Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

associated energy use, and increase GHG emissions, directly contrary to EPCAs purposes. As discussed in section III.A.2 of this document, DOE
has tentatively determined that the December 2020 Final Rules definition of showerhead is inconsistent with EPCAs purposes of water and energy conservation. Therefore, the NTTAA
and OMB Circular A119 authorize and comprehend DOEs departure from the use of the voluntary consensus standard developed by ASME in ASME/ANSI
A112.1812018 for the definition of showerhead because it would be inconsistent with EPCA and impractical.
B. Withdrawal of DOEs Current Definition of Body Spray DOE adopted a definition for body spray in the December 2020 Final Rule.
DOE defined the term 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.
After a reconsideration of this definition, DOE proposes to withdraw the definition of body spray.
In the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE concluded that the definition of showerhead in the October 2013 Final Rule did not specifically include or exclude body sprays and that this omission may have introduced uncertainty for regulated parties and therefore it is appropriate to clarify that body sprays are not showerheads. 85 FR
81341, 81350. DOE also stated that leaving the scope of products not subject to EPCAs energy conservation standard undefined, and potentially subjecting manufacturers of body sprays to DOE standards, causes more confusion than establishing a regulatory definition. As such, DOE determined that it was appropriate to clarify the existing ambiguity following the October 2013 Final Rule that did not include body sprays within the definition of showerhead, and also did not define what constituted a body spray. 85 FR 81341, 81350.
As part of its review of the definition of body spray, DOE has reconsidered comments received in response to the August 2020 NOPR. Several commenters expressed concern that the proposal, to define the term body spray to clarify that these products are not subject to the current energy conservation standards, would result in wasteful and unnecessary deluge showers, which would also consume much more hot water. WVWD, No.
0051 at p.2; BAWSCA, No. 0050 at p.3;
AWE, et al., No. 0079 at p.2 Further, Valley Water explained that redefining
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Jul 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

body sprays signals that these products are not subject to the current energy conservation standards and thus can flow at any rate, resulting in an increase in water and energy use and a financial strain for American households. Valley Water, No. 0076 at p.1
Other commentators highlighted that the then-proposed definition of body spray was unnecessary because there was no technical difference between a showerhead and a body spray to warrant a separate definition. CEC, No. 0083 at p.3; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript at p.22; CA IOUs, No. 0084 at pp.35
CEC noted their concern that the thenproposed definition of body spray relied on manufacturer intent and consumer installation decisions, rather than discernable technical differences between products. CEC, No. 0083 at p.3 The CA IOUs commented that, in their research, they have been unable to identify a technical difference between body sprays and showerheads other than the orientation of installation. CA
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript at p.22
The CA IOUs conducted a review of retailer websites that indicated that shower units with body spray capability are generally marketed or sold as combination shower systems or shower panels with an overhead showerhead component. The CA IOUs stated that industry considers body sprays a form of showerhead. The CA IOUs further explained that the marketplace does not clearly distinguish stand-alone body sprays from conventional showerheads and that the market tends to include body spray capability in all-in-one shower systems. The CA IOUs found that all stand-alone body sprays and allin-one shower systems identified in their research complied with the current water conservation standards. CA IOUs, No. 0084 at pp.35
The CA IOUs also discussed the treatment of body sprays and showerheads in the 2018 ASME
Standard. Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that the definitions of showerhead and body spray in the 2018 ASME Standard suggests that body sprays designed and marketed as a stand-alone product and other showerhead devices differ only based on installation position in the end-use application. As such, the standard treats showerheads and body sprays similarly.
CA IOUs, No. 0084 at p.3 Further, the CA IOUs highlighted a comment made in response to the April 2013 SNOPR by Maximum Performance Testing. In the comment referenced by the CA IOUs, Maximum Performance stated that to create a distinction between showerheads and body sprays fails the reality test. In shower applications
PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38603

where body sprays and an overhead showerhead are present, there is no reason to classify one component as different than the other component.
CA IOUs, No. 0084 at p.4 citing Maximum Performance, EERE2011
BTTP00610029 at p.1
After further consideration, DOE
agrees with commenters that the current definition of body spray and the interpretation that body sprays are not a showerhead does not effectively address the relationship between these two products. As highlighted by the CA
IOUs, the 2018 ASME standard, as well as the 2012 ASME standard, treat the products similarly and the only difference between the definitions of showerhead and body spray is the installation location. Further, the market review conducted by the CA IOUs suggests that these two products are not treated differently in the marketplace.
Given the similar treatment by the industry standard and the market, as well as the lack of discernable differences between the products, DOE
believes that the current definition does not best address the relationship between these two products.
In addition, DOE agrees that the current definition of body spray may result in excessive water use that is inconsistent with EPCAs purposes.
While DOE explained in the December 2020 Final Rule that leaving the term body sprays undefined introduced uncertainty into the market about whether those products needed to comply with the 2.5 gpm standard, the research done by CA IOUs shows that products with body sprays complied with the energy conservation standard.
As such, DOE has tentatively determined that the current definition of body spray should be withdrawn.
C. Safety Shower Showerhead In the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE established a definition for the term safety shower showerhead. 85
FR 81341. Specifically, DOE defined safety shower showerhead to mean a showerhead designed to meet the requirements of ANSI/ISEA Z358.1
incorporated by reference, see 430.3
10 CFR 430.2. In this proposed rule, DOE does not propose to amend the definition of safety shower showerhead. DOE continues to agree with several of the findings in the December 2020 Definition Final Rule:
That leaving undefined the scope of products not subject to EPCAs energy conservation standard causes confusion and is inappropriate; that what is meant by a safety shower showerhead or emergency shower is understood in the regulated industry; that it is unlikely
E:FRFM22JYP1.SGM

22JYP1