STATE OF CAUFORN~- Tt£ RESOURCES AQENCY ARNOlD SCHWARZENEGGER ~ CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1518 NINTH STREET

~. CA 1681~12

Douglas L. Faulkner Acting Assistant

Secretary EnergyEfficiency aDd

Renewable

Energy United States

Department

of Energy Section 327 Petitions,

ApplianceEfficiency Standards F orrestal Building 1000Independence

Avenue,SW Washington,

D.C. 20585 Petition to EIempt from Preemptiol California's Water Conservation Standards for Residen

Your Letter of November 18, 2005
Dear Mr. Faulkner, On September

16,2005,DOE received

the California EnergyCommission's (CEC) petition for exemption from federalpreemption

of California's water conservation

standards

for residential

clothes washers. As you are aware,

DOE's regulations

state: (1) Within:fifteen (15) days of the receipt of a petitio~ the Secretary will either accept it for filing or reject it, and the petitioner will be so notified in. writing. The Secretarywill serve a copy of this notification on each other party served by the petitioner. Only such petitions which conform to the requirements of [DOE's regulations] and which contain sufficient information for the purposes of a substantive decision will be accepted for filing. Petitions which do not so conform will be rejected and an explanation provided to petitioner in writing. (2) For purposes of [federal statutory law regulations],

a petition is deemed

to be filed on the date for filing.
10 C.F.R..§ 430.42(f). December 5, 2005

10

tial Clothes Washers:

and DOE's it is accepted

1Despite the l5-day deadline,

the CEC received

no notification in writing until November 18,whenyou sentme a letter concerning the petition. (For reasons unknownto me,the letter wasnot received in my office until November 28.) In your November 18 letter,you stated: DOE has reviewed the petition, and determined that the regulatory requirements have not been met. The statementrequired by 10 C.F.R. 430.42(c), on whether "[to the best knowledge of that petitioner] the same or related issue, act or transaction has been or presently is bei~g considered or investigated by any State agency, department, or instrumentality," was not included in the petition. Pleasesupply DOE with information in writing sufficient to satisfy this filing requirement and DOE will complete its review of your petition and provide you with the notice required under 10 C.F.R 430.42(£). The CBC hereby

states that to its bestknowledge, the same or relatedissue,

act, or transaction

hasnot been

andis not presently

beingconsidered

or investigated

by any State agency, department,

or instrumentality,

otherthan the CEC's adoptionof the standards

described

in the petition, andthe filing of the petition itself. In providing "an explanation.

. . in writing" of the nonconformity of the CEC's petition to regulatory and informationrequirements (10 C.F.R. § 430.42(£)(1»,

your November 18 letter listed no "regulatoryrequirements" that were not met, otherthanthe lack of the statement requiredby 1

0 C.F.R. section 430.42(c). Nor did your letter describe any lack of "sufficient information for the purposes 'of a substantive

decision" (10 C.F.R.§ 430.42(t)(I». Therefore, with the provision of the section

430.42(c)

statement

above~ all requirements

for a petition havebeen

met, andthe CEC anticipates DOE's very rapid acceptance of the petition for filing anddocketing, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.section

430.42(t)-(g).
Thank you for your assistance.

seenext page cc: Sincerely, 

## ;J.4..; ~~l1...t:-" Jonathan Blees Chief Counsel Assistant

2CEC:

Valene Hall G. William Pennington William Staack cc:

Charles

A. Samuels General Counsel, Association

of HomeApplianceManufacturers Mintz, Levin, Co~ Fems, Lovsky, and Popeo, PC Suite900 701 Pennsylvania

Avenue Washington,

DC 20004

3