Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 241 / Monday, December 20, 2021 / Rules and Regulations conservation against other factors important to consumers, including costs and other consumer protections. CEI et al., No. 18 at p. 3 CEI et al. argued that the proposed rule did not provide evidence that it would result in significant water savings as required by statute. CEI et al. further stated that without evidence of widespread adoption of multi-head showers with a maximum flow rate above 2.5 gpm, the agency has not shown that reimposing the restrictions on them would result in significant water savings. CEI et al. also argued that showers are adjustable and even with models that have maximum flow rate above 2.5 gpm, users will not necessarily use that level of water flow for every showerthe highest settings in such showerhead would only be used occasionally and such use would likely be shorter in duration. CEI et al.
continued that the insignificance of the water savings undercuts the climate change rationale for the Proposed Rule.
CEI et al., No. 18 at p. 5 Finally, CEI
et al. stated that the July 2021 NOPRs critique of the December 2020 Final Rule is based on the misleading belief that the statutory provisions prioritize efficiency above everything else. CEI et al., No. 18 at p.6
Anonymous suggested that if less water is coming out of their shower per minute, a consumer may take longer showers. Anonymous, No. 5 at p. 1
Similarly, Southerland argued that restricting the water flow from a showerhead will not save water because if water flow is restricted, a person will take a longer shower defeating the purpose of the limited water flow. Southerland, No. 2
DOE has considered these comments in this rulemaking as they relate to the December 2020 Final Rules definition of showerhead. DOE continues to believe that EPCAs purpose should be considered when amending the definition of a covered product. As this rulemaking does not amend the water conservation standards for showerheads, DOE is not required to conduct the analysis required by 42
U.S.C. 6295o suggested by CEI et al.
Further, DOE continues to consider all relevant statutory provisions, including those related to consumer protection, which are discussed in section IV.4.
DOE agrees with commenters that if maintained, the December 2020 Final Rule showerhead definition will likely increase water usage and increase associated energy use. These increases would be contrary to EPCAs purposes of reducing water and energy consumption. As such, DOE has determined that the December 2020

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Dec 17, 2021

Jkt 256001

Final Rules definition of showerhead should be withdrawn.
Also, in response to the July 2021
NOPR, DOE received comments about the prior 2013 definition of showerhead. The NPCC stated that the reinstated definition of showerhead would return stability to the consumption and efficiency aspects of the showerhead standard. Further, NPCC explained that the Northwest has about 10 million showerheads, and reinstating this definition will ensure significant electricity, natural gas, and water savings are not lost. NPCC, No.
12 at p. 2 The District stated that the proposed withdrawal better fits with the purpose of the EPCA by improving the energy efficiency and water efficiency of consumer products. Further, the District commented that efficient shower fixtures reduce water usage not only per household, but also on a regional scale.
This reduction in demand helps conservation efforts especially in regions experiencing frequent droughts and other water-conscious communities that would be detrimentally impacted by unnecessary additional use of water.
The District, No. 16 at pp.12 The Joint Advocates stated that the October 2013 definition will not result in excessive water use and with several regions across the country facing droughts and water shortages, it is important now more than ever to reduce water demand and conserve energy.
Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 1 Hekstra stated that the 2013 definition will reduce the amount of water used by those that wish to have multiple showerheads in one shower. Hekstra, No. 17
AWE et al. commented that DOEs proposal to reinstate the definition from the 2013 Rule will better effectuate EPCAs water conservation purposes.
AWE et al., No. 21 at p.2 AWE et al.
reiterated the significant water and energy savings from the existing definition of showerhead and that the cumulative savings over 10 years from 2.5 gpm showerheads could supply up to 1 million homes with water and 670,000 homes with energy for a year.
AWE et al. also stated that the replacement of older, high-flow showerheads provides 11 billion gallons per year in water savings and 5 trillion Btu per year in energy savings in the United States. AWE et al., No. 21 at p.
4 CEC explained that conserving water is especially important because 90
percent of the Western United States is experiencing drought conditions and 54
percent is in extreme drought. CEC
also noted that California has seen more than 7,200 fire incidents and more than
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

71803

2 million acres burned, including devastating fires such and that it is imperative to use every available tool to address the unnecessary and inefficient use of energy and water, including and especially improving energy and water conservation standards. CEC, No. 19 at pp.12 The CA IOUs stated that over 95
percent of Californias landmass is currently impacted by severe drought, so it is critical for its state that DOE
ensure showerhead water efficiency is protected and strengthened. CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript at p.3 And Kelley noted the importance of conserving valuable resources. Kelley, No. 11
DOE has considered the comments received in response to the July 2021
NOPR and agrees with the commenters that the definition of showerhead from the October 2013 Final Rule and the associated interpretation provided water and energy savings and protected the environment. As discussed above in this section, DOE continues to find that the history of the definition of showerhead and the comments in response to July 2021 NOPR illustrate that the term showerhead can comprise a multi-headed showerhead and is consistent with EPCAs purpose of water conservation. Further, DOE has determined that if maintained, the December 2020 Final Rule showerhead definition will likely increase water usage and increase associated energy use and as such the current definition of showerhead should be withdrawn.
As such, DOE is withdrawing the definition of showerhead finalized in the December 2020 Final Rule and reinstating the definition established in the October 2013 Final Rule, which as discussed, appropriately addresses the water conservation purpose of EPCA.
3. Reliance on ASME for the Definition of Showerhead Is Not Required In the July 2021 NOPR, DOE
explained that it tentatively departed from the view expressed in the December 2020 Final Rule that it would be more consistent with Congressional intent to rely on ASME for the definition of showerhead. 86 FR
38594, 38600. DOE stated that DOE does not believe Congress required reliance on the ASME definition. Id.
As discussed previously in this document, Congress established the definition of showerhead in EPAct 1992, along with the provisions related to definitions, standards, test procedures, and labeling requirements for plumbing products. Pub. L. 102
486; Oct. 24, 1992 Sec. 123 EPAct 1992
and EPCA define the term
E:FRFM20DER1.SGM

20DER1