Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32351 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE seeks comment on the 

technology options identified and the 

ones selected as design options in the 

screening analysis. See sections IV.B.2 

and IV.B.3 of this document. 

(2) DOE seeks comment on the 

performance characteristics of the more 

efficacious substitutes. See section IV.C 

of this document. 

(3) DOE welcomes any relevant data 

and comment on the energy use analysis 

methodology. See section IV.D of this 

document. 

(4) DOE welcomes any relevant data 

and comment on the shipments analysis 

methodology. See section IV.F of this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 23, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 24, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11437 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0021] 

RIN 1904–AE75 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Faucets and 

Showerheads 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for faucets and 

showerheads to incorporate the current 

version of the referenced industry 

standard, American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Standard 

A112.18.1–2018, ‘‘Plumbing Fixture 

Fittings.’’ DOE also proposes to add 

definitions for low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers, and exclude 

them from the faucet definition. Finally, 

DOE proposes to provide further detail 

for conducting the flow rate 

measurement. DOE is seeking comment 

from interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022, from 1:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this proposal no later than 

August 1, 2022. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0021, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

FaucetShowerhead2019TP0021. Include 

docket number EERE–2019–BT–TP– 

0021 in the subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-TP-0021. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

0371. Email 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting (if one is held), 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standard into 10 CFR 

part 430: 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) A112.18.1/ 

Canadian Standards Association 

(‘‘CSA’’) B125.1–2018 (with 10/18 

Errata), ‘‘Plumbing Supply Fittings,’’ 

approved 2018 (‘‘ASME A112.18.1– 

2018’’). 

Copies of ASME A112.18.1–2018 can 

be obtained from American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers at Two Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990, or 

by going to www.asme.org. 

For a further discussion of this 

standard, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

1. Faucets 

2. Showerheads 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

C. Additional Direction in Conducting 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 

D. Flow Restrictor Retention Test Method 

E. Reporting 

F. Clarification to 10 CFR 430.23 and 

Appendix S 

G. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization with Industry Standards 

H. Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Faucets and showerheads are 

included in the list of ‘‘covered 

products’’ for which DOE is authorized 

to establish and amend energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(15) and 

(16)) DOE’s test procedures for faucets 

and showerheads are currently 

prescribed at title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), § 430.23 

(s) and (t), respectively, and 10 CFR part 

430 subpart B, appendix S (‘‘appendix 

S’’). DOE regulations codify the 

statutory standards for faucets and 

showerheads. 10 CFR 430.32(o) and (p). 

The following sections discuss DOE’s 

authority to establish test procedures for 

faucets and showerheads and relevant 

background information regarding 

DOE’s consideration of test procedures 

for these products. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy and water 

efficiency of a number of consumer 

products and certain industrial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title 

III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, which sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy or water efficiency. These 

products include faucets and 

showerheads, the subject of this 

document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(15) and 

(16)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to 

DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other 

representations about the efficiency of 

those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 

DOE may, however, grant waivers of 

Federal preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

EPCA directs that the test procedures 

for faucets and showerheads are to be 

the test procedures specified in 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) Standard 

A112.18.1M–1989, ‘‘Plumbing Fixture 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32353 

3Comment EERE–2019–BT–TP–0021–0002 

available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2019-BT-TP-0021-0002. 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for faucets 

and showerheads. (Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP– 

0021, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). 

The references are arranged as follows: (commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

Fittings.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(A)) 

EPCA further directs that, if the test 

procedure requirements of ASME 

A112.18.1M–1989 are revised at any 

time and approved by the American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’), 

DOE must amend the Federal test 

procedures to conform to the revised 

ASME standard, unless DOE determines 

by rule that to do so would not meet the 

requirements of EPCA that the test 

procedures be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

water use during a representative 

average use cycle as determined by 

DOE, and not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(B); 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including faucets and 

showerheads, to determine whether 

amended test procedures would more 

accurately or fully comply with the 

requirements for the test procedures to 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct 

and be reasonably designed to produce 

test results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) 

If the Secretary determines, on her 

own behalf or in response to a petition 

by any interested person, that a test 

procedure should be prescribed or 

amended, the Secretary shall promptly 

publish in the Federal Register 

proposed test procedures and afford 

interested persons an opportunity to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments with respect to such 

procedures. The comment period on a 

proposed rule to amend a test procedure 

shall be at least 60 days and may not 

exceed 270 days. In prescribing or 

amending a test procedure, the 

Secretary shall take into account such 

information as the Secretary determines 

relevant to such procedure, including 

technological developments relating to 

energy use or energy efficiency of the 

type (or class) of covered products 

involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii)) 

DOE is publishing this NOPR in 

satisfaction of its statutory obligations. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) and (7)(B)) 

B. Background 

DOE’s existing test procedures for 

faucets and showerheads appear at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix S. 

DOE last amended the test procedures 

for faucets and showerheads on October 

23, 2013 (‘‘October 2013 Final Rule’’). 

78 FR 62970. In that final rule, DOE 

adopted through reference certain 

provisions of the 2012 version of ASME 

A112.18.1 as part of the test procedures 

for faucets and showerheads. 78 FR 

62970, 62982. Since then, the 2012 

version of the ASME standard was reaffirmed in 2017, and then updated in 

2018 to ASME A112.18.1–2018, which 

is the current version of the industry 

standard. 

On September 2, 2021, DOE initiated 

an early assessment review of the 

showerhead and faucet test procedure 

through the publication of a request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’). 86 FR 49261 

(‘‘September 2021 RFI’’). DOE solicited 

public comments, data, and information 

on all aspects of, and any issues or 

problems with, the existing DOE test 

procedure, including whether the test 

procedure needs updates or revisions. 

On September 24, 2021, in response to 

a stakeholder request,3 DOE extended 

the comment period for an additional 15 

days. 86 FR 53013 (Sept. 24, 2021). 

DOE received comments in response 

to the September 2021 RFI from the 

interested parties listed in Table I.I. 

TABLE I.I—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 2021 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

American Supply Association ................................................................................................. ASA ................................ Trade Organization. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Efficiency Advocates ...... Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric 

Company; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities.

CA IOUs ......................... Utilities. 

Plumbing Manufacturers International .................................................................................... PMI ................................. Trade Organization. 

Ziesenheim ............................................................................................................................. Ziesenheim .................... Individual. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘Appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for a test procedure rulemaking. 

Section 8(b) of appendix A states that if 

DOE determines that it is appropriate to 

continue the test procedure rulemaking 

after the early assessment process, it 

will provide further opportunities for 

early public input through Federal 

Register documents, including notices 

of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is 

opting to deviate from this provision by 

publishing a NOPR following the early 

assessment review RFI because, as 

discussed previously, DOE requested 

comment on a number of specific topics 

in the September 2021 RFI, and 

comments received in response to the 

September 2021 RFI informed the 

proposals included in this NOPR. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to: 

(1) Include definitions for lowpressure water dispensers and pot 

fillers; 

(2) Update the faucet definition by 

explicitly excluding low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers; 

(3) Incorporate by reference the latest 

revision to the applicable industry 

standard—ASME A112.18.1–2018, 

‘‘Plumbing Supply Fittings’’ as it 

pertains to flow rate measurement; and 

(4) Add further direction for 

conducting the flow rate measurement. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedure as well as the 

reason for the proposed change. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5The DOE water conservation standard for 

faucets specifies that water use must be ‘‘measured 

at a flowing water pressure of 60 pounds per square 

inch [(‘psi’)].’’ 10 CFR 430.32(o). 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Does not define low-pressure water dispensers or pot 

fillers.

Defines the terms low-pressure water dispensers and 

pot fillers.

Clarifies scope of coverage. 

Does not explicitly exclude low-pressure water dispensers or pot fillers from the faucet definition.Explicitly excludes low-pressure water dispensers and 

pot fillers from the faucet definition.

Clarifies scope of coverage. 

Incorporates the 2012 version of ASME A112.18.1 for 

measurement of flow rate.

Incorporates the 2018 version of ASME Standard 

A112.18.1.

Harmonize with updated industry standard. 

Aside from referencing ASME A112.18.1, includes limited guidance as to how to conduct the flow measurement test procedure.Adds additional guidance, in accordance with current 

industry practices, to ensure appropriate equipment 

is being used and to ensure repeatability of the industry standards in both the fluid meter and time/volume flow rate test methods.

Response to stakeholder 

comment; improve repeatability of test results. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments described in 

section III of this NOPR would not alter 

the measured flow rate of faucets and 

showerheads, or require retesting or 

recertification solely as a result of DOE’s 

adoption of the proposed amendments 

to the test procedures, if made final. 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure are reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use, 

or estimated annual operating costs 

during a representative average use 

cycle, as required by EPCA. 

Additionally, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed 

amendments, if made final, would not 

increase the cost of testing. Discussion 

of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed 

in detail in section III of this NOPR. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

proposes certain amendments to its test 

procedures for faucets and 

showerheads. For each proposed 

amendment, DOE provides relevant 

background information, explains why 

the amendment merits consideration, 

discusses relevant public comments, 

and proposes a potential approach. 

A. Scope of Applicability 

This proposed rulemaking applies to 

faucets and showerheads, which are 

discussed in the following sections. 

1. Faucets 

EPCA and DOE define ‘‘faucet’’ as a 

lavatory faucet, kitchen faucet, metering 

faucet, or replacement aerator for a 

lavatory or kitchen faucet. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(31)(E); 10 CFR 430.2). In the 

September 2021 RFI, DOE stated that it 

had identified products characterized in 

the market as ‘‘low-pressure water 

dispensers’’ and ‘‘pot fillers,’’ which 

appear to be within the scope of the 

statutory term ‘‘faucet.’’ 86 FR 49261, 

49263. DOE stated that it did not 

consider low-pressure water dispensers 

or pot fillers when establishing the 

current test procedure and standards for 

faucets. 86 FR 49261, 49264. Further, 

the purpose of these products is 

typically to fill a vessel and as such, the 

water usage associated with these 

products is directly related to the size of 

the vessel and is independent of the 

flow rate of these products. Id. at 86 FR 

49263. As such, application of a 

maximum flow rate 5 to these products 

would not save any water and could 

diminish the usefulness of such 

products by taking longer to fill a given 

vessel. Id. Therefore, DOE stated that 

although low-pressure water dispensers 

appear to meet the DOE definition of a 

faucet, there is currently no applicable 

DOE test procedure for testing lowpressure water dispensers or pot fillers 

because the DOE test procedure requires 

testing faucets at 60 psi whereas lowpressure water dispensers operate at 15 

psi. Id. 

DOE received comments regarding 

low-pressure water dispensers and pot 

fillers. 

ASA explained that it agrees with 

DOE’s understanding of the differences 

between ‘‘low-pressure water 

dispensers’’ and ‘‘pot fillers’’ compared 

to conventional kitchen faucets. These 

products are specifically intended and 

marketed by manufacturers for filling 

operations only and not for tasks 

associated with conventional kitchen 

faucets. (ASA, No. 6 at p.1) ASA 

asserted that nothing would be gained 

by regulating low-pressure water 

dispensers or pot fillers since the 

primary purpose is filling vessels, 

which is independent of flow rate. ASA 

stated that regulating such devices 

would have an undesirable effect of 

extending filling time for pot fillers. 

(ASA, No. 6 at p. 2) 

The Efficiency Advocates similarly 

commented that application of flow rate 

standards to low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers would not 

yield water savings, since the volume of 

water used by such products would be 

determined by the volume of the vessel 

being filled. The Efficiency Advocates 

did not recommend establishing test 

procedures for low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) The Efficiency 

Advocates commented, however, that it 

is possible that pot fillers could be 

marketed for installation over a sink as 

a high-flow alternative to a covered 

kitchen faucet and recommended that 

DOE consider amending the definition 

of a kitchen faucet to encompass any 

terminal fitting designed for discharge 

into a kitchen sink at a water supply 

pressure of 20 psi or more. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) 

PMI agreed with DOE’s understanding 

of the key differences between lowpressure water dispensers, pot fillers, 

and conventional kitchen faucets. PMI 

commented that test procedures should 

not be updated to include testing for 

low-pressure water dispensers or pot 

fillers given the function for those 

products and water conservation is not 

applicable to these products, as their 

intended use is for filling vessels with 

specific volumes of water, and that 

measuring the flow rate would not 

result in significant water savings. (PMI, 

No. 5 at p. 2–4) 

Ziesenheim suggested that lowpressure water dispensers have the 

potential to conserve water, though in a 

slightly different capacity than 

traditional faucets, because the low 

pressure aspect of such water dispensers 

would allow for more precision in 

filling the vessel, which would decrease 

the likelihood of dispensing more water 

than needed. Ziesenheim recommended 

that DOE incorporate a definition of 

low-pressure water dispensers into the 

Federal regulations for faucets and 

showerheads and use this definition to 

develop testing procedures and coverage 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32355 

under energy conservation standards. 

(Ziesenheim, No. 3 at p. 1) 

Further, DOE received several 

comments regarding potential test 

procedures for both low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers. 

PMI commented that the test 

procedures should not be updated to 

include testing for low-pressure water 

dispensers or pot fillers, given the 

functions of these products. (PMI, No. 5 

at p. 3) PMI added that low-pressure 

water dispensers are intended to operate 

at or around 15 psi in the field, and that 

these products are tested for a maximum 

flow rate of 1.5 gpm at 15 psi, per the 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 requirements. 

PMI commented that manufacturers are 

already testing low-pressure water 

dispensers to ASME A112.18.1–2018 for 

certification purposes. (PMI, No. 5 at p. 

5) 

ASA stated that there may not be a 

typical water pressure for low-pressure 

water dispensers—other than a 

maximum pressure of 15 psi— because 

the ASME definition requires the 

pressure reducing valve that regulates 

the pressure to the dispenser to be 15 

psi or less. ASA also commented that 

the dispenser is typically part of a 

system of which the inter-relationship 

between the dispensing system 

components is a design choice by a 

manufacturer. ASA stated that if the 

DOE test procedure is not consistent 

with the industry consensus standard, 

there would be anticipated additional 

costs associated with having to test to 

two different requirements for lowpressure water dispensers. (ASA, No. 6 

at p. 3) 

As characterized by DOE in the 

September 2021 RFI and consistent with 

comments, the purpose of low-pressure 

water dispensers and pot fillers is to fill 

a vessel with water (e.g., a glass or a 

cooking vessel). Given this function, the 

amount of water provided by such 

products during consumer use would be 

dependent on the volume of the vessel 

and independent of the flow rate of the 

product. Establishing conservation 

standards for such products in terms of 

a maximum flow rate in gallons per 

minute (‘‘gpm’’) would not result in any 

water savings because the volume of 

water provided by such products is 

dictated by the vessel to be filled as 

opposed to the flow rate. Furthermore, 

establishing conservation standards 

could diminish the usefulness of such 

products by increasing the amount of 

time required to fill a vessel with a 

particular volume of water. Further, a 

test procedure that would measure the 

flow rate of such products would not 

provide meaningful information to 

consumers related to water usage. 

Based on the foregoing, DOE has 

tentatively determined that that lowpressure water dispensers and pot fillers 

are not within the definition of ‘‘faucet’’ 

for the purposed of Part A of EPCA. 

Accordingly, DOE is proposing to 

amend the definition of ‘‘faucet’’ at 10 

CFR 430.2 to explicitly exclude lowpressure water dispensers and pot 

fillers. DOE proposes to define a faucet 

as ‘‘a lavatory faucet, kitchen faucet, 

metering faucet, or replacement aerator, 

excluding low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed amendment to the definition 

of ‘‘faucet’’ to explicitly exclude ‘‘lowpressure water dispenses’’ and ‘‘pot 

fillers.’’ 

DOE proposes to add a definition for 

low-pressure water dispensers in 10 

CFR 430.2. ASME A112.18.1–2018 

defines a low-pressure water dispenser 

as ‘‘a terminal fitting located 

downstream of a pressure reducing 

valve that dispenses drinking hot water 

above 71 °C (160 °F) or cold water or 

both at a pressure of 105 kPA (15 psi) 

or less.’’ DOE notes that its authority 

generally applies to products as 

manufactured, not to the installation of 

products. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6302) 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to modify 

the ASME A112.18.1–2018 definition to 

reference a product as manufactured, as 

opposed to its installation location. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing to 

exclude the drinking water temperature 

references. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the specified pressure 

is the relevant characteristic that would 

distinguish a low-pressure water 

dispenser from a faucet as defined for 

the purpose of applicability of the test 

procedure. Accordingly, DOE is 

proposing to define low-pressure water 

dispenser as ‘‘a terminal fitting that 

dispenses drinking water at a pressure 

of 105 kPA (15 psi) or less.’’ 

DOE requests comment on proposing 

to adopt the ASME A112.18.1–2018 

definition for ‘‘low-pressure water 

dispenser,’’ with modification as 

described. 

DOE tries to identify physical features 

in its definitions that would allow a 

third-party to easily distinguish between 

products. DOE has stated that relying on 

a manufacturer’s intent can reduce 

regulatory transparency, and creates 

challenges for enforcement. 87 FR 

13901, 13904. Due to these concerns 

with trying to interpret whether a 

product is designed to operate 

downstream of a pressure reducing 

valve or not, DOE is also considering 

including other physical features in the 

definition that would allow lowpressure water dispensers to be easily 

identified, absent any information from 

the manufacturer. Based on research of 

these products, DOE understands that 

low-pressure water dispensers tend to 

have smaller diameter fittings for water 

connections. DOE observed that lowpressure water dispensers have 1⁄4′′ 

compression fittings, which is slightly 

smaller than the typical 3⁄8′′ 

compression fitting of a faucet. 

DOE requests comment as to any 

additional physical features that 

distinguish a low-pressure water 

dispenser from a faucet. 

DOE requests comment as to whether 

a 1⁄4′′ compression fitting could be 

universally identified as a universal 

characteristic of low-pressure water 

dispensers that distinguishes it from 

faucets. 

Unlike ‘‘low-pressure water 

dispenser,’’ ASME A.112.18.1–2018 

does not define pot filler. DOE notes the 

concern raised by the Efficiency 

Advocates that pot fillers could be 

installed over a kitchen sink. DOE 

assessed products marketed as 

residential pot fillers and observed 

several characteristics that make it 

unlikely for a pot filler to be installed 

for regular discharge into a kitchen sink. 

All the residential pot fillers DOE 

observed have an articulated arm. The 

reason pot fillers have an articulated 

arm is because it allows the pot filler to 

extend over a cooking surface, such as 

burners on a range, to fill pots. When 

not in use, the articulation allows the 

pot filler to be pushed flat against the 

wall and out of the way of the cooking 

surface. Further, DOE observed that pot 

fillers have two shut-off valves, one 

located at or near the wall and the other 

located at or near the output of the pot 

filler. Given that pot-fillers are typically 

installed over locations that do not have 

a drain (i.e., over a stove), the two shutoff valves minimize the chance of 

accidentally turning on the pot filler 

when there is not a vessel underneath 

because an accidental bumping of one 

shut-off valve from the off to the on 

position does not turn on the pot filler. 

Lastly, DOE observed that pot fillers are 

designed for a single supply line (e.g., 

cold water), limiting their suitability for 

use as a kitchen faucet, which are 

generally supplied with both hot and 

cold water. 

Based on these identifying 

characteristics, DOE proposes to define 

pot filler in 10 CFR 430.2 as ‘‘a terminal 

fitting with an articulated arm and two 

or more shut-off valves that can 

accommodate only a single supply 

water inlet.’’ 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed definition of ‘‘pot filler’’ and 

whether other characteristics would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6 DOE also proposed to remove the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘body spray.’’ Id. 

7On December 16, 2020, DOE published a final 

rule that adopted a definition for ‘‘body spray’’ as 

‘‘a shower device for spraying water onto a bather 

from other than the overhead position. A body 

spray is not a showerhead.’’ 85 FR 81341, 81359. 

more appropriately distinguish pot 

fillers from faucets, as defined by EPCA 

and DOE. 

2. Showerheads 

EPCA defines ‘‘showerhead’’ as ‘‘any 

showerhead (including a handheld 

showerhead), except a safety shower 

showerhead.’’ (42 U.S.C 6291(31)(D)) 

DOE also defines ‘‘hand-held 

showerhead’’ to mean a showerhead 

that can be held or fixed in place for the 

purpose of spraying water onto a bather 

and that is connected to a flexible hose. 

10 CFR 430.2. ‘‘Safety shower 

showerhead’’ is defined as a 

showerhead designed to meet the 

requirements of International 

Equipment Safety association (‘‘ISEA’’) 

standard ISEA Z358.1, American 

National Standard for Emergency 

Eyewash and Shower Equipment.’’ Id. 

On July 22, 2021, DOE issued a NOPR 

in which it proposed to reinstate the 

2013 definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ by 

amending the regulatory definition of 

‘‘showerhead’’ to mean ‘‘a component or 

set of components distributed in 

commerce for attachment to a single 

supply fitting, for spraying water onto a 

bather, typically from an overhead 

position, excluding safety shower 

showerheads.’’ 86 FR 38594, 38597, 

38607 (‘‘July 2021 NOPR’’).6 On 

December 20, 2021, DOE published a 

final rule that adopted the definition of 

‘‘showerhead’’ as proposed in the July 

2021 NOPR. 86 FR 71797 (‘‘December 

2021 Final Rule’’). 

In the September 2021 RFI, DOE 

requested comment on the definitional 

updates in ASME A112.18.1–2018 as it 

relates to showerheads. 86 FR 49261, 

49264. Specifically, DOE discussed that 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 added new 

definitions for ‘‘hand-held shower’’ and 

‘‘rain shower.’’ Id. Regarding ‘‘handheld shower’’ DOE stated the DOE 

definition is almost identical to the 

definition in the ASME industry 

standard, and therefore tentatively 

concluded that there is no reason to 

update this definition now. Id. 

Regarding ‘‘rain shower,’’ DOE noted 

that the new definition was added to 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 in light of the 

standard’s new spray force requirements 

specific to rain showers. Id. However, 

DOE tentatively concluded that there is 

no reason to include the term and 

definition for rain shower because the 

DOE test procedure only measures 

maximum water consumption and not 

spray force. Id. 

PMI commented that it concurs with 

DOE’s proposal from the July 2021 

NOPR to adopt the definition of 

showerhead that was effective in 2013. 

(PMI, No. 5 at p. 6) ASA and PMI stated 

that DOE should complete the new 

showerheads definition rulemaking 

before taking any further action on 

showerheads. (ASA, No. 6 at p. 3; PMI, 

No. 5 at p. 6)) As explained previously, 

DOE has published a final rule adopting 

the proposed definition. 

Regarding a definition of ‘‘rain 

shower,’’ PMI commented that there is 

no reason to include the term and 

definition for rain shower because 

testing of flow rate for a rain shower 

would be the same as testing a 

showerhead. PMI stated that the ASME 

industry standard only added a 

definition for rain shower to address 

unique spray force requirements. (PMI, 

No. 5 at p. 4) PMI also commented that 

the current definitions are effective and 

new definitions are not necessary. (PMI, 

No. 5 at p. 5) ASA commented that 

adding a definition for rain shower 

would not serve a purpose because the 

definition was added in the ASME 

industry standard to support a spray 

force test method, not flow rate. (ASA, 

No. 6 at p. 2) Separately, Efficiency 

Advocates stated that they agree that 

there is no need to make any updates to 

the definition of ‘‘hand-held 

showerhead’’ nor to provide a separate 

definition for the term rain shower. 

(Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) 

For the reasons discussed by 

stakeholders in their public comments 

and by DOE in the September 2021 RFI, 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

definition of ‘‘hand-held showerhead’’ 

and is not proposing to define ‘‘rain 

shower.’’ 

DOE also received several comments 

on body sprays. In response to the 

September 2021 RFI, CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE clarify that 

body sprays, regardless of orientation, 

are subject to regulatory coverage and 

that they must meet the same flow rate 

requirement as showerheads. The CA 

IOUs commented that the California 

Code of Regulations, Title 20 Appliance 

Efficiency Regulations states that a 

showerhead is ‘‘a device through which 

water is discharged for a shower bath 

and includes a body sprayer and 

handheld showerhead but does not 

include a safety showerhead.’’ (CA 

IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1–2) The Efficiency 

Advocates commented that DOE should 

make clear that the products that DOE 

describes as ‘‘body sprays’’ are 

showerheads and must meet the 

showerhead definition. The Efficiency 

Advocates asserted that since products 

marketed as body sprays may just as 

easily be installed in an overhead 

position as in any other position, these 

products meet the statutory definition of 

showerhead, i.e., that ‘‘showerheads’’ 

spray water ‘‘typically from an overhead 

position.’’ Further, the Efficiency 

Advocates stated that the use of 

‘‘typically’’ may leave ambiguity for 

products that spray from another 

position or from multiple positions, 

depending simply on installation. 

(Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 at p. 4) 

In the December 2021 Final Rule, 

DOE withdrew the definition for body 

spray.7 86 FR 71797, 71806. DOE stated 

that the definition was inconsistent with 

the express purpose of EPCA to 

conserve water and does not best 

address the relationship between body 

sprays and showerheads. Id. at 86 FR 

71799. Further, DOE stated that industry 

standards and the marketplace treat 

‘‘showerheads’’ and ‘‘body sprays’’ 

similarly, with the only difference being 

in the installation location. Id. 

DOE notes that the regulatory 

definition of showerhead includes the 

provision ‘‘typically from an overhead 

position.’’ 10 CFR 430.2 Given the 

‘‘typically from an overhead position’’ 

language in the definition, DOE cannot 

make a general statement that all body 

sprays are showerheads as some body 

sprays are installed exclusively at body 

height and exclusively spray 

horizontally (i.e., are not overhead). 

DOE has previously stated that when 

testing a shower tower (also known as 

‘‘shower panel’’) assemblies, which 

includes body sprays, the components 

that are typically overhead (i.e., the 

main showerhead and hand-held 

showerheads) are to be tested with the 

full flow diverted to those components 

only. In addition, where it is not 

possible to isolate the covered portion of 

the shower tower, DOE stated that all 

components are to be flowing at the 

maximum rate and the showerhead 

(which encompasses the component or 

set of components that are ‘‘typically 

from an overhead position’’) measured 

separately. 78 FR 62970, 62975. 

Consistent with this testing, the 

definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ only 

includes products that are ‘‘typically 

from an overhead position.’’ To the 

extent that a body spray meets the 

definition of ‘‘showerhead,’’ such 

product is subject to the 2.5 gpm 

standard regardless of the consumer 

installation orientation. 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

Appendix S currently references 

ASME A112.18.1–2012 for the flow rate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32357 

test method. In the September 2021 RFI, 

DOE discussed that ASME A112.18.1– 

2012 was updated to the 2018 version, 

and that the main updates included 

provisions to accommodate testing lowpressure water dispensers. 86 FR 49261, 

49625. As discussed in section III.A.1 of 

this document, DOE is proposing to 

define low-pressure water dispensers 

and pot fillers, and explicitly exclude 

these from the faucets definition. 

Therefore, DOE is not proposing to 

establish test procedures for lowpressure water dispensers and pot 

fillers. 

Regarding showerheads, DOE 

discussed in the September 2021 RFI 

that ASME A112.18.1–2018 does not 

contain any updates to the water 

consumption test method for 

showerheads. 86 FR 49261, 49265. ASA 

commented that no amendments are 

needed for the current DOE test 

procedure for showerheads. (ASA, No. 6 

at p. 3) PMI stated that no changes to the 

existing test procedure for showerheads 

are needed, once the 2013 definition of 

showerhead is finalized, because the 

current test procedures adequately 

assess the flow rate of showerheads. 

(PMI, No. 5 at p. 6) The Efficiency 

Advocates asserted that the test 

procedures for faucets and showerheads 

would more accurately and fully 

produce results that measure water use, 

if DOE adopted modifications to some 

elements of the water consumption test 

in the revised standard. (Efficiency 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) A discussion 

of this comment appears in the next 

section. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

update the faucets and showerheads test 

procedure to reference the latest version 

of the industry standard, which is 

ASME A112.18.1–2018. As previously 

discussed, the updated standard does 

not include any amendments to the test 

procedures for faucets, as proposed to 

be defined by this NOPR, or for 

showerheads. DOE has tentatively 

determined that referencing the most 

recent version of ASME A112.18.1–2018 

would not impact (1) the measured 

values of water use for faucets or 

showerheads under appendix S, (2) the 

representativeness of the results, or (3) 

the test burden. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

ASME A112.18.1–2018. 

C. Additional Direction in Conducting 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 

As discussed, DOE’s current test 

procedure for evaluating the flow rate of 

faucets and showerheads is at appendix 

S and references ASME A112.18–1– 

2012. Specifically, DOE adopts through 

reference ASME A112.18.1–2012 

Sections 5.4 and 5.4.2.2 which specify 

two alternate methods for measuring the 

flow rate of showerhead and faucets. 

One method, described as the fluid 

meter test, relies on a fluid meter 

installed upstream of the showerhead or 

faucet for measuring the flow rate. The 

second method, described as the time/ 

volume method, relies on a container 

placed downstream of the showerhead 

or faucet that collects the water output 

during a measured period of time. The 

flow rate calculation divides the volume 

of water collected by the duration of 

time. 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference ASME 

A112.18.1–2018. The two methods for 

measuring flow rate in ASME 

A112.18.1–2018 are identical to those in 

ASME A112.18.1–2012. 

In response to the September 2021 

RFI, the Efficiency Advocates asserted 

that ASME A112.18.1–2018 carries forth 

several deficiencies in both methods 

from early versions of the test 

procedure. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 

at p. 2) Regarding testing of flow rate 

using the fluid meter test, the Efficiency 

Advocates commented that the industry 

test procedure lacks direction as to: (1) 

The type of meter acceptable for test; (2) 

the normal operating range of the fluid 

meter and it suitability to the target flow 

of the test; (3) a description of the 

meter’s register, including incremental 

units of measurement; and (4) 

requirements for preconditioning of the 

meter before or between tests. Id. 

The Efficiency Advocates also 

commented that the industry test 

procedure for the time/volume test lacks 

direction as to: (1) The required 

dimensions of the receiving container; 

(2) any distance or orientation between 

the specimen and container to preclude 

the possibility of splashing water 

escaping; (3) the means of measuring the 

volume of water in the container or 

deriving the volume of water from the 

weight of the collected water; and (4) 

recording of elapsed time. Id. The 

Efficiency Advocates suggested that 

DOE supplement ASME A112.18.1– 

2018 with additional direction to ensure 

better accuracy, similar to DOE’s 

previous instruction that any container 

in the time/volume test be positioned to 

capture any leakage from the ball joint 

of the shower head. The Efficiency 

Advocates asserted that addressing 

these gaps is unlikely to render testing 

unduly burdensome, but would be 

likely to ensure greater standardization 

in test procedures and instill greater 

confidence in test results. (Id. at pp. 2– 

3) Further, the Efficiency Advocates 

commented that any inaccuracies would 

be amplified if standards are lowered 

and because some states with more 

stringent standards reference the DOE 

test procedure, the additional 

standardization is needed. (Id. at pp. 2– 

3) 

In response to similar comments 

received prior to the October 2013 Final 

Rule, DOE determined that there was no 

evidence that the time/volume test 

method in ASME A112.18.1 did not 

meet the statutory requirements at 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) for DOE to prescribe 

test procedures that are reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

measure water use during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use. 78 FR 62970, 62975. 

While DOE does not currently have 

any evidence that the current test 

procedure is resulting in inaccurate 

measurements of flow rates for faucets 

or showerheads, DOE is proposing 

additional detail to ensure that 

amendments to the test procedure 

would provide more accurate results. 

DOE conducted a thorough review of 

ASME A112.18.1–2018 and consulted 

two testing laboratories to identify 

common practices that DOE has 

tentatively determined address the 

concerns identified by the Efficiency 

Advocates without creating undue 

burden when testing. DOE also 

reviewed other similar test procedures, 

such as ASTM International (‘‘ASTM’’) 

F2324 ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Prerinse Spray Valves,’’ which is 

currently incorporated by reference at 

10 CFR 431.263 and referenced in 10 

CFR 431.264 ‘‘Uniform test method to 

measure flow rate and spray force of 

commercial prerinse spray valves.’’ The 

ASTM F2324 test method uses a time/ 

volume test method to measure the flow 

rate of commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

Regarding testing using the fluid 

meter test method in ASME A112.18.1– 

2018, DOE notes that many different 

types of acceptable fluid meters could 

be used. The consultation with the test 

laboratories suggested that there are 

several different types of fluid meters 

that they currently use, but so long as 

the fluid meter is rated for the product 

flow rate and has been calibrated, any 

fluid meter type is accurate. The test 

laboratories indicated further that the 

fluid meters they use are capable of 

measuring with a precision of a 

minimum of two significant figures. 

Based on what DOE has identified as 

current laboratory practice, DOE is 

proposing to add language to appendix 

S requiring that if the fluid meter test is 

used, the fluid meter must be rated for 

the flow rate range of the product being 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32358 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8These were the only types for which a test 

procedure may be appropriate. In general, DOE 

found four basic flow restrictor designs—(1) Plastic 

discs, (2) Rubber discs, (3) Permanent flow control 

and (4) Sealing gasket. DOE determined that the 

permanent flow control designs automatically met 

the design requirement because they did not 

contain a flow restrictor that could be removed (i.e., 

it was integral to the showerhead). There is no need 

to test showerheads that used a sealing gasket as the 

flow control mechanism were exempt from the 

design requirement because the removal of the 

flow-restrictor would cause water to leak 

significantly from areas other than the spray face. 

78 FR 20832, 20836. 

9Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

TSD: Energy Conservation Program Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment: Test Procedures for Showerheads, 

Faucets, Water Closets, Urinals, and Commercial 

Prerinse Spray Valves. Showerhead Flow Control 

Insert Retention Testing; www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2011-BT-TP-0061-0033. 

tested. Further, DOE proposes that the 

fluid meter must be calibrated in 

accordance with manufacturer printed 

instructions and at the frequency 

specified in the manufacturer printed 

instructions. Finally, DOE proposes that 

the fluid meter must be capable of 

reporting flow rate to a resolution of no 

less than two significant figures. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional specifications for 

the fluid meter test and whether the 

proposed additional guidance is 

consistent with current industry 

practice. 

Regarding testing using the time/ 

volume test method in ASME 

A112.18.1–2018, the test laboratories 

commented that they vary the type of 

receiving containers to ensure minimal 

water loss due to splashing. ASTM 

F2324 states that the receiving container 

should be a ‘‘carboy, or equivalent 

container, for measuring the weight of 

the water during the flow rate test. A 5- 

gal (19–L) carboy water bottle has been 

found suitable (the carboy is the 

standard water bottle that is used for 

water coolers)’’ and further adds ‘‘Note: 

1—The 5-gal (19–L) carboy container is 

the preferred container. With a narrow 

opening, the carboy captures all the 

water during the test at higher water 

pressure which can result in excess 

splashing.’’ 

A carboy may not be appropriate for 

testing of showerheads as the surface 

area of a showerhead is often larger than 

the carboy opening. However, 

instruction to address the potential for 

splashing would apply equally to the 

testing of showerheads. Reasonable 

efforts to control splashing would 

include use of a container with a 

narrower opening or a partial cover of 

the container. 

The test laboratories stated that the 

time/volume test is conducted for at 

least a minute, in accordance with 

Section 5.4.2.2 of ASME A112.18.1– 

2018, and that the timing is measured 

with a stopwatch with a resolution of 

0.1 seconds. Once the time/volume test 

has concluded, test labs stated that they 

convert the mass of water to a volume 

based on the specific gravity of the 

water at the measured temperature. 

In accordance with existing practices, 

DOE is proposing to add language to 

appendix S requiring that if the time/ 

volume test is used, the receiving 

container must be of sufficient size to 

contain all the water for a single test and 

have an opening size and/or a partial 

cover, such that loss of water from 

splashing is minimized. Further, DOE 

proposes to specify that the time/ 

volume test is conducted for a minimum 

of one minute and that time is measured 

using a stopwatch with a minimum 

resolution of 0.1 seconds. DOE proposes 

to clarify that measuring and recording 

the temperature of the water in this type 

of test requires a thermocouple or 

similar device and only the following 

two approaches are permissible: (1) At 

the receiving container immediately 

after recording the mass of water, or (2) 

at the water in the supply line any time 

during the duration of the time/volume 

test. In addition, DOE proposes to 

require measuring the mass of water to 

at least two significant figures following 

the time/volume test and converting the 

mass to volume based on the specific 

gravity of water at the recorded 

temperature. As discussed, the proposed 

amendments providing additional 

specificity reflect an accurate method 

for measuring flow rate and reflect 

current testing practice, and therefore 

would not affect testing burden. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional specifications for 

the time/volume test method and 

whether there is any additional burden 

associated with the proposed additional 

specifications. 

DOE also requests comment on its 

determination that the proposed 

methods for measuring the temperature 

of water align with current industry 

practices for when conducting the time/ 

volume test. 

D. Flow Restrictor Retention Test 

Method 

The current standards for 

showerheads include a requirement that 

when used as a component of a 

showerhead, a flow-restricting insert 

must be mechanically retained at the 

point of manufacture such that a force 

of 8.0 pounds force (lbf) (36 Newtons) 

or more is required to remove the flowrestricting insert, except that this 

requirement does not apply to 

showerheads for which removal of the 

flow-restricting insert would cause 

water to leak significantly from areas 

other than the spray face. 10 CFR 

430.32(p). 

In response to the September 2021 

RFI, the Efficiency Advocates 

recommended that DOE propose a test 

method for flow restrictor retention to 

verify compliance with the flow 

restricting insert requirement. They 

stated that flow restrictors serve a 

critical function and asserted that their 

casual removal jeopardizes the 

effectiveness of the standard and its 

intended savings of energy and water. 

They stated that DOE considered this 

issue in 2012–2013, and developed a 

draft test of flow restrictor retention, but 

ultimately reached no conclusion and 

deferred the issue for a future date. 

(Efficiency Advocates, No. 8 and p. 3). 

As noted by the Efficiency Advocates, 

DOE considered a test method for flow 

restricting insert requirement during the 

previous rulemaking. DOE proposed a 

simplified gravity pull-style test method 

for verification of compliance with the 

requirements. 78 FR 20832, 20835– 

20836 (Apr. 8, 2013). DOE based the 

proposal on tests that were conducted 

on 21 showerheads, which included a 

variety of brands and styles. The 

showerheads tested had disc inserts 

made of plastic or rubber.8 Id. In 

conjunction with the proposal, DOE also 

published a technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’) that summarized the systematic 

assessment DOE performed to arrive at 

the proposed test method.9 On July 30, 

2013, DOE held an additional public 

meeting to receive comments on DOE’s 

proposed test to verify mechanical 

retention of a showerhead flow 

restrictor when subjected to 8 lbf. 78 FR 

42719 (July 17, 2013). 

DOE received comments from 

stakeholders stating that: (1) There are 

thousands of showerhead geometries 

that require various methods to measure 

the 8 pound-force limit for flow 

restrictor removal (PMI, EERE–2011– 

BT–TP–0061, No. 36 at p. 2); (2) there 

is not one method to test all inserts that 

that ANSI Recognized Certifying Bodies 

perform the 8 pound-force test 

depending on the geometry of the faucet 

(PMI, EERE–2011–BT–TP–0061, No. 36 

at p. 4); (3) because a product would 

have to be tested in a specific manner, 

it would unavoidably hinder design 

flexibility (Moen, EERE–2011–BT–TP– 

0061, No. 30 at p. 2); (4) flow restrictor 

removal is not a widespread issue 

because most users are sufficiently 

satisfied with current showerhead 

performance (Moen, EERE–2011–BT– 

TP–0061, No. 30 at p. 2); and (5) for the 

majority of users, removal of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32359 

showerhead from the shower arm, 

including the identification and removal 

of the correct components, is a sufficient 

amount of work to deter them from 

altering their product (Moen, EERE– 

2011–BT–TP–0061, No. 30 at p. 2). In 

October 2013 Final Rule and in 

consideration of comments received, 

DOE stated that further investigation of 

this issue was necessary to understand 

clearly any prospective impacts of the 

proposed test procedure prior to 

finalizing a test method, and did not 

finalize a test method. 78 FR 62970, 

62974. 

The latest version of the industry 

standard, ASME A112.18.1–2018, 

continues not to include any test 

method for showerhead flow retention. 

DOE understands the main issue in 

developing a test method is that there 

are numerous flow restrictor 

configurations and there may not be one 

test method to suit all possible flow 

restrictors. For example, regarding a 

pull-style test method as previously 

considered by DOE, one commenter 

stated that many flow restrictors do not 

have sufficient surface area or 

protrusion onto which a clamp can be 

fastened for the test. (Kohler, EERE– 

2011–BT–TP–0061, No. 34 at p. 1) 

Given the variation in design, DOE 

tentatively continues to find that a test 

method may hinder product design. 

Moreover, DOE does not have any 

indication that there is an issue in 

practice with customers removing flow 

restriction devices. For the reasons 

discussed, DOE is not proposing a test 

method for flow restrictor retention. 

DOE requests comment and data on 

the prevalence of flow restrictors being 

removed from a showerhead by 

consumers. 

E. Reporting 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use product-specific certification 

templates to certify compliance to DOE. 

For faucets and showerheads, the 

certification template reflects the 

general certification requirements 

specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the 

product-specific requirements specified 

at 10 CFR 429.28 and 10 CFR 429.29. 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

product-specific certification 

requirements for these products. 

F. Clarification to 10 CFR 430.23 and 

Appendix S 

10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t) provide the 

test procedures for the measurement of 

water consumption for faucets and 

showerheads, respectively. 10 CFR 

430.23(s) requires that ‘‘the maximum 

permissible water use allowed for 

lavatory faucets, lavatory replacement 

aerators, kitchen faucets, and kitchen 

replacement aerators, expressed in 

gallons and liters per minute (gpm and 

L/min), shall be measured in accordance 

to section 2(a) of appendix S of this 

subpart. The maximum permissible 

water use allowed for metering faucets, 

expressed in gallons and liters per cycle 

(gal/cycle and L/cycle), shall be 

measured in accordance to section 2(a) 

of appendix S of this subpart.’’ 

Similarly, 10 CFR 430.23(t) requires that 

‘‘the maximum permissible water use 

allowed for showerheads, expressed in 

gallons and liters per minute (gpm and 

L/min), shall be measured in accordance 

to section 2(b) of appendix S of this 

subpart.’’ The language ‘‘maximum 

permissible water use’’ in the 

aforementioned sections is incorrect, as 

the test procedures measure water use. 

The term ‘‘maximum permissible water 

use’’ is instead descriptive of a 

conservation standard. As such, DOE is 

proposing to replace the language ‘‘the 

maximum permissible water use 

allowed’’ in 10 CFR 430.23(s) and 10 

CFR 430.23(t) with ‘‘the water use.’’ 

This amendment would clarify that the 

DOE test procedures measure water use, 

whereas the standards in 10 CFR 

430.32(s) and (t) establish the maximum 

allowable water use for water closets 

and urinals, respectively. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed updates for faucets and 

showerheads to replace ‘‘maximum 

permissible water use allowed’’ with 

‘‘water use’’ in 10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t), 

respectively. 

Similarly, 10 CFR 430.23(s), 10 CFR 

430.23(t), and appendix S state that 

water use should be expressed in 

‘‘gallons and liters per minute (gpm and 

L/min).’’ The proposed wording is 

unclear and could mply that 

manufacturers need to express results in 

both gpm and L/min. Instead, 

manufacturers should use appendix S 

for results expressed in gpm or L/min. 

Manufacturers do not have to report 

both. As such, DOE is proposing to 

update language to state that water use 

is expressed in gallons or liters per 

minute. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed updates for faucets and 

showerheads to replace ‘‘gallons and 

liters per minute’’ with ‘‘gallons or liters 

per minute.’’ 

G. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for faucets 

and showerheads by updating 

references to the current industry 

standard, defining low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers and explicitly 

excluding them from the definition of 

faucet, and specifying additional 

instruction for conducting the flow rate 

tests in ASME A112.18.1–2018 

reflective of current testing laboratory 

practice. DOE has tentatively 

determined that these proposed 

amendments would not impact testing 

costs as discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

a. Update References to the Relevant 

Industry Standard 

DOE proposes to update references to 

the current version of the industry 

standard, ASME A112.18.1–2018. As 

stated in section III.B of this document, 

the main updates between ASME 

A112.18.1–2012, which is currently 

incorporated, and ASME A112.18.1– 

2018 accommodate low-pressure water 

dispenser testing. 

DOE is proposing to exclude 

explicitly low-pressure water dispensers 

from the definition of faucet and 

therefore from the scope of the DOE test 

procedure for faucets. As such, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the updates 

to the industry standard would not 

affect testing of faucets or showerheads 

or the measured flow rates. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments would not affect 

the representations of faucet or 

showerhead water use. Based on this 

tentative determination, manufacturers 

would be able to rely on data generated 

under the current test procedure if DOE 

adopts the proposed amendments. As 

such, retesting of showerheads and 

faucets would not be required solely as 

a result of DOE’s adoption of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the impact 

and associated costs of the proposed 

amendment to incorporate by reference 

the latest version of the industry 

standard, ASME A112.18.1–2018. 

b. New and Amended Definitions 

DOE proposes to define low-pressure 

water dispensers and pot fillers and 

amend the definition of faucets to 

explicitly exclude those products. These 

products were not previously 

considered within the scope of the 

faucet definition and the proposed 

amendments clarify the scope of the 

faucet definition. Accordingly, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed definitions of low-pressure 

water dispensers and pot fillers and 

their explicit exclusion from the 

definition of faucet would not affect 

which products are currently subject to 

testing under the DOE test procedure. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DOE requests comment on the impact 

and associated costs of the proposed 

amendment to define low-pressure 

water dispensers and pot fillers and to 

exclude them explicitly from the faucets 

definition. 

c. Additional Direction in Conducting 

ASME A112.18.1 

In addition to the proposed adoption 

of the test provisions in ASME 

A112.18.1–2018, DOE proposes other 

clarifications to the test procedure, 

namely specification on equipment and 

instrumentation, measurement 

precision, and calculation of flow rate. 

As discussed, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the additional 

specifications reflect existing test 

laboratory practices. As such, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments would not affect 

the representations of faucet or 

showerhead water use. DOE has 

tentatively determined that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure if DOE adopts the proposed 

amendments. DOE does not expect 

retesting of faucets would be required 

solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of 

the proposed amendments to the test 

procedure. Moreover, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

additional specifications would not 

impact the testing cost, as they would 

reflect current practice. 

DOE requests comment on the impact 

and associated costs of the proposed 

amendment to add clarifications about 

conducting testing under ASME 

A112.18.1–2018. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would fall short of EPCA’s requirements 

that DOE’s test procedure be unduly 

burdensome to conduct or would not 

produce test results that reflect the 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use 

or estimated operating costs of that 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) 

of appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C. When the industry standard 

does not meet EPCA statutory criteria 

for test procedures, DOE will make 

modifications through the rulemaking 

process to these standards as the DOE 

test procedure. 

The test procedures for faucets and 

showerheads at appendix S adopt 

through reference the relevant 

provisions of ASME A112.18.1–2012. 

The provisions of the industry standard 

referenced in the Federal test procedure 

provide procedures for testing and 

measuring water consumption, 

specifications for test apparatus, and 

other general requirements. The 

industry standard DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference via 

amendments described in this NOPR are 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.M of this document. 

DOE requests comments on the 

benefits and burdens of the proposed 

updates and additions to industry 

standards referenced in the test 

procedure for faucets and showerheads. 

H. Compliance Date 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 

If DOE were to publish an amended 

test procedure EPCA provides an 

allowance for individual manufacturers 

to petition DOE for an extension of the 

180-day period if the manufacturer may 

experience undue hardship in meeting 

the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To 

receive such an extension, petitions 

must be filed with DOE no later than 60 

days before the end of the 180-day 

period and must detail how the 

manufacturer will experience undue 

hardship. (Id.) 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. 

The Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) considers a business entity to 

be a small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers or earns 

less than the average annual receipts 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 

threshold values set forth in these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32361 

regulation use size standards codes 

established by the North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) that are available at: 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Plumbing equipment 

manufacturers are classified under 

NAICS 332913 ‘‘Plumbing Fixture 

Fitting and Trim Manufacturing,’’ and 

NAICS 327110 ‘‘Pottery, Ceramics, and 

Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing.’’ The 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

a small business within these categories. 

As described in section III.G., DOE 

has tentatively concluded that none of 

the proposed test procedure 

amendments would result in increased 

costs to manufacturers. Accordingly, 

DOE initially concludes that the impacts 

of the proposed test procedure 

amendments proposed in this NOPR 

would not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ and that the preparation of an 

IRFA is not warranted. DOE will 

transmit the certification and supporting 

statement of factual basis to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for review 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

DOE requests comment on its 

assessment that there would be no costs 

to small businesses as a result of the 

proposed test procedure amendments. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of showerheads and 

faucets must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. To 

certify compliance, manufacturers must 

first obtain test data for their products 

according to the DOE test procedures, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including showerheads and faucets. 

(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for showerheads and faucets in this 

NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider 

proposals to amend the certification 

requirements and reporting for 

showerheads and faucets under a 

separate rulemaking regarding appliance 

and equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

faucets and showerheads. DOE has 

determined that this proposed rule falls 

into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, DOE has determined that 

adopting test procedures for measuring 

energy efficiency of consumer products 

and industrial equipment is consistent 

with activities identified in 10 CFR part 

1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and 

A6. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/ 

DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this proposed rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the water consumption of faucets and 

showerheads is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures for faucets and 

showerheads would incorporate testing 

methods contained in certain sections of 

the following commercial standards: 

ASME A112.18.1–2018. DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the FEAA (i.e., whether it was 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE will 

consult with both the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(‘‘ASME’’) and the Canadian Standards 

Association (‘‘CSA Group’’), designated 

ASME A112.18.1–2018. ASME 

A112.18.1–2018 is an industry-accepted 

test procedure that measures water 

consumption for faucets and 

showerheads, and is applicable to 

products sold in North America. The 

sections of ASME A112.18.1–2018 

referenced are Section 5.4 ‘‘Flow rate’’ 

which includes Section 5.4.1 ‘‘Supply 

fittings’’ and Section 5.4.2 ‘‘Test 

procedure,’’ which outline the 

procedures for testing and measuring 

water consumption, specifications for 

test apparatus, and other general 

requirements. 

Copies of ASME A112.18.1–2018 can 

be obtained from American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers at Two Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990, or 

by going to www.asme.org. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32363 

10 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant 

to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.- 

Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103– 

182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 

10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation 

Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation 

of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 

FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, 

the Agreement between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, and the United 

Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 

Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into 

effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA 

through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 

4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 

and its 75-day comment period requirement for 

technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are 

EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. 

Consistent with EPCA’s public comment period 

requirements for consumer products, the USMCA 

only requires a minimum comment period of 60 

days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-day 

public comment period for test procedure NOPRs. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s websites: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid

=40&action=viewcurrent and 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid

=2&action=viewlive. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed rulemaking 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed rulemaking. Each participant 

will be allowed to make a general 

statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.10 Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed amendment to the definition 

of ‘‘faucet’’ to explicitly exclude ‘‘lowpressure water dispenses’’ and ‘‘pot 

fillers.’’ 

(2) DOE requests comment on 

proposing to adopt the ASME 

A112.18.1–2018 definition for ‘‘lowpressure water dispenser,’’ with 

modification as described. 

(3) DOE requests comment as to any 

additional physical features that could 

be used to distinguish a low-pressure 

water dispenser from a faucet. 

(4) DOE requests comment as to 

whether a 1⁄4′′ compression fitting could 

be universally identified as a universal 

characteristic of low-pressure water 

dispensers that distinguishes it from 

faucets. 

(5) DOE requests comments on the 

proposed definition of ‘‘pot filler’’ and 

whether other characteristics would 

more appropriately distinguish pot 

fillers from faucets, as defined by EPCA 

and DOE. 

(6) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

ASME A112.18.1–2018. 

(7) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional specifications for 

the fluid meter test and whether the 

proposed additional guidance is 

consistent with current industry 

practice. 

(8) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional specifications for 

the time/volume test method and 

whether there is any additional burden 

associated with the proposed additional 

specifications. 

(9) DOE also requests comment on its 

determination that the proposed 

methods for measuring the temperature 

of water align with current industry 

practices for when conducting the time/ 

volume test. 

(10) DOE requests comment and data 

on the prevalence of flow restrictors 

being removed from a showerhead by 

consumers. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed updates for faucets and 

showerheads to replace ‘‘maximum 

permissible water use allowed’’ with 

‘‘water use’’ in 10 CFR 430.23(s) and (t), 

respectively. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed updates for faucets and 

showerheads to replace ‘‘gallons and 

liters per minute’’ with ‘‘gallons or liters 

per minute.’’ 

(13) DOE requests comment on the 

impact and associated costs of the 

proposed amendment to incorporate by 

reference the latest version of the 

industry standard, ASME A112.18.1– 

2018. 

(14) DOE requests comment on the 

impact and associated costs of the 

proposed amendment to define lowpressure water dispensers and pot fillers 

and to exclude them explicitly from the 

faucets definition. 

(15) DOE requests comment on the 

impact and associated costs of the 

proposed amendment to add 

clarificationons about conducting 

testing under ASME A112.18.1–2018. 

(16) DOE requests comments on the 

benefits and burdens of the proposed 

updates and additions to industry 

standards referenced in the test 

procedure for faucets and showerheads. 

(17) DOE requests comment on its 

assessment that there would be no costs 

to small businesses as a result of the 

proposed test procedure amendments. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 23, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 24, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32365 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Faucet’’; and 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Low-pressure water 

dispenser’’ and ‘‘Pot filler’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Faucet means a lavatory faucet, 

kitchen faucet, metering faucet, or 

replacement aerator, excluding lowpressure water dispensers and pot 

fillers. 

* * * * * 

Low-pressure water dispenser means a 

terminal fitting that dispenses drinking 

water at a pressure of 105 kPA (15 psi) 

or less. 

* * * * * 

Pot filler means a terminal fitting with 

an articulated arm and two or more 

shut-off valves that can accommodate 

only a single supply water inlet. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 in amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) ASME A112.18.1–2018/CSA 

B125.1–2018 (with 10/18 Errata), 

(‘‘ASME A112.18.1’’), ‘‘Plumbing supply 

fittings,’’ approved 2018, IBR approved 

for appendix S to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (s) and (t) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(s) Faucets. Measure the water use for 

lavatory faucets, lavatory replacement 

aerators, kitchen faucets, and kitchen 

replacement aerators, in gallons or liters 

per minute (gpm or L/min), in 

accordance to section 2(a) of appendix 

S to this subpart. Measure the water use 

for metering faucets, in gallons or liters 

per cycle (gal/cycle or L/cycle), in 

accordance to section 2(a) of appendix 

S of this subpart. 

(t) Showerheads. Measure the water 

use for showerheads, in gallons or liters 

per minute (gpm or L/min), in 

accordance to section 2(b) of appendix 

S to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix S to subpart B of part 430 

is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix S to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Water Consumption of Faucets and 

Showerheads 

Note: Before [date 180 Days After date of 

publication of the final rule in the Federal 

Register], representations with respect to the 

water consumption of faucets and 

showerheads, including compliance 

certifications, must be based on testing 

conducted in accordance with either this 

appendix or appendix S as it appeared in the 

10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of 

January 1, 2021. 

On and after [date 180 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the Federal 

Register], representations with respect to 

water consumption of faucets and 

showerheads, including compliance 

certifications, must be based on testing 

conducted in accordance with this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3, 

the entire standard for ASME A112.18.1; 

however, only enumerated provisions of 

ASME A112.18.1 apply to this appendix, as 

follows: Section 5.4 ‘‘Flow rate,’’ including 

Figure 3 but excluding Table 1, and sections 

5.4.2.3.1(a) and (c), 5.4.2.3.2(b) and (c), and 

5.4.3. When there is a conflict, the language 

of the test procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over ASME A112.18.1. Treat 

precatory language in ASME A112.18.1 as 

mandatory. 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements to measure the hydraulic 

performance of faucets and showerheads. 

2. Flow Capacity Requirements 

a. Faucets—Measure the water flow rate for 

faucets, in gallons per minute (gpm) or liters 

per minute (L/min), or gallons per cycle (gal/ 

cycle) or liters per cycle (L/cycle), in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in Section 5.4, Flow Rate, of ASME 

A112.18.1. Record measurements at the 

resolution of the test instrumentation. Round 

each calculation to the same number of 

significant digits as the previous step. Round 

the final water consumption value to one 

decimal place for non-metered faucets, or 

two decimal places for metered faucets. 

b. Showerheads—Measure the water flow 

rate for showerheads, in gallons per minute 

(gpm) or liters per minute (L/min), in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in Section 5.4, Flow Rate, of ASME 

A112.18.1. Record measurements at the 

resolution of the test instrumentation. Round 

each calculation to the same number of 

significant digits as the previous step. Round 

the final water consumption value to one 

decimal place. If using the time/volume 

method of Section 5.4.2.2(d) i, position the 

container to ensure it collects all water 

flowing from the showerhead, including any 

leakage from the ball joint. 

2.1 General Instruction 

2.1.1 Fluid Meter Test Method 

When using the fluid meter method of 

Section 5.4.2.2(c) of ASME A112.18.1 to 

measure flow rate, ensure the fluid meter 

meets the following additional requirements, 

first, ensure the fluid meter is rated for the 

flow rate range of the product being tested. 

Second, ensure the fluid meter has a 

resolution for flow rate of no less than two 

significant figures. Third, verify the fluid 

meter is calibrated in accordance with the 

manufacturer printed instructions. 

2.1.2 Time/Volume Test Method 

There are several additional requirements 

when using the time/volume method of 

Section 5.4.2.2(d) of ASME A112.18.1 to 

measure flow rate. First, ensure the receiving 

container is large enough to contain all the 

water for a single test and has an opening 

size and/or a partial cover such that loss of 

water from splashing is minimized. Second, 

conduct the time/volume test for at least one 

minute, with the time recorded via a 

stopwatch with at least 0.1-second 

resolution. Third, measure and record the 

temperature of the water using a 

thermocouple or other similar device either 

at the receiving container immediately after 

recording the mass of water, or at the water 

in the supply line anytime during the 

duration of the time/volume test. Fourth, 

measure the mass of water to at least two 

significant figures and normalize it to gallons 

based on the specific gravity of water at the 

recorded temperature. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11438 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0590; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2021–01395–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ 

Aviation ULC (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model 

CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 

440) airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a determination that a 

certain nondestructive test (NDT) 

procedure associated with a certain 

airworthiness limitation for inspecting 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS