7582 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1986 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products was established pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94- 163, 87 Stat. 917), as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3266), which requires DOE 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)(1) and (c). The Act provides, however, that no standard is to be established if there is no procedure for the product; or if DOE determines by rule either that a standard would not result in significant conservation of energy or that a standard is not technologically 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, all such State laws
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY or regulations are superseded by the Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by Office of Conservation and DOE that an efficiency standard is not Renewable Energy c4s technologically feasible, economically rlZ^ - - 0(j justified, or likely to save significant 10 CFR Part 430 amounts of energy would be a rule that
Energy CPfor supersedes any State standard. Section En Consumer e gy Conservation
o Products; Program

rogra Appliance 325(b). A State whose energy efficiency

Standards standard would be superseded, however, may petition the Department

AGENCY: Conservation and Renewable fora rule that it not be superseded. DOE Section 327(b)(3). Energy, DOE issued a On December 1.q- 1982I ACTtQN:Proposed Rules; Withdrawal final rule with respect to two covered and Termination. products, clothes dryers, and kitchen

SUMMARY: Today's notice withdraws ranges and ovens. 47 FR 57198 and terminates the U.S. Department of (December 27- 1982). (Hereafter referred Energy rulemakings to prescribe energy to as the December 1982 rule:) With efficiency standards for dishwashers, respect to both products. DOE television sets, clothes washers and determined that a standard would not' humidifiers and dehumidifiers, and to result in significant conservation of grant State petitions for exemptions energy and would not be economically' from Federal preemption of State or justified. The December 1982 rule also local energy efficiency standards. established procedures governing petitions DATE: This withdrawal and termination to DOE by States to obtain is effective March

withdrawal and from preemption of State or 5, i9a& local energy efficiency standards. On FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : August 25, 1983, DOE issued a final rule Michael ). McCabe, U.S. Department of with respect to six further covered Energy. Office of Conservation and products: Refrigerators and refrigerator= Renewable Energy, Mail Station CE- freezers, freezers, water heaters, 132, Forrestal Building, 1000 furnaces, room air conditioners and Independence Avenue SW., central' air conditioners. 48 FR 39376 Washington, DC 20585, (202) 252-9127. (August 30, 1983). (Hereafter referred to Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department as the August 1983 rule.) For each of the of Energy. Office of General Counsel, six products covered by the August 1983 Mail Station CE-12, Forrestal Building, rule, except central air conditioners, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., DOE determined that an energy Washington, DC 20585, (202) 252-9513 efficiency standard would not result in 

### 7582 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 51, No. 43 

## I Wednesday. March 5, 1986

, Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLEMENTARV INFORMATION: The Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts was established pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94- 163. 87 Stat. 917). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3266j, which requires DOE to establish energy efficiency standards that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. Section 325 (a)(l) and (c). The Act provides. however. that

no standard is to be established if there is no procedure for the product; or 

### if DOE determines by rule either that a standard would not result in significant conservation ofenergy or that a standard is not technologically feasible

or economically justified. Section 325[b).

Section 327 ofthe Act addresses the effect ofFederal rules concerning testing. labeling, and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such matters. Generally. all such State laws

or regulations are superseded by the FederBl rule. Section 327(a). A rule by Office of Conservation and DOE that an efficiency standard is not Renewable Energy

## r 

## t1S -iC.

. technologically feasible. economically L1"f I /I')

- 

# '1i-115 justified. or likely to save significant 10 CFR Part430

. amounts ofenergy would 

### be a rule that Enetgy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Appliance Standards

AGENCY: Conservation and Renewable Energy. DOE

.ACTlON:.Pro.poaedRules; 

### Withdrawal and Termination.

.**SUMMARY~**Today's notice withdraws and terminates the U.S. Department of Energy rulemakings to prescribe energy efficiency standards for dishwashers. television sets. clothes washers and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. and to grant State petitions for exemptions from Federal preemption of State or local ene1"gy efficiency standards.

DATE!Thls withdrawal and termination is effective**Mar~h** 5, 1986.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael

### J. McCabe, U.S. Department of

Energy. Office of Conservation and RenewableEmlrgy. Mail Station CE132, FOlTestalBuilding. 1000 Independence Avenue SW.• Washington.DC 20585. (20Z} 252-9127. Eugene Margolis, 

## Es4.. U.s. Department

ofEnergy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station CE-12. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue SW

.. Washington. DC 20585, (202.) 252-9513 supersedes any State standard. Section 325(b). A State whose energy efficiency standard would be superseded. however. may petition the Department for a rule that it not be superseded. Section 3Z7{b)(3).

On December 15. 1982. DOE issued a final rule with respect to two covered products. clothes dryers, and kitchen ranges and oveni. 47 FR 57198 (December 

### Z2. 1002). (Hereafter referred to as the December 1982 rul!'-) With respect to both products. DOE determined that 

### a standard would not" result in significant conservation of energy and would not be economically' justified. The December 1982 rule also established procedures governing petitions to DOE by States to obtain exemption from preemption of State or local energy efficiency standards. On Augultt 25.1983. DOE issued a final rule with respect to six further covered products: Refrigerators and**refrigerator~** freezers. freezers. waterheaters. furnaces. room air conditioners and central'air conditioners. 48 FR 39376

. (August 30. 1983). (Ijereafter referred to

as the August 1983 rule.) For each ofthe six products covered by the August 1983 rule. except central air conditioners. DOE determined that an energy efficiency standard wouldnot result inFederal Register / Vol.. 51, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1986 / Proposed Rules 7583

significant conservation of energy and would not be economically justified. With respect to•central, air conditioners, DOE found that an energy efficiency standard would result in a significant conservation of energy but would not be economically justified.. On March 15,1985, the Department issued a proposed rulemaking regarding energy efficiency standards for dishwashers, television sets, clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. 50 FR 12966 (April 1, 1985). On August a, 1984, DOE proposed to grant petitions from 26,States requesting, in each case, that State efficiency standards pertaining to-one or more of eight covered products in the December 1982 and August 1983 rules be exempted from Federal preemption. 49 FR 32944 (August 17,1984). On.May 3, 1985, DOE proposed. to grant petitions _ from two States, Michigan andhHawaii, requesting,in each- case, that State regulations pertaining to the energy use or energy, efficiency of certain appliances be exempted from Federal preemption. 50 FR 21450.(May 24, 1985).
The December 1982 and August 1983 final rules, were challenged in a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and others against the Department of Energy. The Court of Appeals granted NRDC's petition and set aside DOE's December 1982 and August 1983'final rules. NRDC v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Thet.decision having now become final, the Department is giving notice of the termination and withdrawal of affected rulemakings in progress. These are the proposed rules regarding energy efficiency standards fordishwashers, television sets , clothes washers and humidifiers and dehumidifiers, 50 FR12966, and the rules proposing to grantthe 26 State petitions, 49 FR 32944, and the Michigan and Hawaii petitions, 50 21450, for exemption from Federal preemption of State or local energy efficiency standards.

List of Subjects in-11) CFR Part 430
Administrative, practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Household, appliances.

Issued in Washington..D.C,.F.ehruary 12, 1986.

Donna R

. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy. -

[FR Doc. 86-4809 .Filed: 3-9--86; 8A5 amj;

BILLING CODE wso-ol-M 

### Federal Register 

## l VoL 51, No. 43 

## I Wednesday, March 5, 1986 

## l Proposed Rules

significant conservation ofenergy I!.nd would not be economicallyjustified. With respect·tb.centralairconditioners, DOE found that an energy efficiericy tltandard would 

### reflult in a significant consenvation ofenergy but would not be economicallyjustified

..

On March 15, 1985. the Department issued a proposed rulemaking regarding energy efficiency standards fOJ.: dishwashers. television sets, clothes waslitlrs, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers; 50FR 12966 (April 1, 1985}. On August

## a. 1984. DOE proposed
to grant petitions from 26:8tate8 requesting. in each case. that State efficiency standards pertaining to·one or
more ofeight covered products in the December 1982 and August 1983 rules be exempted from Federal preemption. 49 FR 32944 (August 17•.1984). On.May 3. 1985. DOE proposed.to grant petitions

_ from two States. Michigan andlHawaii. requestingjn each.case. that State regulations pertaining to the energy use
or energy,efficiency. ofcertain appliances be exempted from Federal preemption. 50 FR 21450.(May 24. 1985}.

The December 1962 and August1983 finall!Ules. w.ere challenged in a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and others against the Department ofEnergy. The Court ofAppeals granted NRDC's petition and set aside DOE'sDecember 1962 and. August 196Hinal rules. NRDC

v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1"55 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Thaldecision having now become final. the Department is giving notice of the termination and withdrawal of affected rulemakings in progress. These

are the proposed rules regarding energy efficiency standards fur-dishwashers, television sets, clothe9 washers and

. humidifiers and dehumidifiers. 50 FR 12966. and the rules proposing to grant· the 26 State petitions, 49 FR 32944. and the Michigan and Hawaii petitions. 50 21450, for exemption from Federal preemption ofState or local energy efficiency standards,

List ofSubjjmts in·1iJ,CFR Part 430

Admihistrativapractice and procedure. Energy cmnserv.ation, Household,appliances.

Issued in Waahineton•.DG,.Eehruary' 12. 1986.

DODDIl!R. Fitzpatrick,
Assistantsecretary. Conservationand RenewableEnergy,
[FR Doc. B6-4809.Filed,3-4-86; lil45;amJ:

BILLING CODE 6450-01-M 

### 7583