Advocates commented that the industry
test procedure lacks direction as to: (1) The type of meter acceptable
for test; (2) the normal operating range of the fluid meter and it
suitability to the target flow of the test; (3) a description of the
meter's register, including incremental units of measurement; and (4)
requirements for preconditioning of the meter before or between tests.
Id.
The Efficiency Advocates also commented that the industry test
procedure for the time/volume test lacks direction as to: (1) The
required dimensions of the receiving container; (2) any distance or
orientation between the specimen and container to preclude the
possibility of splashing water escaping; (3) the means of measuring the
volume of water in the container or deriving the volume of water from
the weight of the collected water; and (4) recording of elapsed time.
Id. The Efficiency Advocates suggested that DOE supplement ASME
A112.18.1-2018 with additional direction to ensure better accuracy,
similar to DOE's previous instruction that any container in the time/
volume test be positioned to capture any leakage from the ball joint of
the shower head. The Efficiency Advocates asserted that addressing
these gaps is unlikely to render testing unduly burdensome, but would
be likely to ensure greater standardization in test procedures and
instill greater confidence in test results. (Id. at pp. 2-3) Further,
the Efficiency Advocates commented that any inaccuracies would be
amplified if standards are lowered and because some states with more
stringent standards reference the DOE test procedure, the additional
standardization is needed. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
In response to similar comments received prior to the October 2013
Final Rule, DOE determined that there was no evidence that the time/
volume test method in ASME A112.18.1 did not meet the statutory
requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) for DOE to prescribe test
procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results that
measure water use during a representative average use cycle or period
of use. 78 FR 62970, 62975.
While DOE does not currently have any evidence that the current
test procedure is resulting in inaccurate measurements of flow rates
for faucets or showerheads, DOE is proposing additional detail to
ensure that amendments to the test procedure would provide more
accurate results.
DOE conducted a thorough review of ASME A112.18.1-2018 and
consulted two testing laboratories to identify common practices that
DOE has tentatively determined address the concerns identified by the
Efficiency Advocates without creating undue burden when testing. DOE
also reviewed other similar test procedures, such as ASTM International
(``ASTM'') F2324 ``Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,''
which is currently incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.263 and
referenced in 10 CFR 431.264 ``Uniform test method to measure flow rate
and spray force of commercial prerinse spray valves.'' The ASTM F2324
test method uses a time/volume test method to measure the flow rate of
commercial prerinse spray valves.
Regarding testing using the fluid meter test method in ASME
A112.18.1-2018, DOE notes that many different types of acceptable fluid
meters could be used. The consultation with the test laboratories
suggested that there are several different types of fluid meters that
they currently use, but so long as the fluid meter is rated for the
product flow rate and has been calibrated, any fluid meter type is
accurate. The test laboratories indicated further that the fluid meters
they use are capable of measuring with a precision of a minimum of two
significant figures.
Based on what DOE has identified as current laboratory practice,
DOE is proposing to add language to appendix S requiring that if the
fluid meter test is used, the fluid meter must be rated for the flow
rate range of the product being
[[Page 32358]]
tested. Further, DOE proposes that the fluid meter must be calibrated
in accordance with manufacturer printed instructions and at the
frequency specified in the manufacturer printed instructions. Finally,
DOE proposes that the fluid meter must be capable of reporting flow
rate to a resolution of no less than two significant figures.
DOE requests comment on the proposed additional specifications for
the fluid meter test and whether the proposed additional guidance is
consistent with current industry practice.
Regarding testing using the time/volume test method in ASME
A112.18.1-2018, the test laboratories commented that they vary the type
of receiving containers to ensure minimal water loss due to splashing.
ASTM F2324 states that the receiving container should be a ``carboy, or
equivalent container, for measuring the weight of the water during the
flow rate test. A 5-gal (19-L) carboy water bottle has been found
suitable (the carboy is the standard water bottle that is used for
water coolers)'' and further adds ``Note: 1--The 5-gal (19-L) carboy
container is the preferred container. With a narrow opening, the carboy
captures all the water during the test at higher water pressure which
can result in excess splashing.''
A carboy may not be appropriate for testing of showerheads as the
surface area of a showerhead is often larger than the carboy opening.
However, instruction to address the potential for splashing would apply
equally to the testing of showerheads. Reasonable efforts to control
splashing would include use of a container with a narrower opening or a
partial cover of the container.
The test laboratories stated that the time/volume test is conducted
for at least a minute, in accordance with Section 5.4.2.2 of ASME
A112.18.1-2018, and that the timing is measured with a stopwatch with a
resolution of 0.1 seconds. Once the time/volume test has concluded,
test labs stated that they convert the mass of water to a volume based
on the specific gravity of the water at the measured temperature.
In accordance with existing practices, DOE is proposing to add
language to appendix S requiring that if the time/volume test is used,
the receiving container must be of sufficient size to contain all the
water for a single test and have an opening size and/or a partial
cover, such that loss of water from splashing is minimized. Further,
DOE proposes to specify that the time/volume test is conducted for a
minimum of one minute and that time is measured using a stopwatch with
a minimum resolution of 0.1 seconds. DOE proposes to clarify that
measuring and recording the temperature of the water in this type of
test requires a thermocouple or similar device and only the following
two approaches are permissible: (1) At the receiving container
immediately after recording the mass of water, or (2) at the water in
the supply line any time during the duration of the time/volume test.
In addition, DOE proposes to require measuring the mass of water to at
least two significant figures following the time/volume test and
converting the mass to volume based on the specific gravity of water at
the recorded temperature. As discussed, the proposed amendments
providing additional specificity reflect an accurate method for
measuring flow rate and reflect current testing practice, and therefore
would not affect testing burden.
DOE requests comment on the proposed additional specifications for
the time/volume test method and whether there is any additional burden
associated with the proposed additional specifications.
DOE also requests comment on its determination that the proposed
methods for measuring the temperature of water align with current
industry practices for when conducting the time/volume test.
D. Flow Restrictor Retention Test Method
The current standards for showerheads include a requirement that
when used as a component of a showerhead, a flow-restricting insert
must be mechanically retained at the point of manufacture such that a
force of 8.0 pounds force (lbf) (36 Newtons) or more is required to
remove the flow-restricting insert, except that this requirement does
not apply to showerheads for which removal of the flow-restricting
insert would cause water to leak significantly from areas other than
the spray face. 10 CFR 430.32(p).
In response to the September 2021 RFI, the Efficiency Advocates
recommended that DOE propose a test method for flow restrictor
retention to verify compliance with the flow restricting insert
requirement. They stated that flow restrictors serve a critical
function and asserted that their casual removal jeopardizes the
effectiveness of the standard and its intended savings of energy and
water. They stated that DOE considered this issue in 2012-2013, and
developed a draft test of flow restrictor retention, but ultimately
reached no conclusion and deferred the issue for a future date.
(Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 and p. 3).
As noted by the Efficiency Advocates, DOE considered a test method
for flow restricting insert requirement during the previous rulemaking.
DOE proposed a simplified gravity pull-style test method for
verification of compliance with the requirements. 78 FR 20832, 20835-
20836 (Apr. 8, 2013). DOE based the proposal on tests that were
conducted on 21 showerheads, which included a variety of brands and
styles. The showerheads tested had disc inserts made of plastic or
rubber.\8\ Id. In conjunction with the proposal, DOE also published a
technical support document (``TSD'') that summarized the systematic
assessment DOE performed to arrive at the proposed test method.\9\ On
July 30, 2013, DOE held an additional public meeting to receive
comments on DOE's proposed test to verify mechanical retention of a
showerhead flow restrictor when subjected to 8 lbf. 78 FR 42719 (July
17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These were the only types for which a test procedure may be
appropriate. In general, DOE found four basic flow restrictor
designs--(1) Plastic discs, (2) Rubber discs, (3) Permanent flow
control and (4) Sealing gasket. DOE determined that the permanent
flow control designs automatically met the design requirement
because they did not contain a flow restrictor that could be removed
(i.e., it was integral to the showerhead). There is no need to test
showerheads that used a sealing gasket as the flow control mechanism
were exempt from the design requirement because the removal of the
flow-restrictor would cause water to leak significantly from areas
other than the spray face. 78 FR 20832, 20836.
\9\ Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TSD: Energy
Conservation Program Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures for Showerheads, Faucets,
Water Closets, Urinals, and Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves.
Showerhead Flow Control Insert Retention Testing;
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-TP-0061-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments from stakeholders stating that: (1) There are
thousands of showerhead geometries that require various methods to
measure the 8 pound-force limit for flow restrictor removal (PMI, EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0061, No. 36 at p. 2); (2) there is not one method to test
all inserts that that ANSI Recognized Certifying Bodies perform the 8
pound-force test depending on the geometry of the faucet (PMI, EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0061, No. 36 at p. 4); (3) because a product would have to
be tested in a specific manner, it would unavoidably hinder design
flexibility (Moen, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0061, No. 30 at p. 2); (4) flow
restrictor removal is not a widespread issue because most users are
sufficiently satisfied with current showerhead performance (Moen, EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0061, No. 30 at p. 2); and (5) for the majority of users,
removal of the
[[Page 32359]]
showerhead from the shower arm, including the identification and
removal of the correct components, is a sufficient amount of work to
deter them from altering their product (Moen, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0061, No.
30 at p. 2). In October 2013 Final Rule and in consideration of
comments received, DOE stated that further investigation of this issue
was necessary to understand clearly any prospective impacts of the
proposed test procedure prior to finalizing a test method, and did not
finalize a test method. 78 FR 62970, 62974.
The latest version of the industry standard, ASME A112.18.1-2018,
continues not to include any test method for showerhead flow retention.
DOE understands the main issue in developing a test method is that
there are numerous flow restrictor configurations and there may not be
one test method to suit all possible flow restrictors. For example,
regarding a pull-style test method as previously considered by DOE, one
commenter stated that many flow restrictors do not have sufficient
surface area or protrusion onto which a clamp can be fastened for the
test. (Kohler, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0061, No. 34 at p. 1) Given the
variation in design, DOE tentatively continues to find that a test
method may hinder product design. Moreover, DOE does not have any
indication that there is an issue in practice with customers removing
flow restriction devices. For the reasons discussed, DOE is not
proposing a test method for flow restrictor retention.
DOE requests comment and data on the prevalence of flow restrictors
being removed from a showerhead by consumers.
E. Reporting
Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For faucets and
showerheads, the certification template reflects the general
certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-
specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.28 and 10 CFR 429.29. DOE
is not proposing to amend the product-specific certification
requirements for these products.
F. Clarification to 10 CFR 430.23 and Appendix S
10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t) provide the test procedures for the
measurement of water consumption for faucets and showerheads,
respectively. 10 CFR 430.23(s) requires that ``the maximum permissible
water use allowed for lavatory faucets, lavatory replacement aerators,
kitchen faucets, and kitchen replacement aerators, expressed in gallons
and liters per minute (gpm and L/min), shall be measured in accordance
to section 2(a) of appendix S of this subpart. The maximum permissible
water use allowed for metering faucets, expressed in gallons and liters
per cycle (gal/cycle and L/cycle), shall be measured in accordance to
section 2(a) of appendix S of this subpart.'' Similarly, 10 CFR
430.23(t) requires that ``the maximum permissible water use allowed for
showerheads, expressed in gallons and liters per minute (gpm and L/
min), shall be measured in accordance to section 2(b) of appendix S of
this subpart.'' The language ``maximum permissible water use'' in the
aforementioned sections is incorrect, as the test procedures measure
water use. The term ``maximum permissible water use'' is instead
descriptive of a conservation standard. As such, DOE is proposing to
replace the language ``the maximum permissible water use allowed'' in
10 CFR 430.23(s) and 10 CFR 430.23(t) with ``the water use.'' This
amendment would clarify that the DOE test procedures measure water use,
whereas the standards in 10 CFR 430.32(s) and (t) establish the maximum
allowable water use for water closets and urinals, respectively.
DOE requests comment on the proposed updates for faucets and
showerheads to replace ``maximum permissible water use allowed'' with
``water use'' in 10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t), respectively.
Similarly, 10 CFR 430.23(s), 10 CFR 430.23(t), and appendix S state
that water use should be expressed in ``gallons and liters per minute
(gpm and L/min).'' The proposed wording is unclear and could mply that
manufacturers need to express results in both gpm and L/min. Instead,
manufacturers should use appendix S for results expressed in gpm or L/
min. Manufacturers do not have to report both. As such, DOE is
proposing to update language to state that water use is expressed in
gallons or liters per minute.
DOE requests comment on the proposed updates for faucets and
showerheads to replace ``gallons and liters per minute'' with ``gallons
or liters per minute.''
G. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
faucets and showerheads by updating references to the current industry
standard, defining low-pressure water dispensers and pot fillers and
explicitly excluding them from the definition of faucet, and specifying
additional instruction for conducting the flow rate tests in ASME
A112.18.1-2018 reflective of current testing laboratory practice. DOE
has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments would not
impact testing costs as discussed in the following paragraphs.
a. Update References to the Relevant Industry Standard
DOE proposes to update references to the current version of the
industry standard, ASME A112.18.1-2018. As stated in section III.B of
this document, the main updates between ASME A112.18.1-2012, which is
currently incorporated, and ASME A112.18.1-2018 accommodate low-
pressure water dispenser testing.
DOE is proposing to exclude explicitly low-pressure water
dispensers from the definition of faucet and therefore from the scope
of the DOE test procedure for faucets. As such, DOE has tentatively
determined that the updates to the industry standard would not affect
testing of faucets or showerheads or the measured flow rates.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
would not affect the representations of faucet or showerhead water use.
Based on this tentative determination, manufacturers would be able to
rely on data generated under the current test procedure if DOE adopts
the proposed amendments. As such, retesting of showerheads and faucets
would not be required solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the
proposed amendments to the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to incorporate by reference the latest version of
the industry standard, ASME A112.18.1-2018.
b. New and Amended Definitions
DOE proposes to define low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers and amend the definition of faucets to explicitly exclude those
products. These products were not previously considered within the
scope of the faucet definition and the proposed amendments clarify the
scope of the faucet definition. Accordingly, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed definitions of low-pressure water
dispensers and pot fillers and their explicit exclusion from the
definition of faucet would not affect which products are currently
subject to testing under the DOE test procedure.
[[Page 32360]]
DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to define low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers and to exclude them explicitly from the faucets definition.
c. Additional Direction in Conducting ASME A112.18.1
In addition to the proposed adoption of the test provisions in ASME
A112.18.1-2018, DOE proposes other clarifications to the test
procedure, namely specification on equipment and instrumentation,
measurement precision, and calculation of flow rate. As discussed, DOE
has tentatively determined that the additional specifications reflect
existing test laboratory practices. As such, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed amendments would not affect the
representations of faucet or showerhead water use. DOE has tentatively
determined that manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated
under the current test procedure if DOE adopts the proposed amendments.
DOE does not expect retesting of faucets would be required solely as a
result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test
procedure. Moreover, DOE has tentatively determined that the additional
specifications would not impact the testing cost, as they would reflect
current practice.
DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to add clarifications about conducting testing under
ASME A112.18.1-2018.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would fall short of
EPCA's requirements that DOE's test procedure be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, water use or estimated operating costs of that
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use.
Section 8(c) of appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. When the
industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test
procedures, DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process
to these standards as the DOE test procedure.
The test procedures for faucets and showerheads at appendix S adopt
through reference the relevant provisions of ASME A112.18.1-2012. The
provisions of the industry standard referenced in the Federal test
procedure provide procedures for testing and measuring water
consumption, specifications for test apparatus, and other general
requirements. The industry standard DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference via amendments described in this NOPR are discussed in
further detail in section IV.M of this document.
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed
updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test
procedure for faucets and showerheads.
H. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension
of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship
in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (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 website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
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 or earns less than the
average annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold
values set forth in these
[[Page 32361]]
regulation use size standards codes established by the North American
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') that are available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Plumbing equipment
manufacturers are classified under NAICS 332913 ``Plumbing Fixture
Fitting and Trim Manufacturing,'' and NAICS 327110 ``Pottery, Ceramics,
and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000
employees or fewer for an entity to be considered a small business
within these categories.
As described in section III.G., DOE has tentatively concluded that
none of the proposed test procedure amendments would result in
increased costs to manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE initially concludes
that the impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments proposed in
this NOPR would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of an
IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE requests comment on its assessment that there would be no costs
to small businesses as a result of the proposed test procedure
amendments.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of showerheads and faucets 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
showerheads and faucets. (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 35 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.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for showerheads and faucets in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may
consider proposals to amend the certification requirements and
reporting for showerheads and faucets under a separate rulemaking
regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address
changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
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 NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for faucets and showerheads. DOE has determined
that this proposed 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, DOE has determined that
adopting test procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer
products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the
[[Page 32362]]
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 www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the water consumption of faucets and showerheads is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedures for faucets and
showerheads would incorporate testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standards: ASME A112.18.1-2018.
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., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE will consult with both
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact
of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final
rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test
standard published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(``ASME'') and the Canadian Standards Association (``CSA Group''),
designated ASME A112.18.1-2018. ASME A112.18.1-2018 is an industry-
accepted test procedure that measures water consumption for faucets and
showerheads, and is applicable to products sold in North America. The
sections of ASME A112.18.1-2018 referenced are Section 5.4 ``Flow
rate'' which includes Section 5.4.1 ``Supply fittings'' and Section
5.4.2 ``Test procedure,'' which outline the procedures for testing and
measuring water consumption, specifications for test apparatus, and
other general requirements.
Copies of ASME A112.18.1-2018 can be obtained from American Society
of Mechanical Engineers at Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, or
by going to www.asme.org.
[[Page 32363]]
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's websites: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=40&action=viewcurrent and
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=2&action=viewlive. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed rulemaking and the topics
they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this proposed rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by
DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as
time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.\10\ Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1,
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect,
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted
[[Page 32364]]
via email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposed amendment to the
definition of ``faucet'' to explicitly exclude ``low-pressure water
dispenses'' and ``pot fillers.''
(2) DOE requests comment on proposing to adopt the ASME A112.18.1-
2018 definition for ``low-pressure water dispenser,'' with modification
as described.
(3) DOE requests comment as to any additional physical features
that could be used to distinguish a low-pressure water dispenser from a
faucet.
(4) DOE requests comment as to whether a \1/4\'' compression
fitting could be universally identified as a universal characteristic
of low-pressure water dispensers that distinguishes it from faucets.
(5) DOE requests comments on the proposed definition of ``pot
filler'' and whether other characteristics would more appropriately
distinguish pot fillers from faucets, as defined by EPCA and DOE.
(6) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference ASME A112.18.1-2018.
(7) DOE requests comment on the proposed additional specifications
for the fluid meter test and whether the proposed additional guidance
is consistent with current industry practice.
(8) DOE requests comment on the proposed additional specifications
for the time/volume test method and whether there is any additional
burden associated with the proposed additional specifications.
(9) DOE also requests comment on its determination that the
proposed methods for measuring the temperature of water align with
current industry practices for when conducting the time/volume test.
(10) DOE requests comment and data on the prevalence of flow
restrictors being removed from a showerhead by consumers.
(11) DOE requests comment on the proposed updates for faucets and
showerheads to replace ``maximum permissible water use allowed'' with
``water use'' in 10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t), respectively.
(12) DOE requests comment on the proposed updates for faucets and
showerheads to replace ``gallons and liters per minute'' with ``gallons
or liters per minute.''
(13) DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to incorporate by reference the latest version of
the industry standard, ASME A112.18.1-2018.
(14) DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to define low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers and to exclude them explicitly from the faucets definition.
(15) DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposed amendment to add clarificationons about conducting testing
under ASME A112.18.1-2018.
(16) DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the
proposed updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the
test procedure for faucets and showerheads.
(17) DOE requests comment on its assessment that there would be no
costs to small businesses as a result of the proposed test procedure
amendments.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 23,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
[[Page 32365]]
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition for ``Faucet''; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Low-pressure water
dispenser'' and ``Pot filler''.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Faucet means a lavatory faucet, kitchen faucet, metering faucet, or
replacement aerator, excluding low-pressure water dispensers and pot
fillers.
* * * * *
Low-pressure water dispenser means a terminal fitting that
dispenses drinking water at a pressure of 105 kPA (15 psi) or less.
* * * * *
Pot filler means a terminal fitting with an articulated arm and two
or more shut-off valves that can accommodate only a single supply water
inlet.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 430.3 in amended by revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) ASME A112.18.1-2018/CSA B125.1-2018 (with 10/18 Errata),
(``ASME A112.18.1''), ``Plumbing supply fittings,'' approved 2018, IBR
approved for appendix S to subpart B.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (s) and (t) to read
as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(s) Faucets. Measure the water use for lavatory faucets, lavatory
replacement aerators, kitchen faucets, and kitchen replacement
aerators, in gallons or liters per minute (gpm or L/min), in accordance
to section 2(a) of appendix S to this subpart. Measure the water use
for metering faucets, in gallons or liters per cycle (gal/cycle or L/
cycle), in accordance to section 2(a) of appendix S of this subpart.
(t) Showerheads. Measure the water use for showerheads, in gallons
or liters per minute (gpm or L/min), in accordance to section 2(b) of
appendix S to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
5. Appendix S to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix S to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Water Consumption of Faucets and Showerheads
Note: Before [date 180 Days After date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to
the water consumption of faucets and showerheads, including
compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in
accordance with either this appendix or appendix S as it appeared in
the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January 1, 2021.
On and after [date 180 days after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to
water consumption of faucets and showerheads, including compliance
certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance
with this appendix.
0. Incorporation by reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire
standard for ASME A112.18.1; however, only enumerated provisions of
ASME A112.18.1 apply to this appendix, as follows: Section 5.4
``Flow rate,'' including Figure 3 but excluding Table 1, and
sections 5.4.2.3.1(a) and (c), 5.4.2.3.2(b) and (c), and 5.4.3. When
there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in this
appendix takes precedence over ASME A112.18.1. Treat precatory
language in ASME A112.18.1 as mandatory.
1. Scope: This appendix covers the test requirements to measure
the hydraulic performance of faucets and showerheads.
2. Flow Capacity Requirements
a. Faucets--Measure the water flow rate for faucets, in gallons
per minute (gpm) or liters per minute (L/min), or gallons per cycle
(gal/cycle) or liters per cycle (L/cycle), in accordance with the
test requirements specified in Section 5.4, Flow Rate, of ASME
A112.18.1. Record measurements at the resolution of the test
instrumentation. Round each calculation to the same number of
significant digits as the previous step. Round the final water
consumption value to one decimal place for non-metered faucets, or
two decimal places for metered faucets.
b. Showerheads--Measure the water flow rate for showerheads, in
gallons per minute (gpm) or liters per minute (L/min), in accordance
with the test requirements specified in Section 5.4, Flow Rate, of
ASME A112.18.1. Record measurements at the resolution of the test
instrumentation. Round each calculation to the same number of
significant digits as the previous step. Round the final water
consumption value to one decimal place. If using the time/volume
method of Section 5.4.2.2(d) i, position the container to ensure it
collects all water flowing from the showerhead, including any
leakage from the ball joint.
2.1 General Instruction
2.1.1 Fluid Meter Test Method
When using the fluid meter method of Section 5.4.2.2(c) of ASME
A112.18.1 to measure flow rate, ensure the fluid meter meets the
following additional requirements, first, ensure the fluid meter is
rated for the flow rate range of the product being tested. Second,
ensure the fluid meter has a resolution for flow rate of no less
than two significant figures. Third, verify the fluid meter is
calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer printed instructions.
2.1.2 Time/Volume Test Method
There are several additional requirements when using the time/
volume method of Section 5.4.2.2(d) of ASME A112.18.1 to measure
flow rate. First, ensure the receiving container is large enough to
contain all the water for a single test and has an opening size and/
or a partial cover such that loss of water from splashing is
minimized. Second, conduct the time/volume test for at least one
minute, with the time recorded via a stopwatch with at least 0.1-
second resolution. Third, measure and record the temperature of the
water using a thermocouple or other similar device either at the
receiving container immediately after recording the mass of water,
or at the water in the supply line anytime during the duration of
the time/volume test. Fourth, measure the mass of water to at least
two significant figures and normalize it to gallons based on the
specific gravity of water at the recorded temperature.
[FR Doc. 2022-11438 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P