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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006415

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006433

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006440

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) 565-006441

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006460

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) 565-006461

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

### 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

### 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

### 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 the14 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 f t f

ron o 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) 565-006468

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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006472

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006483

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

### 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

### 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) 565-006486

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) 565-006487

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-006492

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

### 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) 565-006494

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

### 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) 565-006496

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-0064105

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) 565-0064106

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

### 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

### 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) 565-0064109

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-0064120

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-0064127

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) 565-0064128

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

### 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) 565-0064130

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 565-0064136

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

### REPORTER'SCERTIFICATE This 

### istocertifythat the attached 

# 1 proceedings before: U.S. DEPT. 

### OF ENERGY



### theMatter of: PUBLICMEETING ON PLUMBING STANDARDS



### original transcript thereof.forthefileof the Department, Commission, AdministrativeLaw

### Judge

ortheAgency.

Dated: 

### 4-1-97

EXECUTIVE COURTREPORTERS 

### (301).

### 565-0064