Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Showerheads, 49284-49297 [2020-15749]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 157 (Thursday, August 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49284-49297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15749]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0002]
RIN 1904-AE85


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for 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 
existing test procedure for showerheads to revise the definition of a 
showerhead consistent with the most recent standard developed by the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') in 2018. DOE's 
current definition considers all of the individual showerheads (which 
DOE has termed variously as sprays, openings, or nozzles) in a product 
containing multiple showerheads together for

[[Page 49285]]

purposes of compliance with the water conservation standard established 
in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''). DOE proposes 
instead to define showerhead as that term is defined in the 2018 ASME 
standard, such that each showerhead in a product containing multiple 
showerheads would be considered separately for purposes of determining 
standards compliance, and only one of them would need to be turned on 
for testing. DOE has determined that the proposed definition is 
consistent with EPCA and, unlike the current definition, compliant with 
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') Circular A-119. In addition, 
the proposed definition is consistent with DOE's treatment of other 
products, such as body sprays. DOE also proposes to define the terms 
``body spray'' and ``safety shower showerhead'' to clarify which 
products are not subject to the current energy conservation standard. 
DOE invites comment on all aspects of this proposal, and announces a 
public webinar to collect comments and data on its proposal.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on all aspects of 
this proposal and will be accepted before and after the public meeting, 
but no later than September 14, 2020. See section IV, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
TP-0002, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN 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 telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
https://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: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0002. The docket web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section IV of this document for information on how 
to submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the webinar, contact 
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 
or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the 
following additional industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
    ASME A112.18.1-2012, ``Plumbing supply fittings,'' approved 
December 2012.
    ASME A112.18.1-2018, ``Plumbing supply fittings,'' approved July 
2018.
    Copies of A112.18.1-2018 can be obtained from the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers, 1828 L St., NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 
20036-5104; (800) 843-2763, or go to https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/a112-18-1-csa-b125-1-plumbing-supply-fittings.
    See section III.N of this document for a more detailed discussion 
of this industry standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. The Term ``Showerhead'' in EPCA Is Ambiguous and Does Not 
Mandate DOE's Prior Interpretation
    B. DOE's Current Definition of Showerhead With Regard to EPCA 
and the ASME Standard
    C. DOE's Proposed Definition With Regard to EPCA and the ASME 
Standard
    D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule With Regard to Consistency in 
Treatment of Related Products
    E. Current Proposal and the Definition of ``Safety Shower 
Showerhead''
    F. Testing Requirements
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and, for certain 
products, water efficiency.\1\ Part B of Title III, which for editorial 
reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. 
Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the ``Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,'' 
which includes showerheads, the subject of this

[[Page 49286]]

proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(15))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115-
270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
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 and water conservation 
standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making 
representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 
6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine 
whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated 
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    EPCA states that the procedures for testing and measuring the water 
use of showerheads shall be ASME/ANSI \2\ standard A112.18.1M-1989, 
``Plumbing Fixture Fittings.'' EPCA further specifies that if ASME/ANSI 
revises these requirements, the Secretary shall adopt such revisions if 
they conform to the basic statutory requirements for test procedures. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)) The most recent version of the ASME/ANSI 
standard, A112.18.1M-2018, was adopted in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``ANSI'' refers to the American National Standards 
Institute. See also 42 U.S.C. 6291(31)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

    EPCA defines a showerhead simply as ``any showerhead (including a 
handheld showerhead), except a safety shower showerhead.'' In addition 
to defining ``showerhead,'' EPCA established a maximum water use 
threshold of 2.5 gallons per minute (``gpm'') applicable to ``any 
showerhead.'' Both the definition of showerhead and the 2.5 gpm 
standard were added to EPCA by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public 
Law 102-486; Oct. 24, 2991, ``EPAct 1992''). From 1992 to 2013, DOE 
regulations did not contain a separate definition of ``showerhead.''
    DOE issued a notice of availability of a proposed interpretive rule 
relating to the definition of showerhead in May 2010. (75 FR 27926; May 
19, 2010) In the proposed interpretive rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2010-BT-NOA-0016-0002, DOE noted 
that the design of showerheads had diversified into a myriad of 
products marketed under names such as waterfalls, shower towers, 
rainheads and shower systems. DOE intended the proposed interpretive 
rule to address ``uncertainty'' in how the EPCA definition of 
showerhead and the 2.5 gpm water conservation standard apply to such 
products. The proposed interpretive rule sought comment on DOE's 
proposed interpretation of the term ``showerhead'' to mean ``any 
plumbing fitting designed to direct water onto a bather,'' including a 
fitting that comprises a set of showerheads, as conventionally 
understood (i.e., a set of accessories that each spray water onto a 
bather). Under this interpretation, the Department would find a 
``showerhead'' (i.e., a fitting comprising multiple showerheads) to be 
noncompliant with EPCA's maximum water use standard if the showerhead's 
standard spraying ``components,'' operating in their maximum design 
flow configuration and when taken together, use a total in excess of 
2.5 gpm, even if each spraying component individually does not use an 
amount that exceeds 2.5 gpm. Id.
    DOE did not finalize the proposed interpretive rule. Instead, DOE 
withdrew the draft interpretive rule from review by OMB and in 2011 
issued enforcement guidance that achieved essentially the same result. 
(See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Showerhead_Guidancel.pdf).\3\ The Department stated in the enforcement 
guidance that multiple spraying components, when sold together as a 
single unit designed to spray water onto a single bather, constitute a 
single showerhead for purposes of compliance with the 2.5 gpm standard. 
The guidance did not apply to tub spouts, locker room showers, or 
emergency showers, or to handheld showers where the sprayer cannot run 
at the same time as the main nozzle. To determine whether a showerhead 
complied with the standard, DOE would measure a showerhead's water use 
by turning on all of the unit's sprays and nozzles to their maximum 
flow settings. Id. In issuing the guidance, DOE stated its view that 
the term ``any showerhead'' was sufficiently clear that no interpretive 
rule was needed. The Department also stated its view that this 
interpretation was consistent with both the industry standard 
incorporated into EPCA and the plain language and intent of Congress in 
establishing a maximum water use requirement for showerheads. Because 
manufacturers had developed the ``myriad of products'' referenced in 
the draft interpretive rule based on their ``apparent 
misunderstanding'' of how to measure compliance with the 2.5 gpm 
standard, however, DOE provided an enforcement grace period of 2 years 
from issuance of the guidance for manufacturers to sell any remaining 
non-compliant multi-nozzle products and adjust product designs to 
ensure compliance with the standard. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2011 guidance was superseded by the October 2013 final 
rule described below. This proposed rule would supersede the 2013 
final rule by providing for a different interpretation of the term 
``showerhead'' as defined in EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE subsequently proposed to change its regulatory definition of 
showerhead as part of a proposed rule to revise the test procedures for 
showerheads and other products. (77 FR 31742, 31747-31748; 31755; May 
30, 2012) In that proposed rule, DOE proposed to adopt definitions for 
the terms ``fitting'' and ``accessory'', as well as a definition of 
``showerhead'' that used those terms. Under DOE's proposed definition, 
all components defined as an ``accessory,'' or a combined set of 
accessories, to a supply fitting represented a single covered product 
that would be required to meet the 2.5 gpm standard established in 
EPCA.
    Specifically, DOE proposed to define an ``accessory'', with respect 
to plumbing fittings, as a component that can, at the discretion of the 
user, be readily added, removed or replaced. Removal of the accessory 
will not prevent the fitting from fulfilling its primary function. (77 
FR 31742, 31755) DOE proposed to define a ``fitting'' as a device that 
controls and guides the flow of water. Id. These definitions were 
consistent with the ASME definition current at that time, ASME A112-
18.1-2011. DOE also proposed to define a ``showerhead''; however, it 
defined that term in a manner different from the ASME definition. 
Specifically, the ASME standard defined ``showerhead'' as ``an 
accessory to a supply fitting for spraying water onto a bather, 
typically from an overhead position.'' DOE proposed to define a 
showerhead as ``an accessory, or set of accessories, to a supply 
fitting distributed in commerce for attachment to a single supply 
fitting, for spraying water onto a bather, typically from an overhead 
position.'' Id. DOE stated that the definition included body sprays and 
hand-held showerheads but did not include safety showerheads.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE proposed to define ``body spray'' as a shower device for 
spraying water onto a bather from other than the overhead position. 
DOE proposed to define a ``hand-held showerhead'' as a showerhead 
that can be fixed in place or used as a movable accessory for 
directing water onto a bather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments on the proposed rule, DOE issued a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') to revise the 
definitions of showerhead and hand-held showerhead and to remove body 
sprays from the definition of

[[Page 49287]]

showerhead. (78 FR 20832, 20834-28835, 20841; Apr. 8, 2013; ``April 
2013 SNOPR'') Specifically, Kohler Company (``Kohler'') and Sloan Valve 
Company (``Sloan Valve'') responded to the proposal by recommending 
that DOE use the definition of showerhead in ASME A112.18.1-2011. The 
Natural Resources Defense Council (``NRDC'') commented that a 
showerhead should not be defined as an accessory, and both NRDC and the 
International Code Council supported including body sprays in the DOE 
definition. These comments were contrary to comments from the Plumbing 
Manufacturers International (``PMI''), Moen Incorporated (``Moen'') and 
Kohler, who stated that body sprays should not be included or 
considered an accessory because they cannot be readily added or removed 
by the user. Id. at 78 FR 20834-28835.
    In the April 2013 SNOPR, DOE again declined to propose the ASME 
definition of showerhead. DOE reasoned that the ASME definition did not 
sufficiently address DOE's regulatory coverage, because it did not 
specifically include hand-held showerheads or exclude safety 
showerheads. DOE also revised its proposed definition of showerhead 
(and hand-held showerhead) so that the term ``accessory'' would not be 
included in the proposed definition. DOE instead proposed to use the 
undefined term ``component''. Specifically, DOE proposed to define 
showerhead as ``a component of a supply fitting, 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, 
including hand-held showerheads but excluding safety shower 
showerheads.'' (78 FR 20832, 20841; Apr. 8, 2013) DOE proposed that 
body sprays not be covered by the DOE definition of showerhead, stating 
that further study of the issue was needed before it could determine 
whether to include body sprays in the definition. (78 FR 20832, 20834-
20835; Apr. 8, 2013) DOE also considered defining the term ``safety 
shower showerhead'' to address the question of which products qualify 
for exclusion from coverage under EPCA and DOE regulations. DOE noted 
that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'') did 
not define the term, but that certain state regulatory requirements 
referenced ANSI standard Z358.1, Emergency Eyewash and Shower 
Equipment, which contains specific design and performance criteria that 
must be met, such as flow rate and accessibility. DOE stated that these 
criteria could help develop a definition of safety shower showerhead. 
Id.
    Industry commenters on the April 2013 SNOPR, including Kohler, PMI, 
NSF International (``NSF''), the International Association of Plumbing 
and Mechanical Officials, Chicago Faucets, and Moen, stated that DOE 
should adopt the definition of showerhead in ASME A112.18.1. The 
majority of these commenters also supported DOE's proposal not to 
include body sprays within the definition of showerhead. NRDC, the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and the California Energy 
Commission did not support removal of body sprays from the definition. 
These comments are described in DOE's final rule, published in October 
2013. (78 FR 62970, 62973; Oct. 23, 2013, ``October 2013 final rule'')
    After considering these comments, DOE issued a final rule in 
October 2013 adopting a slightly modified version of the definition set 
forth in the April 2013 SNOPR. Specifically, DOE defined showerhead in 
the October 2013 final rule as ``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.'' (78 FR 62970, 62973, 62986; Oct. 
23, 2013) DOE continued to include hand-held showerheads within the 
definition of showerhead. DOE excluded body sprays from the definition 
but did not finalize the definition of ``body spray'' set forth in the 
NOPR. DOE also declined to adopt a definition of ``safety shower 
showerhead'' to clarify those showerheads that EPCA had exempted from 
coverage.

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes to revisit its prior 
interpretation of the EPCA definition of showerhead and to interpret 
the term showerhead using the definition of the term in ASME A112.18.1-
2018. DOE proposes to define showerhead as follows: ``Showerhead means 
any showerhead (including a handheld showerhead) other than a safety 
shower showerhead.'' This definition restates the statutory definition 
of ``showerhead,'' at 42 U.S.C. 6291(31)(D). DOE then proposes to 
include in its regulations its interpretation of the term 
``showerhead'' to mean ``an accessory to a supply fitting for spraying 
water onto a bather, typically from an overhead position.'' This 
interpretation incorporates the ASME definition.
    DOE believes that interpreting the term ``showerhead'' consistent 
with the ASME definition is more appropriate than DOE's previous 
interpretation of ``showerhead.'' As described in section II.A of this 
NOPR, DOE recognizes that the statutory definition of the term 
``showerhead'' is ambiguous in key respects. Accordingly, to provide 
clarity to regulated entities and the public concerning what is meant 
by the term, DOE proposes to interpret the statutory term 
``showerhead'' using the definition of ``showerhead'' in ASME 
A112.18.1-2018. The most current ASME standard continues to define a 
showerhead as it did in 2011--``an accessory to a supply fitting for 
spraying water onto a bather, typically from the overhead position.''
    Under DOE's proposed definition, each showerhead included in a 
product with multiple showerheads would separately be required to meet 
the 2.5 gpm standard established in EPCA. As explained in the 
discussion that follows, DOE concludes that its proposed interpretation 
of the term ``showerhead'' is consistent with Congressional intent in 
establishing the EPCA definition of ``showerhead'' and the associated 
energy conservation standard. DOE's proposal is also consistent with 
the requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 
783, as amended by Public Law 107-107, Div. A, Title XI, section 1115, 
Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1241 (``NTTAA''), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, and the 
associated OMB Circular A-119, which directs Federal agencies to use 
voluntary consensus standards unless inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impracticable.\5\ In addition, DOE's proposal treats 
products with multiple showerheads in a manner that is

[[Page 49288]]

consistent with DOE's treatment of similar products, such as body 
sprays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 12(d) of the NTTAA provides that with one exception, 
all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies 
(``voluntary consensus standards''), using such standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the 
agencies and departments. The statutory exception is that a Federal 
agency or department may elect to use other technical standards if 
using voluntary consensus standards is inconsistent with applicable 
law or otherwise impractical, and if the agency head submits to OMB 
an explanation of the reasons for using the alternative standards. 
See 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Section 6 of OMB Circular A-119, available 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A119/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_1_22.pdf, reiterates the 
requirement for Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards unless inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable, and to issue guidance for agency reporting to OMB 
when standards other than voluntary consensus standards are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also proposes to define the terms ``body spray'' and ``safety 
shower showerhead'' so that it is clear that these products are not 
considered showerheads subject to DOE's test procedures and energy 
conservation standards.

A. The Term ``Showerhead'' in EPCA Is Ambiguous and Does Not Mandate 
DOE's Prior Interpretation

    EPCA defines the term ``showerhead'' generically, and somewhat 
circularly, to ``mean[] any showerhead (including a handheld 
showerhead), except a safety shower showerhead.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6291(31)(D). In a May 2010 draft interpretive rule, DOE stated that 
uncertainty existed in application of the EPCA definition of showerhead 
and the 2.5 gpm standard to the ``myriad of products'' marketed under 
names such as waterfalls, shower towers, rainheads and shower systems. 
These products had been designed, manufactured, and marketed with 
knowledge of, and in the 19 years since, the 1992 law that established 
a definition of showerhead and the applicable 2.5 gpm standard. Less 
than a year later, in March 2011, DOE published enforcement guidance 
defining the term showerhead in a manner that deviated significantly 
from the ASME definition by determining that products with multiple 
showerheads constitute only one showerhead for purposes of EPCA. In the 
enforcement guidance, DOE further stated that the term ``any 
showerhead'' in EPCA was ``sufficiently clear such that no interpretive 
rule was needed''. DOE reached this conclusion despite DOE's statements 
in its 2010 draft interpretive rule about a lack of clarity and the 
development of the market since enactment of the 1992 definition of 
showerhead. Also despite the supposed clarity in the definition, DOE 
provided a two year grace period for manufacturers to sell products 
that the enforcement guidance in effect rendered noncompliant with the 
standard. DOE's October 2013 final rule then codified in its 
regulations the showerhead definition set forth in the 2011 enforcement 
guidance, rendering the guidance unnecessary. Following these 
developments, the number of multi-headed showerheads in the market 
decreased significantly from the ``myriad of products'' cited by DOE in 
2010.
    A number of considerations support the conclusion that the term 
``showerhead'' in EPCA is ambiguous: (1) DOE's own statements in the 
May 2010 draft interpretive rule; (2) the long-standing existence of 
waterfalls, shower towers and similar products on the market; and (3) 
the two-year grace period DOE provided in the enforcement guidance in 
recognition of these products. In short, the unadorned statutory 
definition does not require that the term be construed as DOE had 
interpreted the term in the 2011 guidance and the October 2013 final 
rule.
    Moreover, the text of the statutory definition itself, in one 
respect, seems difficult to square with the interpretation set forth in 
the 2011 guidance and the 2013 final rule. The statute defines the term 
to ``mean[] any showerhead (including a handheld showerhead), except a 
safety shower showerhead.'' (Emphasis added.) As a general matter, 
handheld showerheads are not multiple spraying accessories (or 
``components,'' to use the language of the 2011 guidance and the 2013 
rule) but are individual spraying accessories (or ``components''). This 
is an important consideration weighing in favor of DOE's proposed 
interpretation, and a reason why DOE believes that this interpretation 
is more appropriate than the alternative set forth in the 2011 guidance 
and the 2013 final rule. Indeed, assuming arguendo that the term 
``showerhead'' is not ambiguous, DOE proposes to conclude in the 
alternative that the proposed interpretation set forth herein is the 
appropriate and correct interpretation of the term. At all events, DOE 
has authority under the statute to adopt the proposed interpretation.

B. DOE's Current Definition of Showerhead With Regard to EPCA and the 
ASME Standard

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992 illustrated Congress' intent that DOE 
adhere to ASME standards. When EPCA was amended in 1992 to define 
showerhead and to establish a test method and water conservation 
standard for showerheads, Congress specified that the test method 
applicable to showerheads is the procedure specified in ASME 
A112.18.1M-1989. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(A)) If that ASME standard is 
revised and approved by ANSI, DOE is required to amend its test 
procedures to conform to those revisions unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7)(B)) 
In the definition section, immediately preceding the definition of 
showerhead, Congress also included definitions of ASME and ANSI. 42 
U.S.C. 6291(31)(B)-(C). The 2.5 gpm standard required compliance with 
ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M-1989 with regard to the amount of force needed to 
remove the flow restrictor from the showerhead. (42 U.S.C. 6295(j)(1)) 
Even the marking and labeling requirements are required to be 
consistent with those of ASME A112.18.1M-1989, or a subsequently 
revised version as appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(E).
    Despite Congressional reliance on the ASME standard in developing 
the provisions of EPAct 1992 with regard to showerheads and direction 
for DOE to adopt updates to the ASME standard, when DOE established the 
current definition of ``showerhead,'' it deviated significantly from 
the ASME definition by determining that products with multiple 
showerheads constitute only one showerhead for purposes of EPCA. The 
current DOE regulatory definition of ``showerhead'' went beyond the 
ASME concept of what a showerhead is without any explanation as to why 
DOE was not following the statutory construct based on ASME. While 
water conservation is obviously a purpose of EPCA, DOE did not take 
into account congressional reliance on the ASME standard when DOE 
determined in its 2011 enforcement guidance what was meant by the term 
showerhead. While it is true that the ASME standard did not 
specifically define the term ``showerhead'' when EPCA was amended in 
1992, commenters on DOE's draft interpretive rule and its proposed and 
supplemental rulemakings made abundantly clear that DOE was going 
beyond ASME's concept of that term. Moreover, products available on the 
market between 1992 and issuance of DOE's 2011 enforcement guidance 
included those with multiple water outlets manufactured to comply with 
statutory water efficiency standards construed as applying to 
individual spraying accessories (not to sets of such accessories), 
suggesting substantial industry reliance on the understanding that this 
was the appropriate construction of the statutory definition. Given 
EPCA's reliance on the ASME standard in amending EPCA to prescribe a 
definition, test procedure, energy conservation standard, and labeling 
provisions for showerheads, DOE concludes that if Congress had intended 
to significantly deviate from the ASME definition of what constitutes a 
showerhead, it would have done so explicitly. It did not. DOE is 
therefore entitled to give significant weight to the ASME definition in 
construing and applying the statutory standard, even if DOE is not 
required to adhere to the ASME definition.
    In its prior rulemaking to establish a definition of 
``showerhead'', DOE proposed to adopt a new definition for

[[Page 49289]]

the term that it stated was based on the definition included in ASME/
ANSI A112.18.1-2011. 77 FR 31747 (May 30, 2012, ``May 2012 NOPR''). DOE 
proposed definitions of ``accessory'' and ``fitting'' that were the 
same as the ASME definitions. In proposing the definition of 
``showerhead'', however, DOE went beyond the ASME definition of 
``showerhead.'' The ASME standard defined, and continues to define, a 
``showerhead'' as ``an accessory to a supply fitting for spraying water 
onto a bather, typically from an overhead position.'' DOE's proposal 
included the terms ``or set of accessories'' and ``distributed in 
commerce for attachment to a single'' supply fitting. DOE expanded the 
ASME definition not only, as required by EPCA, to include handheld 
showerheads and exclude safety shower showerheads (which it did not 
propose to define), but also to ``more clearly define the extent of 
DOE's coverage for these products''--in other words, to ensure that 
products with multiple showerheads would be considered a single 
showerhead for purposes of compliance with the DOE standard, as well as 
to include body sprays as showerheads. (77 FR 31742, 31747-13748; May 
30, 2012)
    In response to comments urging DOE to adopt the definition in the 
industry standard, DOE noted in the April 2013 SNOPR only that the ASME 
definition did not sufficiently address DOE's regulatory coverage of 
showerheads to include hand-held showerheads and exclude safety 
showerheads. (78 FR 20832, 20834; Apr. 8, 2013). DOE did not reference 
the fact that the ASME definition did not include ``set of 
accessories'' or ``distributed in commerce for attachment to a single'' 
supply fitting, terms that DOE used to classify products with multiple 
showerheads as a single showerhead for purposes of compliance with the 
2.5 gpm standard. In the April 2013 SNOPR, DOE also proposed not to 
include body sprays as showerheads pending further investigation of the 
issue. DOE further proposed to eliminate use of the standard term 
``accessory'' in favor of the undefined term ``component''. DOE did not 
offer an explanation for this change, other than that it was in 
response to comments. Id. Comments suggesting that DOE not define a 
showerhead as an accessory indicated that to do so would distinguish 
body sprays from showerheads and would lead DOE to exclude body sprays 
from coverage. But an interest in retaining the ability to include body 
sprays within the regulatory definition of showerhead at some future 
time should not lead DOE to depart from the term ``accessory'' that had 
been, and continues to be, used consistently in the ASME definition. 
Similarly, DOE now recognizes that defining products with multiple 
showerheads to constitute a single ``showerhead'' inappropriately 
expands the definition of ``showerhead'' beyond the ASME definition.
    In the October 2013 final rule, DOE did not adopt the ASME 
definition and instead adopted a definition of showerhead with minor 
changes from that proposed in the April 2013 SNOPR. The definition 
continued to use the terms ``component'', ``set of components'', and 
``distributed in commerce for attachment to a single'' supply fitting 
to ensure that products with multiple showerheads would be considered a 
single showerhead for purposes of compliance with the 2.5 gpm standard. 
DOE did not, however, adopt a definition of body spray and did not 
specifically include body sprays within the definition of 
``showerhead''. Presumably, this meant that body sprays were not 
included as showerheads, though the Department's discussion of this 
point stated only that DOE was not adopting a definition of the term. 
(78 FR 62970, 62972-62973; Oct. 23, 2013) DOE also did not adopt a 
definition of ``safety shower showerhead'', so the products 
specifically exempted by Congress remained undefined and subject to 
DOE's discretion as to what it determined was a safety shower 
showerhead. Id.
    The definition of showerhead adopted by the Department in the 
October 2013 final rule did not reference the purpose of water 
conservation, and it was also inconsistent with the ASME standard upon 
which Congress relied heavily in establishing the definition, test 
procedures, energy conservation standard, and labeling requirements for 
showerheads. The current DOE definition--which uses the additional and 
undefined terms ``component,'' ``set of components'' and ``distributed 
in commerce for attachment to a single'' supply fitting to include as 
one showerhead a product with multiple showerheads--is also 
inconsistent with the requirements of the NTTAA (section 12(d)) and the 
associated OMB Circular A-119 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A119/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_1_22.pdf). As explained previously at the beginning of 
Section II, the NTTAA and OMB's Circular A-119 direct that Federal 
agencies use voluntary consensus standards unless inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impracticable.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See fn 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Congress did not specifically direct DOE to define showerhead 
according to the ASME standard, Congress relied on the ASME standard in 
all of the provisions by which it included showerheads within the scope 
of DOE's authority--definitions, where Congress specifically defined 
both ASME and ANSI directly preceding and in the same paragraph as the 
definition of showerhead, test procedures, labeling requirements and 
the applicable energy conservation standard. That reliance further 
suggests that DOE should have considered the directives of the NTTAA 
and OMB Circular A-119 with regard to the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing its definition. EPCA certainly does not 
preclude DOE from using such standards; the statutory text of EPCA does 
not make compliance with the NTTAA, and compliance with OMB Circular A-
119, either inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable.
    The Department did not provide discussion of the NTTAA and OMB 
Circular A-119 in any of its rulemaking documents in support of its 
decision not to adopt the voluntary consensus standard developed by 
ASME. This omission may have been a result of DOE's prior conclusion 
that the term ``showerhead'' should be read to encompass products that 
constituted sets of individual showerheads (which it termed variously 
as sprays, openings or nozzles). However, DOE has reconsidered this 
issue and proposes to reach a different conclusion, as explained in 
this proposed rule.
    As to practicability, DOE stated in the May 2012 NOPR only that the 
ASME standard did not clearly exclude safety shower showerheads (which 
DOE did not propose to define) or include body sprays, and that DOE 
modified the ASME definition to ``more clearly define the extent of 
DOE's coverage''. (77 FR 31742, 31747; May 30, 2012). DOE's failure to 
adopt the ASME definition does not appear to have been based on an 
appropriate analysis of practicability per the NTTAA and OMB Circular 
A-119.

C. DOE's Proposed Definition With Regard to EPCA and the ASME Standard

    DOE proposes in this rulemaking to set forth in its regulatory text 
the definition of showerhead established in EPCA. In particular, DOE 
proposes to interpret the term using the definition in ASME A112.18.1-
2018 (Section 3.1)--

[[Page 49290]]

``an accessory to a supply fitting for spraying water onto a bather, 
typically from an overhead position.''
    DOE's proposed definition is consistent with EPCA. DOE stated in 
its 2011 enforcement guidance that it could not ``reconcile the view 
that a showerhead with multiple nozzles is actually multiple 
showerheads with EPCA's language or intent'' and that (in a somewhat 
circular fashion) ``it has always been the Department's view that when 
Congress used the term `any showerhead' it actually meant `any 
showerhead'--and that a showerhead with multiple nozzles constitutes a 
single showerhead for purposes of EPCA's water conservation standard.'' 
See Showerhead Enforcement Guidance at 1 (Mar. 4, 2011). https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Showerhead_Guidancel.pdf. The Department had, however, prior to the 
draft interpretive rule that preceded the enforcement guidance, never 
provided its view on what was meant by the term ``showerhead''. In 
addition, what the guidance had characterized as ``a showerhead with 
multiple nozzles'' could just as rationally, if not more so, be 
considered multiple showerheads. Looking at the depictions in Figure 1 
(taken from page 1 of the 2011 enforcement guidance), a rational person 
might well have counted three, eight, and three showerheads, 
respectively, rather than simply one showerhead for each configuration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU20.002

    And, while one of the purposes of EPCA is to ``conserve water by 
improving the water efficiency of certain plumbing products and 
appliances'' (42 U.S.C. 6201(8)), as noted in section II.B. of this 
NOPR, EPCA relied on the ASME standard for measuring the water use of 
showerheads at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(7) and included references to ASME and 
the ASME standard in the definitions related to showerhead at 42 U.S.C. 
6291(31), the energy conservation standard at 42 U.S.C. 6295(j), and 
the labeling requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(E). Presumably, if 
Congress intended to establish a definition of the term ``showerhead'' 
significantly more expansive than that contemplated by ASME (which 
would have eliminated many products then manufactured by the industry), 
it would have done so explicitly.
    DOE also concludes that by referencing the ASME standard in the 
statute as described in the preceding paragraph, and requiring DOE to 
update its test procedures in response to action by ASME, Congress was 
expressing an intent that DOE's actions with regard to showerheads be 
consistent with those of ASME. As described in section II.B of this 
NOPR, DOE's definition of showerhead adopted in 2013 was not consistent 
with ASME's definition in place at that time. Nor is it consistent with 
ASME's definition in ASME A112.18.1-2018, which was adopted by ASME 
subsequent to, and presumably with knowledge of, DOE's 2013 rulemaking. 
This proposal by DOE to harmonize its definition of ``showerhead'' with 
that of ASME is meant to ensure that DOE's regulations comport with 
congressional intent to rely on ASME's standards for specific water-
using products, including showerheads.
    In addition, EPCA was amended in 1987 to insert a provision into 42 
U.S.C. 6295 prohibiting DOE from establishing a new or amended standard 
under this section if DOE finds that the standard is likely to result 
in the unavailability of performance characteristics, features, sizes, 
capacities and volumes substantially the same as those generally 
available in the U.S. at the time of the finding. See Public Law 1001-2 
(Mar. 17. 1987); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). While DOE is prohibited from 
taking such an action, Congress can pass subsequent legislation that 
removes products with certain performance characteristics and features 
from the market, such as products with multiple showerheads. If 
Congress had intended to establish a provision in EPCA in 1992 that 
eliminated these products from the market, it would have done so 
explicitly given the 1987 amendment. Again, it did not. Nor did the 
1992 EPCA provision impliedly repeal the 1987 amendment. See, e.g., 
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) (repeals by implication are 
disfavored; ``when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the 
duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention 
to the contrary, to regard each as effective''), cited in Epic Sys. 
Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1624 (2018).
    It is clear that DOE cannot regulate or otherwise act to remove 
products with certain performance characteristics and features from the 
market given the prohibition in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). While DOE did not 
undertake a standards rulemaking to eliminate products with multiple 
showerheads, which can easily be viewed as a ``feature'' for purposes 
of the EPCA provision (for example, other aspects of products that DOE 
has identified as features include the window in an oven door and the 
top loading clothes washer configuration), such an elimination is 
exactly the outcome of DOE's 2011 enforcement guidance and 2013 
regulatory interpretation of the term ``showerhead'' in EPCA. As 
discussed earlier in this document, the number of multi-headed 
showerheads in the market decreased significantly from the ``myriad of 
products'' cited by DOE in 2010.
    Specifically, in its 2011 enforcement guidance, DOE stated that it 
interpreted

[[Page 49291]]

the term ``showerhead'' in EPCA such that each individual showerhead 
(alternatively called nozzles, sprays, or openings) in a product with 
multiple showerheads would need to be turned on for testing to 
determine compliance as measured by aggregating the water use of all 
showerheads in the product. As a result, DOE was authorized to take 
enforcement action against manufacturers of such products that exceed 
the 2.5 gpm maximum, as measured by aggregating the water use of all 
showerheads in a product, rather than by applying the 2.5 gpm 
requirement to each individual showerhead (See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Showerhead_Guidancel.pdf). DOE 
acknowledged the existence on the market of these multi-showerhead 
products, reasoning, however, that it may have been the Department's 
failure to enforce the law for 19 years that led manufacturers to 
misunderstand the law. As a result, DOE gave manufacturers two years to 
sell any products that the Department deemed noncompliant. In issuing 
the 2011 enforcement guidance, it appears that DOE effectively banned 
the vast majority of products with multiple showerheads from the 
market. This action runs contrary to the current directives established 
for DOE by Executive Order 13891, ``Promoting the Rule of Law Through 
Improved Agency Guidance Documents'', issued on Oct. 9, 2019. (84 FR 
55235; Oct. 15, 2019). Following issuance of the 2011 enforcement 
guidance, DOE engaged in a rulemaking to define ``showerhead'' in a 
manner that would codify in DOE regulations its effective ban on 
products with multiple showerheads from the market. (78 FR 62970; Oct. 
23, 2013) As an alternative argument for its proposal to change its 
interpretation of the term ``showerhead'' in this rulemaking, DOE 
proposes to conclude that EPCA's prohibition on the removal of product 
characteristics or features from the market through a standards 
rulemaking also rendered impermissible DOE's actions to effectively ban 
these products through a definition in a test procedure rulemaking.
    For all of these reasons, considered singly and together, DOE 
proposes to conclude that its proposed interpretation of the term 
showerhead is more consistent with congressional intent in establishing 
the definition of the term ``showerhead'' and the associated energy 
conservation standard. DOE's proposed definition also complies with the 
congressional directive to preserve performance characteristics and 
features that were available on the market at the time the Department 
originally acted to eliminate them. DOE seeks data and information on 
any basic models or shipments of showerheads with multiple heads 
manufactured prior to issuance of DOE's 2011 enforcement guidance, or 
data and information on basic models or shipments of such showerheads 
currently on the market, or basic models that manufacturers may be 
planning to introduce.
    DOE has also considered the requirements of the NTTAA and OMB 
Circular A-119 in developing its proposed definition. The NTTAA and OMB 
Circular A-119 require DOE (and all other Federal agencies) to use 
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards in 
their regulatory activities, except where inconsistent with law or 
otherwise impractical. (See Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d), Mar. 7, 
1996, 110 Stat. 783, as amended by Pub. L. 107-107, Div. A, Title XI, 
section 1115, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1241 (``NTTAA''), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A119/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_1_22.pdf). As described 
earlier in this section, DOE has initially concluded that its proposed 
definition, which is the same as the ASME definition, is compliant with 
EPCA. DOE has also initially determined that it is practicable to adopt 
the ASME definition. The ASME definition is well understood by 
showerhead manufacturers. In addition, contrary to DOE's reasoning in 
the prior rulemaking, it is not necessary that the ASME definition 
specifically exclude safety showerheads, because EPCA already does so. 
In this rulemaking, DOE also proposes to define safety shower 
showerhead, so that it is clear what products are subject to the EPCA 
standard. It is also not necessary to explicitly include or exclude 
body sprays in the definition of showerhead. In the ASME standard, body 
spray is defined separately from showerhead, indicating that the two 
terms are different and that a body spray is not considered a 
showerhead. In this proposal, DOE similarly defines ``body spray'' 
separately from ``showerhead,'' to clarify that a body spray is not 
included within the definition of a showerhead. Thus, DOE concludes 
that it is practicable to define showerhead as it is defined in the 
voluntary consensus standard developed by ASME in ASME/ANSI A112.18-1-
2018.

D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule With Regard to Consistency in 
Treatment of Related Products

    In this proposal, DOE's regulations would specifically define the 
term ``body spray'' separately from the definition of showerhead, 
defining ``body spray'' as a ``shower device for spraying water onto a 
bather other than from the overhead position.'' Thus, DOE's regulations 
would make clear that body sprays are not covered by DOE's test 
procedure or the energy conservation standard applicable to 
showerheads. Doing so would be consistent with DOE's proposed 
interpretation of the term ``showerhead.''
    This definition would be consistent with the current ASME standard, 
ASME A112.18.1-2018, which defines a body spray as a ``shower device 
for spraying water onto a bather other than from the overhead 
position.'' In DOE's May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to use this definition 
for the term ``body spray,'' and also proposed to include body sprays 
in the definition of showerhead. Industry commenters stated that body 
sprays were not accessories because they cannot be readily added or 
removed by the user. (78 FR 20832, 20834; Apr. 8, 2013). Some 
commenters expressed the view that showerheads should not be defined as 
``accessories'' and that body sprays should be included in the 
definition of showerhead. Id. As a result of these comments, DOE 
proposed in a supplemental proposal and ultimately finalized a 
definition of showerhead that used the term ``component'' rather than 
``accessory''. While DOE did not define ``body spray'' in the final 
test procedure rule, the definition of ``showerhead''--unlike the May 
2012 NOPR--did not specifically include (or exclude) body sprays. This 
omission may have introduced uncertainty for regulated parties.
    DOE believes that it is appropriate to clarify explicitly that body 
sprays are not showerheads. As illustrated in Figure II (where the 
product at the far right represents a body spray), products with 
multiple showerheads are more akin to body sprays because of the 
multiple nozzles that each product has, regardless of the overhead 
configuration. DOE has determined that its proposed definition, which 
considers each showerhead in a product with multiple showerheads as a 
showerhead for purposes of standards compliance, is more consistent 
with its previous (and current) treatment of body sprays, which are not 
included in its regulatory definition of showerhead.

[[Page 49292]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU20.003

    DOE notes that the October 2013 final rule establishing the 
definition for showerhead did not define body spray, leaving it to the 
Department's discretion to determine whether a given product was 
required to comply with the standard. In this proposed rule, DOE 
requests comment on its proposal to include in its regulations the 
definition of body spray originally presented in the May 2012 NOPR and 
contained within the current ASME definition--``a shower device for 
spraying water onto a bather other than from the overhead position.'' 
The ASME standard gives an example of a device mounted on a wall below 
the bather's head that sprays water in an approximately horizontal 
direction and can be fixed or allowed to swivel on a ball joint. (ASME 
A112.18.1-2018, Section 3.1). Under this proposal, DOE's regulations 
would specifically define body sprays separately from the definition of 
showerhead, so as to explicitly provide that body sprays are not 
covered by DOE's test procedure or the energy conservation standard 
applicable to showerheads.

E. Current Proposal and the Definition of ``Safety Shower Showerhead''

    In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to adopt the following ANSI 
standard as the definition of ``safety shower showerhead'': ``a device 
specifically designed and intended to deliver a flushing fluid in 
sufficient volume to cause that fluid to cascade over the entire 
body.'' Defining this term is important, because the statute provides 
that ``[t]he term ``showerhead'' means any showerhead (including a 
handheld showerhead), except a safety shower showerhead.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6291(31)(D).
    In DOE's October 2013 final rule establishing the current 
definition of ``showerhead'', DOE declined to define the term ``safety 
shower showerhead,'' which meant that the class of showerheads that 
EPCA excluded from standards was undefined and subject to DOE's 
discretion as to what was considered a safety shower showerhead. DOE 
noted in the October 2013 final rule that ANSI standard Z358.1, 
``Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment'', defines an emergency shower 
as ``a device specifically designed and intended to deliver a flushing 
fluid in sufficient volume to cause that fluid to cascade over the 
entire body.'' 78 FR 62970, 62974; Oct. 23, 2013. Commenters, including 
NSF and PMI, supported inclusion of the definition of safety shower 
showerhead consistent with the requirements of ANSI standard Z358.1. At 
the time, DOE declined to adopt this definition, stating that DOE could 
not identify a definition that would clearly distinguish these products 
from showerheads covered under EPCA and that adopting an unclear 
definition would cause additional confusion. Id. Upon further 
reflection, DOE is of the view that leaving the scope of products not 
subject to EPCA's energy conservation standards undefined, and 
potentially subjecting manufacturers of safety shower showerheads to 
DOE standards, causes more confusion than establishing a regulatory 
definition consistent with the existing ANSI standard. What is meant by 
a ``safety shower showerhead'' or emergency shower is understood in the 
regulated industry, and DOE believes that it is unlikely that 
manufacturers of showerheads intended for use by residential consumers 
would design a showerhead to meet the specifications of the ANSI 
standard to avoid compliance with DOE standards.
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the ANSI standard as the 
definition of ``safety shower showerhead'', whether there is currently 
uncertainty regarding which products are ``safety shower showerheads'', 
and whether that definition would provide clarity as to those 
showerheads that are not subject to the DOE standard.

F. Testing Requirements

    DOE proposes amendments to the testing provisions at 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix S to address the testing of a single 
showerhead in a product with multiple showerheads. A measurement would 
be required for only one showerhead when all showerheads in the product 
are identical. If the showerheads in such a product are not identical, 
only the showerhead with the maximum water flow would need to be tested 
to determine compliance with the 2.5 gpm standard. Additionally, DOE 
proposes to specify that where it is not possible to turn on only the 
showerhead being tested, testing would be performed with all 
showerheads flowing at the maximum rate. Measurement would be taken of 
only the showerhead under test.
    DOE emphasizes that if an existing product manufactured pursuant to 
DOE's current definition of showerheads is compliant with the 2.5 gpm 
standard, that product would remain compliant under the definition of 
showerhead in this proposed rule, if finalized. Specifically, if a 
product with multiple showerheads currently available is compliant with 
the 2.5 gpm standard when considering all showerheads together, it must 
be the

[[Page 49293]]

case that each individual showerhead is compliant separately with the 
standard. Because DOE's focus is standards compliance, should DOE 
finalize this proposal, manufacturers would not be required to retest 
and recertify that product, and could continue to report the same flow 
rate to DOE that they report currently for purposes of demonstrating 
compliance with the standard. DOE may consider whether updates to its 
certification regulations at part 429 are appropriate if it were to 
finalize the definitional change in this proposed rule.
    According to data in DOE's certification database (CCMS database, 
as of March 2020, there are 7,221 basic models of showerheads. Of 
those, DOE estimates that only 3% are multi-head showerheads. For 97 
percent of showerheads currently on the market, testing requirements 
would not change. For the very small percentage of remaining products 
that do have more than one showerhead, and any new products 
manufactured with more than one showerhead, the testing requirement 
would still be to test the flow rate pursuant to section 5.4 of the 
ASME standard, but instead of measuring the flow from all of the 
showerheads or outlets, the flow rate of only one of these would be 
measured. In other words, the same test would be performed, but the 
water from only one showerhead would be measured to determine 
compliance with the DOE water conservation standard.

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
determined that the proposed regulatory action is a significant 
regulatory action under section (3)(f) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was reviewed by OIRA in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The definitional change in this rule is 
not expected to have a material impact on costs. Similarly, the 
proposed rule is expected to result in minimal increase in benefits, 
primarily through clarifying the showerhead definition.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O. 
13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and 
financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public 
and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the 
costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required 
the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory 
Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies 
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable 
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory 
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to 
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, 
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with 
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must 
attempt to identify regulations that:
    (i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality 
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those 
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or 
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently 
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other 
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or 
substantially modified.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE has preliminarily 
determined that this action is a deregulatory action for purposes of 
E.O. 13771.

C. 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 (IFRA) 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 (Aug. 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: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. The proposed rule would amend the definition of 
showerhead such that each showerhead in a product with multiple 
showerheads would constitute a single showerhead for purposes of 
compliance with the 2.5 gpm standard. The proposal would also 
specifically define and exclude body sprays and safety shower 
showerheads from the regulatory definition of showerhead. As explained 
in section II of this proposed rule, DOE does not expect a change in 
the test burden as a result of this proposed rule, if adopted. 
Specifically, the same test would be performed, but the water from only 
one showerhead would be measured to determine compliance with the DOE 
water conservation standard. The updates to the testing procedures 
maintain the current testing requirement that only one showerhead per 
product would need to be tested, and current products with multiple 
showerheads that meet the energy conservation standard would not need 
to be retested. Based on the foregoing, DOE certifies that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of showerheads 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. (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

[[Page 49294]]

burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 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.
    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.

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an 
existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental 
effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, 
subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies 
for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking 
that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise 
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the 
final rule.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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 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 https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this 
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and 
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, 
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

I. 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.

J. 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 regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

K. 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

[[Page 49295]]

guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's 
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). 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.

L. 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 reinterpret the definition of 
``showerhead'' and revise the test procedure for measuring the energy 
efficiency of showerheads is 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.

M. 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 FTC 
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The proposed modifications to the test procedure for showerheads in 
this proposed rule incorporate definitions and testing methods 
contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: 
ASME A112.18.1-2018, ``Plumbing supply fittings.'' DOE has evaluated 
this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies 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.

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test 
standards published by ASME, ASME A112.18.1-2012, Plumbing supply 
fittings (approved December 2012), and ASME A112.18.1-2018, Plumbing 
supply fittings (approved July 2018).
    The proposed amendments in this proposed rulemaking include 
updating the reference to ASME A112.18.1-2012 to incorporate by 
reference the standard in its entirety. Currently, only section 5.4 of 
ASME A112.18.1-2012 is incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 430.3. ASME 
A112.18.1-2012 is an industry standard that contains performance 
guidelines and test procedures, and is intended to cover plumbing 
supply fittings and accessories between the supply stop and terminal 
fitting, including showerheads. This proposed rule would continue to 
reference Section 5.4, ``Flow rate'' of ASME A112.18.1-2012 in the test 
procedure for faucets.
    The proposed amendments in this proposed rule include updating 
references to the definition of showerhead in ASME A112.18.1-2018. ASME 
A112.18.1-2018 is a more current version of A112.18.1-2012 and remains 
an industry standard that contains performance guidelines and test 
procedures, and is intended to cover plumbing supply fittings and 
accessories between the supply stop and terminal fitting, including 
showerheads. Specifically, the test procedures for showerheads as 
defined in this proposed rule would reference Section 5.4, ``Flow 
rate'' of ASME A112.18.1-2018.
    Copies of both ASME A112.18.1-2012 and ASME A112.18.1-2018 may be 
purchased from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1828 L St. 
NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036-5104; (800) 843-2763, or by going 
to https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/a112-18-1-csa-b125-1-plumbing-supply-fittings and selecting the appropriate 
Edition (2012 or 2018).

IV. Public Participation

    DOE invites comment on all aspects of this proposal. DOE will 
accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule 
before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided 
in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested 
parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule.
    Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://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 https://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
https://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

[[Page 49296]]

the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through https://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 https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted https://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. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. 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. According 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, postal mail, or hand delivery 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. 
Submit these documents via email to [email protected] or 
on a CD, if feasible. 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).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

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 July 16, 
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 
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 July 16, 2020.
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:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, 
definitions for ``Body spray'' and ``Safety shower showerhead,'' and by 
revising the definition of ``Showerhead'' to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Body spray means a shower device for spraying water onto a bather 
from other than the overhead position. A body spray is not a 
showerhead.
* * * * *
    Safety shower showerhead means a device specifically designed and 
intended to deliver a flushing fluid in sufficient volume to cause that 
fluid to cascade over the entire body.
* * * * *
    Showerhead means any showerhead (including a handheld showerhead) 
other than a safety shower showerhead. DOE interprets the term 
``showerhead'' to mean an accessory to a supply fitting for spraying 
water onto a bather, typically from an overhead position.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as paragraph (h)(3); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (h)(2).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) ASME A112.18.1-2012, (``ASME A112.18.1-2012''), ``Plumbing 
supply fittings,'' approved December, 2012, IBR approved for appendix S 
to subpart B.
    (2) ASME A112.18.1-2018, (``ASME A112.18.1-2018''), ``Plumbing 
supply fittings,'' approved July 2018, IBR approved for appendix S to 
subpart B.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix S to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the note after the appendix heading;
0
b. Adding section 0, ``Incorporation by Reference''; and
0
c. Revising section 2.b, ``Flow Capacity Requirements''.
    The addition and revision read as follows:

Appendix S to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Water Consumption of Faucets and Showerheads

Section 0. Incorporation by Reference

    DOE incorporated by reference ASME A112.18.1-2012 and ASME 
A112.18.1-2018

[[Page 49297]]

in their entirety in Sec.  430.3; however, only enumerated 
provisions of these documents are applicable to this appendix, as 
follows:
    (a) ASME A112.18.1-2012, Plumbing supply fittings, section 5.4, 
Flow rate,'' as specified in section 2.a. of this appendix.
    (b) ASME A112.18.1-2018, Plumbing supply fittings, section 5.4, 
Flow rate,'' as specified in section 2.b. of this appendix.
* * * * *

2. * * *

* * * * *
    b. Showerheads--(1) The test procedures to measure the water 
flow rate for showerheads, expressed in gallons per minute (gpm) and 
liters per minute (L/min), shall be conducted in accordance with the 
test requirements specified in section 5.4, Flow Rate, of ASME 
A112.18.1-2018 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3). 
Measurements shall be recorded at the resolution of the test 
instrumentation. Calculations shall be rounded off to the same 
number of significant digits as the previous step. The final water 
consumption value shall be rounded to one decimal place. If the 
time/volume method of section 5.4.2.2(d) is used, the container must 
be positioned as to collect all water flowing from the showerhead, 
including any leakage from the ball joint.
    (2) For products with multiple showerheads, test one showerhead 
if each showerhead has an identical flow control mechanism attached 
to or installed within the supply fitting and identical water-
passage design features that use the same path of water in the 
highest flow mode. If all showerheads are not identical, test the 
showerhead with the maximum water flow rate. Where it is not 
possible to isolate the showerhead under test, test with all 
showerheads flowing at the maximum rate and measure the flow rate of 
only the showerhead under test.

[FR Doc. 2020-15749 Filed 8-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P