CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 0A

21450 

Proposed Rules 

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 

contains notices to the public of the 

proposed issuance of rules and 

regulations. The purpose of these notices 

is to give interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the rule 

making prior to the adoption of the final 

rules. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM-MI033, HI034] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; State Petitions 

for Exemption From Federal 

Preemption of State Standards for 

Water Heaters. Furnaces, Clothes 

Dryers, and Kitchen Ranges and 

Ovens ., 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakings 

and public heAring. -------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. as amended by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act. requires that the Department of 

Energy prescribe an energy efficiency 

standard for each of 13 major household 

appliances unless it determines. by rule. 

that a standard will not result in 

significar.t conservation of energy. is not 

technologically feasible. or is not 

economically justified. 

On August 30. 1983. DOE published a 

final rule with respect to water heaters. 

furnaces and four other products. in 

which. for both water heaters and 

furnaces. DOE determined that an . _ 

energy efficiency standard would not 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy and would not be economically 

justified. 

DOE has received petitions from two 

States. Michigan and Hawaii. 

requesting. in each case. that State 

regulations pertaining to the energy use 

or energy efficiency of certain 

appliances be exempted from Federal 

preemption. The petition from the State 

of Michigan. submitted December 28. 

1984. requests that the State energy 

efficiency standards requiring 

intermittent ignition devices (lIDs) for 

c1otr.es d;-vers. furnaces and kitchen 

ranges and ovens be exempted from 

Federal preemption. Hawaii's petition. 

submitted September 7.1984, requests 

exemption from Federal preemption for 

the State's regulation prohibiting the 

sale and installation of water heaters 

that do not meet a prescribed efficiency 

level. 

The purpose of this notice of proposed 

rulemakings is to provide interested 

persons the opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rules and to invite . 

interer::ted persons to participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

DATES: Requests to speak at the public 

hearing must be received by the 

Department by July 8. 1985. Statements 

to be present~d at the public hearing 

musl be received by the Department by 

July 10, 1985. Written comments on the 

proposed rule must be received by the 

Department by August 22. 1985. 

Oral views. data and arguments may 

be presented at the public hearing to be 

held in Washington. D.C. on July 16. 

1985. 

The Department of Energy is 

extending the period for final action to 

eHhf!r grant or deny the petitions 

recpi\'ed from Michigan and Hawaii to 

October 31. 1985. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments. 

statements and requests to speak at the 

hearing are to be submitted to: U.S. 

Department of Energy. Office of 

Conservation and Renewable Energy, 

Office of Hearings and Dockets, Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products. Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM-

(appropriate State code). Room 6B-025. 

FOTrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

Avenue. SW .• Washington. D.C. 20585. 

(202) 252-9319. 

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m .• 

and will be held at the U.S. Department 

of Energy. Forrestal Building. Room 1E245.1000 Independence Avenue. SW .• 

Washington. D.C. 

Copies of the petitions. the transcript 

of the public hearing. and public 

comments received may be obtained 

from the DOE Freedom of Information 

Reading Room: U.S. Department of 

Energy. Freedom of Information Public 

Reading Room. Forrestal Building. Room 

1E-190. 1000 Independence Avenue. 

SW .. Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

6020. 

For more information concerning 

public participation in this rulemaking 

proceeding. see section IV "Public 

Comment Procedures" of this notice. 

Federal Register 

Vol. SO. No. 101 

Friday. May 24. 1985 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station. CE112. Room GF-217. FOTresta} Building. 

1000 Independence 'Avenue, SW .• 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-

9127. 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Coullsel. 

Mail Station GC-12. Room 68-128. 

FOTrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

Avenue. SW .• Washington. D.C. 20585. 

(202) 252-9513. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

a. Authority 

b. Buckground 

II. Discussion 

a. General 

b. Summary of Slate Petitions 

III. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and 

Regulatory Flexibility Reviews 

a. Environmental Review 

b. Regulatory Impact Review 

c. Small Entity Impact Review 

IV. Public Comment Procedures 

a. Participation in Ru\emakings 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

c. Pub!tc Hearing 

I.lntrociuction 

D. Authority 

Part B of Title m of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA). Pub. L. 

94-163. as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(NECPA). Pub. L. 95-4319. 1 created the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The consumer products 

subject to this program (referred to 

hereafter as "covered products") are: 

refrigera tors and refrigera tor-freezers; 

freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; 

water heaters; room air conditioners; 

home heating equipment. not including 

furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges 

and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers 

and dehumidifiers; central air 

conditioners; and furnaces. as well as 

any other consumer product classified 

as a covered product by the Secretary of 

Energy. if the product uses a specified 

minimum amount of energy. Section 322. 

The Secretary has not so classified any 

additional products. 

Under the Act. the program consists 

essentially of three parts: testing. 

I Part B of Title III of EPCA 8S amended by 

NECPA. 42 U.S.c. 629,~. is referred to in this 

notice as the "Act". 
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 0A

Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 101 I Friday, May 24, 1985 I Proposed Rules 2145~ 

labeling. and energy efficiency 

standards. 

For each of the covered products. 

DOE is required to establish energy 

efficiency standards that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Section 325 (a}{1J and (c). The Act 

provides. however, that no standard for 

a product is to be established if there is 

no test procedure for the product, or if 

DOE determines by ru1e either that a 

standard would nQt result in significant 

conservation of energy or that a 

standard is not technologicany feasible 

or economically justified. Section 325(b). 

Section 327 of the Act addresses the 

effect of Federal rules concerning 

testing, labeling and standards on State 

laws or regulations concerning such 

matters. Generally. an such State laws 

or reg'Jlations are superseded by the 

Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by 

DOE th,,! an effici;;ncy standllrd is not 

technologically feasible. economically 

justified, or likely to save significant 

amoWlts of energy is a ru1e that 

supersedes any State standard. Section 

325(b). H. because there is no Federal 

rule. a State efficiency standard is not 

superseded. persons subject to it may 

petition DOE to have it superseded on 

the basis that there is no significant 

St;,te or local intE'Test sufficient to justify 

the regulation and such regulation 

unduly burdens interstate commerce. 

Section 327(b)(1). A State whose energy 

efficiency standard is or would be 

superseded may petition the Department 

for a ru1e that it not be superseded, on 

the basis that there is a significant State 

or local interest to Justify the standard 

and the State .tandard is a .tricter 

standard. However, DOE cannot iuue 

the requested ru1e if the State standard 

would Wlduly burden interstate 

commerce. Section 327(b){3). 

b. Background 

On December 22. 1982, DOE publi&hed 

a final rule in which DOE determined 

that energy efficiency standards for 

clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and 

ovens would not result in a significant 

conservation of energy and would not 

be economically justified. (47 FR 57198) 

(Referred to hereafter as the December 

1982 rule). The December 1982 ru1e also 

established procedures governing 

petitions to DOE. both by States to 

obtain exemption from preemption of 

State or local energy efficiency 

standards and by manufacturers to 

obtain exemption from State or local 

energy efficiency standards. 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established in the December 1982 rule, 

DOE received petitions from five States 

requesting. in each case. that the State 

energy efficiency standard requiring 

intermittent ignition devices (lIDs) for 

clothes dryers and/or kitchen ranges 

and ovens be exempted from Federal 

preemption. DOE published proposed 

rules granting the five State Petitions on 

August 1, 1983. (48 FR 34858) On March 

27.1984. DOE published final rules 

granting each State's petition for 

exemption of State standards for clothes 

dryers and/or kitchen ranges and ovens. 

(48 FR 11764)lI 

On August 30. 1983, DOE published a 

final rule with respect to refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces. (4B FR ~376) (Referred to hereafter as the 

August 1983 rule). For each product. 

except central air conditioners, DOE 

determined that a standard would not 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy and would not be economically 

justified. With respect to centrel air 

conditioners. DOE determined that an 

energy efficiency standard would result 

in a significant conservation of energy 

but would not be economically justified. 

DOE received petitions from 26 States. 

requesting in each Case. that one or 

more State or local energy efficiency 

standard pertaining to one or more of 

seven covered products be exempted 

from Federal preemption.' On August 

Ii. 1984. DOE proposed to amend 

§ 430.33 to issue ru1es permitting each of 

the 26 States to maintain applicable 

standards pertaining to lID requirements 

for furnaces and kitchen ranges and 

ovens, and standards for refrigerators 

and refrigerator freezers, freezers, water 

heaters, room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces, 49 FR 

32944. 

n. Ditcussion 

a. General 

Section 327(a)(2) of the Act provides 

L'lat any Federal standard applicable 

under section 325 supersedes any nonidentical State or local standard. Section 

325(b) explicitly requires that a 

determination by DOE that no Federal 

energy efficiency standard for a 

particular product is warranted would 

• The five Sialel are California. New York. 

Wiseonain. Minneeota and Oregon. Each State "'lUI 

granted IIIl exemption for its Slale .tandaM for 

kitchen rangetl and ovens. Wisconsin. Minneaota 

and Oregon allo MJagbt and were lTanted 

exemptioll for taeir .tandardt for dotbes dryen. 

• DOE receiHd petitiolll from: Ark.auu. 

Virginia. Florida. PeJUUly!vania. Wiaconsin. South 

Carolina. New Mexico. Georgia. Rhode bland. New 

Hampshire. Massachusetts. California. Oreaon. New 

York. Missouri. Texas. New Jersey. Winois. Utah. 

Iowa. West Virginia. Minnelota. Waahington. 

Kansa •. Hawaii and Tenneasee. 

also supersede any State or local energy 

efficiency standard. Section 327(b)[1). 

however. provides that a State may 

petition for. and DOE may issue. a rule 

exempting a State or local standard 

from Federal supersession. 

Michigan and Hawaii have each 

petitioned the Department for a rule to 

allow the State to maintain its 

applicable State energy efficiency 

standards for clothes dryers. wat!>f 

heaters, furnaces. and/or kitchen rang~s 

and ovens. Since Michigan's petition for 

clothes dryers. kitchen ranges and 0\'e115 

and furnaces was not submitted within 

the 120 day time period as required by 

10 eFR 430.41(b)(2}. the MichigAn 

standards for the products were 

super1ij!ded when the Department of 

Energy's standards for clothes dryers 

and kitchen ranges and ovens became 

effective on June 20, 1983. and for 

furnaces on February 27, 1984. 

Supersession of these regulations will 

remain in effect unless DOE issues E 

final rule granting the petition. Similudy. 

Hawaii's water heater standard with a:o 

effective date June 1. 1985. was filed 

after the 120 day period and is 

preempted unless DOE issues a final 

ru1e granting the petition. 

Michigan and Hawaii have met the 

filing requirements of 10 ern 430.44(b). 

The petitions have presented 

information which indicates that t::e 

applicable State regulations are n-.ore 

stringent than the Federal standard and 

that. in each case. there is a signifiGant 

State interest to justify the State 

regulations. DOE has made a 

preliminary determination that. in each 

case, there does not appear to be any 

Wldue burden on interstate commerce 

resulting from the State's regulations. 

Accordingly. DOE is proposing to amend 

§ 430.33 to permit Michigan and Hawaii 

to maintain applicable energ'i efficiency 

standards for clothes dryers. water 

heaters. furnaces and/or kitchen ranges 

and ovens. 

With respect to DOE's final 

determinations on these petitions. the 

Department is extending to October 31, 

1985. the period for action to either grant 

or deny each petition. Section 327(bJ(~} 

of the Act and § 430.48[a) of DOE's 

regulations require the Department to 

take final action to either grant or deny 

a petition within six months of the dllte 

it is filed. except that the Department 

may publish a notice in the Federal 

Register extending such period to a date 

certain. It is further required that such 

notice shall include the reasons for 

delay. DOE is extending the period for 

final action in these rulemakings to 

provide for the ninety day comment 

period required by § 430.43 of the 
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 0A

21452 Federal Register I Vol. SO, No. 101 I Friday, May 24. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

regulatiohs and to allow for a substantive review of the comments 

during the comment period. which ends 

August 22, 1985. 

b. Summary of State Petitions 

1. Michigan (MI033). The petition 

submitted b)' Michigan seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Compiled Laws and Part 10. section 

R408.31031 of the Michigan - Administrative Code as they pertain to 

clothes dryers, furnaces with an input 

rating of 225.000 Btu/hr. or less. and 

kitchen ranges and ovens. The Michigan 

law prohibits the installation of new 

appliances using a gaseous fuel (other 

than propane) that is not equippeq with an lID. Exempted from this requirement are gas appliances installed in mobile or 

modular homes. 

In its petition. Michigan states that its 

low is based on the fact that 

conservation is the "cheapest, most secure and most environmentally benign source of energy for Michigan" and that 

conservation makes money available in 

the State for alternate purchases or investments in industrial productivity. 

Michigan also asserts that these 

regulations have been in effect since 

1980 without complaints from appliance 

manufacturers and that retaining the 

Slate's requirements would not have 

any additional effects on the appliance 

market in Michigan. 

DOE has revised Michigan's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b)(3) of the Act and 1430.47 

of the regulations. Based on its review. 

DOE has determined that Michigan has 

presented prima facie evidence showing 

that section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Compiled Laws and Part 10, section 

R408.31031. of the Michigan 

Administrative Code are more stringent 

than. DOE's rule for gas clothes dryers. 

.furnaces and kitchen ranges and ovens. are justified by a significant State 

interest. and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE is proposing to issue a rule amending 1 430.33 exempting 

section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Compiled Laws and Part 10. section 

R408.31031 of the Michigan 

Administrative Code from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2) of the Act. 

2. HawaIi' (HI034j. The petition 

submitted by Hawaii on September 7. 

1984. seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption the State's Act 124 

of 1984. which prohibits. after June 1, 

1985. the sale or installation of any 

water heater in the State that does not 

meet the energy efficiency standard of 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers. Inc. (ASHRAE) as expressed 

in the current ASHRAE-90 Standard. 

ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1980 4 specifies 

that electric water heaters shall have a 

stand-by loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area and oil 

and gas-fired water heaters shall have a 

recovery efficiency not less than 75 

perfent and s stand-by loss percentage 

equal to the expression 2.3 + 67/V. 

where V equals the rated volume in 

gallons. 

central air conditioners and furnaces 

would be within the range of 0.8 to 1.6 

quads per year. The EA then analyed 

the environmental impacts of this 

change in energy use. DOE has 

evaluated the regulations of the States 

of Michigan and Hawaii. 

The potential environmental impacts 

of these standards are related to the 

resultant savings in energy usage and 

improved indoor air quality. The 

resultant effect of these regulations on the energy efficiency of each of the 

products covered falls below that energy 

effiCiency level for the products used by 

Hawaii believes that in the absence of 

standards. less expensive. inefficient 

applicances could be purchased by consumers. who are unaware of life 

cycle costing. and by developers or others. who might benefit from 

minimizing initial costs. 

DOE has reviewed Hawaii'S petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b)(3) of the Ar.t and 1430.47 

of the regulations. Based on its review. 

DOE has determined that Hawaii has 

presented prima facie evidence showing 

that State Act 124 of 1984 is more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. is justified by a significant State 

interest. and does not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE is 

proposing to issue a rule amending 

DOE in performing its 1980 EA. The 

improvement to indoor air quality for 

these regulations will be similar to that 

• associated in the 1980 EA for the two 

products, but will occur in only the two 

States rather than nationally. Hence. 

environmental impacts for the energy 

savings end improved air quality 

associated with these State regulations 

1 430.33 exempting Act 124 of 1984 from 

the preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2) of the Act. 

Ill. Environmental. Regulatory Impact, 

and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews 

a. Em'ironmentaI Review 

The Department has prepared and 

issued an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) (DOE/EA-0113) on the impact of 

setting and implementing energy 

efficiency standards for all 13 types of consumer products identified in section 

322(a)(lH3) of the Act. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) and Notice 

of Availability of that EA were 

published with the June 30. 1980. 

proposed rule for minimum energy 

efficiency standards for eight of the 

products. (45 FR 44088) Copies of that 

EA/FONSl may be obtained from the 

address indicated at the beginning of 

this notice. 

The 1980 Environmental Assessment 

for the proposed energy efficiency 

standards estimated that the energy 

savings resulting from national 

standards for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. freezers. clothes 

dryers. water heaters. room air 

conditioners. kitchen ranges and ovens. 

• Hawaii. in its earlier petition. sought exemption 

for ita water heater Itandard. a. they related 10 

new construction and renovation. 

for the two products will be far below 

that which DOE estimated to result from 

national standards for eight products. 

Therefore. based on the findings of the 

1980 EA. DOE had determined that 

granting the petitions of the States of 

Michigan and Hawaii clearly will not 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment· so that neither an environmental as~,,;ssment nor an environmental impact statement is 

required. 

b. Regulatory Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing analysis of the 

effect of the proposed actions. DOE has 

concluded that the rules are not "major 

rules" for purposes of Executive Order 

12291 because they will not result in: {1} 

An annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; (2) a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers. individual 

industries. FederaL Sta teo or local 

government agencies. or geographic 

regions; or (3) Significant adverse effects 

on competition. employment. 

investment. productivity. innovation. or on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. Therefore. in accordance with 

section 3(c)(3) of the Executive Order. 

which applies to rules other than major 

rules. the proposed rules were submitted 

to OMB for review without a regulatory 

impact analysis. 

c. Small Entity Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing. the 

Department has determined and hereby 

certifies pursuant to section B05(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act that the 

proposals. if promulgated. will not have a "significant economic impact on a . 
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 0A

Federal Register I Vol. SO. No. 101 I Friday. May 24. 1985 I Proposed Rules 21453 

substantial number of small entities". 

The Impacts on small businesses which are applicance manufacturers, were 

assessed very closely in the eight 

products rulemakings and were 

onsidered together with other relevant 

factors in conducting DOE's analysis of 

these petitions. For purposes of 

assessing these impacts. the term "small 

business" was defined in consultation 

with the Small Business Administration. 

IV. Public Comment Procedures 

a. Participation in Rulemakings 

DOE encourages the maximum level 

of public participation in these 

rulemakings. 

Individual consumers, representatives 

of consumer groups. manufacturers' 

associations. States or other 

governmental entities. untilities. 

retailers. distributors. manufacturers. 

and others are urged to submit 'written 

statements on the proposals. The Dep~:iment also encourages interested 

persons to participate in the public 

hearing to be held in Washington, D.C .. at the time and place indicated at the 

beginning (If this notice. 

Ct'pies of the petitions are available 

for review in the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room. Interested 

persons may obtain copies of these 

documents by writing to the DOE 

Freedom of Information Re2:!ing Roor;; 

al the address .pacifled at the begilming 

of this notice. Such persons are advised 

to contact the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room in advance 

of such requests to determine if there 

will be any charges associated v.ith 

satisfying their request. 

DOE has established a comment 

period of 90 days following publication 

of this notice, for persons to submit 

written comments on these proposals. 

All written comments and the transcript 

of the public hearing will be available 

for review in the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room. Interested 

persons may obtain copies of any of 

these documents by writing to the DOE 

Freedon of Information Reading Room at 

the address specified at the beginning of 

this notice. Such persons are advised to 

contact the DOE Freedom of Information 

Reading Room in advance of such 

requests to determine if there will be 

any changes associated with satisfying 

their request. Also. persons interested in 

obtaining a copy of the transcript from 

the public hearing have the option of 

purchasing it directly from the 

transcribing reporter for the public 

hearing. The identity of the transcribing 

reporter for the public hearing may be 

determined by contacting the person in 

the DOE Conservation and Renewable 

Energy Office of Hearings and Dockets 

whose address. and telephone number 

appear at the beginning of this notice. 

h. Written Comment Procedures 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written data. views or arguments with respect to the subjects 

set forth in this notice. Instructions for 

submitting written comments are set 

forth at the beginning of this notice and 

below. Comments on the petition should 

be labeled both on the envelope and on the documents "Appliances (Docket No. 

CE-CP-SPRM-[Appropriate State 

Code]). All written comments must be 

received by the date specified at the 

beginning of this notice in order to 

insure full consideration. Five (5) copies are requested to be submitted. This is 

not a requirement. however. in order to 

submit comments. five copies are requested to permit timely review of the 

comments received on this matter. All 

comments received by the date specified 

at the beginning of this notice and other 

relevant information .... ill be considered 

by DOE before final action is taken on the proposed rule. 

Pursuant to the provisions oflO CFR 

1004.11. any person submitting 

information or data which is believed to 

be confidential and exempt by law from 

public disclosure. should submit one cYP-'lI",[e copy of the document. and if 

pos;;;blc. 5 copies from which the 

information believed to be confidential 

has been deleted. DOE will make its own determination with regard to the 

confidential status of the information or deta and treat it according to its 

determina tion. 

Factors of interest to DOE. when 

evaluating requests for confidentiality 

include: (1) A description of the item; (2) 

an indication as to whether and why 

such items of information have been 

treated by the submitting party as confidential within the industry; (3) 

whether the information is generally 

known or available from other sources; 

(4) whether the information has 

previously been made available to 

others without obligation concerning its 

confidentialit:l'; (5) an explanation of 

the competitive injury which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) an 

indication as to when such information 

might lose its confidential character due 

to the passage of time; and (7) whether 

disclosure of the information would be 

in the public interest. 

c. Public Hearing 

1. Procedure for Submitting Requests 

to Speak. In order to have the benefit of 

a broad range of public viewpoints in 

these rulemakings. DOE will hold a 

public hearing. Listed at the beginn;r.~ uf 

this notice are the date. addresses. and 

DOE contacts for the hearing. Any 

person who has an interest in these 

proceedings. or who in a representali'.E' 

of a group or class of persons having en interest. may submit a written request 

for an opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the public hearing. Such 

requests should be labeled both on the 

letter and the envelope. "Appliances: 

Petitions for Exemption from Preemplio'-'1 

of State Efficiency Standards (Docket 

No. CE-CP-SPRM-[Appropriate State 

. Code))" and should be sent to the proper 

address and must be received by the 

time specified at the beginning of this 

notice. 

The person making the request should 

briefly describe the interest concerned 

and give a telephone number where he 

or she may be contacted. Each person 

requesting an opportunity to speak 

should give a concise summary of the 

propobed ora) presentation. 

Z. Selection of Speakers. DOE 

reserves the right to select the persons 

to be heard at the hearing. and to 

schedule the respective pre~entations. 

DOE will endeavor to afford all persons 

who request to speak an opportunity to 

be heard. However. in the event that more persons request to speak at the 

hearing than time permits to be heard. 

DOE mlly refuse some perSOnF an 

oppor:·.mity to :neke a sc:-:c-c1uJed 

presentation. (DOE may. for example, 

select only one person to speak on behalf of a given group or organization 

for which two or more representatives 

have requested to speak). The length of 

each presentation will be limlced to 20 

minutes. Scheduled speakers will be so 

notified by DOE. 

Speakers are requested to submit 10 

copies of their statement by the date 

given at the beginning of this notice; 

however. this is not a requirement for 

making an oral presentation lit a hearing. Ten copies are requested to be 

submitted in advance of the hearings i:1 

order that they may be distributed to th/' 

DOE officials who will be serving on the 

panel at the hearing for review prior to 

the hearing itself and so that they may 

be made available to persons attending 

the hearing. In the event any person 

wishing to testify cannot meet ihis 

requirement, alternative arrangemems can be made in advance with the Office 

of Hearings and Dockets by so indicating in the letter requesting to 

make an oral presentation. 

3. Conduct of Hearing. A DOE official ~ill be designated to preside at the 

hearing. The hearing will not be a judicia) or evidentiary-type hearing, hI 

will be conducted in accordance wiih 5 
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 0A

• 

21454 Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 101 I Friday, May 24. 1985 I Proposed Rules 

U.S.C ssa and aection 336{a)(1) of the 

Act. At the conclusion of all initial oral 

statements. each person who has made 

an oral statement will be given the 

. opportunity to make a rebuttal 

atatement. eubject to time limitations. 

The rebuttal atatements will be given in 

the order in which the initial statements 

were made. The offlcial conducting the 

hearing will accept additional comments 

or que.stiODll from those attending. as 

time permits. Any interested person may 

submit to the presiding offici,,) written 

questiOll8 to be .. ked of any person 

makins e atatement at the hearing. The 

presiding official will determine whether 

the question is relevant and whether 

time limitations permit it to be preaented 

for answer. 

Any further procedural rules regarding 

proper conduct of the hearing will be 

announced by the presiding official. 

List or Subjects in 10 ern Pari 410 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. Energy conservation, 

Household appliances. 

In consideration of the foregoing. it is 

proposed to amend Part 430 of Chapter 

U of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations. as set forth below. 

Issued in Washington. D.C., May 3.1985. 

Donna R. f'"ttzpatrick, 

Acting Assistant Secretary. CoT/bf'n-alion and 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 43O-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAMS FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 327(b)(3). Pub. L 94-163.89 

Stat. 917. as amended by Pub. L 9lHl19. 92 

Slot. 3266. 42 U.s.C. 829(b)(3). 

2. Section 430.33 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (a)(6). (b)(4). 

(e)(25) and (h)(26) to read as follows: 

§ 430.33 Pr.emptlon of State regulations. 

(a) Kitchen Ranges and Ovens: 

" .. (6) Section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Complied Laws and Part 10. section 

R408.31031 of the Michigan 

Administrative Code pertaining to gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(b) Clothes Dryers .. (4) Section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Compiled Laws and Part 10. spclion 

R408.31031 of the Michigan 

Adminmi&trative Code pertaining to gas 

dothers dryel'l that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

• • • • • 

(e) Water Heaters .. .. .. .. .. (25) Act 124 of 1984 by the State of 

Hawaii pertaining to water heaters that 

are covered products. it exempt from 

preemption. 

• ••• 

(h) Furnaces .. (26) Section 125.1513a of the Michigan 

Compiled Laws and Part 10, section 

R408.31031 of the Michigan 

Administrative Code pertaining to gas 

furnaces that the covered products. are 

exempt from preemption. .. • .. IFR Doc. 85-12343 Filed 5-Z3-85; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE 1450-01-111 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 443 

Health Spas Trade Regulation Rule 

Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

AcnON: Extension of time for ruing 

commr:-:ts on staff report and p~esiding 

officer's reporL 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission is seeking public comment 

on the Staff Report, filed January 22. 

1985 and the Presiding Officer'S Report. 

filed May 4. 1979 in the Health Spas 

Trade Regulation Rule proceeding. The 

time for filing comments is hereby 

extended from May 24. 1985 to June 7. 

1985. 

DATE: V.'ritten comments on the reports 

will be accepted by the Commission 

until June 1, 1985. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Presiding Officer James P. 

Greenan. Federal Trade Commission. 

6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. 

NW. Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FUl'ITHER INFOP.MATION CONTACT: 

Walter Gross. Attorney, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 6th Street and 

Pennsylvani.a Avenue. NW. Washington. 

DC 20580; telephone 202-523-3826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION! By 

Federal Register notice of March 25, 

1985 (SO FR 11709) the Federal Trade 

Commission extended the period for 

filing "Titten comment on the Spas 

TradE? Rpgulation Rule Proceeding 

(PubiC Record 215-50). The comment 

period was to end on May 24. 1985. 

In granting the Motion of one of the 

participants in the rulemaking 

proceeding for extensioon of time within 

which to file comments. the Presiding 

Officer has extended the comment 

period for an additional 14 days. June 7. 

1985 is the date set by which time 

comments should be received. 

Issued: May 17. 1985. 

'ames P. Greenan. 

Presiding Officer. 

(FR Doc. 65-12547 Filed 5-23-85: 8:45 amI 

.ILUNG CODE .7SII-G'-III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energ~ Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 271 

(Docket No. RM79-76-107 (Kansal-1)1 

High-Cost Gas Produced From Tight 

Formations; Kansas; Order 

Remanding ,Jurisdictional Agency 

Recommendation for Tight 

Formation Designation 

Issued: May 2Z. 1985. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Cef!'.r!1: ssion DOE. 

ACTION: Order remanding 

recommendation. 

SUMMARY: Under section 107lc)(5j of tht: 

Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

designates certain types of natural gas 

as high-cost gas. High-cost gas is 

produced under conditions which 

present extraordinary risk~ or costs lind 

once designated may receive an 

incentive price. Under section 10i(c)(5). 

the Commission issued a rule 

designating natural gas produced from 

tight formations as high-cost gas. 

Jurisdictional agencies may submit 

recommendations of areas fer 

designation as tight formations. Here th~ 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

remands the recommer.datioi, of 1~( 

Kansas Corporation Commission that 

the Niobrara Formation underlying 

Cheyenne. Rawlings. Sherman and 

Thomas Counties be desig!1ated as a 

tight formation under § 271.703[01. 

OAT£: This order is effective May 22. 

1985. 

FOR FURTHER INFOFlMATlON CONTACT: 

Elisabeth Pendley, (202) 357-8476 

or 

C.W. Gray, Jr .. (202) 357-8731