Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Order (7 CFR part 1212) is favored by eligible first handlers and importers of honey or honey products covered under the program. The Order is authorized under the Act.

The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from January 1 through December 31, 2021. Persons who handled or imported 250,000 or more pounds of honey or honey products during the representative period and are subject to assessments under the Order are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide the option for electronic balloting. The referendum will be conducted by express mail and electronic ballot from August 8, 2022 through August 26, 2022. Further details will be provided in the ballot instructions.

Section 518 of the Act authorizes continuance referenda. Under § 1212.81 of the Order, USDA must conduct a referendum every 7 years to determine whether persons subject to assessment favor continuance of the Order. The last referendum was held in 2015. USDA would continue the Order if continuance is favored by a majority of the first handlers and importers voting in the referendum, and a majority of volume voting in the referendum who, during the period from January 1 through December 31, 2021, have been engaged in the handling or importation of honey or honey products.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. It has been estimated that there are approximately 40 first handlers and 55 importers who will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.

Katie Cook, Marketing Specialist, and Heather Pichelman, Acting Director, Market Development Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1212.100 through 1212.108, which were issued pursuant to the Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.

The referendum agent will express mail or provide access electronically to the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known, eligible honey first handlers and importers prior to the first day of the voting period. Persons who handled or imported 250,000 or more pounds of honey or honey products during the representative period and are subject to assessments under the Order are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments during the entire representative period, from January 1 through December 31, 2021, are ineligible to vote. Any eligible first handler or importer who does not receive a ballot should contact the referendum agent no later than three days before the end of the voting period. Ballots delivered via express mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on August 26, 2022, to be counted.

Title III, Part B  1 of EPCA, 2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSFLs, the subject of this NOPD.

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed GSFLs subject to standards specified in 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart A, § 430.2.

DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy efficient GSFLs. For those GSFLs for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a national impact analysis (“NIA”). DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”) analyses, and estimated the net present value (“NPV”) of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers.

Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards for GSFLs do not need to be amended.

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for GSFLs.

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSFLs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemaking to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of 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).

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for GSFLs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE has determined that standby mode and off mode do not apply to GSFLs and that their energy use is accounted for entirely in the active mode. Therefore, DOE is not addressing standby and off modes, and will only address active mode in this proposed determination. In this analysis DOE considers only active mode in its determination of whether energy conservation standards need to be amended.

DOE must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))

A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is economically justified includes whether the proposed standard at that level is cost effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year review requirement in EPCA.

In a final rule published on January 26, 2015, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for GSFLs. 80 FR 4042 (“January 2015 final rule”). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(n) and repeated in Table II.1.

Amendments to EPCA in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (“EPAct 1992”; Pub. L. 102-486), established energy conservation standards for certain classes of GSFLs and incandescent reflector lamps (“IRLs”), and authorized DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) and (3)-(4)) EPCA also authorized DOE to adopt standards for additional GSFLs, if such standards were warranted. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)). DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in a final rule published on July 14, 2009, that adopted amended performance standards for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080. That rule adopted standards for additional GSFLs, amended the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” and “rated wattage,” and also adopted test procedures applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. Id. DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for GSFLs and IRLs by publishing a final rule on January 26, 2015. 80 FR 4042. In this rule DOE amended standards for GSFLs; and concluded that amending standards for IRLs would not be economically justified. Id. The current energy conservation standards for GSFLs are located in 10 CFR 430.32(n). The currently applicable DOE test procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.

In support of the present review of the GSFL energy conservation standards, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”), which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination of whether amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs are warranted. 85 FR 25326 (“May 2020 RFI”).

Subsequently, on May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule expanding the definition of general service lamp (“GSL”) to include IRLs. 87 FR 27461 May 2022 Final Rule. On that same day, DOE also published a final rule implementing a statutory backstop requirement applicable to GSLs which prohibits the sale of any GSL that is less than 45 lm/W. 87 FR 27439. Because IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet the 45 lm/W backstop requirement, DOE is no longer evaluating amended standards for IRLs and is only considering GSFLs in this NOPD.

DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 3

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 comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will not be less than 75 days. For this proposed determination, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated previously, DOE requested comment in the May 2020 RFI on the technical and economic analyses that would be used to determine whether a more stringent standard would result in significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE has determined that a 60-day comment period, in conjunction with the prior May 2020 RFI, provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop comments.

DOE developed this proposed determination after considering comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This notice addresses issues raised by these commenters.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The product classes for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail in section IV.B.4 of this document. This proposed determination covers GSFLs defined as any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: (1) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3) Colored fluorescent lamps; (4) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5) Reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) Fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment; (7) Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) Lamps with a Color Rendering Index of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.B.1 of this document.

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). DOE's current energy conservation standards for GSFLs are expressed in terms of lumens per watt (“lm/W”). ( See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R)

On July 6, 2009, DOE published a final rule that updated citations to industry standards and made several other modifications to the GSFL test procedure. 74 FR 31829. DOE further amended the test procedures to update references to industry standards for GSFLs in a final rule published on January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. On August 8, 2017, DOE published a RFI seeking comments on the current test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and general service incandescent lamps (“GSILs”). 82 FR 37031. On June 3, 2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing amendments to DOE's GSFL, IRL and GSIL test procedures. 86 FR 29888. (“June 2021 NOPR”) With regards to GSFLs, in the June 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards and provide cites to specific sections of these standards; clarify definitions, test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures; clarify test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements; allow manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at high frequency settings; revise the sampling requirements; and align sampling and certification requirements with proposed test procedure terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling program. 86 FR 29888. DOE continues to review comments received in response to the June 2021 NOPR.

The current test procedures for GSFLs are codified in appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A.

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B.3 of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for GSFLs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed determination. For further details on the screening analysis for this proposed determination, see chapter 4 of the NOPD technical support document (“TSD”).

As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered GSFLs, in this analysis it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for GSFLs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in section IV.C of this proposed determination and in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.

For each efficiency level (“EL”) evaluated, DOE projected energy savings from application of the EL to the GSFLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the potential standards (2026-2055). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the GSFLs purchased in the previous 30-year period. In order to account for wider market dynamics, DOE also modeled the purchases and energy consumption of tubular LEDs (“TLEDs”) over the same period that would compete for GSFL demand. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference in energy consumption of both GSFLs and TLEDs between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model  4 to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended or new standards for GSFLs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 5 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of this document.

In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global temperature. 6 As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether amended energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) ( referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the factors that DOE considers under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) in determining whether new or amended standards are economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)))

In determining cost effectiveness of amending standards for GSFLs, DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses that estimate the costs and benefits to users from standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the cost effectiveness of amended standards, DOE considers the NPV of total costs and benefits estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings.

Pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE publishing a notification of determination that energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not need to be amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that includes new proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The new proposed standards in any such NOPR must be based on the criteria established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and follow the procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this proposed determination with regard to GSFLs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections, and calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the website: www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030.

DOE received several comments from stakeholders in response to the May 2020 RFI regarding whether DOE should amend standards for GSFLs. NEMA stated that sales of GSFLs have been in a decline which is expected to continue as light-emitting diode (“LED”) replacement products (including integrated LED fixtures and LED replacement lamps) continue to replace GSFLs through naturally occurring market adoption without regulation. NEMA noted that based on the current rate of market decline, there is very limited, meaningful energy savings that can be economically justified through revised energy conservation standards for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)

NEMA also stated that slightly increasing the efficacy of fluorescent lamps will not achieve the desired energy savings DOE seeks and will only make lighted areas brighter. NEMA notes that because new construction and renovations are shifting to cost-competitive LED lighting, DOE's calculations in the previous rulemaking that show brighter fluorescent lamps will allow for fewer lamps, fixtures, and ballasts, are no longer realistic. As a result, NEMA notes that fluorescent lamps would not be used in fewer numbers and will still be driven at the rated wattage of the ballasts in existing fixtures, using the same amount of energy. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)

CEC agreed with DOE's findings in the May 2020 RFI that indicated that GSFLs on the market are more energy efficient than current federal standards. CEC noted that setting higher efficiency levels is cost effective and can be achieved using either fluorescent or LED lighting sources. Additionally, CEC pointed out that manufacturing costs and retail prices of TLED lamps are dropping while their market share is increasing and that this trend is expected to continue. CEC determined that more stringent standards will result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. CEC asserted that DOE should increase the minimum energy efficiency of GSFLs and consider the technology-neutral utility of replacement lamps by including TLED lamps as a feasible replacement option in its cost analysis. (CEC, No. 9 at p. 3)

ASAP et al. and CA IOUs noted that new GSFLs on the market that are currently certified in DOE's compliance certification database are more energy efficient than current federal standards and asserted that DOE should conduct a full analysis to determine whether standards for GSFLs should be amended as the market for GSFLs has changed substantially since the last rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that the new GSFL standards that required compliance in 2018 eliminated many lamp options and forced manufacturers to overhaul their product offerings. As a result, TLEDs have seen an increase in market supply, at a reduced price. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that raising the existing standards for GSFLs will affect their prices, resulting in a market shift to LED technology. ASAP et al. urged DOE to consider the economic and energy saving impacts in its evaluation of higher standards. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5)

As discussed in section II.A of this document, DOE is required to periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This proposed determination represents the mandatory 6-year review of standards for GSFLs. DOE discusses the methodology used to analyze potential standards in the following subsections of this section IV and the results of the analysis in section V of this document. DOE discusses the tentative conclusion regarding amended standards for GSFLs in section V.C of this document.

ASAP et al. highlighted two potential market failures that may hinder adoption of energy efficient products. One of the market failures was a lack of information about potential savings causing consumers to focus on lower first costs. The other market failure was a scenario where the entity making the purchase decision, such as the landlord, is not incentivized to purchase slightly more expensive energy efficient products over the lowest cost products. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 5-6) DOE appreciates the feedback regarding potential market failures in the context of amended energy conservation standards for GSFLs. More efficient substitutes for GSFLs and their associated product prices are discussed in section IV.C of this document. The shipments analysis and life-cycle cost analysis are discussed in sections IV.F and IV.E of this document.

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of GSFLs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for a complete discussion of the market and technology assessment.

In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of fluorescent lamp and general service fluorescent lamp in 10 CFR 430.2. A fluorescent lamp is a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light, including only the following: (1) Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (2) any 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8-foot high output (“HO”) lamp; (4) any 8-foot slimline lamp with a rated wattage of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot miniature bipin (“miniBP”) standard output (“SO”) lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; and (6) any 4-foot miniature bipin high output (“HO”) lamp with a rated wattage of 44 or more. 10 CFR 430.2. GSFL is defined as any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: (1) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3) colored fluorescent lamps; (4) impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5) reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment; (7) lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) lamps with a color rendering index (“CRI”) of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. Any product meeting the definition of GSFL is included in DOE's scope of coverage, though all products within the scope of coverage may not be subject to standards.

In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received several comments regarding extending coverage to currently exempt lamp types. ASAP et al., CA IOUs and CEC agreed that DOE should expand the GSFL definition to include impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater, and lamps less than 4-foot in length. ASAP et al., CA IOUs and CEC noted that excluding these lamp types from the current definition of GSFL has created a significant loophole in the GSFL standard resulting in increased sales of inefficient T12 lamps mainly comprised of impact-resistant fluorescent lamps and lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 2-4; CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2-3; CEC, No. 9 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that majority of the lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater are 4-foot T12 lamps and are mainly used in residential applications, while 8-foot T12 lamps are mainly deployed in commercial spaces. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 12) NEMA commented that DOE could consider including less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps in the scope, however, this lamp category exhibits significantly lower energy use per lamp relative to 4-foot linear fluorescent lamps. NEMA added that it is unaware of any new fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector lamp products coming to the market. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3)

Regarding exempt GSFLs, CEC supports two final rules DOE published on January 19, 2017, amending the definitions of GSL and GSIL  7 , which included a revised definition for “designed and marketed” that would require markings to be prominently displayed. CEC asserted that DOE should reinstate the revised definition for “designed and marketed” in its evaluation of standards for GSFLs. CEC noted that the reinstated definition would require exempt GSFLs to be designed and marketed for their specialty application, limiting their use in general lighting applications. (CEC, No. 9 at pp. 3-4) ASAP et al. added that if DOE decides to not set standards for impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, DOE should add a definition for these lamps to prevent potential loopholes. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5)

Based on information collected during manufacturer interviews, DOE determined that less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps are a small portion of the market and are decreasing in shipments. Therefore, DOE tentatively determined that standards for less than 4-foot lamps were unlikely to result in significant energy savings. Further, because these lamps are not regulated and yet are decreasing in shipments, DOE tentatively concluded that continuing to exclude these lamp types from the GSFL definition would likely not create a loophole in current standards for GSFLs. Regarding lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater and impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, these are exemptions stated in the statutory definition of “general service fluorescent lamp” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) and it is not within the scope of DOE's authority in this rulemaking to modify these exemptions for GSFLs. Given that EPCA's statutory definition of “general service fluorescent lamp” contains a number of express exclusions for certain categories of fluorescent lamps, DOE finds no basis in the language of EPCA to support assertions that the agency's authority to act under section 325(i)(5) of EPCA is unlimited. DOE believes section 325(i)(5) covers additional GSFL that are not one of the enumerated specialized products that EPCA excludes from coverage ( See 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)). 73 FR 13620, 13629 (Mar. 13, 2008). (emphasis added). For these reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE views “additional” GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as lamps that: (1) Meet the technical portion of the statutory definition of “fluorescent lamp” . . . (2) can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications . . . ; (3) are not within the exclusions from the definition of GSFL specified in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B); and (4) are ones for which EPCA does not prescribe standards. 74 FR 16920, 16926-16928 (emphasis added).

ASAP et al. commented that DOE should consider adopting a technology-agnostic approach that groups together all products that provide the same general lighting service. ASAP et al. pointed out that TLEDs have gained market share at the expense of GSFLs over time and are marketed as suitable substitutes for GSFLs. ASAP et al. noted that DOE has the broad authority to cover electric lights (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(v)) and any products that meet certain minimum consumption thresholds (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). (ASAP et al, No. 5 at p. 3)

DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that TLEDs have gained market share at the expense of GSFLs over time and are marketed as suitable substitutes for GSFLs. However, this proposed determination addresses only GSFLs defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is not authorized to consider any product not meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, as a part of this proposed determination.

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified several technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency ( i.e., efficacy or lumens per watt) of GSFLs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. To develop a list of technology options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications, technical journals, and the January 2015 final rule.

In response to the May 2020 RFI, ASAP et al. commented that lamps currently covered by standards include technology options that can be applied to the lamp types that can be added to scope, and DOE should evaluate these technology options for potential scope additions. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5) As discussed in section IV.B.1 of this NOPD, DOE has tentatively determined that modifications to the scope of lamps included as GSFLs are either not possible or not likely to result in significant energy savings.

DOE conducted research for this NOPD to identify new technology options for GSFLs. DOE identified mercury isotopes as a technology option that can be implemented to improve the efficiency of GSFLs. Mercury used in GSFLs is composed of seven different isotopes, each having a distinct excited state that provides ultraviolet (“UV”) light. The abundance of these isotopes can be altered to optimize the amount of UV light emitted and increase the efficiency of the lamp. For more detail on this technology option see chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD. In summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options shown in Table IV.1 of this document. These options are the same ones presented in the May 2020 RFI with the addition of mercury isotopes. Detailed descriptions of these technology options can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A. In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

For this analysis, DOE found that multi-photon phosphors are still not used in working prototypes or in commercially available products. DOE did not receive any comments on the screening analysis for GSFLs. In this NOPD, as it did in the January 2015 final rule (80 FR 4042, 4061), DOE continues to screen out multi-photon phosphors. Regarding the new technology option identified for this NOPD, DOE was not able to find mercury isotopes utilized in working prototypes or in commercially available products. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE has screened out mercury isotopes based on technological feasibility. See chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD for further details on the GSFL screening analysis.

After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the following technology options and considers them as design options in the engineering analysis:

(1) Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings

(2) Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition

(3) Higher Efficiency Phosphors

(4) Glass Coatings

(5) Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD.

In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

For GSFLs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(4) are based on 12 product classes, separated according to the following three factors: (1) Correlated color temperature (“CCT”); (2) physical constraints of lamps ( i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen package ( i.e., standard output (“SO”) versus high output (“HO”)).

NEMA and CA IOUs commented that there is no need for any changes to product classes or groupings, as the GSFL category is a mature and well-established technology and the current GSFL product classes adequately cover the GSFL products on the market today. NEMA commented that separating or combining any GSFL product classes would eliminate some features. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3) CA IOUs stated that any new GSFL product classes could create additional loopholes in the GSFL standards. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE agrees that the existing product classes sufficiently cover the GSFLs on the market. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any amendments to the existing GSFL product classes.

In this analysis, DOE proposes to maintain separate product classes for GSFLs based on the following three factors: (1) CCT ( i.e., less than or equal to versus greater than 4,500 K); (2) physical constraints of lamps ( i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen package ( i.e., standard output versus high output). In summary, DOE assesses the product classes shown in Table IV.2 in its analysis.

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between efficiency and cost for GSFLs. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze ( i.e., the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level ( i.e., the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses ( i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed efficiency levels in the market ( i.e., the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model ( i.e., the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

In this proposed determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level approach for GSFLs. In this NOPD, efficiency levels are referred to as efficacy levels (“ELs”) because GSFL efficiency is reported in terms of lumens per watt, which is known as the lamp's efficacy. DOE derives efficacy levels in the efficiency analysis and end-user prices in the cost analysis. DOE estimates the end-user price of GSFLs directly because reverse-engineering a lamp is impractical as the lamps are not easily disassembled. By combining the results of the efficiency analysis and the cost analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for use in the LCC and NIA. Section IV.C.2 discusses the cost analysis ( see chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for further details).

The methodology for the efficiency analysis consists of the following steps: (1) Select representative product classes, (2) select baseline lamps, (3) identify more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop efficacy levels by directly analyzing representative product classes, and (5) scale efficacy levels to non-representative product classes. The details of the efficiency analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.

NEMA commented that since GSFL technologies are fully mature, the previous analytical conclusions continue to be accurate when it comes to use of certain combinations of design options. NEMA strongly opposed any amendments to the current GSFL efficiency levels, stating that since any new research in this market segment is unlikely, the increase in efficiency levels threatens to significantly reduce the product offerings. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)

DOE agrees with NEMA that fluorescent is a more mature technology than LED, meaning that the rates of product development for the former are much slower than the rate for the latter. In the efficiency analysis, DOE reviews products certified in DOE's compliance certification database and offered in manufacturer catalogs and on retailer websites. DOE bases its more efficient substitutes on products currently or formerly offered for sale on the market. The more efficient substitutes and corresponding efficacy levels are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes, DOE identifies and selects certain product classes as “representative” and concentrates its analytical effort on those classes. DOE chooses product classes as representative primarily because of their high market volumes. DOE then scales its analytical findings for those representative product classes to other product classes that are not directly analyzed. Based on its assessment of product offerings, DOE analyzed as representative all GSFLs with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K with the exception of the 2-foot U-shaped lamps, as shown in gray in Table IV.3 of this document. DOE did not directly analyze GSFLs with CCTs greater than 4,500 K or GSFLs that are 2-foot U-shaped lamps of any CCT due to low shipment volumes.

For each representative product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical of that class ( e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. Typically, the baseline lamp is the most common, least efficacious lamp that meets existing standards. In this analysis, DOE selected as baselines the least efficacious lamps meeting standards that have common attributes for lamps in each product class such as diameter, wattage, CCT, lumen output, and lifetime.

NEMA commented that any review of reported lamp efficiencies for determining baseline models in each product class should start with DOE's compliance certification database. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 7).

To identify baseline lamps for this analysis, DOE reviewed data in the compliance certification database, product offerings in catalogs and on retailer websites, and manufacturer feedback obtained during interviews. DOE used the efficacy values of lamps in the compliance certification database to select baseline lamps. For representative product classes without certification data at the baseline, DOE used catalog and retailer data to select a baseline lamp. Specifically, DOE selected a baseline lamp from a retailer for the 8-foot single pin (“SP”) slimline product class because DOE was unable to identify any lamp in the compliance certification database that just meets the existing standards with common attributes for lamps in the product class.

DOE is proposing the GSFL baseline lamps specified in Table IV.4. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.

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.

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”), § 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.

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))

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 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))

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).

DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.I.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 4

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.

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.

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.

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.

This proposed rulemaking applies to faucets and showerheads, which are discussed in the following sections.

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.

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 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 °C (160 °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 more appropriately distinguish pot fillers from faucets, as defined by EPCA and DOE.

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”).

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.

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.

Appendix S currently references ASME A112.18.1-2012 for the flow rate 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.

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 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.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. )

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

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 .

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:

The revision and additions read as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0590; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01395-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Deep Gaurav, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; email: deep.gaurav@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-47, dated December 13, 2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-47) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0590.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the NDT procedure specified in MHI RJ CRJ200 Nondestructive Testing Manual (NDTM) Part 6—Eddy Current, procedure number 53-41-194, dated October 10, 2020, associated with airworthiness limitation task number 53-41-194 does not address all required inspections. MHI RJ CRJ200 NDTM Part 6—Eddy Current, procedure number 53-41-194, dated October 10, 2020, is a NDT procedure for the special detailed inspection (eddy current inspection) for surface and subsurface fatigue cracks at FS460 and FS513 referenced in airworthiness limitation task number 53-41-194. Airworthiness limitations are the outside marker to ensure the continued safety of an airplane but in this case, the procedure associated with the airworthiness limitation was inadequate, leading to missed fatigue cracking in these airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address such fatigue cracks, which could result in failure of the pressure floor skin and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane during flight. See the MCAI for additional background information.

MHI RJ Aviation ULC has issued MHI RJ CRJ200 NDTM Temporary Revision 53-109, dated March 5, 2021. This temporary revision describes a NDT procedure to do a special detailed inspection (eddy current inspection) for surface and subsurface cracks at FS460 and FS513. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require using a revised NDT procedure when performing a certain airworthiness limitation task. This AD also prohibits the use of earlier revisions of that NDT procedure when performing that airworthiness limitation task.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 427 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0591; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01302-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3229; email vladimir.ulyanov@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2019-23-02, Amendment 39-19795 (84 FR 64725, November 25, 2019) (AD 2019-23-02), which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series, A330-200 Freighter series, and A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2019-23-02 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2019-23-02 to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. AD 2019-23-02 specifies that accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of that AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-19-13, Amendment 39-19043 (82 FR 43837, September 20, 2017) (AD 2017-19-13); and AD 2018-24-04, Amendment 39-19508 (83 FR 60756, November 27, 2018) (AD 2018-24-04).

Since the FAA issued AD 2019-23-02, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. In addition, Model A330-841 and A330-941 airplanes have been added to the U.S. type certificate data sheet, the applicable airworthiness limitations documents, and this proposed AD.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0261, dated November 22, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0261) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, -841, and -941 airplanes.

Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after November 2, 2021, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0261 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures, including a limit of validity (LOV) for Model A330-841 and A330-941 airplanes.

This AD would also require Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated October 15, 2018; and Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 3.1, dated January 18, 2019, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 30, 2019 (84 FR 64725, November 25, 2019).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2019-23-02. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2021-0261 described previously, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2021-0261 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0261 by reference in the FAA final rule. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0261 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0261. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0261 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0591 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Additional FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 138 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2019-23-02 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0539; Airspace Docket No 22-AAL-13) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0539; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from the dependency on NDBs. The advances in technology have allowed for alternate navigation methods to support decommissioning of high cost ground navigation equipment. The FAA conducted a non-rulemaking study, in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, in 2021 on Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB due to the ongoing high cost of maintenance and repairs. As a result of the study, there were no objections received and the FAA added the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) navigational aid (NAVAID) to the schedule to be decommissioned.

With the planned decommissioning of the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the Colored Federal airway G-17. As a result, G-17 would be unusable. This proposal would revoke G-17 in its entirety. To overcome the loss of G-17, pilots equipped with Area Navigation (RNAV) capabilities may use RNAV T-route, T-235, as an alternate route. In a separate rule-making action, there is a proposal to extend RNAV T-235 to overlay the G-17 route segment that is proposed to be revoked. This action, if approved, would be in place prior to the revocation of G-17.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke the Colored Federal airway G-17 near Atqasuk, AK, due to the planned decommissioning of the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB. G-17 currently navigates between the Wainwright Village, AK, NDB and the Atqasuk, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to revoke G-17 in its entirety.

Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Colored Federal airway listed in this document would be removed subsequently from FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would modify the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0541; Airspace Docket No 22-AAL-48) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0541; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-48.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the Alaskan en-route navigation structure away from the dependency on NDBs. The advances in technology have allowed for alternate navigation methods to support the decommissioning of high cost ground navigation equipment. The FAA conducted a non-rulemaking study, in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, in 2021 on the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB due to the ongoing high cost of maintenance and repairs. As a result of the study, there were no objections to remove the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB. Therefore, the FAA proceeded to schedule the decommissioning of the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB.

With the planned decommissioning of Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB, the remaining ground-based coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the Alaskan V-621. As such, this proposal would result in the Alaskan V-621 being revoked. To overcome the loss of Alaskan V-621, pilots equipped with Area Navigation (RNAV) capabilities may use neighboring RNAV T-routes T-235, T-246, and T-267 as alternate routes.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke Alaskan VOR Federal airway V-621, due to the planned decommissioning of the Atqasuk, AK, (ATK) NDB. The proposed airway change is described below.

Alaskan V-621: Alaskan V-621 currently navigates between the Barrow, AK, VOR and the Atqasuk, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Alaskan VOR Federal airway listed in this document would be removed subsequently from FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brownsville General Hospital Heliport, Brownsville, PA due to the closing of the hospital.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0661 and Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-10) and be submitted in triplicate to the DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0661; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR 71 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brownsville General Hospital Heliport, Brownsville, PA, as the hospital has closed. Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0646; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-17) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0646; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA, 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify 4 VOR Federal Airways, (V-7, V-9, V-106, and V-214), and remove 7 VOR Federal Airways, (V-58, V-130, V-149, V-379, V-445, V-451, and V-479). The proposed changes are described below.

V-7: V-7 currently consists of three separate parts: From Dolphin, FL, to Muscle Shoals, AL; From Pocket City, IN, to the intersection of radials from the Chicago Heights, IL, and Badger, WI, navigation aids; and From Green Bay, WI, to Sawyer, MI. The FAA proposes amend the first part of the route by removing the segment between Vulcan, AL, and Muscle Shoals, AL. As amended, the first part of V-7 would extend between Dolphin, FL, and Montgomery, AL. The remaining two parts of the route would remain unchanged. Additionally, the current legal description of V-7 contains the following statements: “The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.” A review of aeronautical charts revealed that no part of V-7 extends outside of United States airspace. Therefore, the FAA intends to remove the statements from the legal description. Other changes to V-7 are being proposed in a separate docket action.

V-9: V-9 currently extends from Leeville, LA to Pontiac, IL; and from Janesville, WI, to Houghton, MI. This action would remove Sidon, MS, Marvell, AR, Gilmore, AR, and Malden, MO, from the route. As amended, V-9 would consist of three parts: From Leeville, LA, to Magnolia, MS; From Farmington, MO, to Pontiac, IL; and From Janesville, WI, to Houghton, MI.

V-58: V-58 currently consists of two parts: From Philipsburg, PA, to Williamsport, PA; and from the intersection of the Sparta, NJ, 018° and the Kingston NY, 270° radials to Nantucket, MA. This action proposes to remove the entire route. RNAV route T-216 replaces V-58.

V-106: V-106 currently extends between Johnstown, PA, and the intersection of the Wilkes-Barre, PA, 037 °, and the Sparta, NJ, 300 ° radials. This action would remove the segments from Selinsgrove, PA, to the intersection of the above Wilkes-Barre and Sparta radials. As amended, V-106 would extend from Johnstown, PA, to the intersection of the Johnstown 068 ° and the Selinsgrove 259 ° radials. RNAV route T-212 replaces the segments of V-106 being proposed for removal.

V-130: V-130 currently extends from Norwich, CT, to Marthas Vineyard, MA. The FAA proposes to remove the entire route. RNAV route T-255 replaces V-130.

V-149: V-149 currently extends from Allentown, PA, to Binghamton, NY. This action would remove the entire route. RNAV route T-221 replaces V-149.

V-214: V-214 currently consists of three parts: From Kokomo, IN, to Muncie, IN; From the intersection of the Appleton, OH, 236° and the Zanesville, OH, 274° radials to Bellaire, OH; and From Martinsburg, WV, to Teterboro, NJ. This action proposes to remove the segments from Martinsburg, WV, to Teterboro, NJ. As proposed, V-214 would extend from Kokomo, IN, to Muncie, IN; and From the intersection of the Appleton and Zanesville radials to Bellaire. RNAV route T-356 replaces V-214.

V-379: V-379 currently extends from Nottingham, MD, to Smyrna, DE. This route is not being used, therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the entire route. New performance Based Navigation procedures and T-routes have been designed to mirror current routings to and from the Washington, DC, Metropolitan area.

V-445: V-445 currently extends from the intersection of the Washington, DC, 065° and the Baltimore, MD, 197° radials, to LaGuardia, NY. This action would remove the entire route. RNAV route T-356 replaces portions of this route.

V-451: V-451 currently extends from LaGuardia, NY, to Groton, CT. This route is not being used, therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the entire route. New T-routes have been designed to mirror current routings to and from the New York Metropolitan area.

V-479: V-479 currently extends from Dupont, DE, to Yardley, PA. This route is not being used, therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the entire route. New T-routes have been designed to mirror current routings to and from the Philadelphia and New York Metropolitan areas.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would modify the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0540; Airspace Docket No 22-AAL-49) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0540; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-49.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from the dependency on NDBs. The advances in technology have allowed for alternate navigation methods to support decommissioning of high cost ground navigation equipment. The FAA conducted a non-rulemaking study, in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, in 2021 on the Point Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB due to the ongoing high cost of maintenance and repairs. As a result of the study, there were no objections received to remove the Point Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB. Therefore, the FAA proceeded to schedule the decommissioning of the Point Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB.

With the planned decommissioning of the Point Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB, the remaining ground-based coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of a portion of the Alaskan V-531. As such, this proposal would result in Alaskan V-531 being shortened with a new end point. To overcome the loss of a portion of Alaskan V-531, pilots equipped with Area Navigation (RNAV) capabilities may use RNAV T-route, T-229, as an alternate route. A separate rule-making action proposes to extend RNAV T-229 and have it overlay the proposed shortened segment of Alaskan V-531; this proposed extension of T-229 would be effective prior to the shortening of V-531.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend the Alaskan VOR Federal airway V-531, due to the planned decommissioning of the Point Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB. The proposed airway change is described below.

Alaskan V-531. Alaskan V-531 currently navigates between the Fairbanks, AK, VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) and the Point Hope, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to remove a portion of the airway between the Kotzebue, AK, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Point Hope, AK, NDB. The Alaskan airway would then terminate at the Kotzebue, AK, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Alaskan VOR Federal airway listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On January 8, 2021, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) for its SIP. The revision comprises the NNSR Certification for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pennsylvania is certifying that the Commonwealth's federally approved nonattainment new source review regulation in 25 Pennsylvania Code of Regulations (Pa. Code) Chapter 127 applies statewide and covers the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Pennsylvania asserts that its nonattainment new source review program is at least as stringent as the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, as amended by the final rule titled “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SRR) for ozone and its precursors. See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). 80 FR 65452 (October 26, 2015). Under EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 50.19 the 2015 8-hour ozone standard is obtained when the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires that EPA designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment Area was designated nonattainment and classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on August 3, 2018. Based on initial nonattainment designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the December 6, 2018, final SRR, Pennsylvania was required to develop a SIP revision addressing specific CAA requirements for the Philadelphia Area and submit to EPA a NNSR Certification SIP or SIP revision no later than 36 months after the effective date of area designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS ( i.e., August 3, 2021). See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). EPA's analysis of how this SIP revision addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided in Section II of this rulemaking action.

This rulemaking action is specific to Pennsylvania's NNSR requirements. NNSR is a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new major stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources located in a nonattainment area. The specific NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.160-165.

The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. See 40 CFR 51.1314. Under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS NNSR SIP requirements, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: (1) Set major source thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 1 )( i )-( iv ); (2) classify physical changes as a major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 3 ); (3) consider any significant net emissions increase of NO X as a significant net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); (4) consider certain increases of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as a significant net emissions increase and a major modification for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); (5) set significant emissions rates for VOCs and NO X as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); (6) contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)( 1 )-( 2 ); (7) provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); (8) set offset ratios for VOC and NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i)-(iii) (renumbered as (a)(9)(ii)-(iv) under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); and (9) in meeting emissions offset requirement of paragraph (a)(3), the emission offsets obtained be for the same regulated NSR pollutant with the exception of direct fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) emissions and emission of precursors of PM 2.5 pursuant 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11).

Pennsylvania's SIP approved NNSR program, established in the Pa. Code Rule 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127— Construction, Modification, Reactivation, and Operation of Sources, applies to the construction and modification of major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its October 30, 2017, SIP revision, Pennsylvania certifies that the version of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127 in the SIP is at least as stringent as the Federal NNSR requirements for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area. EPA last approved revisions to Pennsylvania's major NNSR SIP on February 22, 2019. In that action, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NNSR program under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and made PADEP's NNSR program consistent with Federal requirements. See 84 FR 5598 (February 22, 2019). The version of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127 that is contained in the current SIP and covers the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area and is adequate to meet all applicable NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS found in 40 CFR 51.165, and the SRR.

EPA's review of this material indicates that Pennsylvania's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement, meets the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area, which was submitted on January 8, 2020. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rulemaking, approving Pennsylvania's 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS Certification SIP revision for NNSR, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.