WaterSense
Response to Public Comments Received on
June 2011 WaterSense® Draft
Revised Product Certification System
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
Background
This document provides WaterSense's responses to public comments received on the
June 23, 2011 Draft Revised Product Certification System. For purposes of this document, the
comments are summarized. The actual comments in their entirety can be viewed at
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/certification.html.
2
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
Table of Contents
I.	General Comments	4
II.	Comments on Section 3.0 Technical Requirements	5
III.	Comments on Section 4.0 The Accreditation Body	6
IV.	Comments on Section 5.0 The Product Certifying Body	6
V.	Comments on Section 6.0 Product Certification	17
VI.	Comments on Product Notification Templates and Process	26
VII.	Other Changes Not Specifically Commented On	27
3	September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
I. General Comments
Accuracy of Reported Numbers
a.	One commenter suggested that WaterSense clarify the type and implied accuracy of the
reported performance number for the WaterSense program. The commenter indicated
that there is confusion and variability in the reported numbers for WaterSense due to
inconsistency in terms of decimal versus fraction and implied level of accuracy in the
number of decimal places reported.
Response: This commenter is specifically referring to the discrepancy in the accuracy of
the reporting requirements required by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through its
Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for
Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment and those required by
WaterSense's product specifications. While WaterSense understands these concerns,
DOE, as the regulatory authority, has precedence with regards to how manufacturers
mark and report the efficiency of their products. At this time, WaterSense will allow
manufacturers to report and mark products to one decimal place in accordance with the
DOE rulemaking, although the WaterSense product specifications typically require
products to be marked with at least two decimals. For example, tank-type toilets meeting
EPA's criteria of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) may now be marked as 1.3 gpf. Note,
however, that products must still be tested to the specific volume identified within the
specification.
Waterborne Pathogen Warning Labels
b.	One commenter indicated that extreme low-flow faucet restrictors and complex faucets
such as electronic sensors and thermostatic faucets are known to significantly add to
waterborne pathogens' (Legionella, Pseudomonas, etc.) colonization risk. The
commenter suggested that manufacturers be required to add a "Waterborne Pathogen
Risk" warning label that lists the inherent risks of these products.
Response: WaterSense appreciates the concerns raised, however, these comments
pertain to WaterSense High-efficiency Lavatory Faucet Specification and not the draft
revisions made to the WaterSense Product Certification System, which was the subject
of this request for public comments. In addition, this issue is not unique to WaterSense
labeled faucets, as the commenter points out that it also applies to other types of
faucets, including electronic sensor and thermostatic faucets. Because this issue
extends to products outside of the program's scope, WaterSense will refer these
concerns to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers/Canadian Standards
Association (ASME/CSA) A112.18.1 Joint Harmonization Task Group, the body
responsible for the development of plumbing fixture and fittings-related standards in the
United States and Canada.
4
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
General Support for Revisions
c. One commenter said that the WaterSense program has been gaining credibility since its
infancy and consumers are becoming more comfortable with the label and the certified
products it identifies. As WaterSense partner, this commenter noted the value this
program represents to community water conservation efforts. WaterSense
specifications, for example, have changed the way this partner secures its plumbing
fixture procurement bids, and the program has provided tools to promote products that
perform well.
In the past, this commenter had expressed concerns regarding the integrity and
credibility of the program. EPA's well organized open forum process have helped this
commenter improve its confidence and comfort level with revised certification process.
With fail safe measures in place, the commenter said, the WaterSense certification
system can address new product types without reducing the ability of products to obtain
certification, which the commenter noted had occurred previously.
As WaterSense moves into its next phase, the commenter noted, many challenges still
exist, including how to ensure flapper style fixtures maintain their water savings over
time, how questionable test results will be handled, and how to take water efficiency and
performance to a higher level, i.e., introducing a tiered system for higher performing
products.
The commenter agreed to continue to find ways to incorporate the WaterSense
specifications and program values into its water conservation planning efforts.
Response: WaterSense appreciates the work this commenter and many of its partners
have done to promote the program and understands their initial concern regarding the
changes to the WaterSense Product Certification System. Through careful consideration
of the history and future of the program, WaterSense has attempted to balance the
needs of all of its partners. The adopted revisions to the WaterSense Product
Certification System will allow the program to more easily expand into new product
categories and market sectors, make the program more affordable and accessible to
manufacturers of all sizes, reduce delays in the certification process, and, most
importantly, will continue to provide the necessary rigor to ensure the integrity of the
WaterSense label.
II. Comments on Section 3.0 Technical Requirements
Section 3.2 References and Definitions
a. During the public meetings held June 13 and 19, 2011, one commenter requested
clarification regarding the definition of supervised manufacturer's testing laboratory. The
commenter indicated that the definition implied that the certifying body's staff needed to
be there physically to supervise the testing.
5
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Response: WaterSense agrees that the definition of Supervised Testing Manufacturer's
Laboratory requires clarification. The original proposed definition was adopted from the
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) System for Conformity Testing and of
Electrotechnical Equipment and Components CB Scheme, which is an internationally
recognized certification system for conformity testing and certification of electrotechnical
equipment and components. Several of EPA's licensed certifying bodies are currently
accredited to certify products in accordance with I EC's certification system, and as such,
operate in accordance with its definitions. As a result, WaterSense did not want to revise
the original language contained in the I EC's definition, but has clarified that an SMTL
does not require 100 percent witnessing of product testing. The revised language is as
follows:
"Supervised Manufacturers Testing Laboratory (SMTL): A manufacturer's laboratory
being used by the licensed certifying body to conduct agreed upon testing within
categories of products for which the manufacturer has design and production
responsibility, generally with licensed certifying body supervision of tests and quality
processes. All product testing done as part of the product's certification ape is
supervised by a competent member of the licensed certifying body's staff.
Supervision focuses on includes a review and auditing of the laboratory procedures,
including periodic (but not necessarily 100 percent) witnessing of product testing."
III. Comments on Section 4.0 The Accreditation Body
Section 4.2 Application
a. One commenter suggested the following editorial clarification in the first sentence:
"Accreditation bodies intending to accredit product certifying bodies for WaterSense
should shall apply to EPA for approval via an application letter."
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has incorporated the suggested
change.
IV. Comments on Section 5.0 The Product Certifying Body
Section 5.1 Requirements
a. One commenter suggested that this section is not needed since ISO (International
Organization for Standardization)/!EC Guide 65 covers the certifying body's impartiality
requirements in detail. In addition, ISO/I EC 17065 (which will supersede ISO/IEC Guide
65) covers these impartiality requirements verbatim.
Response: WaterSense disagrees with this comment and will retain this section and the
impartiality requirements specifically listed. Although impartiality is addressed in ISO/IEC
Guide 65 and WaterSense has extracted some of the specific impartiality requirements
from the draft ISO/IEC 17065, it maintains that these requirements are important enough
6
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
to warrant specific mention in the WaterSense Product Certification System. In addition,
WaterSense has added an impartiality requirement not specifically addressed by
ISO/I EC Guide 65 or 17065 that ensures that the licensed certifying body is not acting as
an advocate for the certified products in the marketplace. This is an important
requirement for WaterSense because several of its licensed certifying bodies also
operate as industry trade associations.
Section 5.2 Accreditation
b.	One commenter requested clarification of what "update its scope of accreditation" means
and what constitutes "major changes" in the third sentence of the third paragraph:
"The licensed certifying body is only required to update its scope of accreditation
related to a specific product category when major changes to the test methods
identified in the relevant WaterSense product specifications are made, as indicated
by EPA."
Response: WaterSense has clarified that a scope of accreditation update is required
when it issues a revised specification that contains major changes to the required test
methods. Major changes to a specification's test methods would only be made following
an open public process, including discussion with industry and other interested partners.
Further, as previously indicated, this updated scope of accreditation is only required
when EPA indicates to its licensed certifying bodies and accreditation bodies that it is
necessary. WaterSense has revised the language is as follows:
"The licensed certifying body is only required to update its scope of accreditation to
include a revised specification for a specific product category when major changes to
the test methods identified in the relevant WaterSense product specification are
made, as indicated by EPA."
Section 5.3 Licensing
c.	One commenter suggested the following editorial change in the last sentence of the first
"This licensing agreement shall provide the conditions for authorizing the use of the
WaterSense label to manufacturers of certified products."
Response: WaterSense agrees with this editorial comment and has incorporated the
suggested change.
d. One commenter requested clarification on the third paragraph, which states:
"EPA reserves the right to terminate the licensing agreement for any certifying body
that does not continue to meet or maintain the requirements for accreditation as
outlined in this product certification system."
paragraph:
7
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
The commenter asked if EPA has a procedure for determining whether the licensed
certifying body is meeting or not meeting the requirements (i.e. accreditation body's audit
results, etc.).
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has clarified that it reserves the
right to terminate the licensing agreement when the licensed certifying body fails to
maintain an active accreditation. WaterSense's accreditation bodies will notify the
program in such instances. Further, WaterSense has clarified that the accreditation must
be maintained for the relevant WaterSense product specification. WaterSense has
updated the language as follows:
"EPA reserves the right to terminate the licensing agreement for any certifying body
that does not continue to meet or maintain the requirements for an active
accreditation for the relevant product category as outlined in this product certification
Section 5.3.1.1 Transitional Approval Eligibility
e. One commenter requested clarification on the fourth bullet point:
"Demonstrate competence to perform testing by one of three methods:
o Provide proof of an existing accreditation for the test methods used in the
relevant WaterSense product specification,
o Attend training on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product
specification.
o Participate in EPA's test method and specification development process
for the relevant WaterSense product specification."
The commenter indicated that this is confusing because it requires the certification body
to be competent to perform testing.
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment, as the original language required the
licensed certifying body to be directly competent to perform testing even though it may
outsource the testing to an external laboratory. WaterSense has revised the language as
follows to indicate that the licensed certifying body must demonstrate competence to
perform certification (which would encompass demonstration of competence for any
testing outsourced):
"Demonstrate competence to perform testing certification by one of three
methods:
o Provide proof of an existing accreditation to certify products in
accordance with the or the test methods used in the relevant WaterSense
product specification,
o Attend training on the test methods to be used in the relevant
WaterSense product specification,
o Participate in the development of the EPA's test method and specification
development process for the relevant WaterSense product specification."
system.
8
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Section 5.3.1.2 Transitional Approval Requirements
f.	One commenter requested clarification on the third bullet point:
"The name and contact information for the responsible official that will be in
charge of product testing (this should be the same point of contact that will be
listed on the WaterSense website)."
The commenter indicated that this is confusing because it requires the certifying body's
contact person to be "in charge of product testing." The commenter suggested the
following change:
"The name and contact information for the responsible official that will be in
charge of product testing of certification."
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has incorporated the suggested
change.
Section 5.4 Evaluation Resources
g.	One commenter suggested that the title of this section "Evaluation Resources" needs
clarification and suggested the following change: "Testing and Evaluation Resources".
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has modified the title of this
section as suggested to clarify that the requirements apply to testing and evaluation
resources.
h.	During the public meetings held June 13 and 19, 2011, one commenter indicated that
the language regarding the falsification statement seems to imply that only the certifying
bodies' laboratories need to include this statement on test reports.
Response: WaterSense disagrees with this comment, and has determined that a
clarification is not necessary. The language clearly states that all test reports generated
shall include the falsification statement.
i.	One commenter requested that WaterSense allow the falsification statement to be
written in an alternate location such as a WaterSense product cover sheet. The
commenter indicated that this change will provide an option for manufacturers and
alleviate the need to change a generic test report form used for all products. The
commenter suggested the following language revision:
"In addition, all test reports shall be accompanied by the following statement, located
either on the test report or an attached cover sheet:"
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has incorporated the suggested
change.
9
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Section 5.4.1 Internal Resources
j. Two commenters noted that ISO/I EC 17025 refers to testing and not evaluation and
requested clarification regarding the application of ISO/I EC 17025 to the evaluation
activities.
One of the commenters suggested the following change for clarification:
"If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation testing activities with its own
resources, it shall ensure that those resources are accredited by an International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)
Signatory to ISO/I EC 17025..."
The other commenter requested clarification on the second usage of word "resources" in
the first sentence of Section 5.4.1:
"If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation activities with its own resources, it
shall ensure that those resources are accredited by an International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) Signatory to
ISO/I EC 17025 with a scope of accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense
product specification(s) and ensure that the personnel conducting the testing have
the necessary competence and expertise."
The commenter suggested that it is not clear if "resources" is referring to an internal
laboratory or not. The commenter suggests that if "resources" is referring to a laboratory,
then WaterSense should change the word "resources" to "laboratory."
Response: WaterSense agrees with these comments and has clarified that the ISO/I EC
17025 requirements apply specifically to testing activities and laboratories and not
evaluation activities. WaterSense has made this clarification in conjunction with the
change discussed in comment IV.k below.
k. Several commenters indicated that the certifying bodies should have more options for
complying with the requirements for displaying competency to test products to
WaterSense product specifications. While an independent, third-party accreditation is
one method of proof, it should not preclude additional alternatives for demonstrating
proficiency. Restricting the evaluation activities by the certifying body's own resources to
mandating independent accreditation will add an unnecessary cost burden. The
commenters suggested the following language changes:
"If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation activities with its own resources, it
shall ensure that those resources are either:
• Accredited by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) signatory to ISO/I EC 17025 with a
scope of accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product
specification(s) and ensure that the personnel conducting the testing have the
necessary competence and expertise,
10
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
•	Trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product
specification, or
•	Participants in the EPA's test method and specification development process
for the relevant WaterSense product specification."
Response: Upon further reflection, WaterSense has decided not to require ISO/IEC
17025 accreditation for any testing laboratories (whether internal or external to the
licensed certifying body). Instead, WaterSense is requiring all testing laboratories to
demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. WaterSense has determined that ISO/IEC
17025 accreditation is overly burdensome and adds significant costs, complication, and
potential delays to the certification process. In addition, WaterSense does not have the
resources to manage the accreditations of individual laboratories. Although this is a
change from what was proposed in the Draft Revised WaterSense Product Certification
System, it remains consistent with the original requirements under Section 6.3.3.2 of
Version 1.0 of the WaterSense Product Certification System. In maintaining this
requirement and in accordance with ISO/IEC guidelines, WaterSense intends to
continue to rely on its licensed certifying bodies to determine and manage the
competence of the laboratories they use.
WaterSense has revised the language to address this change as follows:
"5.4 Testing and Evaluation Resources
Once accredited and licensed, tThe licensed certifying body shall determine the
means it will use to generate and/or accept test data. All resources used to generate
test data (e.g., testing laboratories) shall demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC
17025 and the relevant WaterSense product specification, and meet the relevant
requirements outlined in this section....
5.4.1 Internal Resources
If the licensed certifying body performs evaluation testing activities with its own
resources, it shall ensure that those resources are accredited by an International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)
Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of accreditation to include the relevant
WaterSense product specification(s) and ensure that the personnel conducting the
testing have the necessary competence and expertise."
Section 5.4.2 External Resources (Outsourcing)
I. One commenter suggested that this section is not needed since ISO/IEC Guide 65 and
other referenced documents will cover it.
Response: WaterSense disagrees with this comment. Though ISO/IEC Guide 65
addresses subcontracting, it does not explicitly identify all of the items included in
Section 5.4.2 that WaterSense has determined are necessary to ensure that the
11
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
licensed certifying body is outsourcing the testing to capable and competent external
laboratories.
m. During the public meetings held June 13 and 19, 2011, one commenter asked for
clarification regarding proficiency testing in accordance with ISO/IEC 17043. Specifically,
the commenter indicated that it understood that this ISO standard specifies to the
requirements for proficiency test developers and does not specify the requirements for
how to conduct proficiency testing.
Response: Upon further investigation of the requirements contained in ISO/IEC 17043,
WaterSense agrees with this comment and has determined that ISO/IEC 17043 does
not specify, nor can it be directly referenced to indicate the requirements for how to
conduct proficiency testing for the WaterSense program. Further, through discussions
with its licensed certifying bodies, WaterSense has determined that certifying bodies are
already required to have proficiency testing procedures and policies in place under
ISO/IEC Guide 65. WaterSense has clarified that when EPA or the accreditation body
deems that it is necessary, external resources must participate in proficiency testing in
accordance with the licensed certifying body's policies and procedures. WaterSense has
revised the language as follows:
"Require its external resources to participate in proficiency testing in accordance
with ISO/IEC 17043 the licensed certifying body's policies and procedures, when
deemed necessary by EPA or the accreditation body."
Section 5.4.2.1 Independent Testing Laboratories
n. Several commenters suggested that the independent testing laboratories should not
have to be accredited by I LAC to ISO/IEC 17025.
One commenter indicated that this requirement should be made consistent with the
requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 65 and suggested changing the language to:
"Licensed certifying bodies may allow an independent testing laboratory to conduct
evaluation activities, provided that the licensed certifying body evaluates the
laboratory's competency is accredited by an I LAC MRA Signatory to ISO/IEC 17025
with a scope of accreditation to include and the relevant WaterSense product
specification."
Another commenter suggested changing the language to:
"...provided the laboratory is in conformance with ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope to
include the relevant WaterSense product specification."
Several other commenters indicated that EPA should allow some alternatives for
complying with the requirements for displaying competency to test products for the
WaterSense program. An independent third-party accreditation is one method of proof,
but should by no means preclude alternatives for demonstrating proficiency. This
12
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
accreditation may eliminate smaller independent laboratories from the program and may
add additional costs for certification. Furthermore, independent testing laboratories must
currently undergo annual auditing by the certifying body to demonstrate compliance to
ISO/I EC 17025. The commenters suggested the following language change:
"Licensed certifying bodies may allow an independent testing laboratory to conduct
evaluation activities, provided the laboratory is either:
•	Accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 with a scope of
accreditation to include the relevant WaterSense product specification,
•	Trained on the test methods to be used in the WaterSense product
specification as determined by the licensed certifying body, or
•	A participant in the EPA's test method and specification development process
for the relevant WaterSense product specification."
Response: WaterSense has decided not to require ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for any
testing laboratories (whether internal or external to the licensed certifying body). Instead,
WaterSense is requiring all testing laboratories to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC
17025. WaterSense has determined that ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is overly
burdensome and adds significant costs, complication, and potential delays to the
certification process. In addition, WaterSense does not have the resources to manage
the accreditations of individual laboratories. Although this is a change from what was
proposed in the Draft Revised WaterSense Product Certification System, it remains
consistent with the original requirements under Section 6.3.3.2 of Version 1.0 of the
WaterSense Product Certification System. In maintaining this requirement and in
accordance with ISO/IEC guidelines, WaterSense intends to continue to rely on its
licensed certifying bodies to determine and manage the competence of the laboratories
they use.
WaterSense has revised the language to address this change as follows:
""5.4 Testing and Evaluation Resources
Once accredited and licensed, tThe licensed certifying body shall determine the
means it will use to generate and/or accept test data. All resources used to generate
test data (e.g., testing laboratories) shall demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC
17025 and the relevant WaterSense product specification, and meet the relevant
requirements outlined in this section....
Note that WaterSense has removed the Independent Testing Laboratories section
(Section 5.4.2.1 under the Draft Revised Product Certification System) in order to further
streamline Section 5.4.2 External Resources (Outsourcing) and has clarified under
Section 5.4.2 that independent testing laboratories must meet all of the general
requirements outlined for external resources.
o. One commenter asked why ILAC is the only body that can accredit the laboratory. APLAC
(Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) can also provide that service.
13
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Response: WaterSense appreciates this comment and wants to ensure that the process
is open to the participation of all qualified and applicable organizations. However, due to
a change that was made to remove the requirement for testing laboratories to be
accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory to ISO/IEC 17025 (see response to comment IV.n.
above), WaterSense has not addressed this comment, as it is no longer germane to the
product certification system.
Section 5.4.2.2 First-Party Manufacturer Testing Laboratories
p. One commenter indicated that EPA should not allow manufacturers to conduct their own
testing. The commenter indicated opposition to the WaterSense product certification
system going in this direction, even if it does add costs to manufacturers, particularly
given historical issues related to ENERGY STAR and elsewhere with manufacturer self-
certifications (with or without certified bodies observing). The commenter indicated that
the WaterSense brand should be a premium label. It should be understood that premium
labels are more expensive than non-labeled products. Independent laboratory
certification of the majority of a manufacturers' models will add significantly to the testing
costs, the commenter noted, but mass labeling defeats the intended purpose of
WaterSense to certify only the most efficient models. The commenter suggested that
manufacturers be selective in the models they want to be certified if they want to keep
their costs lower, not look for ways to lower certification costs.
Response: The commenter submitted a subsequent comment on a later date, which
superseded this comment, therefore no response is necessary. (See response to
comment j. under Section 5.0 of this document).
Section 5.4.2.2.1 General Requirements
q. One commenter requested clarification on the intent of this section. This commenter
asked why the requirements for first party manufacturing test laboratories are less
stringent than the requirements for a third-party laboratory. This commenter pointed out
that it seems a third-party laboratory must be accredited but a first party manufacturing
test laboratory does not.
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and, as discussed above in the
response to comment IV.n, has removed the requirement for testing laboratories to be
accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory to ISO/IEC 17025. Now, consistent with the
requirements for witnessed and supervised manufacturer testing laboratories,
independent third-party laboratories and internal licensed certifying body testing
laboratories both need to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.
Section 5.4.2.2.2 Witnessed Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory (WMTL) Programs
r. One commenter indicated that EPA needs to ensure that applicable requirements of
ISO/IEC 17025 are compiled and that a full test program witness schedule is agreed
upon. This will enable EPA to avoid a situation where a test facility is not deemed fit to
be used for witness testing unless a specific verification statement is made by the
14
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
certifying body's witnessing staff. A partly witnessed test program may jeopardize the
intent. The commenter suggested that EPA add the following bullets to this section:
"Ensure that applicable requirements of ISO/I EC 17025 are compiled
• A full test program as envisaged in the plan for certification activities (witness
schedule as an example) is agreed upon."
Response: WaterSense has determined that the requirements for a WMTL program are
currently clear with respect to ensuring that the manufacturer complies with ISO/I EC
17025 and has decided not to make any further revisions to this section.
Section 5.4.2.2.3 Supervised Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory (SMTL) Programs
s. One commenter expressed appreciation for allowing the manufacturer's laboratory to
conduct the testing provided the laboratory is in compliance to ISO/I EC 17025 and is
under the supervision of the certifying body. The commenter indicated this will allow
manufacturers to introduce WaterSense labeled products quickly and will give
consumers more choice.
Response: WaterSense appreciates this comment. As mentioned in the Summary of
Draft Revisions to the WaterSense Product Certification System, EPA expanded the
program to include supervised manufacturers' testing laboratory programs because this
option will build more flexibility into the product certification process, reduce testing costs
and the time it takes for products to obtain certification, free up certification resources for
suggesting future WaterSense labeled products and product categories, and align the
WaterSense product certification system with ENERGY STAR'S Third-Party Certification
Procedures to facilitate future joint labeling opportunities between the two programs. In
addition, EPA has received several comments from utilities that support this change,
given that proper fail safe measures have been established for ongoing market
surveillance to ensure that products continue to comply with the relevant WaterSense
specifications.
t. One commenter requested clarification on the intent of the following bullet points in this
section:
"Have a contractual relationship with the manufacturer for at least two years.
Document its confidence in the SMTL's quality process. As the experience of the
SMTL develops, and confidence in the management of the laboratory grows, the
focus of supervision visits may gradually shift away from witnessing of tests
towards the examination and improvement of the overall quality process."
The commenter indicated that this requirement in the second bullet point in particular
seems to imply that in order to enroll in the SMTL program, the manufacturer's in-house
testing laboratory must first enroll in the WMTL program.
15
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Response: WaterSense agrees that the intent of the requirements in the first and second
bullet points with regard to the participation in a WMTL program prior to entering an
SMTL program were not clear. To clarify its intent, WaterSense has created a separate
section outlining the eligibility requirements for manufacturers who may participate in an
SMTL program. Specifically, a manufacturer is eligible to participate in an SMTL
program if it is currently enrolled in an SMTL program with the licensed certifying body
OR if it participates in a WMTL program with the licensed certifying body for the relevant
product category for at least two years. This will ensure that the manufacturer has had a
longstanding relationship with the licensed certifying body under which it has
demonstrated that it has the capabilities and competence to the perform product testing.
WaterSense has revised the language as follows:
"To be eligible to participate in an SMTL program, a manufacturer shall have a
contractual relationship with the licensed certifying body for at least two years and:
Be currently enrolled in an SMTL program with the licensed certifying body
for the relevant product category; OR
Participate in a WMTL program for the relevant product category for at least
two years.
When operating an SMTL program, the licensed certifying body shall:
• Have a contractual relationship with the manufacturer for at least two years."
u. One commenter indicated that EPA needs to avoid a situation where a supervised
manufacturer's test facility has a new status (testing location moved to another location,
equipment out of calibration/non-functional/inadequate, or trained testing technicians left
the organization and new personnel have yet to be trained and qualified to perform the
test). The commenter suggested that EPA add an additional bullet as follows:
"Ensure that resources (manpower, testing facility) are adequate for each test
methods for each applicable EPA Product Specification and other relevant
standards, cross referred therein as a testing method"
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has included a new bullet in this
section as follows:
"Ensure that the manufacturer's laboratory has adequate resources (e.g.,
trained and qualified personnel, calibrated equipment, proper testing location)
to conduct the testing in accordance with the relevant WaterSense product
specification."
16
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
V. Comments on Section 6.0 Product Certification
Section 6.1 Application
a.	One commenter requested clarification in the second paragraph on whether EPA allows
the product notification template to be a part of the licensed certification body's
application packet.
Response: WaterSense does allow the licensed certifying body to include the product
notification templates as part of its application packet for the manufacturer. However,
this is not a requirement, provided the licensed certifying body is able to collect the
relevant information from the manufacturer that is necessary to complete the product
notification template once the product has been certified. Because WaterSense does not
want to prescribe specifically what is included in the application packet or the format in
which the information must be collected, it has not revised the language in this section.
WaterSense has determined that it is currently clear in the second paragraph that the
licensed certifying body must collect all of the relevant product information from the
manufacturer as required by the product notification template. It is the responsibility of
the licensed certifying body to determine how to collect that information.
Section 6.2.4.3 Evaluation Report
b.	One commenter suggested the following editorial change to the first sentence, because
the information the commenter suggests removing is implied and explained in the
subsequent text in this section:
"The licensed certifying body shall inform the applicant via a full report on the
outcome of the initial evaluation, including product testing and, if applicable,
assessment of production process."
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has made the suggested
revision.
Section 6.2.5 Licensed Certifying Body's WaterSense Labeled Product Listing
c.	Several commenters requested clarification or removal of the following language in the
second sentence of the first paragraph:
"The listing shall contain at a minimum, all of the information collected as part of the
application process and as included in the relevant product-specific notification
template available on the WaterSense website."
The commenters were concerned about potentially having to include confidential
business information on the certification listing. Specifically, one commenter pointed out
that the product notification templates include manufacturer contact information, which
the certifying bodies claim as confidential.
17
September 29, 2011

-------
WaterSense
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
Response: WaterSense understands the concern regarding the requirement to display
potentially confidential information on a publically available listing. As such, WaterSense
clarified that the information to be displayed on the licensed certifying body's certification
listing is limited to only what is required by the product notification templates and not all
of the information collected as part of the application process. Further, WaterSense
recognizes that, within the templates themselves, there could be some cases where the
information is confidential in nature (e.g., manufacturers name or contact information).
As a result, WaterSense has also revised the product notification templates to clearly
indicate which specific pieces of information must be displayed on the licensed certifying
body's certification listing. WaterSense has revised the language as follows:
"The certification listing shall contain, at a minimum, all of the information collected
as part of the application process and as included on that is required to be displayed
on the certification listing as indicated in the relevant product notification template,
available on the WaterSense website."
Section 6.5 Reporting WaterSense Labeled Products
d.	One commenter stated that the streamlining of the product notification process will allow
for information to remain accurate as it is being sent from manufacturers to the licensed
certifying bodies to EPA. The commenter indicated that this comprehensive process
allows for the licensed certifying bodies to have direct responsibility for relaying correct
information to EPA, decreasing the incidences of WaterSense labeling misuse in the
future.
e.	Several commenters stated that the requirement for licensed certifying bodies to report
WaterSense labeled products to EPA instead of manufacturers is burdensome and
costly. Further, commenters were concerned that this requirement has not been fully
reviewed by the certifying bodies to assess the effort, logistics, and costs involved. The
commenters indicated this will add cost to the manufacturers, which will become
unnecessarily burdensome for smaller manufacturers.
Some of the commenters requested that EPA offer manufacturers the option to report
their WaterSense labeled products directly instead of requiring the licensed certifying
body to report on their behalf. Other commenters suggested that only the newest models
for listing should be necessary for reporting at each interval. One commenter suggested
that only the new basic models be reported to EPA. One commenter offered the
following suggested language change:
"The licensed certifying body shall notify EPA of the products that it has certified.
This notification shall be made on a product-specific notification template available
on the WaterSense website and shall contain the relevant product information for aW
any WaterSense labeled products not currently listed on the licensed certifying
body's certification listing, including information for private labeled products. EPA will
use this information to update its WaterSense labeled product Web registry."
18
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Response: While WaterSense understands the concerns of its manufacturer partners
that this new process will be costly and burdensome, once the initial implementation
period ends and the process is fully established, WaterSense is confident that the
burden and cost to both the program and its partners will significantly decrease, as
compared to the previous product notification process. Under the previous product
notification process, manufacturers were required to report information to EPA that had
already been reported to their respective licensed certifying bodies, and EPA needed to
verify and correct information with manufacturers, many of whom are located around the
world. In addition, the manual nature of the process made it subject to numerous
reporting errors. Correcting these errors was costly to the manufacturers if changes to
the certification files were required and would significantly delay the listing process with
WaterSense.
The new product notification process will allow EPA to more accurately verify a product's
certification, because the information included on the licensed certifying body's
certification listing will match the information reported to EPA. It will also significantly
reduce reporting errors and the amount of time it takes to update products on the
WaterSense product registry, as product information will be provided directly by the
licensed certifying body requiring minimal coordination with manufacturers to verify that
the information is correct.
To ensure that the new process is not introducing unnecessary and additional reporting
requirements and costs into the certification process, WaterSense has held
conversations with many of its licensed certifying bodies to assess the logistics, effort,
and costs involved. As a result, WaterSense has worked to narrow down the product
notification templates to only include essential information. Further, WaterSense has
reduced the frequency the licensed certifying bodies need to report, from every two
weeks to once per month. Even with this extended reporting timeframe, manufacturers
should be able to get their products listed on the WaterSense product registry faster than
they could under the old product notification process.
WaterSense disagrees with the comment that the listing reported by the licensed
certifying bodies should only include new basic models. Requiring the licensed certifying
bodies to report all of the products that they have certified, including any new products,
will allow WaterSense to more accurately capture updates to model information for
existing certified products (e.g., model name changes) and track when products are
discontinued and/or no longer certified. If only newly certified models were reported,
WaterSense would not be able to identify these key changes, and it would be difficult or
impossible to maintain an accurate listing of WaterSense labeled products on the
WaterSense product registry.
Section 6.6 Surveillance
f. One commenter indicated that the surveillance requirements place an extra cost burden
on manufacturers and licensed certifying bodies. The commenter also expressed
concern about how the products would be chosen for surveillance and questioned EPA's
19
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
trust in manufacturers to keep their products in continuous compliance with WaterSense
specifications.
Response: Surveillance is a critical component for ensuring that products continue to
meet EPA's requirements for water efficiency and performance once the products
appear on the market. Although surveillance does add cost to the certification process, it
also provides necessary assurance to consumers and other WaterSense partners and
stakeholders who spend their valuable resources helping to promote WaterSense
labeled products.
Regarding the concern for how the products would be chosen for surveillance, EPA has
clarified some of the specific selection criteria, as discussed in comment V.j. below.
Section 6.6.2 Market Surveillance of Products
g.	One commenter supported the increase in the testing requirement percentages from one
unit of each one model certified per manufacturer to 15 percent of all the licensed
certifying body's certified products, as well as the increase in testing requirements to 50
percent to cover any discrepancies with sample size, product reliability, and product
availability. The commenter indicated that these changes will enhance product reliability,
consumer satisfaction, and product placement issues while making the testing more
cost-effective and quicker (versus of the five-year recertification period).
h.	Several commenters questioned the source of the 15 percent value for annual market
surveillance. These comments indicated that the 15 percent annual market surveillance
requirement is excessive, significantly increases the economic burden of the program, or
could cause a backlog in the ability of the certifiers to certify new products. One
commenter noted that this change would pose a severe economic burden on larger
manufacturers in particular in the form of testing costs, lost project time, and scrap costs.
One commenter suggested that this requirement be deleted altogether and that certifiers
should be allowed to continue to monitor compliance through their established
surveillance auditing procedures.
Several commenters indicated the requirement should be aligned with ENERGY STAR'S
10 percent annual market surveillance requirement.
One commenter provided an alternative suggestion that EPA should limit the number of
products retested per year to five products per category, as this should be confirmation
of the manufacturers' continued compliance.
Response: In considering changes to the surveillance program, WaterSense attempted
to balance the requirements and costs of both the initial testing and ongoing surveillance
to streamline the process, reduce burden where appropriate, and maintain the integrity
of the WaterSense label. For example, WaterSense now allows manufacturers to
participate in an SMTL program, which will significantly reduce the cost and time it takes
to get products certified for some manufacturers (particularly larger manufacturers that
20
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
have the resources to conduct product testing). In addition, WaterSense has eliminated
the five-year recertification requirement, which required each manufacturer to have all of
their certified products retested over the course of a five-year period. However, in order
to balance those changes and provide adequate assurance that products continue to
conform to the requirements of the WaterSense product specifications, WaterSense has
made the annual surveillance requirements more rigorous and representative of
products available on the market. The change to require the licensed certifying bodies to
retest 15 percent of the products they certify each year also more equally and fairly
distributes among small and large manufacturers the burden and proportion of products
that are retested.
However, given the concerns expressed, WaterSense has made some additional
changes to the surveillance requirements to further reduce the burden and costs
associated with annual retesting without changing the rigor or representation of the
process. Specifically, WaterSense now allows the surveillance testing to be conducted
by a WMTL (although an SMTL is still not eligible to retest products) as discussed in
comment V.m. below and has clarified that retesting does not have be conducted on
products tested within the previous two years, as discussed in comment V.k. below.
These changes will provide manufacturers with more a more economical retesting option
and some indication from year to year as to which products are eligible to be selected for
retesting.
In response to the question regarding the source of the 15 percent retesting
requirement, WaterSense chose this specific percent retesting target to align with
ENERGY STAR'S annual market surveillance requirements under its new Third-Party
Certification Procedures. Although ENERGY STAR only requires 10 percent retesting
annually, DOE conducts additional verification testing of ENERGY STAR qualified
products. WaterSense does not have access to this additional testing, and thus has
increased the total percent of products selected for retesting to 15 percent, so that the
two programs will have roughly the same proportion of products retested each year.
i. Several commenters expressed concern regarding the allowance of sample selection
from retail outlets for the purposes of product retesting. The cost of purchasing the
product retail can be very high, particularly given the number of samples that must be
retested for some manufacturers. One manufacturer suggested that the certifiers should
be allowed to obtain samples from the most cost-effective source, which may include
gathering random samples from the manufacturer's assembly lines.
Response: Over the course of the program's history, many of WaterSense's utility
partners have requested that samples only be obtained from retail, as these products
are truly representative of what is being sold to consumers. WaterSense also
understands the costs and resources involved with selecting and retesting samples
solely from retail and, as a result, continues to allow several sampling options, which
include the retail/distribution outlet, the manufacturer's warehouse, or off the line if there
are no other alternatives. Further, WaterSense does not specify the specific number of
products that must be obtained from retail. This percent will be determined by the
licensed certifying bodies. However, in its effort to balance the needs of all its
21
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
stakeholders and ensure that at least some products are selected from retail each year,
as stated in Section 6.6.2, WaterSense also continues to reserve the right to require the
licensed certifying bodies to sample at least some portion of the products from retail (i.e.,
as the preferred sampling location).
j. Several commenters asked for clarification regarding which products would be subject to
annual market surveillance and how specifically the 15 percent would be applied.
One commenter asked for specific clarification on the following market surveillance
requirements:
Whether the certifying body is to select 15 percent of all products listed under a
given product category, or 15 percent from each manufacturer.
How EPA intends to address grouping/families of models (e.g., does a family of
models count as one model).
How EPA intends to address private labeled products and whether these need to
be counted as part of the 15 percent.
Another commenter indicated that random market surveillance on 15 percent of the all
models could result in a statistically small number of models never being re-tested, while
many models could be re-tested multiple times and/or with high annual frequency. The
commenter specifically questioned if 15 percent of the models are randomly selected for
surveillance, how will additional selection criteria be added by EPA? The commenter
suggested deleting this paragraph or clearing up this confusion by segregation of the re-
testing sample as follows:
"15 percent of all labeled models in each category shall be re-tested annually.
This 15 percent will consist of two components.
7.5 percent of all labeled models in each category shall be randomly selected for
re-testing from all labeled models.
Up to 7.5 percent of all labeled models in each category may designated for re-
testing by EPA based upon these criteria:
o Product categories for which previous models have failed market
surveillance.
o Preferred location, such as a retail outlet/distribution center,
o Referrals from third parties, such as consumers, consumer groups, or
regulatory agencies regarding the accuracy of certifications,
o Models with high sales volumes (see note below),
o The oldest of the models not re-tested randomly in the past 3 or more
If fewer than 7.5 percent of all labeled models are designated by EPA based on the
criteria above, the remaining number of models will be added to the random 7.5
percent drawing, to total 15 percent of all labeled models re-tested annually."
Regarding the requirement for retesting of models with high sales volume, the
commenter also indicated that sales data may or may not be available to the licensed
certifying body, and that leaving this particular selection criterion to the licensed
years.
22
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
certifying body is not appropriate. EPA should designate for re-testing models having
major marketshare, since these are likely to have more impact to the WaterSense brand,
should they fail testing, than models infrequently sold.
Response: WaterSense agrees that the requirements and structure of this section were
vague and provided inadequate guidance regarding which products would be subject to
annual market surveillance and how specifically the 15 percent would be applied.
Specifically, WaterSense has clarified that:
The 15 percent applies to all of the models the licensed certifying body has
certified for each product category and not to each manufacturer.
The licensed certifying body may count as a single model all models covered
under a base model or family of models that have the same efficiency and
performance, but with variations in other non-performance related attributes.
Private labeled models are not to be counted separately from the original
manufacturer's products when selecting models for retesting.
The annual market surveillance timetable runs from October 1 through the
following September 30. The licensed certifying body shall determine the number
of models eligible for surveillance for that year based on the models that are
certified as of September 30 of the preceding year.
Further, WaterSense has clarified how the 15 percent is to be specifically distributed
between models randomly selected by the licensed certifying body and models
designated for retesting by EPA.
The revised language clarifying each of the above concerns is as follows:
"The licensed certifying body shall conduct Aannual market surveillance shall be
conducted on at least 15 percent of the all models it has certified for each relevant
product categorytype certified (e.g., tank-type toilets, lavatory faucets, flushing
urinals, showerheads) by the licensed certifying body, taking into consideration
products that have been recently subject to market surveillance. These models shall
be randomly selected and shall include a representation of both original equipment
manufacturer and private labeled products-Note that not every manufacturer will
have models retested each year. The number of models reguiring retesting shall be
based on the following criteria:
•	Only models that have not been tested or retested within the previous two
years may be subject to retesting.
•	Privately labeled models shall not be counted as separate models from the
original manufacturer's models for this determination.
•	Base models or families of products that demonstrate the same efficiency
and performance, but that may have variations in color, finish, or other non-
performance related attributes may be counted as a single model for this
determination. Only one of the models covered by the base model would be
subject to retesting.
23
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Of the 15 percent of eligible models, up to half (i.e.. 7.5 percent of the eligible
models) may be designated for retesting by EPA based on the following criteria:
For up to 50 percent of the models chosen for annual market surveillance, EPA
reserves the right to require the licensed certifying body to select models based on:
• Models that have previously Product categories for which previous models
have failed market surveillance.
Preferred location, such as a retail outlet/distribution center.
Referrals from third parties, such as consumers, consumer groups, or
regulatory agencies regarding the accuracy of certifications.
Models with high sales volumes, if this data is available to WaterSense the
licensed certifying body.
The remainder of the eligible models reguired to comprise the 15 percent shall be
randomly selected for retesting by the licensed certifying body.
The licensed certifying body shall retest a minimum of one model or the appropriate
number of models reguired to comprise the 15 percent retesting reguirement,
rounded to the nearest whole number, whichever is greater. If the licensed certifying
body determines that no products are eligible for annual retesting (e.g., all products
have been tested within the previous two years), the licensed certifying body does
not need to retest any products.
The licensed certifying body shall determine and notify EPA of the number of models
requiring retesting by September 30 of each year for all annual market surveillance
activities to be conducted between October 1 of that year and September 30 of the
following year. EPA will in turn notify the licensed certifying body by November 1 of
that year of the details of its allotted designation."
To further clarify its intent, WaterSense has added an example annual market
surveillance sampling scheme as Appendix A to the WaterSense Product Certification
System.
k. One commenter indicated that it is unclear exactly what the consideration will be in the
following statement: "taking into consideration products that have been recently subject
to market surveillance". This vague statement should be made clear. The commenter
suggested removing the term "products" because the paragraph refers to models, not
products. The commenter indicated it is a waste of laboratory and manufacturer
resources to re-test models that have recently been re-tested while ignoring models that
have never been re-tested. In addition, the commenter suggested exempting models
that have been re-tested less than three years from the date of random selection.
Response: WaterSense agrees that it was previously vague in its requirement for the
licensed certifying body to take into consideration products that have been recently
subject to market surveillance, and that it is a waste of resources to retest models that
have recently been tested. WaterSense has clarified that licensed certifying bodies shall
only retest products that have not been tested or retested within the previous two years,
as shown above in comment V.j. While the commenter suggested three years,
24
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
WaterSense has determined that two years is more than sufficient time to exempt
recently tested products from retesting.
I. One commenter suggested that the term "randomly selected" as used in 6.6.2 doesn't
need the qualification "and shall include ...". If models are truly randomly selected, the
commenter said, they should include all labeled models. Although unlikely, it is possible
not to have representation of both original equipment manufacturer and private labeled
models for some WaterSense labeled products, particularly in new WaterSense model
categories, the commenter indicated.
Response: Although the licensed certifying body's selection of products for retesting
shall be random, through the changes discussed above in comment V.j., WaterSense
has clarified what specific groups of models shall be included in or exempt from the
random selection and retesting. The licensed certifying body must still randomly select
specific models for retesting, but within the confines of the specified inclusions or
exclusions.
Section 6.6.2.1 Product Retesting
m. Several commenters expressed concern regarding the prohibition of witness testing for
market surveillance and product retesting. The commenters remarked that this is a
deviation from the current process and that it will add significant cost to the value
proposition of the voluntary WaterSense mark. One commenter suggested that the costs
of shipping and retesting would be about $50,000 for one manufacturer and that in the
end the consumer will pay. As a result, manufacturers may decide not to participate in
the program. The commenter noted that it will increase costs for shipping, the
occurrence of breakages and reshipping, and also noted that this will increase the
overall environmental impact due to the carbon footprint, culling the samples, and overfill
of the landfill.
Commenters suggested that there should be allowances for more economic options and
requested that EPA allow witness testing to be utilized for market surveillance and
product retesting. Further, one commenter indicated that it should be left to the certifier
to determine how to ensure products continue to be in compliance.
Response: With the exclusion of WMTL and SMTL as options for annual market
surveillance, WaterSense's intent was to ensure that products were at some point
retested by an independent laboratory. However, WaterSense recognizes that significant
resources are involved in shipping products to an independent laboratory for retesting.
After careful consideration, WaterSense has decided to allow WMTLs to retest products.
Use of an SMTL is still not permitted and has revised the language as follows:
"All retesting shall be done by a licensed certifying body's internal resources or by an
independent testing laboratory or WMTL as described in Sections 5.4.1. and 5.4.2.1,
and 5.^1.2.2.2, respectively. Use of an WMTL or SMTL is not permitted for product
retesting."
25
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
WaterSense has determined that allowing WMTLs to retest products remains consistent
with the original intent to have products independently tested, as all testing is directly
witnessed by the licensed certifying body. In addition, this allowance will provide a more
economic option for manufacturers and licensed certifying bodies that will help to reduce
costs and delays associated with the certification process.
Section 6.7 Misuse of the Certification or WaterSense Label
n. One commenter suggested an editorial change to add "/I EC" in the second sentence in
the second paragraph.
"The licensed certifying body shall then engage in investigation and resolution of the
complaint in accordance with I SO/I EC Guide 65, IAF (International Accreditation
Forum) Guidance on the Application of ISO/I EC Guide 65, and the licensed certifying
body's policies and procedures."
Response: WaterSense agrees with this comment and has made the suggested editorial
revision.
Section 6.8 Suspension of the Use of the WaterSense Label on Products
o. One commenter requested EPA include the contact information and/or e-mail address
where the certifying body should send notification within 30 days of WaterSense label
suspension and reinstatement.
Response: It has always been WaterSense's policy that all official correspondence,
including notifications of WaterSense label suspensions or withdrawals, be sent to the
WaterSense Helpline at watersense@epa.gov or 866-WTR-SENS (987-7367).
WaterSense has created a new section, Section 8.0 For More Information, to further
clarify that all inquiries should be sent to the WaterSense Helpline. This new section also
contains a link to the compendium of WaterSense product and program specifications,
which licensed certifying bodies and other interested parties should reference for the
most complete and up to date product specification and technical clarification
information.
VI. Comments on Product Notification Templates and
Process
a. During the public meetings held June 13 and 19, 2011, WaterSense requested feedback
on the draft product notification templates and specifically sought clarification regarding
the collection of marketing/product characteristic information not required by or
specifically addressed in the relevant product specifications (e.g., toilet ADA compliance,
bowl type, mount type, and faucet flow type).
26
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
Response: Based on the feedback received during the public meeting and subsequent
conversations with its licensed certifying bodies, WaterSense has decided to remove
any marketing/product characteristic information fields from its product notification
templates. Licensed certifying bodies will not be required to collect or report this type of
information to WaterSense and WaterSense will no longer display this information on its
WaterSense product registry.
WaterSense recognizes that utilities and consumers may find marketing/product
characteristic information informative when trying to determine which WaterSense
labeled products are available to meet their specific needs. Therefore, the decision not
to collect and display this information on the WaterSense product registry was not made
lightly. First, collecting this type of marketing/product characteristic information has
complications from a technical perspective. In some instances the characteristics cannot
easily be verified by the licensed certifying body, as they are not part of the specification
and no specific standards or guidance are provided for determining whether products
have those characteristics. Second, WaterSense has decided that philosophically the
purpose of its WaterSense product registry is to convey basic model information to
enable consumers or other users to determine which products are WaterSense labeled.
The WaterSense product registry should serve as a launching point for a search of
WaterSense labeled products and is not intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive
listing of information about the products. Consumers should check with the
manufacturers of specific products to determine if there are any additional features
available.
VII. Other Changes Not Specifically Commented On
a.	WaterSense has decided to include in Section 3.2 References and Definitions of the
WaterSense Product Certification System a reference to this Response to Public
Comments Received on June 2011 WaterSense Draft Revised Product Certification
System (comment response) in order to ensure that the intent of specific product
certification system requirements are clear. Licensed certifying bodies may find the
information contained in the comment response useful in the interpretation of
requirements, particularly since it provides additional context and rationale for changes
made.
b.	Given questions regarding its recent minor revisions to the WaterSense Specification for
Tank-Type Toilets, WaterSense has modified Section 6.0 Amendments, Modifications,
and Revisions of the WaterSense Product Certification System to clarify what it
considers to be major or minor revisions to product specifications. WaterSense has also
clarified that major revisions will require currently certified products to be recertified to
the new specification requirements, whereas minor revisions will not require
recertification.
In addition, WaterSense has clarified that it reserves the right to modify its product
certification requirements as they apply to specific product categories. Such
modifications will be identified with the release of the final product specification for that
27
September 29, 2011

-------
EPA
Response to Comments on the Draft
Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense
specific product category. This will ensure that WaterSense has the flexibility to adapt
the process to fit within the certification infrastructure available for the specific
industry/product category.
Lastly, WaterSense has provided guidance as to how it will designate program
document versions to facilitate version control. All documents will have a clear title,
version number, and date.
Specifically, WaterSense has revised this section as follows:
" 7.0 Amendments, Modifications, and Revisions to These Rules of Procedure
EPA reserves the right to amend these rules of procedure, which may include
amending or revising this the WaterSense product certification system, the
WaterSense program guidelines, or revising any of the WaterSense product
specifications, or issuing technical clarifications as provided in the compendium of
WaterSense product and program specifications available on the WaterSense
website, contained in the compendium. Major amendments to these procedural
documents would only be made following an open public process, including
discussion with industry and other interested partners.
Revisions to any of the WaterSense product specifications can occur due to
technological and/or market changes that affect the usefulness of current
specifications to consumers, industry, or the environment or to clarify vague
reguirements.
Major revisions to product specifications will generally include changes to the water
efficiency or performance reguirements and/or related test methods. Major revisions
will only be made following an open public process, including discussion with
industry and other interested partners. Major Rrevisions to specifications would will
typically reguire recertification of products currently certified models to the new
specifications. The transition period will be identified in the relevant product
specification, but will normally be one year.
Minor revisions to product specifications will generally be more editorial in nature and
serve to clarify vague or unclear reguirements. Minor revisions will typically not
reguire recertification of currently certified models. EPA will notify stakeholders when
product specification revisions are considered major or minor.
As deemed necessary, EPA also reserves the right to modify these rules of
procedure as they apply to specific categories of products. Any modifications will be
identified at the release of the product specification for the relevant product category.
To facilitate version control, EPA will designate a title, version number, and date for
all of the relevant documents it produces, as indicated below:
28
September 29, 2011

-------
4
epa	Response to Comments on the Draft
WstCT" SCTISC	Revised Product Certification System
WaterSense Specification for Product Cateqorvl or WaterSense Product
Certification System
Version X.Y
Month. Day, Year"
29
September 29, 2011

-------