UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC HEARING ON TEST PROCEDURES AND CERTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS FOR PLUMBING PRODUCTS; AND

CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997

FORRESTAL BUILDING

ROOM 1-E245

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, S.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PRESENT:

BILL HUI

CYRUS NASSERI

GENE MARGOLIS

STEVEN TREADO

JACK SULLIVAN

DONA BROWNING

MICHAEL KOBEL

RICK CHURCH

BENNIE ELLISON

LARRY GALOWIN

ROBERT ROBERSON

TOM KONEN

TOM BROYLES

DICK KUCHNICKI

JERRY HENDRICKSON

JORGE CASTANEDA

ING. JAVIER BROWN

KEN WIJAYA.

PAUL FAHRENKRUG

MORRIE KLIMBOFF

JIM SARGENT

SALLY REMEDIOS

PATRICK HIGGINS

PETE DEMARCO

SHAHIN MOINIAN

MICHAEL MARTIN

I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
2

AGENDA

COMMENTS MADE BY: PAGE:

Jack Sullivan 12

Jack Sullivan 25

Michael Kobel 36

Michael Kobel 65

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. HUI: Good morning, I am Bill Hui, team

3 leader for the Plumbing Team in the Office of Codes and

4 Standards.

5 The following people are also on the team,

6 Cyrus Nasseri from the Office of Codes and Standards.

7 We have Gene Margolis from the Office of General

8 Counsel. We have Mark Fredrichs from the Policy

9 Office, who is not with us today. And Steve Treado

10 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

11 or NIST.

12 On behalf of the Department of Energy I would

13 like to thank all of you for taking the time to

14 participate in this public hearing. The purpose of

15 this hearing is to get stakeholder feedback on the

16 issues proposed by the Department in the notice of

17 proposed rulemaking for plumbing product or NOPR,

18 published on February 20, 1997 and to discuss other

19 pertinent issues that may not have been addressed in

20 the NOPR. The Department sent a letter of invitation on

21 February 20th, followed by a letter on March 3, 1997

22 announcing a change of date for the public hearing to

23 all interested parties that have participated in past

24 plumbing activities. A public notice announcing the

25 change of date was also published in the Federal

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
4

1 Register on March 24, 1997. Anyone attending today's

2 hearing or anyone who submitted comments will be added

3 to our mailing list for future mailings.

4 The comments received here today, those

5 submitted during the written comment period and any

6 comments received as a result of today's hearing, will

7 assist the Department in guiding its development of the

8 final rule of plumbing products.

9 I will be the presiding officer and

10 facilitator for this hearing. In addition, I will be

11 setting the guidelines for conducting the hearing and

12 providing other pertinent information.

13 In approximately two weeks a complete copy of

14 the transcript will be available for inspection and

15 copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of

16 Information Reading Room located in Room 1E-190. Anyone

17 wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript may make a

18 arrangement with the court reporter. To allow greater

19 participation, today's public hearing deviates from

20 past approaches as described in the February 20, 1997

21 notice of proposed rule. Instead, the agenda will be

22 structured in a topic by topic format and all

23 interested parties will be given the opportunity to be

24 heard at today's hearing. The Department has reviewed

25 the topic raised in statements by the scheduled

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
5

1 speakers and believes a topic to topic format would

2 adhere process improvement rule concerning open

3 communication and dialogues. The Department also

4 believes this approach would prompt greater

5 participation from interested persons and to encourage

6 them to provide the Department with as much pertinent

7 information and views as can be reasonably obtained at

8 each featured topic.

9 The Department will introduce each topic and

10 present the background information. Next the

11 Department will invite each scheduled speaker to

12 briefly summarize the key point of her or his prepared

13 statement. The Department may ask questions after

14 each statement and at other points during the

15 discussion. At the end of all scheduled statements on

16 each topic, the Department will invite participants to

17 comment on a statement just presented and/or present

18 her or his view on that topic. After discussion on a

19 topic is completed, each participant will be permitted

20 to briefly clarify her or his statement and comment on

21 statements made by others. When all agenda items have

22 been discussed, the Department will invite participants

23 to comment on the remaining items described in other

24 issues.

25 Next, the presiding officer will present

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
6

1 closing remarks. Afterward the audience will be

2 invited to fill an evaluation form before the public

3 hearing adjourns.

4 Are there any questions from the audience at

5 this time? All right.

6 We will take an hour lunch break at a

7 convenient time near 12 noon, which is on your own.

8 There is a snack bar one floor below us. There is a

9 DOE cafeteria on the second floor of the West Building.

10 And a number of restaurants and eateries in the

11 underground mall at L'Enfant Plaza up the street. In

12 addition a 15 minute break will be taken at a

13 convenient time.

14 The hearing will be expedited and we will be

15 assured of obtaining each participant's view if

16 everyone who wants to speak waits to be recognized.

17 Please remember to speak into the microphone. And there

18 are a few microphones that are not working properly and

19 if that is so, we have a hand held microphone that will

20 be brought to you when you want to make any comments or

21 presentations. And also please state your name and

22 your company's name each time you speak for the court

23 reporter.

24 Aside conversations should be kept to a

25 minimum to avoid interrupting the presenter. If a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
7

1 lengthy private discussion is needed, please move to a

2 corner of the room or out of the room.

3 It may be necessary to cut off debate on some

4 topic to maintain the schedule. There may be time at

5 the end of a hearing for additional discussion of

6 significant issues. I encourage all persons present to

7 participate as much as possible, so the Department may

8 get a full spectrum of opinions on these topics.

9 This hearing is scheduled to end by 5:00 p.m.

10 or sooner if all items have been completely discussed.

11 Topics which have not been completely discussed by 5:00

12 p.m., can be addressed in additional written comment.

13 The deadline for additional written comment is May 6,

14 1997. All written comment and data submission will be

15 available for public inspection at the DOE Freedom of

16 Information Reading Room. The phone number is (202)

17 586-6020. Written comments should be addressed to the

18 Department of Energy as noted in the Federal Register

19 of Notices for today's hearing. Ten copies of the

20 comments or data are requested. In addition, the

21 Department would appreciate an electronic copy of the

22 comment or data and the Department is currently using

23 Word Perfect 6.1. No fax comment will be accepted.

24 Any person submitting information which he or

25 she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
8

1 public disclosure, should submit one complete copy and

2 10 copies from which information claimed to be

3 confidential has been deleted. In accordance with the

4 procedure established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department

5 of Energy will make its own determination as to whether

6 the information shall be exempted from public

7 disclosure.

8 In keeping with the regulations for the

9 facility, there is no smoking allowed in this room or

10 building. The restrooms are down the hall to your left

11 and right, phones are located in the main lobby area.

12 Again, we appreciate the time and effort you

13 have taken in preparing for this hearing and are

14 pleased to receive your comment and opinion.

15 I would like to reiterate the purpose of the

16 hearing is to listen to your views, pertaining to the

17 issues proposed by the Department in a notice of

18 proposed rulemaking for plumbing products and to

19 discuss other pertinent issues that may not have been

20 addressed in the notice.

21 I would ask that if you have not signed in

22 yet, to please do so at the sign-in table. And at this

23 time I would like to begin introduction and I will

24 review the agenda.

25 And let me begin, my name again is Bill Hui,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
9

1 from the Department of Energy.

2 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, National Institute

3 of Standards and Technology.

4 MS. BROWNING: Dona Browning, Director of

5 Marketing and Public Relations for IAPMO.

6 MR. KOBEL: Mike Kobel, Director of Listing

7 Compliance with IAPMO.

8 MR. HENDRICKSON: Jerry Hendrickson, IAPMO.

9 MR. CASTANEDA: Jorge Castaneda, Research and

10 Development, Orion, Mexico.

11 MR. BROWN: Javier Brown, Quality Assurance,

12 Orion, Mexico.

13 MR. KUCHNICKI: Dick Kuchnicki, Council of

14 American Building Officials.

15 MR. WIJAYA: Ken Wijaya, Toto Kiki USA Inc.

16 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Paul Fahrenkrug,

17 Manufacturing/Compliance Engineer, Bradley Corporation.

18 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

19 Incorporated.

20 MR. VIOLA: Dave Viola, National Evaluation

21 Service.

22 MR. BROYLES: Tom Broyles Peerless Pottery.

23 MR. KONEN: Thomas Konen, Stevens Institute.

24 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California Energy

25 Commission.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
10

1 MR. ROBERSON: Robert Roberson, Underwriters

2 Laboratories, Incorporated.

3 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, National

4 Institute of Standards and Technology.

5 MR. ELLISON: Bennie Ellison, Universal Rundle

6 Corporation.

7 MR. HIGGINS: Pat Higgins, Higgins and

8 Associates.

9 MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

10 MR. DEMARCO: Pete DeMarco, American Standard.

11 MR. CHURCH: Rich Church, PMR.

12 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, Delta Faucet

13 Company.

14 MR. KLIMBOFF: Morrie Klimboff, Consultant,

15 representing Crane Plumbing.

16 MR. SULLIVAN: I am Jack Sullivan with the

17 American Waterworks Association.

18 MR. COVINO: Nick Covino, American Standard.

19 MR. HORNER: Tom Horner, Water Management.

20 MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, Department of

21 Energy.

22 MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams, Department of Energy.

23 MR. BERRENGER: Brian Berrenger, Department of

24 Energy.

25 MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, Department of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
11

1 Energy.

2 MR. MARGOLIS: Gene Margolis, Department of

3 Energy.

4 MR. HUI: Good. Thank you.

5 I would like to present the topic for

6 discussion. The topics for discussion at today's

7 hearing are listed on my left and also they are

8 presented in your handout in the agenda. Please review

9 the topic and let me know if anyone has any comments

10 regarding a topic that we are going to be discussing

11 today, whether we have left any items out or even on

12 the order, in which these topics will be presented.

13 Okay. Is everyone okay with the order and

14 the topics that will be presented? All right. All

15 right. In that case we will begin with Faucet

16 Standard, which is our topic number one.

17 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as

18 amended, prescribes statutory water conservation

19 standard for faucets, which refers to lavatory and

20 kitchen at 2.5 gallons permitted at 80 pounds per

21 square inch. EPCA also specifies that if ASME/ANSI

22 Standard is amended to improve the efficiency of water

23 use, the Secretary shall adopt the amended standard it

24 if conforms to the basic statutory requirement of the

25 law. Although the faucet standard was amended to 2.2

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
12

1 gallons permitted minute at 60 psi in ASME/ANSI

2 Standard A112.18.1M-1994, the Department concluded that

3 incorporation was not required since the amended

4 standard was theoretically equivalent to the statutory

5 requirement. However, to accommodate requests for

6 uniformity of a single standard in the industry, the

7 Department agreed to adopt the amended faucet standard.

8 In addition, ASME/ANSI Standard A112.18.lM-1994 was

9 updated and published as A112.18.1M-1996. However, the

10 standard for faucets remains unchanged.

11 The Department now seeks comments on whether

12 to adopt the amended standard for faucets contained in

13 both ASME/ANSI Standard A112.18.1M-1994 and

14 A112.18.1M-1996.

15 And we have one scheduled speaker for today

16 on this topic and it is AWWA. And AWWA is represented

17 by Ms. Dona Browning and -- I am sorry, Mr. Jack

18 Sullivan, excuse me.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: I thought I had changed quite a

20 bit.

21 PRESENTATION BY JACK SULLIVAN:

22 MR. SULLIVAN: First let me give you a little

23 background. The American Water Works Association is a

24 non profit Title 1C3 organization. We are an

25 educational and scientific organization. Our interest

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
13

1 is in water, specifically drinking water, but we get

2 into all water issues. We have been around for a long

3 time. And we look at things primarily from a

4 conservative standpoint. Our interest in water

5 conservation and establishing standards associated with

6 water conservation really started to peak in the early

7 '80s and we have been very forceful in our views in

8 trying to get some kind of national standard

9 established in conjunction with state efforts and I

10 will touch more on that in a minute, for a long time.

11 I would also like to say unequivocally that

12 the efforts that are currently going on on the Hill to

13 scuttle the 1992 Energy Act efforts, we strongly oppose

14 and will be actively opposing on the Hill.

15 As far as the standards are concerned, you

16 have in your handout a brief statement from AWWA. I

17 don't bother to read that. I would say that we

18 continue to support the standards as published and we

19 feel that they are adequate. I want to, however,

20 caveat that by getting into the state issue. And I

21 know that most of the people in this room are very,

22 very interested in single standards, unfortunately

23 water is a state issue. And I think you have to, you

24 have to accept that. And water is a very, very

25 sensitive state issue and in most cases, water both

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
14

1 quality and quantity wise is dictated by state law.

2 And therefore, we feel very strongly that the national

3 standards cannot usurp the authority of the state.

4 However, what we have said is the states should not

5 have a lesser standard. If they want a tighter

6 standard then certainly we would not object. Now, I

7 understand all the issues associated with manufacturing

8 and manufacturing to a single standard and so on and so

9 forth. I am somewhat disappointed that the states are

10 not adequately represented here, although we have

11 someone from the State of California. Because this

12 issue is going to be a big issue in the states. I can

13 tell you that water conservation is an enormous issue

14 to the City of New York and will continue to be. And

15 with that I think I have closed on this particular

16 topic.

17 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I have no

18 questions. Unless questions from the panel.

19 MR. MARGOLIS: Sir, what do you mean by the

20 states should have tighter standards than the federal

21 government?

22 MR. SULLIVAN: I think that their standards

23 cannot produce any less benefits than what we are

24 trying to strive on the federal standards. And I think

25 as we said in our public comment, we are great

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
15

1 believers in public participation and if the states are

2 going to have an additional standard than they, that

3 must be subject to public review, public participation

4 in the development. And above all, their standards

5 need to make sense.

6 MR. MARGOLIS: Do you realize that the federal

7 government standards preempt the state standards but

8 the states then could petition for preemption on

9 exemption from the standard? That is the only way

10 presently that Congress has allowed the states to have

11 more, other than being named in the legislation.

12 MR. SULLIVAN: I think you have the right as a

13 regulatory agency to set a standard and caveat that

14 standard by allowing the states to not do anything less

15 stringent. That is common in drinking water standards.

16 It is common in many, many other standards that exist.

17 MR. MARGOLIS: Less stringent, yes, but for

18 them to be more stringent.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about more

20 stringent. I am sorry. Depending on how you interpret

21 what side of the fence you are on. I am saying that

22 they must, if the states are going to have an

23 additional standard, those standards must produce more

24 benefits than your standards do. Otherwise, they

25 should not be allowed. So they must prove the fact

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
16

1 that they are more beneficial.

2 MR. MARGOLIS: All right. They must come to

3 the Department of Energy to prove that their

4 standard --

5 MR. SULLIVAN: They have got to make their

6 case.

7 MR. MARGOLIS: Right.

8 MR. SULLIVAN: And they have got to make their

9 case to you, they have to make their case to the public

10 as well.

11 MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

12 MR. HUI: Cyrus, do you have any questions?

13 MR. NASSERI: No, thank you, none.

14 MR. HUI: Steve?

15 MR. TREADO: No.

16 MR. HUI: Again, thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

17 The floor is now open for anyone who wants to

18 provide additional comment. Please say your name,

19 please.

20 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin. Does the AWWA of

21 membership in any community impose any requirement on

22 product labeling or certification of a product in order

23 for products to be used in buildings or is that arena

24 that the AWWA never, AWWA constituency, never enters

25 into?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
17

1 MR. SULLIVAN: Our --

MR. HUI : If you could say your name again,

3 please?

4 MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan from the American

5 Water Works Association. Our standards, the standards

6 that we promulgate our voluntary standards, they do not

7 impose any kind of a requirement on anyone. And they

8 are just exactly what said, they are voluntary

9 standards, they are not specifications, they are not

10 certification requirements or anything of that nature.

11 MR. HUI: Any additional comment? Yes, please

12 say your name , please.

13 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian from Moen

14 Incorporated.

15 I was surprised at Mr. Sullivan's comment. I

16 think the whole problem with the Energy Policy Act, the

17 way it is put together is the fact that it allows the

18 states or a few states that could be exempt from the

19 law. The moment of all the manufacturers, not all the

20 manufacturers, are complying not with the Energy Policy

21 Act, not with the FDC labeling rule, but with the State

22 of New Hampshire requirement which is 2.0 and 80 psi

23 for faucets. So, if there is a law I feel that it

24 should apply for all the states and there shouldn't be

25 any exemptions anywhere in the United States,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
18

1 otherwise, it all becomes meaningless.

2 MR. HUI: Yes, Mr. Michael Martin.

3 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California Energy

4 Commission.

5 This particular agenda item is a very narrow

6 one. And based on this change in pressure we at the

7 California Energy Commission welcome the change that

8 you are making. We consider it not a new standard but

9 another way of expressing the same standard and it

10 brings your regulations in line with our regulations

11 and in line with the ASME standard. And we support

12 what you are doing.

13 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

14 Any further comment? Gene?

15 MR. MARGOLIS: The standard that you had just

16 mentioned, the New Hampshire --

17 MR. MOINIAN: New Hampshire requirements at

18 the moment are 2.0 at 80 psi for lavatory and kitchen

19 faucets. Rhode Island, I meant Rhode Island. Rhode

20 Island, Rhode Island.

21 MR. MARGOLIS: I am looking in the statute,

22 because I think that --

23 MR. MOINIAN: Rhode Island is exempt from --

24 that is a problem.

25 MR. MARGOLIS: Well, because New Hampshire was

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
19

1 a new -- I am saying that there is nothing that the

2 Department can do.

3 MR. MOINIAN: I understand, I understand, but

4 it would be nice for people to at least think about it

5 and use, you know, go to their legislation, legislative

6 processes and try to fix this issue.

7 MR. MARGOLIS: But, that standard is

8 applicable to Rhode Island. Now, if the manufacturers

9 for other states in the country want, you know, to

10 conform to that standard, that is optional with them.

11 They do not have to, but of course, the manufacturing

12 process might make them to conform to that standard

13 because it might be financially less costly.

14 MR. MOINIAN: Right. Correct.

15 MR. MARGOLIS: That choice is left to the

16 manufacturer.

17 MR. MOINIAN: It is, but if you want to sell

18 across the United States and you want to save the

19 consumers money also, it is best to have a consistent

20 process. A good example is emission rules are

21 different than in the State of California than most

22 states in the United States. And auto manufacturers

23 make automobiles specifically for the State of

24 California, they are more expense.

25 MR. HUI: Are there any additional comments on

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
20

1 this issue concerning standard for faucets?

2 Yes?

3 MR. CHURCH: Rick Church, Plumbing

4 Manufacturers Institute.

5 We would just like to say that we are in

6 support of the Department updating the version of 18.1

7 to the 1996 version the standard. We believe that the

8 flow rate water conservation requirements in that

9 standard are the same as the 1994 version and

10 therefore, it ought to be updated.

11 MR. HUI: Thank you for your comment, Mr.

12 Church.

13 Any additional comments?

14 MR. KOBEL: On behalf of IAPMO, my name is

15 Michael Kobel. IAPMO has also already adopted the '96

16 version of that standard and all the manufacturers that

17 participated in our listing program are following the

18 '96 standard, so it seems very appropriate that the

19 Department of Energy would include that in the proposed

20 rules.

21 MR. HUI: Thank you. A follow-up question. I

22 thought IAPMO in the directory of water conserving

23 product list 1994 version as the current standard 18.1

24 that is currently being recognized.

25 MR. KOBEL: The one that you have isn't the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
21

1 latest version.

2 MR. HUI: It is not the version, okay.

3 MR. KOBEL: Sorry.

4 MR. HUI: Okay.

5 MR. KOBEL: We do use the '96 standard now.

6 MR. HUI: All right. Thank you.

7 Any further comments on this topic? If not,

8 we will --

9 Mr. NASSERI: I would like to, Cyrus Nasseri,

10 Department of Energy.

11 You are basically referring to

12 A12.18.1M-1994?

13 MR. KOBEL: Yes, '96, yes.

14 MR. NASSERI: You list here as the 1994. Are

15 you saying that should this '96, is the later version

16 of this?

17 MR. KOBEL: Yes.

18 MR. NASSERI: That is what you are referring

19 to?

20 MR. KOBEL: Yes, yes.

21 MR. NASSERI: And you are saying that the

22 standards in the 1994 version of this standard is

23 identical to the 1996 with no change, as far as --

24 MR. KOBEL: In relation to water conservation.

25 MR. NASSERI: Yes, as far as what we regulate.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
22

1 MR. KOBEL: Yes.

2 MR. NASSERI: Flow rate against the pressure.

3 MR. KOBEL: Yes.

4 MR. NASSERI: Okay. Thank you.

5 MR. HUI: Yes?

6 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

7 Incorporated.

8 We are also going to support the Department's

9 adoption of 1996 version of 18.1M. I am surprised that

10 IAPMO has already adopted that '96 version. We are

11 going to support that also.

12 MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

13 I would like to ask a question between the

14 1996 and 1994 versions. In '94 you give the

15 temperature, you have it -- All right, say 40 degrees

16 Fahrenheit and then you put the Celsius in parentheses,

17 then when you move to '96 you reverse that. And your

18 conversion units aren't the same. You had 410 apa, now

19 you have 413. It would seem that it was possibly

20 conversion factors. But, could we have an explanation

21 of why there is a discrepancy in the figures?

22 MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company,

23 Chairman of Panel 18. The 1996 version is essentially

24 identical to the 1994 version with the exception of the

25 back low back requirements. That has been referred to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
23

1 another new standard, A112.18.3. The other changes

2 that, yes, we did put the metric first and then English

3 version of the measures second. That is something that

4 is happening with all ASME standards as it relates to

5 plumbing.

6 Thirdly, the conversions I think are correct

7 on this 1996 issue. There seems to be a slight

8 difference of opinion on how you convert from English

9 to Metric and where you round off and where you don't

10 round off. And obviously we made some mistakes we

11 think in the '94 version. We hope we corrected them in

12 the 1996 version.

13 MR. MARGOLIS: Now except the things that you

14 have mentioned, the two standards, are they identical?

15 MR. SARGENT: They are identical.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

17 MR. SARGENT: And as far as, may I add one

18 more comment? Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

19 As far as DOE is concerned, and you are

20 concerned with the water conservation only. You will

21 have no problem adopting either the '94 or the '96.

22 MR. HUI: Thank you. Any comments?

23 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen,

24 Incorporated.

25 Just to follow-up on what Jim just said. It

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
24

1 is correct as far as DOE is concerned. All DOE is

2 concerned about is the flow rate, but when you apply,

3 this is our understanding that when you apply

4 A112.18.1M on the product, you basically mean that you

5 comply with all the requirements of that standard not

6 just the flow rate.

7 MR. HUI: Thank you. May we move onto the

8 second topic, if there are no additional comment on

9 this issue?

10 Okay. The second topic is on Statistical

11 Sampling Plans for Certification Testing. Statistical

12 sampling plans are designed to give reasonable

13 assurances that the true mean performance of the

14 product being manufactured and sold meets or conforms

15 to the Department's water consumption standard without

16 imposing an unnecessary financial and then burden on

17 the manufacturers. In the proposed rule, the

18 Department proposed statistical sampling plans for

19 faucets and showerheads utilizing one-sided confidence

20 limit at 95 percent with a 1.05 deviser, and for water

21 closets and urinals, 90 percent at 1.10.

22 The Department now seeks comments on the

23 proposed statistical sampling plans for faucets and

24 showerheads and water closets and urinals. And we

25 again have one speaker and it is the American Water

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
25

1 Works Association, Mr. Jack Sullivan.

2 PRESENTATION BY JACK SULLIVAN:

3 MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan, from the

4 American Water Works Association.

5 Again, I refer you to the comments that are

6 in your handout from us. Let me just state that we

7 concur with DOE's choice of sampling plan and we did

8 that on the basis of, we had a statistical analysis

9 done on both plans by the Technology Planning and

10 Management Corporation and then we had a peer review

11 through our volunteer structure. And on the basis of

12 that, we felt that the, there were more advantages to

13 the DOE sampling plan and therefore, support that

14 particular plan.

15 I think also you note that the next to last

16 bullet on our comments, I think is applicable here and

17 that is that we continue to maintain that a confidence

18 limit of 90 percent and a divisor of 1.1 is appropriate

19 for toilets and urinals, while a confidence limit of 95

20 percent and a divisor of 1.05 is appropriate for

21 faucets and showerheads. That is also all based on the

22 analysis that we went through in, for determining this

23 factor.

24 MR. HUI: Thank you for your comments, Mr.

25 Sullivan.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
26

1 Questions from the Panel? I don't have any

2 questions.

3 MR. SULLIVAN: I might add that that is, we

4 have submitted that report as part of the docket and

5 will be in our written comments and will be publicly

6 available, I assume.

7 MR. HUI: Thank you. Yes?

8 MR. KONEN: Thomas Konen, Stevens Institute.

9 It is my understanding that the divisor is

10 1.05 and 1.10 do not come into play until you go into

11 your second sampling selection, is that correct?

12 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST.

13 No, actually those are the divisors which are

14 used for the compliance certification. The second

15 stage, which is enforcement, does not use those

16 divisors.

17 I have one additional comment which relates

18 to the number of significant figures, which are used in

19 computing the mean in the standard deviation. Since the

20 confidence interval values, the upper confidence limit

21 value for compliance is a function of the standard

22 deviation, if the individual measurements are made and

23 rounded to a 10th of a gallon, the center deviation

24 will be different than if more significant figures are

25 carried through. I wondered whether the manufacturers

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
27

1 had any comment on how they apply to ASME standards

2 now, coming up with values. I guess it is a little

3 more involved with the water closets and urinals which,

4 in which each measured value is actually averaged to

5 the end, keeping in mind that the Department is only

6 requiring the compliance reported to a 10th of a gallon

7 per minute, 10th a gallon per flush. Is there any

8 particular approach which is taken now? I can explain

9 that better --

10 Well, basically if, in the process of coming

11 up with a mean in the standard deviation, which is

12 required to compute the upper confidence limit, the

13 standard deviation value will be different depending

14 upon whether the values of the individual trials are

15 rounded to a 10th or 100th or 1000th or whatever, there

16 is a potential for that standard deviation to be

17 different, which would directly affect the company take

18 the resulting upper confidence limit. And as a matter

19 of fact, when you go to the enforcement, and you are

20 computing what is called the upper control limit, you

21 get the same affect and center deviation actually works

22 somewhat in favor of the manufacturer's for enforcement

23 and less in favor of manufacturer's compliance. I am

24 just wondering what, how is the standard applied now in

25 coming up with the values?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
28

1 MR. DEMARCO: Okay, right now the standard,

2 Pete DeMarco, American Standard, also currently,

3 chairman of 19.2 and currently there is no statistical

4 requirement in the ASME standard. In order to show

5 compliance you should have a standard for water

6 consumption, that sample is tested at three various

7 pressures and three test runs at each pressure. That

8 averaged, those trials are then averaged without any

9 statistical sampling being done, whatsoever. If they

10 average under 1.6 the model is considered to be in

11 compliance. So, the current standard does not require

12 a mean or a standard deviation to be applied, nor is a

13 determined compliance. The sampling plan will be

14 unique to the compliance, to the Department of Energy.

15 Now, and when we do test to the standard as

16 far as the test labs are concerned, they will test to

17 the level of accuracy of the equipment basically, which

18 there is a minimum accuracy required by the standard.

19 The standard does allow for more accurate apparatus to

20 be used, but not less than -- which is a 10th of a

21 gallon.

22 Now, the rule of the, the proposed rule and

23 the Department of Energy does require a 10th of a

24 gallon rounding, and I don't consider that to be a

25 problem as far as American Standard is concerned to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
29

1 demonstrate and demonstrate compliance in either of the

2 initial plan or the enforcement plan.

3 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST, to follow up

4 on that. Maybe I can state more clearly since you

5 mentioned the example of the water and the applying of

6 standard 19.6 in the upcoming 19.2. Nine measurements

7 go into coming up with a single value, which would then

8 in the case of DOE sampling plan, would be repeated for

9 a number of units. And if you ended up rounding those

10 values to a 10th of a gallon before you computed the

11 sample mean standard deviation, you would get

12 different, a different answer than you would if you

13 kept two or three significant figures and then just

14 recorded the values in a 10th of a gallon. That is the

15 issue I was referring to.

16 MR. DEMARCO: I can't say on my part that I

17 have evaluated the sampling scheme to determine the

18 difference in what would be simpler not to be using

19 those two different scenarios.

20 MR. HUI: Does anyone wish to offer additional

21 comment on this topic? Yes?

22 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin. This is not quite

23 on the numerical aspect of the statistics, but I am

24 assuming DOE will allow self certification from

25 recognized testing laboratories, either their own or

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
30

1 some other source outside their own, or turn to groups

2 like UL, IAPMO, CSA and so on, for certification on,

3 because of certain parallels here to the area of

4 electric motors. The issue of common minimum sampling

5 arrangement seems to have slipped by and I am wondering

6 if I am misreading it. I would recommend DOE consider

7 getting from concerned buying bodies as well as the

8 manufacturers who are testing in their own qualified

9 labs, some kind of statement about the number of units

10 being tested, perhaps to relate more to the calculated

11 standard deviation because you could start with two

12 units and get a number and test it with five, seven,

13 nine or 11 units, you could get a potentially more

14 reliable number. And what I am trying to aim at is

15 that there be a minimum common basis for the submittal

16 to DOE of certifying that the product meets the

17 performance requirement.

18 MR. HUI: Okay. What I am think I hear you

19 saying, Larry, are you saying that we should require a

20 manufacturer to report how many products have to be

21 tested before that number is reported?

22 MR. GALOWIN: No, I am suggesting that DOE

23 actually set a minimum, I know that some certifiers

24 claim they compliance with ISO Guide 62 or 63, I forget

25 the correct one. In that they are required to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
31

1 stipulate their sampling plan. So that as a part of

2 their processing procedure, they have to have that as

3 part of what I call public information. And what I am

4 saying is there should be some minimum that all bodies,

5 whether they be testing laboratories that are qualified

6 or certified, that are qualified, have at least a

7 minimum sampling plan. And it may be that you relying

8 totally on your prescription standard but I don't think

9 you call for the information.

10 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST.

11 Yes, Larry, you are correct, there is no

12 minimum sample size requirement for a compliance. There

13 is for enforcement, there is a minimum but for

14 compliance right now the sample size is primarily

15 determined by the need or the desire of the

16 manufacturer to ensure that they can demonstrate

17 compliance by having the center deviation be at a low

18 enough level, so that it doesn't result in an

19 excessively high upper confidence limit. So, in this

20 case the manufacturer can continue to test additional

21 units if it is required to reduce the standard

22 deviation in the sample.

23 MR. HUI: Yes?

24 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

25 Incorporated.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
32

1 Another statistician, but I think it is

2 covered, if you use a student's team method, you have

3 to have at least two samples to be able to get an

4 average, to get a standard deviation and you obviously

5 test as many as you can or you want to get below that

6 requirement. So, I think it is covered.

7 MR. HUI: Yes, that is correct. The correct

8 DOE sampling plan, you need a minimum size of two. And

9 if you have product variability, a wide variability

10 between these two units of a particular basic model,

11 you would have to, you may have to test additional

12 units. So, the minimum size is two.

13 Yes, Mr. Sargent.

14 MR. SULLIVAN: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

15 I think what Larry is trying to get at is

16 probably the situation where we have a quality control

17 program and this is not a quality control program. The

18 sample sizing here or the statistical sampling sizing

19 for sampling is strictly a certification issue. Beyond

20 that point, I would have you say lot size, how many do

21 we manufacture and we are not into that. We are

22 certifying a faucet or a fitting or a water closet or a

23 urinal as initial design and production run. The

24 quality control program is an internal matter. That is

25 up to each manufacturer to maintain and watch his own

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
33

1 quality control aspects. If we get caught up and have

2 to go an enforcement action, we have a different

3 procedure that we must follow. So, I think, don't see

4 how you can set a minimum sample size other than what

5 we have already established in these proposed rules.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. HUI: Anyone else would like to comment on

8 Mr. Sargent's remark or -- Yes?

9 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, Delta Faucet.

10 Getting back to Steve's original question, is

11 it your concern that it could be done two different

12 ways and get two different answers? And do you feel

13 that it is necessary to tie that down?

14 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST.

15 Yes, I think it is entirely likely that you

16 could get not just two different answers but a range of

17 answers depending upon how many figures are carried

18 through the different stages of the calculation. It

19 would probably be a good idea if, it is not mentioned

20 not right now in the DOE rule except to the extent that

21 things are reported in gallons. That is my question was

22 is there a procedure which is followed now in the ASME

23 standard. I don't think there is. So, maybe some

24 guidance on that would be useful.

25 MR. DEMARCO: Pete DeMarco, American Standard.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
34

1 I guess, there is some confusion

2 there, Steve, and I guess it boils down to what is

3 inferred by the Department's proposal for rules of

4 rounding and that is what needs to probably come out.

5 When I read the rules of rounding in the proposed rule,

6 what I assumed that referred to is that you conduct

7 your sampling plan and your answer of the student's T

8 calculation was rounded to the 10th of a gallon. Not

9 that a 10th of a gallon was used for all, for the mean

10 in the standard deviation all the way through the

11 calculation. So, that is the way that we have been, or

12 I should say I have been looking at it . I believe most

13 of the industry as well has been looking at it in terms

14 of interpreting what the rules of rounding refer to.

15 I could say that my own instance, I was

16 taking the consumption values to two digits which was a

17 100th of a gallon because that is standard operating

18 procedure, if you will , for how test reports are

19 generated and for water closets when they are taken to

20 two figures . And I believe for standard deviation, I

21 was taking it to a 1000 . Now, that may have been

22 wrong , that is not what the Department intended. I

23 don't know . And if now you are saying, well, you

24 should take it to a 10th of a gallon for all those sets

25 of the calculation , then indeed we may be coming out

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
35

1 with different answers. So, I guess one thing that

2 does need to be clarified is what, how far the

3 Department wants to go with the rules of rounding in

4 terms of the steps of the calculation.

5 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST.

6 I think what you described as your procedure

7 is the accurate, more accurate way to do it. And I

8 can't speak on behalf of the Department, but I would

9 say that that, I think that is what they would intend.

10 MR. HUI: Yes, this is Bill Hui. I agree with

11 Steve and agree with you, too, Pete, that was the

12 intention to have the manufacturer carry the

13 measurement, the calculation to whatever significant

14 digits depending on the accuracy of their instruments,

15 and then toward the end, that is where you would round

16 off.

17 Yes, Mr. Martin?

18 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California Energy

19 Commission.

20 I don't think from a practical point of view

21 it makes much how much weigh you round off. The

22 important thing is that you have it specified in a way,

23 avoid having unnecessary disputes with you and make it

24 very clear. But, mathematically it is no big deal.

25 MR. HUI: Any other comments?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
36

1 Okay. Let's proceed to the third topic.

2 The third topic of today's agenda is on Certification

3 Reporting Requirements for Plumbing Products.

4 Plumbing products were added as a cover

5 products under EPCA. Since certification reporting

6 requirements presently do not exist for plumbing

7 products, the Department proposed such requirements for

8 faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals in the

9 Notice of Proposed Rule. Specifically, the Department

10 proposed certification and reporting requirements

11 similar to the Department's existing rules for

12 appliances. The report for each basic model would

13 include product type, product class, manufacturer's

14 name, private labeler's name , if applicable, the

15 manufacturer's model number and water usage.

16 And now the Department seeks comment on the

17 type of information required of manufacturers or their

18 third party representatives for certifying compliance.

19 And we have one speaker from IAPMO, which is

20 the International Association Of Plumbing and

21 Mechanical Official. The two individuals who will speak

22 for IAPMO would be Mrs. Dona Browning and Mr. Michael

23 Kobel.

24 PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL KOBEL:

25 MR. KOBEL: This is Mike Kobel for IAPMO.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
37

1 Just for those who don't know who I am or

2 seems like most everybody here does, but just in case,

3 IAPMO is a non profit corporation in the State of

4 California. It publishes the uniform plumbing code,

5 which is a consensus document that is updated yearly by

6 consensus process at IAPMO's annual conference. And it

7 is published every three years in a new edition of the

8 uniform plumbing code. In conjunction with that, IAPMO

9 publishes a number of other documents which are listed

10 in our statement. IAPMO also works in conjunction with

11 many of these manufacturers and other individuals on

12 the ANSI committees that hammer out these standards,

13 some of which we are talking about today. IAPMO puts

14 on educational seminars and certifies plumbing

15 inspectors. We also have a product listing program,

16 which relates specifically to this item on the agenda.

17 We also have a laboratory listing service, whereby, we

18 recognize certain independent testing laboratories who

19 perform testing under these standards that we list

20 products to. And we also have a follow-up inspection

21 program that we operate in conjunction with our listing

22 program, whereby, we go into manufacturing and

23 warehouse locations and sample products on a yearly

24 basis or more often, just to confirm that products are

25 continuing to comply with the standards to which they

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
38

1 have been listed.

2 In general, IAPMO supports the DOE's proposal

3 to establish the certification reporting requirements

4 for faucets, showerheads, water closets and urinals.

5 And we also agree that the categories of information

6 that are included in the regulations, the product type,

7 class, manufacturer's name, etc., that those are

8

10

necessary and appropriate items that should be

included.

As I mentioned a minute ago, IAPMO currently

11 has a product listing program and kind as a sideline or

12 as a part of that, we publish what, this document,

13 which a copy we gave you is outdated, but it is our

14 directory of water conservation products. And products

15 that are listed with us that meet the requirements for

16 water conservation in the standards that we are talking

17 about for the faucets, for the water closets and

18 urinals, for example, are permitted to be and are

19 published in this document. The language that is in

20 this directory basically complies with what the DOE's

21 proposed regulations are already. And from our

22 discussions on the phone, Bill, I guess, there is

23 already really a precedent set for accepting this kind

24 of a document to satisfy DOE requirements. You

25 mentioned you, you alluded to the GAMA directory for

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
39

1 water heaters, I guess, where that is, that is an

2 industry sponsored program or something, where those

3 products are listed and that listing is accepted by the

4 DOE as evidence of compliance for those products with

5 the requirements for water heaters.

6 So, IAPMO would encourage the DOE to include

7 language in the regulations that would permit

8 manufacturers who already participate in IAPMO's

9 program or in a similar type of third party

10 certification program, to be able to submit that

11 listing as full and complete evidence that they are

12 complying with the DOE regulations. In that way, it

13 will be least burdensome on the manufacturers because

14 it is something that they are already doing anyway. And

15 it would more than satisfy the requirements for DOE.

16 One thing that, just to preclude any comments

17 that might arise with respect to this, we were just

18 talking about the statistical sampling procedure, IAPMO

19 does use the ANSI standards to list these products. And

20 as we just discussed a minute ago, currently those ANSI

21 standards don't have the statistical sampling procedure

22 that is in the proposed regulations. If that ends up

23 being written into the regulations, it would be no

24 problem for IAPMO to adopt that statistical sampling

25 procedure as part of its testing program for those

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
40

1 products that want to, that are listed, that want to be

2 included in the directory of water conserving products

3 sold at. Those products by being included here would

4 satisfy the DOE requirements. That would be the easy

5 thing for IAPMO to do, which the goal, of course, would

6 be to make it easy for the manufacturers that

7 participated in our program to also comply with the DOE

8 regulations without having to do any extra work.

9 One thing that IAPMO is opposed to, however,

10 is to allow self certification to the requirements.

11 The reason for that is most of the manufacturers I

12 think that are represented here, already participate

13 either in IAPMO's program or in some independent third

14 party certification program. I don't believe, I

15 believe that all these manufacturers represented

16 certainly have the integrity to self certify, however,

17 there maybe other people who might wish to enter the

18 marketplace, who may not have the scruples or the

19 integrity to honestly represent themselves and thereby,

20 the whole reason for a third party certification

21 program is to have an independent third party, who has

22 no financial interest in the gain on that company, to

23 come in and say, "Yes, we have tested these products

24 and found them to comply with the regulations." So,

25 we would just encourage the Department to word the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
41

1 rules in such a way that would require a third party be

2 the one to do the certification and not self

3 certification by the manufacturer.

4 MR. HUI: Thank you. I have a few questions,

5 if I may ask them.

6 I was wondering for a manufacturer to have a

7 product listed in the Directory currently, how, well, I

8 guess my question is how many unit of a particular

9 sample is actually tested before IAPMO will consider

10 that in compliance with water consumption, the

11 particular water consumption standards and so forth?

12 MR. KOBEL: Whatever the requirement of the

13 ANSI standard is, if is a single model faucet that

14 could be one sample, under the ANSI standard. I think

15 typically with, I think with most of the manufacturers

16 represented here today, they typically will list whole

17 series of faucet models and as we discussed on the

18 phone, typically a whole line of faucets will use a

19 common aerator or flow restricting device, which ends

20 up controlling the flow rate for all the models in that

21 line. So, the flow controlling device, to get that

22 whole line of faucets listed, ends up being tested

23 several times, probably more than the statistical

24 sampling procedure, where they are required. But, to be

25 honest, a single manufacturer of a single faucet that

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
42

1 wants to get listed could get listed by only testing

2 one sample under the current ANSI standard.

3 MR. HUI: The next question is besides IAPMO,

4 are there other listing organizations that are out

5 there that a manufacturer could use, other than IAPMO?

6 MR. KOBEL: Yes.

7 MR. HUI: And who would they be, may I ask?

8 MR. KOBEL: I think some of them are

9 represented here today. They are raising their hands

10 back there. Underwriters Laboratory, the National

11 Evaluation Service. There are others.

12 MR. MARTIN: California Energy Commission.

13 MR. KOBEL: And there are others.

14 MR. HUI: I see. I have no other questions.

15 Gene?

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, for a manufacturer to be

17 listed in your directory, who does the testing?

18 MR. KOBEL: It would have to be a laboratory,

19 at least for our program, it would have to be a

20 laboratory that is recognized by IAPMO. And the way a

21 laboratory gets recognized by us is to apply, they have

22 to meet certain requirements. They are recognized by us

23 by demonstrating compliance to ISO guidelines for

24 testing laboratories. Once they have met those

25 requirements and demonstrated that they comply with

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
43

1 them, then we go ahead and grant them a certificate

2 indicating that we will accept their test reports for a

3 period of one year and they have to renew that each

4 year.

5 MR. MARGOLIS: Now, if a manufacturer did his

6 own testing, and submitted the results to you, would

7 that manufacturer then be listed in your directory?

8 MR. KOBEL: Under one condition and that would

9 be that one of our recognized testing laboratories

10 witnessed the testing and certified the calibration of

11 all the instruments and that the procedure was done

12 properly, yes, in that case, then we could accept. But,

13 except that we would have to have a report from the

14 laboratory. We could not accept a report just from the

15 manufacturer alone. It would have to a report by the

16 laboratory but the testing could have been done by the

17 manufacturer's personnel at his plant. But, a

18 representative of the lab would have to be there

19 physically witnessing the testing.

20 MR. MARGOLIS: Are there manufacturers who

21 have used that procedure to be listed in your

22 directory?

23 MR. KOBEL: I think so.

24 MR. MARGOLIS: So, you had originally stated

25 that there is, there is a possibility that there might

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
44

1 be some hanky panky that the manufacturers do and you

2 are opposed to self certification. From your type --

3 how many manufacturers are there in the industry?

4 MR. KOBEL: Of --

5 MR. MARGOLIS: Going by faucets, urinals?

6 MR. KOBEL: Oh, geez, all these, probably

7 what, hundreds, yeah.

8 MR. HUI: Conservatively.

9 MR. KOBEL: Yes. I mean internationally there

10 is many, many companies.

11 MR. MARGOLIS: Now, how many manufacturers,

12 what percentage would go on to your organization?

13 MR. KOBEL: I really have no idea. We have

14 upwards of 1500 listees having many, many other

15 products besides just the ones we are talking about

16 today listed. I would say the majority are probably

17 listed with organizations such as IAPMO, simply because

18 the local building officials in each jurisdiction,

19 city, states and counties throughout the country

20 normally require some kind of listing to demonstrate

21 that they meet the requirements of their local building

22 or plumbing code that is in use at the time.

23 MR. MARGOLIS: If there is a manufacturer who

24 doesn't want to belong to your organization, can he

25 still be listed in your directory?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
45

1 MR. KOBEL: Yes. A membership with IAPMO is

2 not a requirement to have their product listed.

3 MR. MARGOLIS: What would a person who doesn't

4 want to be in your organization but wants to be listed,

5 what type of costs would be involved?

6 MR. KOBEL: There are, whatever the normal

7 costs for a listing would be. And would you like to

8 know that is or --

9 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, I mean, you can submit it

10 in, if you know it now.

11 MR. KOBEL: We have some documents we can give

12 you that, depending on how many products a manufacturer

13 wishes to list, that determines what the ultimate cost

14 would be.

15 MR. MARGOLIS: Is there any benefit in being a

16 member of your organization to be listed?

17 MR. KOBEL: There is no financial benefit, no.

18 MR. MARGOLIS: Now, how many, you had

19 mentioned there about saying there are three or four

20 other directories, now for certification purposes,

21 would membership in any of those organizations be

22 sufficient for the Department to say for certification

23 rather than listing one organization?

24 MR. KOBEL: If those organizations have some

25 kind of, in a third party testing going on, and they

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
46

1 were following the ANSI standard and their sampling

2 procedure complied with the physical program that is

3 going to be in the proposed rules, then yeah, they

4 would, that would be totally acceptable method also.

5 MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

6 MR. KOBEL: You are welcome.

7 MR. HUI: Cyrus, do you have any questions?

8 MR. NASSERI: Yes, I do.

9 This organization is a membership

10 organization, in other words, the manufacturer has to

11 be a member of your organization to be listed under the

12 directory?

13 MR. KOBEL: No, no, they do not have to be a

14 member to be listed.

15 MR. NASSERI: Do you have, you mentioned the

16 fact that you use accredited laboratories, that you

17 basically is recognized by your management as far as

18 being accredited.

19 MR. KOBEL: Yes, we have a laboratory

20 recognition program.

21 MR. NASSERI: The other question following

22 that is do you have any laboratory, your or in

23 yourself, that is under contract to do periodically any

24 of these items for confirmation to the standards.

25 MR. KOBEL: No, we do not operate a testing

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
47

1 laboratory.

2 MR. NASSERI: The reason I ask that because at

3 the present time the third party organizations that we

4 are using for compliance reporting to us, such as GAMA,

5 ARI, or AHAM, these organizations they have their own

6 laboratories under contract and periodically or --

7 MR. KOBEL: They may not, they don't own their

8 laboratories --

9 Mr. NASSERI: They don't.

10 MR. KOBEL: Right. But, they are under

11 contract that this laboratory in random that take any

12 of these requests from manufacturers, so they actually

13 test these units to confirm what the report to the

14 manufacturers is. And we have used -- I can speak loud

15 so I don't need any microphone. And we have used these

16 organizations, the third party reporting to us. And the

17 other, they said they wanted to see how your

18 organization is comparable to any of these

19 organizations as GAMA or ARI, or AHAM.

20 MR. KOBEL: The listing program that IAPMO has

21 is listed with ANSI under ANSI Standard Z-34.1 as an

22 independent third party certifier of plumbing products.

23 Part of the requirements require us to periodically go

24 out and sample the products from the manufacturers, you

25 know, using surprise inspections at random. We have a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
48

1 team of inspectors that work on contract with us that

2 do that, that make these inspections throughout the

3 year at all the manufacturing plants and warehouses.

4 These products are either tested on the spot, if the

5 manufacturer has the equipment to do so, but that

6 testing is witnessed by our independent inspectors. Or

7 if the manufacturer is not able to do that testing on

8 site, then the samples are sent to one of these

9 recognized testing laboratories for testing. This is

10 conducted on an ongoing basis of all these follow-up

11 inspections to verify that the products continue to

12 meet these requirements. Is that what you were asking?

13 MR. NASSERI: In some respect.

14 And also, you said you update this directory

15 once a year.

16 MR. KOBEL: Monthly or bi-monthly, yeah.

17 MS. BROWNING: We have two directories. One is

18 updated monthly and one is bi-monthly.

19 MR. NASSERI: And the last issue that you

20 mentioned that somehow having the language in the final

21 rule, referring to only the third party, is that what

22 basically you are requesting to be used as a

23 certifying --

24 MR. KOBEL: I am not sure I understand what

25 you are saying.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
49

1 MR. NASSERI: Well, I heard you saying that

2 somehow that the language in the rule only certifying

3 procedure being accepted from a third party. And is

4 that what you were saying?

5 MR. KOBEL: What I was saying was that IAPMO

6 was recommending that self certification not be

7 permitted under the regulations, but that certification

8 by an independent third party be required. That would

9 include a listing under such a program as ours or under

10 other similar programs, where that certification is by

11 an independent third party and not by the

12 manufacturers, themselves.

13 MR. NASSERI: Thank you.

14 MR. KOBEL: You are welcome.

15 Steve, do you have any questions?

16 MR. TREADO: No.

17 MR. MARGOLIS: Mr. Kobel, could you, for the

18 four products that are under question here, faucets,

19 showerheads, water closets and urinals, tell us how

20 many of the manufacturers, how many manufacturers are

21 in your directory for each category? Because you

22 previously said, if I am not mistaken, thousands and

23 that is what confuses me that where are these

24 manufacturers? I mean, is there, for water closets, I

25 don't -- I don't see where, you know, a thousand

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
50

1 manufacturers.

2 MR. KOBEL: I think we said hundreds, didn't

3 we?

4 MR. MARGOLIS: Even hundreds.

5 MR. KOBEL: Yes. We can count that up for you

6 and send you a letter letting you know what that number

7 is.

8 MR. MARGOLIS: And with that, could you tell

9 us how many do you believe are in the industry? In

10 other words, what percentage of all manufacturers per

11 item are in your directory?

12 MR. KOBEL: We could make an educated guess,

13 yes.

14 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

15 MR. KOBEL: We would be happy to provide that

16 for you.

17 MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

18 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Kobel. Any other

19 comments on this issue? Yes?

20 MR. CHURCH: Rick Church, Plumbing

21 Manufacturers Institute.

22 Only two comments, the first comment is I

23 believe the request Mr. Kobel is making to have the

24 opportunity for third parties to be involved in the

25 certification is covered under the current proposed

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
51

1 rule by the Department. As I read it, it allowed

2 third parties to report or submit the certification

3 reports for manufacturers. And I think that allowing

4 third parties to do that is just great. I don't think

5 it should be restricted to just one third party such as

6 IAPMO, which is what I thought I heard Mr. Kobel say.

7 Secondly to address the issue of whether or

8 not manufacturers should be allowed to submit their

9 certification reports, speaking on behalf of the

10 manufacturers, I would like to say that definitely

11 manufacturers should be allowed to submit their own

12 reports for several reasons. One of those reasons is

13 potential cost to manufacturers, which Mr. Kobel I

14 think said would be lessen by allowing an organization

15 like IAPMO to submit those reports. I am not sure that

16 that is truly the case when you consider a number of

17 points, one being I don't believe currently IAPMO or

18 any other third party tests to the sampling plan that

19 DOE is going to require. I assume that those third

20 parties would require payment for doing such a test.

21 That would be an additional cost to the manufacturer.

22 There are other costs such as going to market with your

23 products and the potential delay in going to product if

24 you had to have a third party do the certification.

25 And additionally, the enforcement procedures

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
52

1 that are published in this proposed rule, handle the

2 problem of, I think the word was unscrupulous

3 manufacturers. The enforcement procedures are created

4 in this rule for just that. If a manufacturer puts a

5 product to market that doesn't meet the requirements of

6 the federal law, the enforcement procedures are there

7 so that the manufacturer can be forced to do so. That

8 is it.

9 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Church. Any

10 additional comments?

11 Yes, Mr. Galowin?

12 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, NIST.

13 There are several things that have to be put

14 into the picture here. ANSI E-34 accreditation is in

15 the great, if I could call it accreditation, is in a

16 great state of flux. My understanding is that ANSI is

17 giving that up and it is going over to ASEM 36 to take

18 over that function. And I don't think there are any

19 documents or standards of ASEM from that committee have

20 yet been published.

21 The purpose and intent of, at least NULAP,

22 and I have to speak to that here, was to handle this

23 problem of permitting manufacturers or anybody

24 laboratory that meets the criteria of ISO Guide 25

25 under NULAP operating under our ISO Guide 58, presents

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
53

1 a qualified scheme for making sure of the laboratory's

2 independence and its reporting chain in a

3 manufacturer's company and to ensure the quality of the

4 predicated laboratory's competency to perform the

5 testing to the standards. There is a counterpart to

6 this in Canada. The Canadian Standards Association is

7 accredited by the Standard Council of Canada as a

8 certified body. It is an accrediting body. And in their

9 legislative requirement, CSA must carry out a ISO Guide

10 25 type of evaluation of the laboratory, but they

11 cannot issue an accreditation certification because

12 they are not an accrediting body. So, and I think we

13 have shared some of these concepts in the past with DOE

14 people and submitted our documentation. We at NULAP

15 have a handbook that embraces ISO Guide 58 and makes

16 the laboratories qualified to ISO Guide 25. We run

17 proficiency testing where it is economically feasible

18 and not in cost. And we have not done that in the

19 plumbing program as of yet because we have not had

20 enough applicants.

21 The question or the issue put before us by

22 IAPMO is a very appropriate one, because if directories

23 are suppose to become the basis for certificate from

24 the manufacturer, then you have to open the

25 qualification to every single qualified listing

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
54

1 organization that prepares a directory and then you, in

2 turn, have to make sure that that qualifying

3 organization fulfils some criteria that you either

4 invent or reference back to appropriate international

5 and national standards. And I don't think that is all

6 in place right now.

7 The other one thing that I do want to close

8 on, I am worried about the context of using IAPMO or

9 anybody else's directory for qualifying and

10 substituting for certificates to you. There are certain

11 implications that I don't care to state here of using a

12 given organization's code association to the local

13 official and possibly ending up with preference for

14 products listed in that organizations' directory. And

15 that is all I want to say on the subject, but, I will

16 share it privately with you if you wanted me to. Thank

17 you.

18 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Galowin.

19 Mr. Martin, do you have comment?

20 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Once again your questions

21 in the agenda are very narrow and you have listed what

22 should be provided in terms of information. This is

23 information that is certified by manufacturers to the

24 California Energy Commission and it is a mandatory

25 requirement for showerheads and faucets. It is

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
55

1 voluntary for water closets and urinals. We have in

2 the past been a third party certifier to the Department

3 of Energy for appliances for which there is no third

4 association directory such as ARI and we would be

5 prepared to do this again for any manufacturer who so

6 requires us to do it. And once again I support what you

7 put in here.

8 MR. HUI: Thank you.

9 Mr. Sargent?

10 MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

11 I have no problem with third party certifier

12 certifying the products for DOE. However, I would

13 assume and I may ask this question of Mike, we happen

14 to be one of those manufacturers that certify all our

15 products with IAPMO, but other than that, would you

16 have to pass all of the ASME/ANSI Standards in order to

17 get into that book, not just the DOE water consumption

18 requirements?

19 MR. KOBEL: That is a good question. The way

20 that this directory works now is kind like a

21 sub-directory of our normal listing program such that,

22 currently right now, the product would have to be

23 listed to the ANSI or ASME standard and once it did

24 that, then it could also be included in this directory.

25 Is that what you are asking?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
56

1 MR. SARGENT: That is what I am asking.

2 Because that right away raising a potential problem for

3 DOE. I would, I would applaud the use of the third

4 party. On the other hand, for those people that don't

5 certify with a third party, and are only interested in

6 the fact that they want to certify to water

7 consumption, you should allow self certification also.

8 Other than that, your law only says that you are going

9 to certify the water consumption and nothing else.

10 MR. HUI: Yes?

11 MR. CASTANEDA: Jorge Castaneda with Orion,

12 Mexico. I have a comment.

13 In the case of water closets, I think that it

14 is really necessary the water closet to work well and

15 also have a water consumption because if we just test

16 for water consumption and you have to flush twice, it

17 has nothing to do with water consumption then. So I

18 think it should comply all the ANSI and also the water

19 consumption.

20 MR. HUI: Yes, Mr. Sullivan?

21 MR. SULLIVAN: Continuing on the vein of, I

22 assume that your program is under the broad umbrella of

23 ANSI.

24 MR. KOBEL: Broad, I don't how broad that

25 means.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
57

1 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you are complying, you

2 mentioned you are complying with the various ANSI

3 requirements. Has ANSI blessed your process?

4 MR. KOBEL: Yes, we are, ANSI conducts audits

5 of our program.

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, thank you.

7 There are many, many different ways to come

8 up with a third party certification or a certification

9 process. I would suggest that maybe this meaning is

10 not the place to design one, however, from AWWA's

11 perspective I think I would have to go on the record,

12 we would have extreme difficulty self, supporting self

13 certification.

14 MR. MARGOLIS: Is there any reasons?

15 MR. SULLIVAN: We have never under any of our

16 certification endorsements supported self certification

17 in any way, shape or fashion. Not for some of the

18 reasons that were stated about the back apples or

19 things of this nature, but it is a liability question.

20 In the final analysis many water purveyors are

21 providing some of these fixtures to their customers

22 directly. And what they are looking for is some type of

23 guarantee or at least a crutch, there are no guarantees

24 in a litigious society as you well know, but at least

25 some type of crutch to assist them in making a decision

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
58

1 as to what they provide.

2 MR. NASSERI: Mr. Sullivan, I have a question

3 concerning the same issue. This certification we have

4 to recognize that it supplements with statement of

5 compliance.

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely.

7 MR. NASSERI: And statement of compliance very

8 simply says that manufacturers are aware of the law and

9 the penalties and whatever, I forgot all the details.

10 That gives us a position that manufacturers are

11 basically reporting this compliance either from their

12 own, from third party or whatever they supply this

13 information to us. And this is what we have in the

14 system at the present time, applying to other, others.

15 And I just wanted to add to that, to your statement,

16 you know, as far as maybe you should bear in mind that

17 the compliance statement is important issue which

18 supplements the certification report.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: Point well taken.

20 MR. HUI: Mr. Galowin again?

21 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, NIST.

22 I want to bring to your, to everybody's

23 attention, in the Federal Register Notice, it must be

24 430.62, you have submission of data, Federal Register

25 page 7851, Part B. The first column, Maintenance of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
59

1 Record. It states that the manufacturer has to

2 establish, maintain and retain records of underlying

3 test data for certification testing. This leads to

4 question and -- then just simply IAPMO and particularly

5 the manufacturers. Do they actually retain in a

6 certification program a test data report that somehow

7 attests to the fact that it is done by a recognized

8 national authority, whatever that might mean, and then

9 comply with the requirement in the proposed draft

10 regulation or is there a gap here that potentially

11 might exist?

12 MR. HUI: Are you directing that question at

13 Mr. Kobel, Mr. Sullivan?

14 MR. GALOWIN: Yes, I leave the question on the

15 floor.

16 MR. KOBEL: Mike Kobel for IAPMO. Under our

17 current program we keep documents on file that show

18 evidence that the testing was done and it was done by

19 the right people and under the right conditions and

20 everything to show that it complied. Is that what you

21 were asking?

22 MR. GALOWIN: But, that is not in the hands in

23 the manufacturers. This calls for the manufacturer of

24 the public product to establish, maintain, and retain

25 records of underlying test data.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
60

1 MR. KOBEL: Yes, the manufacturers keep copies

2 of that as well. They paid for it, so they like to

3 have it, too.

4 MR. HUI: Do we have any other comments, any

5

7

opinions, views on this topic?

Mr. DeMarco?

MR. DEMARCO: I guess what is being proposed

8 is a great departure from how certification has been up

9 envisioned to this point in hearings with DOE. And I

10 strongly support the, what has been proposed in the

11 current rule, which allows the option of third party

12 certification or the option of self certification in

13 those areas.

14 One of the problems and I guess this is

15 magnified by, with the number of models that a

16 particular manufacturer may have, that being the more

17 models there are the more this becomes a problem, is an

18 area of logistics of testing. If third party

19 certification testing for the issue of compliance or

20 certification, with initial certification with the DOE

21 mandated, the basic fact of the logistics of having all

22 these products tested, literally hundreds upon hundreds

23 of samples, which would be required to be tested would

24 be staggering. The amount of time necessary to conduct

25 such testing industry wide at certified laboratories

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
61

1 would be incredible. And would take literally years to

2 accomplish on that vein.

3 I also would have a problem on working within

4 third party structures with the speed to market as Mr.

5 Church pointed out earlier. Under the proposed rule

6 markets would have to be certified before they are

7 brought to market. If we had to work within the

8 structures of other parties in order to do that, it

9 could cause delays of months in some cases in order to

10 bring such new models to market, which would be

11 considered completely unacceptable to industry. Thank

12 you.

13 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.

14 Okay. Very quickly, one more comment, we

15 can take a 15 minute break. I am sure everyone wants

16 to have one at this time.

17 Go ahead.

18 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Paul Fahrenkrug, Bradley

19 Corporation.

20 I just want to reiterate what Pete DeMarco

21 had said and what Jim Sargent, the point Jim made

22 earlier, DOE is concerned with water conservation only

23 and if we accept third party certification we are

24 talking about certifications to the entire standard. I

25 don't know how many manufacturers there are, but there

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
62

1 is dozen if not hundreds and most of them are pretty

2 small. And most of them do not have all of these

3 certifications that we have been talking about. So, I,

4 we definitely cannot forget about the self

5 certification. I think that it has worked so far and I

6 don't think that we would have any problems in the

7 future with that. I just want to make sure that is not

8 forgotten.

9 MR. HUI: Thank you. Okay. We will squeeze

10 one more in.

11 MS. REMEDIOS: One last comment. Sally

12 Remedios, Delta Faucet.

13 I think the consent is we have to look at the

14 liability of the manufacturer. If we are going to put

15 our liability in the hands of a test lab, it is a

16 little different to, we have the rule that addresses

17 the concern of enforcement and certification. The

18 manufacturer is responsible no matter what, therefore,

19 the manufacturer should take on that responsibility and

20 do their own testing, then so be it. I think there is

21 enough rules in, there is enough requirements in the

22 rules to address any issues of there not being

23 appropriate testing.

24 MR. CHURCH: Rick Church. I am sorry. One

25 other thought that I meant to make earlier and it just

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
63

1 came back to mind as Sally was speaking, you know, one

2 of the interesting points about all of this we are

3 forgetting I think, this is a federal law. I can't

4 think of more of a deterrent to not meet something then

5 have it be a federal law. I think that is an extreme

6 deterrent for manufacturers to break the rules, so to

7 speak.

8 MR. HUI: Is it going to be short, Larry, I

9 hope.

10 MR. GALOWIN: Very short.

11 MR. HUI: Very short.

12 MR. GALOWIN: I just want to endorse what Pete

13 DeMarco spoke about and bring to your attention that

14 exact parallel statement was made for the electric

15 motor efficiency program and at the moment the draft

16 regulation is pointing exactly in that direction, the

17 manufacturers self declaration.

18 MR. HUI: Okay. Thank you. Let's take a 15

19 minute break. We will reconvene at 11.

20 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

21 MR. HUI: All right. Let's reconvene and we

22 are on Topic D, oh, I am sorry, let me go back to Topic

23 C, which is Certification Reporting Requirement for

24 Plumbing Product. Were there any additional comments

25 before we took the break? Okay. If not, let's go to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
64

1 D.

2 Faucet and Urinals Designed for Multiple

3 Users.

4 EPCA specified water conservation standards

5 for plumbing products, including faucets and urinals.

6 The Department believes that spray heads, which are

7 installed in lavatory and designed for multiple users,

8 are a form of faucets subject to the applicable faucet

9 standard. The Department proposed that each

10 independently-controlled orifice of a spray head,

11 depending on its mode of actuation, shall not exceed

12 the maximum flow rate for a lavatory or metering

13 faucet. In addition, the Department proposed the

14 maximum flow rate of a spray head with collectively15 controlled orifices, depending on its mode of

16 actuation, shall be prorated based upon 20 inches of

17 rim space per lavatory.

18 In addition, the Department received a letter

19 from Kohler Company, dated February 7, 1997, regarding

20 trough-type urinals. Kohler Company believes that

21 trough type urinals are covered products under EPCA and

22 requested that in essence, it be allowed to satisfy

23 compliance by prorating maximum water use based on 16

24 inches of urinal length per individual.

25 The Department now seeks comments on spray

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
65

1 heads and the proposal to prorate the maximum water

2 consumption and on trough urinal and the request to

3 prorate the maximum water consumption.

4 Before I introduce the speaker for this

5 topic, I would like everyone to, if they haven't picked

6 up a copy of the agenda that they are available. You

7 can pick up any time of today's attendees. And a

8 reminder from the court reporter that before you speak,

9 please state your name and your organization so that we

10 can get that on the public record. Thank you.

11 Let me go back to the topic. The speaker for

12 the topic under Faucets and Urinals Designed for

13 Multiple Users will be Mrs. Browning and Mr. Kobel from

14 IAPMO.

15 PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL KOBEL:

16 MR. KOBEL: My name is Mike Kobel from IAPMO.

17 And with respect to the question on the agenda, are

18 spray heads covered products under EPCA and should

19 maximum water consumption of such products be prorated

20 as proposed? IAPMO would agree with both of those

21 things. Yes, the spray heads are covered and yes, the

22 maximum water consumption should be prorated. The one

23 point that IAPMO would like to make is that the 20

24 inches of rim space capacity per component lavatory as

25 it is mentioned in the proposed regulations, IAPMO

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
66

1 feels that that is not the best number to use. But,

2 instead that the number that is referenced in the 1997

3 Uniform Plumbing Code, Table 14, excuse me, Table 4-108

4 of 24 lineal inches of rim space. At 24 inches lineal

5 space per component lavatory be used, for a couple of

6 reasons. One that 20 inches really doesn't address

7 actual usage correctly, we don't think. IAPMO doesn't

8 feel that 20 inches accurately addresses the actual

9 usage but also in keeping with the intent of water

10 conservation, using the lower number results in higher

11 water usage numbers when you make the calculations. So

12 that using 24 inches lineal inches per component

13 lavatory, besides reflecting actual use of trough type

14 lavatories, also results in lower flow rate numbers,

15 which is in keeping with the intent of the regulation.

16 So, that is the only comment really that IAPMO has, is

17 just to use the 24 inches as outlined in that section

18 of the Uniform Plumbing Code.

19 Also with respect to a letter from Kohler,

20 since that is on this item, IAPMO would also come out

21 and support of what Kohler is saying, that yes, the

22 trough type urinals should be included in the 16 inches

23 of urinal length per individual is a valid number for

24 that.

25 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Kobel.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
67

1 I have question. The capacity criteria

2 listed in the 1997 version of IAPMO still includes a

3 latter part to that definition, I believe , is that

4 correct?

5 MR. KOBEL : Yes, the wording of the definition

6 hasn ' t changed , it is just --

7 MR. HUI : So, the latter part to that is 24

8 lineal inches per rim space , I believe, and there is a

9 latter part which states that if circular it is 18

10 inches , is that --

11 MR . KOBEL : I don't have a copy of it with

12 me . I don't think it says that but I think it just

13 addresses the 24 . I am not sure. I don't have it in

14 front of me.

15 MR . HUI: Okay. But , you said it is the

16 exact definition as the 1991 version , then the 18

17 inches is part of that capacity criteria.

18 MR . KOBEL : Oh, all right.

19 MR . HUI: So if it is circular you would use

20 18 inches instead of 24.

21 MR. KOBEL: That is correct, yes.

22 MR. HUI: Okay . Gene, do you have any

23 questions?

24 MR . MARGOLIS : Yes, I am a bit confused. The

25 statute says the maximum water use allowed for any

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
68

1 urinal manufacturer after January 1, 1994 is one gallon

2 per flush. Now, here when we are talking about the

3 length, what does that end up with when you talk about

4 16 inches or 20 inches or what? What is that per

5 gallon? Does that give you a higher figure than 1.0?

6 MR. SARGENT: You are probably addressing that

7 question to me. Jim Sargent, Kohler Company.

8 What this relates to is approximately one

9 gallon per flush per individual using the urinal. Now

10 we must take into consideration exactly how these types

11 of fixtures are used. This is not, we are not going to

12 line people up like little wooden soldiers in front of

13 these trough urinals. It doesn't work that way.

14 Because what you do in the applications as they are

15 used, are usually used in football stadiums, or places

16 of high density. And it is usually a constant stream

17 of people coming through these things. And what you are

18 trying to do is comply with the one gallon per flush

19 rule or law. Yet, you have got a fixture that takes

20 more than one person at one time. And so you are just

21 trying to relate how many people could use that

22 particular fixture at any given time and flush a

23 specific amount of water. Like if you have a 36 inch

24 trough urinal, two gallons per flush, two people.

25 MR. MARGOLIS: But that is, in your -- let me

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
69

1 see.

2 (Pause.)

3 MR. SARGENT: And when you get to the 72 inch

4 urinal, you are talking a rather long fixture and you

5 are talking more people and you are talking 4.5 gallons

6 per flush. And that is one person every 16 inches. And

7 that is not a very large flush for that long of a

8 fixture where you have to wash the back, the sides, and

9 bottom of the fixture.

10 MR. MARGOLIS: Some of those numbers that you

11 have, would that come out to be more than one gallon

12 per flush?

13 MR. SARGENT: No.

14 MR. MARGOLIS: How can we ensure that it would

15 be no greater than one gallon per flush? Is there a

16 certain, width of a person, I mean, like you have a,

17 you started out from 36 inches to 72 inches and you

18 went two gallons per flush to 4.5 gallons per flush.

19 Now, what would, how many people would be at the trough

20 at --

21 MR. SARGENT: We are talking every 16 to 18

22 inches one person. And for ease of computing we kept

23 it, tried to keep it to even solid numbers. And when

24 we got up to 72 inches, instead of going to five

25 gallons, we went to 4.5.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
70

1 MR. MARGOLIS: Well, but how can we --

2 MR. SARGENT: But, you can cut that down to

3 four if you would like, but you are going to need for

4 that length of urinal, you are going to need at least

5 four gallons per flush. How am I going to ensure that?

6 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

7 MR. SARGENT: Like I am going to ensure any

8 other fixture of it flushes or works. It is on the

9 flushing mechanism. And I can't, I can't guarantee you

10 that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but I can

11 probably guarantee you better that you are not going to

12 flush more than four and a half gallons in the 72 inch

13 urinal. This is like a manufactured wash fountain. We

14 have people standing around washing their hands. You

15 have got to come up with some way to allow for a

16 maximum water usage. That is exactly what we are trying

17 to do here, is saying, here, this type of urinal, this

18 is the maximum flush you are going to have, which

19 complies with the one gallon per flush urinal.

20 MR. MARGOLIS: You had said the best rule of

21 thumb is one person to every 16 or 18 inches of urinal

22 length.

23 MR. SARGENT: Right. Right.

24 MR. MARGOLIS: And you still stand by that

25 statement?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
71

1 MR. SARGENT: Oh, I stand firm by that

2 statement.

3 MR. MARGOLIS: Okay. Thank you.

4 MR. HUI: Cyrus, do you have any questions?

5 MR. NASSERI: Yes, I do. I tried to basically

6 review this issue again and as far as the water

7 conservation is concerned obviously as long as we take

8 this for one person usage, would be better. In other

9 words, usage of water is going to be less, if I

10 understand.

11 The following question is that this 16, 18

12 inch, the magic number for the trough type, I think we

13 have to get some support from the manufacturers that

14 what is this number, is this, this is for the

15 Department's information to make a decision which way

16 you have to basically go, is 16 or 18 or 20?

17 And also I am just throwing it out as far as

18 just a comment, is that maybe it is a good idea to come

19 up with the fraction of a gallon per inch maybe. And

20 regardless of the length of the trough, then we have

21 some standard established for this type of an

22 application, it is possible. Obviously, this simply

23 means that we have to establish a length of this,

24 whatever inch it is for one person usage. And if we

25 establish that, it is easy to come up with a magic

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
72

1 number of a fraction of a gallon per minute, per flush,

2 and then if a trough is 20 inch, 50 inch, 100 inch,

3 whatever it is, I don't know what the standard troughs

4 are, or are the circular type, then we can establish

5 what the gallon per minute per flush would be.

6 MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler Company,

7 through the Chair in response. I think you will find

8 my letter has a chart in it, that sets the gallon per

9 flush per length of the urinal. And I, you know, we

10 have to get into real world here. I started

11 establishing so much water per inch, that doesn't do

12 anymore for me than this chart does by the book. Also

13 as far as a consensus of manufacturers that make these,

14 there are two of us, Kohler Company and Elger. Elger

15 agrees with this particular chart as I have talked with

16 on the issue and I think Bill has also talked with them

17 on this issue. And these are not items that are sold

18 by the thousands. These are items that are probably

19 sold by the lots of hundred when they are building a

20 new stadium or adding onto a new stadium or something

21 of that nature. They a special order item. They are

22 not inventoried by either of the two manufacturers that

23 make them. And so, they are not a big issue. It is

24 just an issue that is there and helping a large crowd,

25 when a large crowd is expected, that is all.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
73

1 MR. NASSERI: I understand that, but we still

2 have to base our basically water usage on some standard

3 usage per person. I agree, I mean, this 20 inch, 16

4 inch and your numbers that you are referring to, it

5 varies, you know. I think some, as I recall, some has

6 based on 16, some based on 18, some might be 15, as I

7 recall. I am not exact. And there is no standard

8 established for the so much space is needed for one

9 person to use. I have seen 18 inch and maybe that is

10 the standard or my question is what is the standard

11 space you need for one person to use one of these for

12 these applications?

13 MR. SARGENT: Well, it is a moving crowd,

14 believe me. I tried to come out with something that

15 was, you know, that is why I came up with the chart and

16 I said, normally we figure 16 to 18 inches per person,

17 per space. The rest of using the floor drain. And it

18 depends on cold it is and how much beer is sold. But,

19 I wanted to stay under the five gallons at 72 inches.

20 So that is where it came out two, three, four and four

21 and a half. Because we felt that at a 60 inch urinal,

22 we could flush with four and a half or four gallons and

23 a 72 inch we wouldn't need to go to five gallons. We

24 could go to four and a half gallons. And that is why

25 the chart came out that way.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
74

1 MR. NASSERI: I see.

2 MR. SARGENT: And if you want to apply a 16 or

3 18 inch requirement, fine. I don't know if 18 inches

4 at the upper end or in the middle, if I can flush the

5 urinal. These figures work because we went in the lab

6 and tried them.

7 MR. NASSERI: Well, my personal feeling is

8 that if you use a 20 inch, you are going to use less

9 gallon per flush as compared to 16 inch, as simple as

10 that. And if the purpose of this program is to

11 conserve water, obviously it would logical for going to

12 higher number for per person per flush.

13 MR. SARGENT: Jim Sargent, Kohler.

14 I agree but there are other considerations we

15 must take into these types of fixtures. You know, we

16 are concerned with water conservation. Everybody in

17 this room is concerned with water conservation. We

18 also have another concern, health, safety and welfare.

19 And when we have health, safety and welfare, you have

20 to adequately flush these fixtures to make them usable.

21 And at times I am going to use a little more water than

22 I will at other times. And I thought what we drew up

23 here was a good, a good mix and match for water

24 conservation and sanitary purposes. And I stand behind

25 the chart that we submitted. And I don't know what

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
75

1 else to do with it, to tell you the truth.

2 MR. NASSERI: Well, I agree with the concept

3 of safety, health and that relates to the amount of

4 water coming down thee to do that, for that purpose.

5 But, I still would like the Department, the Department

6 would like to have some feeling, you know, what would

7 be the number that you are proposing here. Kind of a

8 give us a little more, is it 18 inch, 16 inch,

9 somewhere between or what is this? I assume this

10 relates to the safety and other things and as it

11 relates to the amount of water that is coming out of

12 those nozzle heads.

13 MR. SARGENT: Then to be very honest with you,

14 I would recommend to go to 16 inches, one gallon for

15 use of 16 inches.

16 MR. NASSERI: Sixteen inches is what you are

17 recommending.

18 MR. SARGENT: Right.

19 MR. NASSERI: No more questions.

20 MR. MARGOLIS: How does this fixture work,

21 does it, is it automatically flushed? Or does somebody

22 activate it?

23 MR. SARGENT: There are several ways of doing

24 this. You will find originally these were flushed with

25 a siphon tank on the wall, you know, up towards the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
76

1 ceiling. And when that tank filled up, it siphoned.

2 And in these stadiums, they normally don't turn those

3 on until just before half time or just before they

4 start selling the beer. And then there are some that

5 they tear the tanks out and just run it through a valve

6 with an orifice in to, you know, flow restricter, and

7 they go through a long pipe with perforations in it

8 that spreads the water. It is a spreader along the

9 back side of the urinal. Now that is where I get into

10 the fact of the 16 inches because once you start water

11 down that spreader, you know, you have a terrible time

12 trying to divide it so you get water at the beginning

13 and water at the end. And that is how they flush them.

14 MR. MARGOLIS: But, is that, does that water

15 come out all the time?

16 MR. SARGENT: Well, it all depends. On the

17 ones with the automatic tank, no. It only comes out

18 when the tank fills up and it siphons out. You can

19 also use a flush type valve on them.

20 MR. MARGOLIS: On some kind of a timer?

21 MR. SARGENT: Yes, or some kind of a timer.

22 MR. MARGOLIS: But, it is not actuated by the

23 person --

24 MR. SARGENT: No, no.

25 MR. MARGOLIS: So --

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
77

1 MR. SARGENT: You would have trouble with a

2 person actuating it.

3 MR. MARGOLIS: So you could have the water

4 flowing, you are saying it is -- at the beginning of

5 the game --

6 MR. SARGENT: I said in some instances you

7 will find in some of these stadiums the maintenance

8 people will go in and turn them just at the beginning,

9 they will turn them off, then they will turn them on

10 again at half time. And after half time, they turn them

11 off. I mean, that is a fact of life.

12 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes. And you say you would be

13 willing, you are going down to 16.

14 MR. SARGENT: Sixteen.

15 MR. MARGOLIS: Because if you look at, you

16 have 15 for the 60 inches, gallons per flush, divided

17 by four, would mean that person, for every 15 feet of

18 urinal.

19

20

21

22

23

24 people.

MR. SARGENT: Sixteen.

MR. MARGOLIS: Sixteen?

MR. SARGENT: Yes.

MR. MARGOLIS: Sixteen is the -- Four is 15.

MR. SARGENT: You divided by gallons not

25 MR. MARGOLIS: No, no, I am saying the best

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
78

1 rule of thumb is one person to every 16 to 18 inches.

2 MR. SARGENT: Right.

3 MR. MARGOLIS: You are saying a person --

4 MR. SARGENT: Divide 16 into 60 then multiply

5 it by one gallon.

6 MR. MARGOLIS: Sixteen into 60 is not four.

7 MR. SARGENT: It is about three and, yeah,

8 right. These are different. These are all different.

9 These are just trying to establish, if you want to go

10 into fractions, you can't, you can't make a flush

11 ometer valve work anyway to that close of a tolerance,

12 if this comes up two, three, four and four and a half.

13 MR. MARGOLIS: But, the reason why we are

14 saying that is because'the statute says one gallon per

15 flush.

16 MR. SARGENT: Right.

17 MR. MARGOLIS: So trying to somehow stay in

18 that range.

19 MR. SARGENT: These are the water flows that

20 work the best to the flush fixture. And I don't know

21 what else to do with it.

22 MR. MARGOLIS: Okay.

23 MR. HUI: Mr. Higgins.

24 MR. HIGGINS: Patrick Higgins.

25 Let's understand that these products are

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
79

1 unique. Let's understand that these products are

2 special orders. Traditionally they operate where you

3 use a siphon tank at the top of the system. The system

4 fills up and it is siphoned out. And they would be

5 running 24 hours a day every day of the year. Then

6 industry, that concept doesn't work anymore. And the

7 design engineers who are responsible to the stadium

8 authorities are designing systems such that these units

9 are typically shut off after every game. They are not

10 running constantly. The designs I have seen in the

11 past few years, they use a sensory operator flush

12 ometer valve, which discharges a certain amount of

13 water based upon a proximity application. So, again, I

14 think we are looking or trying to regulate something

15 that is such an insignificant part of the total

16 picture, that the application of these proposed gallon

17 per flush applications is appropriate. Let's plug the

18 number in there. Say, if you have got a 36 inch unit,

19 max two gallons. Let's put the numbers in there.

20 Obviously there are only two manufacturers who have to

21 be regulated by this process, they are going to have to

22 work it out with the flush ometer valve manufacturers

23 to come up with the devices and spec numbers to meet

24 with these expectations is, I think we can just simply

25 adopt this regulation as it is proposed and move on to

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
80

1 the next item.

2 MR. MARGOLIS: It is not that we disagree with

3 you. Don't get us wrong. We are trying to get you to

4 give us the reason that we could make say an exception

5 to what the statute says. So, we just want to hear

6 from you reasons why we should make the exception.

7 MR. HIGGINS: Well, in general, this is

8 typical where the codes recognizes a multiple use

9 fixture is typically an 18 inch, 16 to 18 inch

10 requirement. Your responses is generally consistent

11 with the plumbing, what the plumbing codes call for

12 multiple use fixtures. And you are establishing those

13 rates based upon that. Let's, for the record that is

14 what it is.

15 MR. HUI: Yes, Mr. Church?

16 MR. CHURCH: Yes, I was going to try to

17 clarify that and I think Patrick did a good job. The

18 other thing is, I think you are talking about heavy use

19 during short periods of time. If that gives you

20 another reason.

21 MR. HUI: Just for my clarification, it seems

22 like Mr. Sargent is allocating a 16 inch length per

23 individual, so that means it would be the number

24 specified in the Department's March 24th letter. I am

25 referring to 36, 48, 16 inches, would apply to a 2.3,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
81

1 3.0, 3.8 and 4.5 gallons per flush. These are numbers

2 that we talking about based on 16 inches, is that

3 correct?

4 MR. SARGENT: That is correct.

5 MR. HUI: Okay. Steve, do you have any

6 questions?

7 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST.

8 If the Department did go ahead and adopt

9 this, would manufacturers be limited then to these four

10 trough urinal lengths?

11 MR. SARGENT: Correct. Those are cast iron

12 enamel fixtures. When you get over 72 inches, they are

13 very hard to hang onto a wall. So they are very hard to

14 ship.

15 MR. TREADO: Someone couldn't make an

16 intermediate length of four and a half feet or

17 something like that?

18 MR. SARGENT: Well, it just -- no.

19 MR. TREADO: Because that is one of the

20 general problems here is how do deal with these

21 fractions. That is the only reason that we are

22 searching for a length per person, where an individual

23 is, that to try to deal with the in-between lengths.

24 MR. SARGENT: You will find that these were an

25 offshoot of a wall hung sink. And they still make the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
82

1 trough urinal as a wall hung sink. There is different

2 punching in the back for faucets. And they still use

3 them for factory wash up sinks. And they come in even

4 number 36, 48, 60 and 72. And I do not know of a

5 manufacturer ever historically or traditionally that

6 made them any differently than that.

7 In fact, I will tell you one more item, the

8 small amount, number of these fixtures that are sold

9 between the two manufacturers, I cannot even imagine

10 anybody gearing up to make any other than what is

11 available right here.

12 MR. HUI: Yes, Mr. Galowin?

13 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, NIST.

14 The point, Jim, I think is that you have used

15 a number that is very much like the ring wash of a

16 water closet approximately a gallon per foot. And it is

17 the performance that you are after. You want to rinse

18 the urine that may be on the walls and air it out.

19 So, there is justification for the numbers that Jim has

20 put forward.

21 MR. HUI: Mr. Martin?

22 MR. MARTIN: The Energy Commission certainly

23 recognizes that these multiple wash up places as

24 something that we have not covered in the past, that we

25 didn't consider when we were discussing this in the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
83

1 legislation. And we believe that you have followed the

2 intent of the legislation by giving a certain flow rate

3 for inch of rim and though this is contrary to what I

4 previously reported to you, I support what you have

5 done here.

6 MR. HUI: And this refers to the faucets

7 proposal.

8 MR. MARTIN: It is referring to both the

9 faucets and the urinals.

10 MR. HUI: Okay. Yes, Mr. Fahrenkrug?

11 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Paul Fahrenkrug, Bradley

12 Corporation.

13 I want to back up a little bit, I want to

14 make a comment on the Gentleman from IAPMO proposing

15 using 24 inches as opposed to 20. We at Bradley have

16 been working with DOE for probably about three years

17 now on this issue. We originally were hoping for a

18 clarification even an exemption, which I believe is not

19 going to happen, so here we are.

20 We have been talking all the time about 18 to

21 20 inches of circular rim space for each person in a

22 wash fountain and we got that from all of the plumbing

23 codes in the country, all the model codes. The 24

24 inches that I see and I have a copy of it right in

25 front of me from the Uniform Plumbing Code, and Bill, I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
84

1 believe you brought this up earlier, states that 24

2 lineal inches and 18 inches for a circular base, that

3 is, we were aware of that. I am not sure quite how we,

4 why we want to apply the 24 inches to a circular base

5 and when everything else and it says right here in the

6 Uniform Plumbing Code 18 for a circular. We are not

7 talking a bout lineal wash fountains here. We are

8 talking about circular and semi circular. We had

9 always took the 18 and the 20 inches and we used a more

10 conservative 20 inches, which I believe is appropriate.

11 We have been making these types of fixtures for 75

12 years now. And that is what we have always used. The

13 biggest we make is a 54 inch and as far as I know, that

14 is the biggest one in the industry. And that has never

15 been a problem using 20 inches.

16 This brings up another point, which I feel

17 more strongly about as far as the listing goes of

18 these, not the listing, the covering under the Energy

19 Policy Act, and that is the labeling concern. I know

20 DOE doesn't write the labeling rules, but the labeling

21 rules go right along with what we are talking about

22 here. And those rules are not written to accommodate

23 these types of fixtures. And if we adopt what you are

24 proposing here, the people who manufacture wash

25 fountains are going to be subjected to these kind of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
85

1 labeling rules and quite frankly it is physically

2 impossible for us to use these labeling rules in most

3 cases. We don't have aerators, we have stream formers.

4 And the stream formers do not control the flow of the

5 water. We control the flow of the water by valves that

6 are tucked inside the pedestals which are secured by

7 vandal resistance screws. You cannot go out and buy a

8 replacement stream former. We make our own. They are

9 not compatible with any other manufacturer, nor is

10 theirs are compatible with ours. So, if this gets

11 adopted as written, I have no idea how we are going to

12 do the labeling that is being called out. I have

13 talked with FTC, I believe it is, on the labeling

14 requirements and the way I understand it, they are

15 basically waiting to find out what is going to happen

16 here. And I don't know what is going to happen in

17 response to what is going to happen here as far as

18 their labeling requirements are. But, that is, that is

19 a dilemma that we are facing in this industry that if

20 we are going to be covered here, how are we going to be

21 labeling them. That is our main concern.

22 MR. HUI: Well, we have Mr. James Mills, FDC,

23 if you would like make a comment on how the FDC is

24 planning to implement this, should DOE finalize the

25 proposed rule or maybe not.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
86

1 MR. MILLS: I am James Mills with the Federal

2 Trade Commission. Do you need me to speak into a

3 microphone for you?

4 MR. HUI: Yes, please, James.

5 MR. MILLS: James Mills, Federal Trade

6 Commission.

7 Paul, you and I had talked about this before

8 as you made reference to, and as far as what will

9 happen on labeling, my initial reading of the EPAC

10 amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

11 are that there doesn't seem to be the discretion given

12 to the Commission to exempt certain products for

13 certain reasons as the discretion has been given for

14 appliances. However, if we find ourselves in a

15 situation where you really have an impossible task in

16 front of you, if we are going to explore requiring

17 labeling, we would have to do it with a rulemaking

18 proceeding. And at that time you could make your case

19 and we could try to see what kind of a result we can

20 reach within the confines of the statutory directive to

21 the Commission.

22 So, the short answer is, as you said, we are

23 going to have see what happens. But, we will be mindful

24 of what your concerns are. We will not turn a deaf ear

25 to them.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
87

1 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Okay. Most of these stream

2 formers that I am talking about aren't even visible to

3 the user. They are kind of hard to visualize. We make

4 circular physically brass cutoff with three little

5 holes, the three little holes just form the stream

6 coming towards the user and they are mounted underneath

7 the spray head. Some of them flush underneath the spray

8 head. And for the most part, the user doesn't even see

9 them. So, I think it would be defeating the purpose if

10 we would have to put any kind of labeling on those,

11 whatsoever, because the only way the user can see them

12 if he would literally get down on his hands and knees

13 and look up underneath the spray head like that.

14 Now, we label all of our cartons and so forth

15 the way that DOE has on the table right now, but as far

16 as the spout end and controlling device, I think it is

17 called in your ruling, in this case it is really

18 defeating the purpose because the only person that is

19 going to see that labeling is going to be the person in

20 our factory that is actually installing it into the

21 spray head.

22 MR. MILLS: Well, this is a point that would

23 have to, you would have to bring that up at the

24 appropriate time and it sounds like a very important

25 and point that is deserving of careful consideration

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
88

1 because it is, I don't think that is the intent, is to

2 make you do a meaningless act. So, at the time when it

3 is appropriate to do this, we will take your submission

4 and we will give it due weight.

5 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Okay.

6 MR. HUI: Thank you, Gentlemen.

7 Any other comments, suggestion? Yes, go

8 ahead, please, identify yourself .

9 MR. VIOLA: Dave Viola from International Code

10 Council. I would just like to go back and talk about

11 the 20 inch rim space. Your current requirement for

12 the Department is consistent with the International

13 Plumbing Code, the 1997 edition, which is 20 inches.

14 And our criteria is based on technical information that

15 is approved by American Institute of Architects. And

16 that information basically has anatomical studies in

17 there for humans at the 98 percentile. And 19 inches is

18 for males and 17 inches is for females. So, where you

19 are at is a safe number. And justifying any further is

20 questionable. And these numbers are also based on a

21 reasonable amount of clothing on the individuals. But,

22 that is really all I had to say.

23 MR. HUI: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Fahrenkrug.

24 MR. FAHRENKRUG: Paul Fahrenkrug, Bradley.

25 One additional comment on the 20 inches, our

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
89

1 54 inch diameter wash fountains, it comes out to when

2 you use 20 inches, I believe, it comes out to eight and

3 a half users per fixture. And it is not uncommon,

4 these things are installed mostly in factory settings,

5 where you are going to have, like PMI mentioned earlier

6 with the urinals, you are going to have a lot of usage

7 in a short amount of time at the end, beginning of

8 breaks, lunches and at the end of the day and so forth.

9 And it is not at all uncommon to see 10 or 12 people

10 around these wash fountains at a single time, without

11 any real problems. The use of 20 inches, which comes

12 down to eight people per fixture is, I feel is totally

13 appropriate. And I think the 24 inches is something

14 that was intended for lineal distance and we are not

15 talking about lineal distances here.

16 MR. HUI: Thank you. Any other views or

17 comments on this issue pertaining to multi use of

18 fixtures or toilets? Sorry, or about urinals.

19 Okay. Yes?

20 MR. KOBEL: Mike Kobel speaking for IAPMO.

21 Just to clarify, maybe I wasn't clear on this

22 before. What IAPMO was recognizing is 24 inches for a

23 lineal lavatory installation and allowing up to 18 for

24 a round installation, which is what the 1997 Uniform

25 Plumbing Code allowed.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
90

1 MR. HUI: Thank you for that clarification.

2 Any other comments? Yes, Mr. Adams?

3 MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams with DOE.

4 And just to, I guess finish up on the trough

5 urinal, if the Department were to settle on 16 inches

6 as the length per individual, it appears that the only

7 number of the table that was presented that would be

8 less than what is on here would be 3.8 gallons instead

9 of four for a 60 inch. If that were to be the case, is

10 that, would that be acceptable and workable for the two

11 manufacturers of these products? All the other numbers

12 would be equal to what is on the table or larger.

13 MR. SARGENT: I like two, three, four and four

14 and a half. It is so simple.

15 MR. ADAMS: Well, I am just asking as a, if

16 that were --

17 MR. SARGENT: No, I am going to, you know,

18 have to get, we don't make the flush ometer valve and

19 the flush ometer valve manufacturing, you know, it is

20 probably easier for them, two, three, four, four and a

21 half than it is to try break it down into further than

22 99 and I guess I have no objection. But, I can't see

23 the purpose of that.

24 MR. ADAMS: Well, I guess it is just from an

25 administrative standpoint, you might say, if we

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
91

1 determined that were the easier thing to do, if it was

2 all the same to you, if there is a problem, I guess

3 that is what we want to know.

4 MR. SARGENT: I like good solid even numbers,

5 truthfully.

6 MR. ADAMS: Okay.

7 MR. SARGENT: That is something my mother told

8 me, you know. She always use to say to me keep it

9 simple, stupid.

10 MR. MARGOLIS: Mr. Sargent, you are saying

11 your company goes with the numbers in your February 7th

12 letter. Now what does the other, does the other

13 company that manufactures this device agree with you?

14 MR. SARGENT: Of course, I can't speak for

15 Elger Plumbing, but when I talked to Jim Newman on the

16 telephone, he agreed. Now, I don't know if Bill Hui

17 has had a -- Did you have a chance to talk with Jim?

18 MR. HUI: I talked with Jim and I don't

19 believe we had a conversation on whether they are also

20 in agreement with the numbers or not.

21 MR. SARGENT: As far as I know, Jim agreed

22 with me on this.

23 MR. HUI: Let me back up a moment.

24 MR. SARGENT: And by the way, I know they only

25 make 36, 48, 60 and 72 also.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
92

1 MR. HUI: Now, I seem to be confused here now.

2 We were talking about these numbers, the letter 37, in

3 which the number of how they are using 18, 16, 15 and

4 16. And I thought that I have you on record stating

5 that you would agree to the Department's proposal to

6 use 16, which correspond to 2.3, 3.0, 3.8 and 4.5

7 gallons per flush. So I am wondering what set of

8 numbers are we talking about at this point, Mr.

9 Sargent?

10 MR. SARGENT: Are you talking to me?

11 MR. HUI: Yes.

12 MR. SARGENT: I am at the point I really don't

13 care anymore. I mean, if you want to make them uneven,

14 if you want, I would go with 16, all right.

15 MR. HUI: Okay. Right, right.

16 MR. SARGENT: And when I develop the chart I

17 went 16 to 18 for the simple reason of trying to keep

18 the flush volumes even. That is all I did.

19 MR. HUI: Okay. So, for the record we are

20 talking about March 24th letter --

21 MR. SARGENT: And if you want to go to 2.3 --

22 MR. HUI: -- based on 16 inches.

23 MR. SARGENT: Right.

24 MR. HUI: Okay. All right.

25 MR. MARGOLIS: But, you had said previously

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
93

1 that using the chart in your February 7th letter, is,

2 even though it might give more than one gallon for, if

3 you go by people, that you thought that this should be

4 used and you gave reasons for that.

5 MR. SARGENT: That is correct. That is

6 correct. I have kept it down to a minimum and I haven't

7 used more than one gallon per flush. And all we did is

8 we took the two, three, four and four and a half

9 gallons and flushed these urinals to see what kind of

10 performance we would get and it was adequate. Instead

11 of using 2.3 on the 36, we went to two because we could

12 flush it with two.

13 MR. NASSERI: So you think that these are --

14 MR. SARGENT: I think these are very

15 appropriate for these types of fixtures, yes.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

17 MR. HUI: Any other thoughts on any of these

18 two topics on multi user fixtures?

19 If not, we can proceed to Item E, which is

20 Test Procedures. I see we can finish up hopefully

21 before noon and we can put to a vote whether we want to

22 finish this last item before we go to lunch or we can,

23 okay, let's just go on.

24 Okay, Test Procedures.

25 EPCA specified procedures for testing and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
94

1 measuring the water use of faucets and showerheads, and

2 water closets and urinals to be ASME/ANSI Standards

3 A112.18.1M-1989, and A112.19.6-1990, respectively, but

4 that if AMSE/ANSI revises these requirements, the

5 Secretary shall adopt such revisions if they conform to

6 the basic statutory requirements of the law.

7 The Department proposed to adopt ASME/ANSI

8 Standard A112.18.1M-1994 for faucet and showerheads and

9 ASME/ANSI Standard A112.19.6-1990 for water closets and

10 urinals. These standards have been updated and

11 published as ASME/ANSI Standards A112.18.1M-1996 and

12 A112.19.6-1995.

13 The Department seeks comment on whether to

14 adopt the ASME/ANSI Standards A112.18.1M-1996 and

15 A112.19.6-1995 instead of A112.18.1M-1994 and 19.6-1990

16 as proposed.

17 And the second item the Department seeks

18 comment on is whether it referenced completely the

19 sections concerning hydraulic performance in ASME/ANSI

20 Standards A112.18.1M-1994 and A112.19.6-1990.

21 And I believe we already discussed the ASME

22 Standard A112.19.6-1996 and then there seemed to be

23 agreement that we should be go with the 1996 version

24 for 18.1. So, let's discuss 19.6-1995 on whether the

25 Department should adopt that version instead of the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
95

1 1990 as proposed.

2 We have no scheduled speaker on this

3 particular topic. And -- Okay, give your name, please.

4 MR. DEMARCO: Pete DeMarco with American

5 Standard and current chairman 19.2, 19.6.

6 I recommend and encourage the Department to

7 adopt A112.19.6 1995. The requirements as far as

8 consumption are concerned are identical basically

9 between the two standards, the 1995 version was for all

10 intense and purposes with the exception of some minor

11 changes to one of the test procedures on rim, on dye

12 change, are equivalent in all other requirements and

13 including consumption. So, as far as the Department is

14 concerned, the two standards are indeed identical.

15 On the second issue, yes, the Department has

16 adequately referenced the appropriate sections of 19.6

17 for the rulemaking purposes.

18 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.

19 Any other comments on these two issues?

20 MR. SARGENT: The only thing I think that, Jim

21 Sargent, Kohler Company. The only thing I think the

22 Department has to become aware of is regardless of the

23 Standard 19.6 or 18.1, is the fact that a lot of third

24 party certifications will come in under the '94 or the

25 '95 standard rather than the '95 or '96 standard

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
96

1 because all model codes have not yet adopted the latest

2 versions. And although as far as you are concerned,

3 flow rates are same, it really should make any

4 difference to DOE. Because we are developing test

5 reports for different certification agencies. What I

6 am saying is if you adopt the '96 version and our third

7 party test reports are not for the '96 version but for

8 the '94, I would hope that you would recognize the fact

9 that the flow rates are the same.

10 MR. HUI: Yes, go ahead.

11 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen,

12 Incorporated.

13 It is my understanding that you don't care

14 about test reports, you just want the numbers to be

15 reported, is that correct? You don't want to see the

16 test reports as part of the submittal to DOE?

17 MR. HUI: Are you referring to the

18 certification report?

19 MR. MOINIAN: Right.

20 MR. HUI: Okay, when you say we don't care

21 about what?

22 MR. MOINIAN: That you do not require test

23 reports to be submitted, all you care about is that the

24 flow rates are gallons per flushes, to be submitted.

25 MR. HUI: Well, we require certification

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
97

1 report to contain certain type of information.

2 MR. MOINIAN: I know that. But, do you

3 actually, do you actually require a test report to be

4 submitted?

5 MR. HUI: I --

6 MR. TREADO: You mean for the entire ASME?

7 MR. MOINIAN: No, for flow rate portion only.

8 MR. TREADO: Just the flow rate portion.

9 MR. MOINIAN: Because it is not written in the

10 proposed rule, that is why I am wondering.

11 MR. TREADO: You have to submit the values

12 certainly.

13 MR. MOINIAN: The values, right.

14 MR. TREADO: It doesn't have to be a test

15 report.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: But, if we want to see them, we

17 can request them.

18 MR. MOINIAN: I understand that. Yes, I

19 understand that.

20 I guess my point is, is there a self

21 certification, such data at the moment does not exist

22 officially anywhere, IAPMO, any other agency, so, yeah,

23 so if we have to start testing, self certifying and the

24 '96 version is going to the rule, than that is what we

25 need to certify.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
98

1 MR. HUI: Mr. DeMarco again.

2 MR. DEMARCO: The point here is that the

3 standard, that the law rather referenced the standard,

4 the correct standard, most up to date standard, and

5 that the manufacturers certify their products to the

6 protocols are referenced in the standards that are

7 adopted by the law. Now, when the manufacturers submit

8 their information, or when information is submitted

9 through a third party, whichever mechanism is chose, it

10 would have to be to the protocol or added to the

11 standard that is referenced in that law. That is the

12 bottom line. And the correct standards to include in

13 the law are indeed the most recent editions of those

14 two standards. They do fulfil what the requirements are

15 based on the EPAC rule. The EPAC law requirements as

16 far as consumption.

17 But, you know, while the intent, while they

18 are the same in terms of protocol, the manufacturer

19 would have to have information on file to the standard,

20 the edition that was referenced by the bill. So, they

21 would not be able to, in my opinion, submit information

22 and certify to 19.6-1995 if the information that they

23 have on file was towards 1990 requirement edition of

24 the standard. They would have to have information

25 involving the 1995. That would do, I think that would

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
99

1 be, that would work.

2 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, from NIST.

3 Would that potentially create a problem for

4 some manufacturers requiring retesting of products

5 which basically had already been determined to be in

6 compliance based on an earlier standard?

7 MR. SARGENT: At the present time, for

8 example, 18.1, yes. Although our product are tested

9 now to the '94 standard.

10 MR. HUI: Again, please specify your name and

11 the company you are with before you --

12 MR. SARGENT: Yes, Jim Sargent, Kohler

13 Company. In fact, ours are listed with IAPMO under

14 that particular standard.

15 MR. KOBEL: May I speak to that?

16 MR. HUI: Yes.

17 MR. KOBEL: Mike Kobel from IAPMO.

18 I think what some of the manufacturers are

19 referring to, there are a couple of things. Let me

20 just clarify for those who are not familiar with the

21 process. A code organization or a third party, I

22 don't know about other third parties, but code

23 organizations which have a third party listing program

24 typically reserve the right to determine whether or not

25 they will accept the latest version of a standard. In

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
100

1 other words, IAPMO at one time accepted the '94 version

2 of the faucet standard from ANSI. And when the '96

3 version came out, IAPMO does not automatically accept

4 it, but it goes through a standards review process, so

5 that the members, the voting members, which are

6 typically public officials, government officials,

7 building, plumbing inspectors, whose responsibility it

8 is to protect the public health and safety, will take

9 time to review those standards and assure themselves

10 through their process that there hasn't any changes

11 been made to the standard which would take away from

12 the protection of the public health and safety. And

13 upon finding that, they go ahead and recommend that

14 those standards be accepted and then at the annual

15 meeting of the association, that vote is made and those

16 standards are then accepted by the association. Now,

17 the '96 standard has been accepted, by the way. The

18 '95 version of the fixture china standard is not in our

19 latest list and I don't know why. I didn't get a

20 chance to look that up before I came, but anyway.

21 So sometimes that process depending on when

22 the standard is first published, might take as much as

23 a year before the code organization accepts that same

24 standard. Because of that also, the manufacturers,

25 maybe they have listed some of these products in years

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
101

1 past to the '94 standard and in our process of, we

2 require, for example, in our listing program, that

3 products have, test reports aren't part of their, less

4 than five years old. So, even though a product had to

5 be tested initially to get listed under our listing

6 program, it is possible that in our ongoing follow up

7 inspection program, that any particular faucet might

8 not have been tested except maybe five years ago at a

9 maximum. All right. So, that it means, like Mr.

10 Kohler, Mr. Sargent from Kohler is talking about, I

11 think you as Mr. Kohler sometimes.

12 MR. SARGENT: Thank you.

13 MR. KOBEL: Sometimes, like you pointed out,

14 the test reports that we have on file, even though we

15 are currently using the '96 faucet standard, the

16 reports that we have on file may only be for the '94

17 standard. Now, because of the flow requirements are

18 consistent between the two, you know, at least for the

19 DOE that shouldn't be a problem. But, maybe, I don't

20 know, maybe some language should be put in there saying

21 that in the regulations we adopt, the '96 version, but

22 that until, you know, for some period of time, the

23 manufacturers have a chance to go ahead and complete

24 new testing to the new standards, as long as the old

25 standards are consistent, that that will be accepted,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
102

1 too. Maybe that is an answer to the problem.

2 MR. HUI: Yes?

3 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

4 Incorporated.

5 I am going to ask this in the form of a

6 question, I suppose. The 1994 version of A112.18.1M has

7 identical requirements for flow as it does for the

8 1996. If the Department is requesting, requiring

9 manufacturers to go retest all of their products to the

10 1996 version, even though the requirements are the

11 same, then I guess I would be oppose to adopting the

12 '96 and I would be in favor of including the '94.

13 Because retesting a couple of thousands of models is

14 not easy.

15 MR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin, NIST.

16 Your proposed certification statement has

17 embedded it in that this conformance with applicable

18 test requirements prescribed in subpart B of the 10 CFR

19 Part 430. If you look at that, it prescribes that the

20 current version, the '94 18.1M and the 1990 19.6, you

21 may want to, this is just a proposition to consider,

22 you may want to amend that to bring in the latest

23 standards and then add a brief paragraph to state that

24 where the new standard and the prior standard or maybe

25 plural standards, have equivalent requirements then

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
103

1 retesting is not necessary for the certification by the

2 manufacturer. It is just to put, to try to overcome

3 what looks like a dilemma that is developing because of

4 the various code regulations and now the Federal

5 Regulation.

6 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen,

7 Incorporated.

8 I asked that in the form of a question, I am

9 not sure whether your interpretation is or the panel up

10 there.

11 MR. MARGOLIS: Why do you have to retest if it

12 is the same basic --

13 MR. MOINIAN: That is fine. If that is the

14 case, that is part of, I thought I heard if it is the

15 1996, you have to go retest, we don't want to do that.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: No, it is the same basic model

17 and there is no changes to the water usage.

18 MR. MOINIAN: There is no change to the water

19 usage.

20 MR. MARGOLIS: We have never required that in

21 the other appliance fields, other appliance products.

22 But, the reason we propose to adopt, to amend the

23 standard to '90, was it '94 and -- ASME/ANSI has come

24 out with a later version, the law says that we shall

25 adopt the later version if the Secretary finds that it

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
104

1 is, that certain things are there, which -- and we

2 don't have to go by a rulemaking. It says "shall".

3 But, I am hearing now that if we go to '96 that would,

4 to certain states where their codes are '94, and it

5 takes them awhile to update to the current ASME/ANSI

6 standard, that -- So are you, are the people here

7 represented, say that we should not, therefore, go to

8 the latest versions of ASME/ANSI because the states

9 have not really updated to that version?

10 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

11 Incorporated.

12 No, I am not saying that. I am saying, in

13 fact, as we had stated earlier, we would support the

14 latest version of the standard, the 1996 version,

15 A112.18.1M. However, since there requirements for flow

16 rates are identical to '94, there shouldn't be any

17 reason for new testing or test to the new

18 documentation, I should say.

19 MR. MARGOLIS: Well, but Mr. Sargent, I think

20 said that.

21 Is this Mr. Sargent?

22 MR. SARGENT: I said that.

23 MR. MARGOLIS: Right. So you are saying that

24 we should stay with what we proposed?

25 MR. SARGENT: Well, no, I think I asked the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
105

1 question more than making a statement, you know, again,

2 the '96 version is in the process of being adopted by

3 all the model codes. When this occurs, we eventually,

4 over a span of time, will have to have our products

5 retested and recertified to the '96 version. But, we

6 have some ratch down time to do that.

7 My question is, right at the present time and

8 my third party certifiers, and on file with 20 other

9 listing jurisdictions in North America, that we are

10 listed under the '94 ASME standard and it has the

11 identical flow rates. Now, if I pick out one of those

12 third party certifiers and send you a certification

13 request, all the tests are going to be to the '94

14 standard. A couple of years down the line, they won't

15 be.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Why do you have to retest? You

17 are saying that for this third party certification you

18 are going to have to retest your products because it is

19 '96.

20 MR. SARGENT: That is right.

21 MR. MARGOLIS: Why if the, if it is the same

22 basic model? Why do you have to --

23 MR. SARGENT: Because, now you are talking,

24 you are relating it only to water usage.

25 MR. MARGOLIS: Right.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
106

1 MR. SARGENT: And when the model codes or the

2 jurisdiction is adopted, the new standards, they adopt

3 the entire standard and we have to retest to the

4 updated standard in all of the phases that are covered

5 in that standard, which may mean different issues in

6 different items. So, within five years if IAPMO

7 eventually adopts the '96 totally, goes through the

8 membership and anything, it is adopted and ends up in

9 the code, I will have to retest all of my faucets to

10 the '96 standard in five years time.

11 MR. MARGOLIS: Is there a difference other

12 than water usage from the '96 and the '94?

13 MR. SARGENT: The only real major difference

14 relates to back flow, back siphonage control and it

15 references another standard, a brand new standard. And

16 so, eventually I am going to have to retest those

17 faucets to the '96 version.

18 MR. MARGOLIS: Well, let me -- let me just

19 throw --

20 MR. SARGENT: The water usage is identical.

21 MR. MARGOLIS: Now is there is any way that in

22 designating these standards, '94 and '96, '98,

23 whatever, can we limit it to water usage, to take away

24 from the possibility of having, as you are saying, you

25 have to retest because of something else in the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
107

1 standard that really is not, that may not be our

2 concern?

3 MR. SARGENT: I guess that is the question.

4 You know, the '94/'96, the germane fact is that they

5 are identical for your purposes. They are not

6 identical for other purposes. And all I am concerned

7 of and that is why I am asked the question, the test

8

10

reports I have in file at IAPMO, and if I use their

water conservation book to certify my product, for

example, do I have to retest then for them to the '96

11 standard?

12 MR. MARGOLIS: That is to retest for --

13 MR. SARGENT: Well, to maintain my listing in

14 the --

15 MR. MARGOLIS: In their book?

16 MR. SARGENT: Yes.

17 MR. MARGOLIS: What I am, is there anyway that

18 you could -- for us to say that it is, the '96 standard

19 is only for water use purposes, I mean, is there some

20 language that we could use that would allow you to

21 still be in their directory?

22 MR. SARGENT: I don't know, I would have to

23 ask them.

24 MR. MARGOLIS: I am saying if there, in your

25 written comments to give us an answer to this. So that

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
108

1 you don't have to retest for our purposes.

2 MR. HUI: I believe we have Mr. Martin and

3 then Mr. Higgins.

4 MR. MARTIN: We are spending an awful lot of

5 time in solving a problem that doesn't exist. We are

6 acting as though we are going to go back to our,

7 wherever we work and say, "This is what DOE did

8 yesterday." And what is going to happen is you are

9 going to come out with a final rule and that will not

10 be an effect on the date that it is published. There

11 will be more time here. This updating has already

12 started through the building requirements. And so, they

13 have got a start on you now. And so referencing the

14 latest standard is clearly the way to go and by the

15 time that it takes effect, somebody will have forced

16 this to happen. And in any case , the idea of an

17 enforcement agency refusing a certification based on

18 one standard when it is certified based on another one

19 with identical wording, is hardly worth holding up a

20 lunch break for.

21 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

22 Mr. Higgins?

23 MR. HIGGINS: Pat Higgins. I read Section

24 430.2 to require that the basic model complies with

25 applicable Energy and Water Conservation Standards. I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
109

1 think as long as we understand that the standard policy

2 in accordance with the Act is such that a manufacturer

3 is able to verify that his or her product complies with

4 the standards, regardless of what the age of the test

5 report of the standard, as long as the criteria is the

6 same, you are obviously satisfied. Now, if the

7 standard should change in terms of flow rate or water

8 consumption, then you should call for retesting or

9 certification. But, as long as that is on the record

10 and clear, I think we can move on.

11 MR. HUI: Okay. Does everybody agree to move

12 on?

13 MR. MARTIN: Yes.

14 MR. HUI: Okay. Mr. Sullivan?

15 MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan from American

16 Water Works Association.

17 I have a more fundamental question. We have

18 been talking a lot about what various manufacturers are

19 going to submit to the Department of Energy, I would

20 like to ask the Department of Energy, what are you

21 going to do with the data you receive?

22 MR. HUI: Well, these data are required by the

23 Department to ensure that manufacturers are making

24 product that conform to the Energy and Water

25 Conservation requirement. They are kept in file and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
110

1 they are referred to whenever we receive any complaint

2 about the particular manufacturer's product. Then we

3 can backtrack and first of all, make sure that we do

4 have that product on file and who was the manufacturer

5 in which to contact because of these allegations. So,

6 we have a requirement to have these on file and the

7 manufacturer, I believe, have a requirement to keep

8 those data on file for a maximum of two years, I

9 believe. Yes.

10 MR. SULLIVAN: So you will not publish a

11 listing or anything of that nature?

12 MR. HUI: The Department has never published a

13 listing for any particular cover product.

14 MR. SULLIVAN: How does the consumer become

15 aware that the product is certified?

16 MR. HUI: The product that the consumers finds

17 out there, has to comply with the standard before they

18 are allowed to be distributed. The law has

19 enforcement provisions in place for products that are

20 misrepresented. That is why we have certification

21 requirement which follows the statistical sampling plan

22 that we have proposed. The second line defense is the

23 enforcement provision, which the Department has in

24 place and these enforcement provisions are triggered

25 when someone calls in or submit in writing that they

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
111

1 believe that the so and so product is being

2 misrepresented and that they are not performing as

3 reported. And what happens after that is that the

4 Secretary or her, his or her designated representative

5 would meet with the manufacturer and the manufacturer

6 would have the opportunity to present the bad day at

7 the Department, only if that did not come to any

8 resolution with the Department imposed enforcement

9 provisions. And as far as I know, I don't believe we

10 have ever initiated any enforcement provisions on any

11 particular manufacturer in any industry.

12 Mr. Martin?

13 MR. MARTIN: You are not quite as bad as you

14 sound. You have actually done that when requested in

15 the past of some manufacturers, not -- but the answer

16 to the question is there is no way that the consumer

17 can tell whether something is certified to DOE.

18 The other, the question is whether the

19 consumer is buying something really needs to know

20 whether it is certified to DOE. What the consumer needs

21 to know is what the flow rate is, which comes to the

22 labeling. But, DOE has beautifully kept files but not

23 available to the general public.

24 MR. HUI: Any other thoughts, questions?

25 Mr. DeMarco?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
2

1 MR. DEMARCO: I agree totally what Michael

2 just said. The certification to DOE isn't the issue

3 that the consumer needs to be aware of, he needs to be

4 aware of whether the product is manufactured in

5 compliance with EPAC. Now, there are legal

6 requirements that are imposed, I think imposed by the

7 FTC for that purpose and have been and are in effect at

8 this point. And those are the marks that the consumer

9 would see to be aware of the fact that those products

10 are indeed manufactured in compliance with the rules of

11 EPAC. They are marks that required on the product, on

12 the packaging of the product.

13 MR. HUI: Thank you. Any others?

14 Well, in that case we want to take a vote on

15 whether we want to proceed or go to lunch.

16 Proceed. Proceed?

17 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

18 MR. HUI: Okay.

19 (Pause.)

20 MR. HUI: The last items are under Other

21 Issues. These are items that were not brought up in

22 the prepared statements and, but the Department still

23 seeks comments on those issues. And I believe some of

24 these issues have already been discussed. For example,

25 the mathematically rounding rules, the method of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
113

1 applications and the rounding procedures.

2 A listing of those issues are presented right

3 here on my right and if we could just go over them very

4 briefly to see if we have included everything and

5 whether you believe there are some issues that we

6 should add on this, that is currently not on that list.

7 Okay. I trust by your silence that you have

8 no objections to the issues that are listed there and

9 the order in which they are going to be asked.

10 At this time does anyone have any comment

11 regarding any or all of those issues?

12 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

13 Incorporated.

14 We notice and I think some of the other

15 manufacturers have noticed those same things, but there

16 is a difference between the statistical evaluations of

17 the certification as opposed to the enforcement. And

18 my question is why is there a difference?

19 MR. HUI: I will refer the question to NIST.

20 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado of NIST.

21 The basic principal behind the difference

22 between the enforcement and the compliance

23 certification is that the Department wants to be extra

24 careful not to unfairly find the manufacturer to be not

25 in compliance. So, as a result, the enforcement

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
114

1 action, the procedure that is included in the

2 enforcement is, provides the manufacturer with less of

3 a risk of a false, falsely be found in non compliance.

4 And the way that is done is with the two sided

5 confidence interval. It is a little bit misleading

6 perhaps or confusing when you compare the confidence

7 interval between the compliance and the enforcement

8 because a lower confidence interval on the one sided

9 procedure, such as the compliance, is less stringent,

10 whereas, the enforcement a higher confidence interval

11 is less stringent because it is a two sided. And I can

12 go into more details about mathematically what goes on

13 but the basis for the difference is to try to reduce

14 the manufacturer's risk.

15 MR. HUI: Yes, Mr. Martin?

16 MR. MARTIN: I would like to answer your

17 question from a different point of view and that is

18 when you certify, you test two models. If the results

19 are widespread, you have to test some more. For those

20 of us in the enforcement community, there is really no

21 way that we can test to show whether something complies

22 or not. You test the first one, it flunks, so you

23 allowed to test as many as you like. Do we have to

24 test five, 20, 100? There is no way that we can show

25 that you meet the statistical thing. And so, there has

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
115

1 to be a different way for enforcement than there is for

2 the statistical situation.

3 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado.

4 And that is a point that I should have

5 mentioned also, is that the enforcement limits the

6 maximum number of units to be tested. Whereas,

7 compliance, and that limit is 20, and it requires a

8 minimum of four. And there is also a procedure in there

9 for determining the number of units which need to be

10 tested based upon the variation among the sample

11 population based on the standard deviation. That

12 determines whether you have tested enough to have a

13 reliable estimate of the performance. Whereas, with

14 compliance, you are free to continue testing as long as

15 you want since you can't do anything until you prove

16 that you are, or you can't totally prove, but until you

17 meet the compliance certification requirements.

18 MR. HUI: Any other comment on any of the

19 issues listed in the other issues. Yes, go ahead.

20 MR. DEMARCO: Just a minor issue on Issue

21 number 1, the proposal to have the industry submit

22 metric equivalents on compliance certifications. I

23 think this is a minor point. I don't know, would this

24 mean that we would have to submit both in terms of

25 gallons and liters?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
116

1 MR. HUI: Yes.

2 MR. DEMARCO: For purposes of certification I

3 would consider those numbers to be redundant in their

4 equals. You know, I think it goes contrary to a

5 paperwork reduction. Goals that we are going towards,

6 I don't see any benefit in having it submitted in two

7 forms. I would encourage the Department to consider

8 either one or the other. They are, in fact, equal

9 ones. And the, you know, can change one to the other

10 very easily and so I would suggest that one or the

11 other be allowed.

12 MR. HUI: Any follow-up to that comment or do

13 you have a comment concerning the other items on that

14 list?

15 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, Delta Faucet.

16 Your metric equivalence, one of, in the rule

17 you have correct conversion for metric, but in the

18 standard there is, there are two errors. Just to point

19 that out.

20 MR. HUI: What are the errors?

21 MS. REMEDIOS: The 2.2 gpn converts to 8.3 and

22 the standard says 8.4.

23 MR. HUI: Which standard would that be?

24 MS. REMEDIOS: Ninety-six.

25 MR. HUI: In the '96. Are you referring to a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
117

1 rounding error or --

2 MS. REMEDIOS: Yes, I believe so. And the 2.5

3 you have correctly converted it to 9.5 and in the

4 standard it says 9.6. This issue has been brought up

5 at the committee so it will be changed, I believe,

6 eventually.

7 MR. HUI: Now we are talking about the faucet

8 of 2.2, which is currently listed at 8.3 liter per

9 minute and that should be 8.4.

10 MS. REMEDIOS: No, it should it be 8.3, but in

11 the standard it says 8.4.

12 MR. HUI: Okay. So it is incorrect in ASME

13 standard?

14 MS. REMEDIOS: Yes.

15 MR. HUI: I see.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Which version?

17 MS. REMEDIOS: Ninety-four or '96, it doesn't

18 matter, they are both the same.

19 MR. NASSERI: Excuse me, ASME is going to

20 correct this?

21 MS. REMEDIOS: Yes, yes.

22 MR. NASSERI: By a letter or something, or

23 what is the -- ANSI standard is usually you do it by a

24 letter.

25 MS. REMEDIOS: Yes.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
118

1 MR. HIGGINS: We now have a subscription

2 service available that has just been announced and

3 these are --

4 Mr. NASSERI: Any idea when this is going to

5 take place?

6 MR. HIGGINS: We are working on it now. About

7 a month, a month and a half, as long as it takes to

8 print.

9 MR. NASSERI: I ask that because as part of

10 our rulemaking when we go to final rule, we will

11 probably have to discuss any, in the preamble, the

12 changes that, corrections to the standards. And this

13 has to be done in the final rule. So that is what I am

14 sensitive about having it ready in the time. And is

15 this going to be published in the, where is it, how is

16 it going to be announced, this correction?

17 MR. HIGGINS: If it is merely a misprint or

18 correction, or it is not, we just issue the erratic

19 sheet to all the people that purchase the standard. If

20 it is a technical change, technical changes are

21 considered an addendum. But, this is strictly a typo,

22 if you will.

23 MR. HUI: That was Mr. Higgins.

24 MR. HIGGINS: Thank you, I am sorry.

25 MR. TREADO: Steve Treado from NIST.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
119

1 Since we are talking typos, I imagine you

2 thought the test procedures rather the test pressures

3 in the '95 version of 19.6, when referring local water

4 closets and urinals. I will give you the section on

5 that.

6 (Pause.)

7 MR. TREADO: Under the water consumption test

8 for both urinals and water closets, Section 8.5B,

9 performance requirements B-1. The average water

10 consumption of low consumption urinals over the range

11 of test procedures specified in Table 2. I think it is

12 probably suppose to be test pressures. Same thing in

13 water closets.

14 MR. HUI: Thank you.

15 Gene, do you have a question?

16 MR. MARGOLIS: On the metric equivalents, if

17 you would look in the proposed rule on page 7837, it

18 says that the Metric Conversion Act and that is what we

19 are doing is to make it form to the law that we have to

20 use both gallons and liters. So, while it might be, I

21 mean, all you are doing is adding another, we are not

22 saying that you have to submit an entire certification

23 on gallons and then another entire certification on

24 liters. That would be, I think, dubious to do. What we

25 are saying is that after you put the gallons, you put

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
120

1 the liters. I don't think that means, gives any extra

2 paperwork to be done.

3 MR. HUI: A minor issue.

4 Any follow-up views, comments, questions?

5 Mr. Horner?

6 MR. HORNER: Tom Horner with Water Management.

7 Under number 11 I thought a short discussion on HRH 59,

8 which would make this whole meeting, let's say

9 irrelevant, should be an order from, for the few of you

10 that might not know about it, is Representative Joseph

11 Nollenberg, Republican from Michigan, introduced it

12 February 22nd. It will basically repeal the water use

13 standard and labeling requirements for water closets

14 and showerheads, and faucets and urinals under EPAC.

15 From some of our primarily analysis it seems that the

16 committee is evenly divided on the issue. If it, let's

17 per chance would go through, we go back to, all back to

18 the states. And so, I think if you are against that

19 issue, that a little bit of lobbying might be in order

20 while it is in the committee stage as opposed to

21 waiting for it to get back out on the House floor.

22 And I was curious if Nollenberg's office had contacted

23 any of the organizations and gotten your opinion and

24 you know, that means you guys think it is a dead issue

25 or is this problem down the line?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
121

1 MR. DEMARCO: I think industry in the general

2 is very aware of it and -- Excuse me, Pete DeMarco with

3 American Standard. And concerned about the proposal.

4 I don't think anybody in this room, anyway, would be in

5 favorite of that issue and maybe I speak out of line

6 there, but I can't imagine that it would be. And we

7 are all certainly not taking it for granted that this

8 thing is going to go away.

9 MR. HUI: Mr. Higgins?

10 MR. HIGGINS: Pat Higgins. Two issues, we

11 have already written all members of the Congress

12 committee with our opinion on this against the bill.

13 Secondly, and for the record, the plumbing

14 codes have adopted the regulation, so even if the

15 Nollenberg Bill did go through, we wouldn't see state

16 by state criteria if they have adopted a plumbing code,

17 which recognizes the DOE language or the DOE proposal.

18 So, that the 1.6 is in the codes now. And we made sure

19 that there was a consistency there. It doesn't say the

20 codes can't be changed, but I think the dye has been

21 cast. But, again, I agree with Tom, we need to keep

22 our eye on this thing and make sure that it goes in the

23 right direction.

24 MR. HUI: Thank you.

25 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
122

1 Incorporated.

2 We are also in opposition of the Nollenberg

3 Bill. However, the question that I have to DOE is what

4 is DOE going to do to educate states to follow this

5 rule, the law? There are states that are not even

6 exempt from the law , that are enforcing other

7 requirements , Kentucky, New Jersey are two of them.

8 There are states that are exempt --

9 MR. MARGOLIS: What do you mean enforcing

10 other requirements?

11 MR. MOINIAN: Yes, the State of New Jersey has

12 flow rate requirements of 2.2 at the 80 psi for kitchen

13 faucets and -- We initiated a changeover there, they

14 said by the end of this year they are going to change

15 it. They were not aware of the Federal Law. And the

16 State of New Jersey , they are going to develop a new

17 code that does have requirements of 2.2 at 60 psi.

18 But, obviously, the State of Rhode Island is 2.0 still

19 and so forth. What is DOE going to do to educate all

20 the states?

21 MR. HUI: This is Bill Hui.

22 My understanding was New Jersey is going to

23 or is currently at 2.5 gallon per minute at 80 psi for

24 kitchen and lavatory faucets and the same requirements

25 stand for showerheads . And as for the State of

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
123

1 Kentucky, kitchen faucet standard will be or might be

2 already at 2.2 gpm at 60 psi for both kitchen and

3 lavatory faucets, is that correct?

4 MR. MOINIAN: Not to the best of my knowledge.

5 I recently talked to them and the numbers I stated to

6 you are what they are enforcing.

7 MR. MARGOLIS: They can't enforce it, I mean,

8 if -- The thing, if they are trying to enforce it, you

9 have the right to go into court.

10 MR. MOINIAN: Yes, sure.

11 MR. MARGOLIS: To have the court tell them

12 that what the law is and it is not the New Jersey or

13 New York law. We expect for you to speak to the

14 enforcing AGC and once they are told what the federal

15 law is, that they would back, that the state would back

16 off that. But we are not going to bring any action

17 against the states. We leave that to the

18 manufacturers, if the state is enforcing an improper

19 law, then the manufacturers are the ones who would be

20 involved and they would go to court against the state

21 office that is trying to enforce it. We have said

22 this to the, in the appliance field and they understand

23 that we are not going to bring actions against states.

24 We don't have the manpower. We don't have the money to

25 do so. And if it is brought to our attention and you,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
124

1 and the state official wants to find out what the law

2 is, let the state official to write to us and we will

3 tell them what the federal law is and how, if it does

4 pre-exempt the state law. We have gotten those

5 inquiries. And in fact, a few years ago, we got one

6 from Connecticut on the 2.2 issue and we wrote to them

7 telling them what the Department's position is in that

8 regard. So, if it is, if you bring it to the

9 attention of the state and they write to us, we will

10 inform them.

11 But, I wanted to ask you a question on, was

12 it Rhode Island? There you are saying their law is

13 2.0, now this law is in the statute saying that they

14 can have theirs because it preceded the EPAC.

15 MR. MOINIAN: Right.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: Now, if they change that, then

17 they would be pre-exempted by EPAC. They can keep it as

18 long as they don't change it. But, if they change

19 something there, then their law would be pre-exempted.

20 So, I just wanted to call your attention that they can,

21 as long as it is the same law that is in, referred to

22 in the statute, that is valid. If they make any change

23 to it, if they, and that is what I am asking, did they

24 make any change to their law?

25 MR. MOINIAN: Well, I don't think theirs, part

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
125

1 of the law, part of the plumbing, state plumbing code

2 and they changed their plumbing code and the new

3 plumbing code does have the 2.2 at 60 psi, so in that

4 case we are okay.

5 So, your point is after they have changed to

6 2.2 at 60 psi, they no longer can go to say 1.5 at 80

7 psi, or something of that effect?

8 MR. MARGOLIS: They are protected, if theirs

9 was 2.2, 2.0 back in 1980, or 1990, that is what is

10 safe, you might say, they can use that. But, once they

11 change it, later on, then that is it. They can't then

12 go back to it.

13 MR. HUI: Does that answer your question?

14 MR. MOINIAN: Thank you.

15 MR. HUI: Okay. Mr. Martin?

16 MR. MARTIN: The biggest thing that DOE can do

17 to educate the states is to publish this final rule.

18 And in our defense and my state people, there has been

19 an awful lot of confusion because the regulations,

20 current regulations don't say anything about pre21 exemption of plumbing fitting standards. The law kind

22 of implied, but the statute implies that, the

23 regulations don't say it. There is also these

24 differences between the pressure and the statute and

25 the pressure that we are coming up with here. And so

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
126

1 it has been a murky situation all the way along. And

2 getting this final rule out, is going to make a vast

3 difference to everybody. You will and we will know

4 exactly where we stand. I think then things are going

5 to clear up a lot faster.

6 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

7 Incorporated.

8 The proposed rule still has a, Section 430.41

9 has a criteria for exemption from pre-exempts. And the

10 way I read it, the crux of it says if the state

11 convinces the Federal Government that they must have

12 requirements more stringent than the 2.2 at 60 psi, or

13 1.6 gallons per flush and so forth, if there is enough

14 evidence, then they will allow it. Am I reading this

15 correctly?

16 MR. MARGOLIS: To come in for, a state can

17 come in and ask that the standard be more, say more

18 stringent. It then would, has to make out a case for

19 that. The case it has to make out, if you would look

20 at the regulation, which in a sense paraphrases the

21 statute, it may be very difficult for the state to

22 show. But, it is up to the state to present a case and

23 then the Department will evaluate that and follow what

24 the law is and whether it grants it or doesn't grant

25 it. For us to say now that a state cannot make out a

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
127

1 case or can make out a case, is prejudging it before we

2 even have an application from a state. So far under

3 EPAC, we have not have any applications, whether it be

4 in water use or in energy use. We had that in energy

5 use for the prior law, but not for the current law.

6 MR. HUI: Yes, Sally?

7 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, Delta Faucet.

8 The rule only refers to states being able to

9 do this, does that, how does that cover other things

10 like cities or other bodies that might put in more

11 restrictive requirements?

12 MR. MARGOLIS: If the city, if the city puts

13 in a requirement, the state would have to file the

14 application to the Department of Energy on behalf of

15 that city. If the state doesn't want to file it, then

16 that city's law is pre-exempted.

17 MR. HUI: Yes?

18 MR. MOINIAN: Shahin Moinian, Moen

19 Incorporated.

20 No, I guess the water closets, I think, the

21 appliance labeling rule is the same as DOE requirements

22 for certification. The case of faucets, the

23 requirements are different. In fact, the requirements

24 of the standards are different from the appliance

25 labeling rules. That has caused confusions in the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
128

1 industry, marketing problems and so forth. We have had

2 many discussions with Mr. Mills, sitting back there.

3 What can the manufacturers do to help expedite this

4 proposed rule to make it the final rule?

5 MR. HUI: This is Bill Hui.

6 I guess at this time it is maybe premature as

7 to when we can get this final rule out. As you know

8 the comment period, it is open until May 6th. And to

9 finalize the proposed rule that would probably depend

10 on a number of factors. These factors are the kind and

11 nature of comment we are going to be receiving up to

12 May 6th. For example, if we were to get a comment

13 requesting further study or analysis on the particular

14 issue brought up in comment, then obviously we would

15 have to investigate that and you know, that would delay

16 the final rule. So, I mean, I guess the bottom line is

17 at this time, I can't even give you a firm answer as

18 to, you know, how soon can we finalize this. %

19 MR. MARGOLIS: One of the things, there is a

20 process now where there are, I can't think of the,

21 rules are given high priority, low priority, medium

22 priority or something like that. And I would think

23 that you would ask to speak to the Assistant Secretary

24 for Conservation and try or the General Counsel, or the

25 Secretary of Energy and ask that the rule be given high

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
129

1 priority. Not saying that it would be given high

2 priority, that is beyond our control at this table.

3 But, if it is, once it is given high priority or such,

4 then it would be on a different plan or level. So, you

5 are asking how to get this rule out, is to speak to

6 the, those people who would control the priority

7 setting.

8 MR. NASSERI: Let me follow up on this piece,

9 if I can and answer your question. Cyrus Nasseri,

10 Department of Energy.

11 Obviously the proposed rule was published in

12 the other closing of the April 6th, May 6th, I am

13 sorry, this is the test procedure, and we are very,

14 very anxious to go to final rule as quick as we can.

15 And I don't see any reason why we cannot, I personally

16 feel that way. Go to the final rule as fast as

17 possible, build a kind of a touch bases on the way we

18 go to final rule is dependent on the nature of the

19 comments, and the issues that we receive as the

20 comments. If the comments are straightforward and we

21 don't have any problem with making a decision, if it is

22 not a policy or legal or any technical issues that

23 takes time, we can go to final rule in a very timely

24 manner. And I don't think if we have any set rule that

25 how long it is going to go to final rule from proposed

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
130

1 rule. What Gene is referring to a process improvement

2 that we have done in last year or so, to make the

3 rulemaking process in a faster fashion, going from the,

4 in this case it is a proposed rule and final rule in

5 standards is advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,

6 proposed rule and then final rule. There are three.

7 One more stage added to this, just test for final rule.

8 But, we are in a position right now that as I see it,

9 that we don't have that many comments. If this is the,

10 you know, they are limited to today's comments that is

11 to discuss and we can probably, I can't swear to this,

12 but maybe after two, three months after the closing of

13 the proposed rule comment period of April 6th.

14 MR. HUI: May 6th.

15 MR. NASSERI: May 6th, I am sorry and we

16 should be able to go ahead and go to final rule. I

17 don't see any, if that answers the question.

18 MR. MOINIAN: You are an optimist.

19 MR. NASSERI: I am always optimist right.

20 MR. HUI: I see everyone is getting restless.

21 Are there any follow-up comments, suggestion, questions

22 on any issues? Okay. If so, just bear with me.

23 All right.

24 MR. KONEN: Maybe I will just run through to

25 make sure I understand correctly, this is Tom Konen,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
131

1 Stevens Institute. In order to comply with the

2 proposed rule a manufacturer would submit a minimum of

3 two products to a laboratory, whether it be captive or

4 independent. And that based on these test results, he

5 would use standards statistical procedures such as

6 the -- test to show conformance to Section 430.24.

7 Which says that the consumption on the upper limit

8 would be less than six liters or 1.6 gallons. By the

9 basic model you might assume that you could use the

10 same toilet tank with different bowls and not evaluate

11 them as the system. And I wonder whether that would be

12 correct because of the interaction between the bowl and

13 the tank, there may be some manufacturers that might

14 want to comment on that.

15 Two, the manufacturer has the responsibility

16 to maintain compliance once it was established by this

17 initial testing. The product might be in existence for

18 10 years but no further testing would be required,

19 correct?

20 MR. HUI: That would be correct. If a

21 manufacturer only manufactures one particular product

22 and they all fall under the same basic model, then that

23 manufacturer would only to certify to the Department

24 once.

25 MR. KONEN: Okay. If he is challenged or if

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
132

.1 a challenge or complaint is filed with DOE, then he

2 would use the enforcement procedures, which are the

3 statistical approaches in Appendix B, Subpart F, which

4 require a minimum of all products to be tested and then

5 a double sampling plan from there on, is that correct,

6 as I understand them?

7 MR. MARGOLIS: That is for the Government to

8 do in enforcement testing.

9 MR. KONEN: I understand.

10 MR. MARGOLIS: You said for the manufacturer

11 to do. That is the only, I am saying --

12 MR. KONEN: Okay. The Government would send

13 it to a laboratory and have them do it.

14 MR. MARGOLIS: That is correct.

15 MR. KONEN: Okay.

16 MR. MARGOLIS: But, first the Government would

17 sit down with the manufacturer, the Government got a

18 complaint then that a manufacturer product doesn't meet

19 the standard. The Government would then ask for the

20 information from the manufacturer on how we base that

21 it did meet the standard. He then, the Government

22 would then look at what was submitted, what the

23 manufacturer is now submitting to the Government. If

24 that shows that he meets the standard, that would end

25 the investigation. He then, if it doesn't show that,

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
133

1 he then goes on to do enforcement testing. Which is

2 set forth in the rule.

3 MR. KONEN: So he could prove to the

4 Government that he was in compliance by an in-house

5 quality control procedure.

6 MR. MARGOLIS: If we are accepting that the

7 manufacturer can self certify, yes.

8 MR. KONEN: Thomas Konen, question about

9 rounding. To take, say it comes up to be 6.4 liters it

10 would be rounded down to 6.0 litters.

11 MR. HUI: The rounding procedure would adhere

12 to the proposal stated on page 7839, which states the

13 Department proposal -- which is five and above round up

14 and less than five, round down.

15 MR. MARGOLIS: Why would you round 6.4 to 6?

16 MR. KONEN: I made an error. You are correct.

17 It was an error. 1.64 would be rounded down to 1.60.

18 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

19 MR. KONEN: Steve looks uneasy.

20 MR. TREADO: Well, I would say round it to

21 1.6. I would leave the 0 off.

22 MR. KONEN: Okay. Correct.

23 MR. HUI: Okay. Any questions, comments,

24 views, opinions on anything at this point?

25 MR. MARGOLIS: I want to go back to your, I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
134

1 can't read your name, sorry. I want to go to the

2 question and my response saying that if the

3 manufacturer submitted data to us showing that his self

4 compliance was valid, that would end the investigation.

5 If the complaints that we got from other testing, say

6 another manufacturer sent out those, that product to an

7 independent laboratory. And he has sent out say four

8 or five, six of those models and they all failed the

9 test, we would just -- just that the manufacturer did

10 two tests and it passed, we would do a, we would ask if

11 there was a change and now a number of products do not

12 meet the standard, we would ask if the manufacturer

13 changed something in the manufacturing process. And

14 there is the possibility that we would then go to

15 enforcement testing to see if, in fact, the models

16 currently do meet the standard. Because there is this

17 discrepancy now that the manufacturer shows that he

18 tested two in 1990, say, I am just making up a year,

19 and they passed, now, it has been retested in 1997, and

20 one manufacturer says, he had tested, say, six

21 products, and they don't pass. So, there could very

22 well be a change in the manufacturing process, which we

23 would look at.

24 MR. HUI: Thank you.

25 Thank you, Mr. Konen.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
135

1 MR. HIGGINS: Bill?

2 MR. HUI: Mr. Higgins?

3 MR. HIGGINS: Pat Higgins. Just a brief

4 remark to thanks a lot for rescheduling the meeting

5 first of all. I know that really pleased a number of

6 parties who were caught in the Easter travel.

7 Secondly, thanks for bringing this thing to

8 rule. I know it has been a long arduous process. But,

9 you know, your participation, involvement in ANSI and

10 AMSE process has benefitted from this and we benefitted

11 from your input and we thank you for bringing it to

12 this point.

13 And I guess the final point is let's keep the

14 momentum going and get this thing out. And I am

15 certain everyone in this room would support that, all

16 three comments.

17 MR. HUI: Thank you, Mr. Higgins.

18 And now we are coming to a finish line here.

19 In closing the Department, once again, would like to

20 thank all of you for taking the time from your busy

21 schedules to come to today's public hearing, to give

22 the Department your views on the issues proposed in the

23 February 20th Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

24 The format was structured in a way to kind of

25 stimulate discussions and also we would have an open

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
136

1 dialogue between the audience and the Department. And

2 I think in that regard we succeeded. There certainly

3 was a lot of good information exchanged today. And

4 like Pat said, let's continue and keep the momentum.

5 The information that was provided today and

6 any additional comments that you wish to submit and I

7 would certainly encourage you to do so, you may submit

8 them by May 6, 1997.

9 And I guess I would give you one last

10 opportunity for any additional questions, comments and

11 before we adjourn. And if there are no questions or

12 anything of that sort, I will call this meeting

13 adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

14 (Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the meeting was

15 concluded.)

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the attached 

1 proceedings before: U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY 

the Matter of: PUBLIC MEETING ON 

PLUMBING STANDARDS 

original transcript thereof.for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Administrative Law Judge 

or the Agency. 

Dated: 4-1-97 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS 

(301 ). 565-0064 

 EE-RM-TP-97-600 COMMENT 0L