CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

I 

--

-~ 

-... ,:."'" ..-,~.:.a 

~ 

~~!~z4 e 

~ 

~~~ 

~g~':-~ 

.a 

---------= ..5 

~: ' 

Monday 

August 1, 1983 

Part III 

Departm.ent of 

Energy 

Office of Conservation and Renewable 

Energy 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Proposed 

Rulemaklngs and Pub:ic Hearings 

Regarding State Petitions for Exemption 

From Federal Standards for Clothes 

Dryers and Kitchen Ranges and Ovens 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

34858 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 148 I Monday. August 1, 1983 I Proposed Rules 

- ~ AU:asw.... ....c.&;::UiL4d£W!Ws;;:aza:x;~" eu:::a: mrem' weal 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY requiring IIDs for clothes dryers and/or 

kitchen ranges and ovens. Office of Conservation and Renewable The purpose of this noticE; of proposed 

Energy rulemakings is to provide in'terested 

10 CFR Part 430 

(Docket Nos. CE-SPRM] NY001, WIOO2, 

CA003. MN004. OROOS] 

Energy Conservation Program tor 

Consumer Products; Proposed 

Rulemakings and Public Hearings 

Regarding State Petitions for 

Exemption From Federal St<mdards for 

Clothes Dryers and Kitchen Ranges 

and Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation ahd 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakings 

and public hearings. . 

SUMMAnv: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. a$ amended by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act. as a general matter requires that 

persons an opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rules and to invite ' 

interested persons to participate in the 

rulemaking process: .' .. 

OATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rules must be received by -the 

Department by October 17. 1963. 

Oral views. data. and arguments may 

be presented at any other public 

hearings to be held in the five States and 

in Washington. D.C .• on September 13, 

the Department of Energy prescribe an 

energy efficiency standard for each of 

certain major household appliances 

unless it determines. by rule. that a 

standard will not result in significant 

conservation of energy, is not 

technologically feasible. or is not 

economically justified. 

15.20.23.26. and ~O. 1983. Requests to 

speak at the hearings being held 

September 13 and 15 must be received 

by the Department no later than 4 p.m .• 

September 7. 1983; speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m .• September 8. 1983. 

Ten copies of the statement of each 

speaker for these two hearings must be 

received by the Department no later 

than 4 p.m .• September 9. 1983. Requests 

to speak at the hearings being held 

September 20 and 23 must be received 

by the Department no later than 4 p.m., 

September 14. 1983; speakers will be 

, notified by 4 p.m .• September 15. 1983. 

On December 22. 1982. OE issued a 

-inal Rule with respect to clothes dryers 

md kitchen ranges and ovens in which 

DOE determined that an energy 

efficiency standard for either of these 

products would not result in a 

significant conservation of energy and 

would not be economically justified. In 

addition. the Final Rule set forth the 

procedures by which States may obtain 

exemption for sta te or local efficiency 

standards that are statutorily preempted 

as a result of a final rule with respect to 

energy efficiency standards and 

procedures by which manufacturers may 

obtain a rule to preempt State or local. 

efficiency standards for which there is 

no Federal fmal rule. 

DOE has received petitions from the 

States of California. New York, 

Wisconsin. Minnesota and Oregon 

requesting. in each case. that the State 

energy efficiency standard requiring 

intermittent igniiion.devices (lIDs) for 

clothes dryers and/or kitchen ranges 

and ovens be exempted from Federal 

preemption. ' 

The Department of Energy is today 

proposing to grant each State's petition. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend 

Title 10. Part 430 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to include a determination 

of exemption from Federal preemption 

for each State's applicable standard 

Ten copies of the statement of each 

speaker for these two hearing~ must be 

received by the Department no later 

than 4 p.m.: September 16. 1983. 

Requests to speak at the hearings being 

held September 26 and 30 must be 

received by the Department no later 

than 4 p.m .• September 20. 1983; 

speakers will be notified by 4 p.m .• 

September 21. 1983. Ten copies of the 

statement of each speaker for these two 

hearings must be received by the . 

Department no later than 4 p.m .. 

September 23. 1983. 

The length of each presentation is 

limited to 20 minutes. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments. 

statements and requests to speak at the 

bearings 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) Mail Station 

6B-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-9319 •. 

The six hearings are to be held at 212 

East Washington Avenue. Room 215. 

Small Business Administration, 

Madison. Wisconsin. on September 13. 

1983. at 1:00 p.m.; at the U.S. . 

Courthouse/Federal Building. Room 8-

44.110 South Fourth Street. Minneapolis. 

Minnesota. on September 15. 1983. at 

9:00 a.m.; at 333 Market Street. Suite 700. 

Internal Revenue Service. San 

Francisco. California. on September 20. 

1983. at 9:00 a.m.; at the Edith Green· 

Wendell Wyatt Federal Building, Room 

229.1220 Southwest Third Avenue. 

Portland. Oregon .. on September 22. 1983. 

at 9:00 a.m.; at Jacob K. lavits Federal 

Building. 26 Federal Plaza. Room 305e. 

New York. New Xork. on September 26. 

1983. at 9:00 a.m.; and at the U.S. 

Department of Energy. Forrestal 

Building. Room lE-245. 1000 

Independence Avenue SW •• 

Washington. D.C .• on September 30. 

1983. at 9 a.m. 

Copies of the State petitions and 

transcripts of public hearings. 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. 

Forresta! Building. Room lE-l90. 1000 

Independence Avenue SW •• 

Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-0020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE113. Room GH-{)68. Forrestal Building. 

1000 Independence Avenue SW •• 

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

9127. 

Lona Feldman. Assistant General 

Counsel for Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Mail Station GC-33. Room 

6B-144. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue SWo, 

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

9507, 

or 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel. 

Mail Station GC-33. Room 68-128. . 

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW .• Washington. D.C. 20585. 

(202) 252-9513. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

Office of Hearings and Dockets. Room 

6B-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue. SW •• 

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

9319. 

SUMMARY: . 

l Introduction 

8. AuthOrity , b. Background 

n. Discussion 

a. General . b. Summary of State Petitions 

m. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and 

Regulatory Flexibility Reviews a. Environmental Review 

b. Regulatory Impact Review c. Regulatory Flexibility Review 

IV. Public Comment Procedures a. Participa tion in Rulemakill8 

j 

I 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 148 / Monday, August 1, 1983'/ Proposed Rules 34859 • 2 lb::: ... WSCW. U¥l:Jii'iiGiiWJe-~ ~ IiliiiL ~ 4'01!W1 weu 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

c. Public Hearings 

I. Introduction 

a. Authority 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 

94-163). as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619), I Created the 

Energy Conserva lion Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles (the Act). The consumer 

products subject to this program 

(referred to hereafter as "covered 

products") are: refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers; fl"eezers; " 

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 

by the Secretary of Energy. if the 

product uses a specified minimum 

amount of energy. See Section 322. The 

Secretary has not so classified any 

additional products. 

Under the Act. the program consists 

essentially of three parts; testing. 

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)(1) and (c). The Act 

provides. however. that no standard for" 

Il product is to be esta blished if there is 

no test 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 

or regulations are superseded by the 

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

DOE thai an efficiency standard is not 

technologically feasible. economically 

justified. or likely to save significant 

amounts of energy isa rule that 

supPfsedes any State standard. Section 

325(b). If. 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 

I Part B of Title III of EPCA. 88 ameoded by 

NECPA. i. referred to in thi. Dotice ... th. WAct.~ 

State or local interest sufficient to justify 

the regulation and ~uch regulation 

unduly burdens interstate commerce. Section 327(b)(1). 1, 

A State whose energy efficiency 

standard is superseded may petition the 

Department for a rule that it not be 

superseded. on. the basis that there is a 

significant State or local interest to 

justify the stenda:d and the State 

standard is a stricter standard. 

However. DOE cannot issue the 

requested rule if the State standard 

would unduly burden interstate 

commerce. Section 327(b)(3). 

b. Bacxgroun..d 

On December 22. 1982. DOE published 

a final rule with respect to two covered 

products. clothes drye:-s and kitchen 

ranges and ovens (47 FR 5719B). 

(Hereafter referred to as the December 

1932 rule). Wilh respect to both 

products. DOE determined that a 

standard would not result in a 

significant conservation of energy and 

would nol be economically justified. The 

December 1962 rule also established 

procedures governing petitions to DOE 

both by states to obtain exemption from· 

preemption of Sta te or local energy 

efficiency standards as well as by 

manufas;turers to obtain exemption from 

State or local energy efficiency 

standards. 

n. Discussion 

a. General 

Section 327(a)(2) of EPCA. as " 

amended. provides that any Federal 

standard appltcable under Section 325 

supersedes any non-identical Stale or 

local standard. Section 325(b) explicitly 

requires that a "no-standard" standard 

also supersedes any State or local 

standard. Section 327(b)(3). however, 

provides that a State may petition for 

and DOE may issue a rule exempting a 

State or local standard from 

supersession. " 

State standards subject to preemption 

include: energy efficiency requirements 

applicable to any particular type (or 

class) of covered products established 

by mandatory State or local building 

codes. including codes that incorporate 

consensus standards. such as those 

developed and issued by the American· 

Society of Heating. Refrigerating, and 

Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

(ASHRAE). For example. prohibitions on 

standing pilot lights are subject to 

preemption. as are prohibitions on the 

manufacture and sale of appliances with 

less than a certain efficiency. 

In the December 1982 rule. DOE 

established the effective dates upon 

which supersession of State and local 

standards would take place and the 

general procedures by which States 

could petition for rules exempting their 

State or local standards for all covered 

products. 

DOE determined that State and local 

laws for a particular product would be 

superseded H\() days after Federal 

Register publication of a final rule . 

governing that particular product unless 

within 60 days of publica lion, a State 

had filed with the Department a notice 

of intent to petition DOE for an 

exemption for that product. The full 

petition itself had to be filed within 120 

days of publication of the rule. When 

such a submission is made, the State or 

local rule will remain in effect until DOE 

reaches a final determination on the 

State petition. 

In its petition. a State is required to 

present information which would appear 

on its face to show that the State's 

regulation is more stringent than the 

Federal standard and that there is a significant State or local interest in 

issuance of the State's regulation. The 

State is not required to provide 

information concerning the State 

regulation'S impact on interstate 

commerce. A person opposing the 

State's petition should present 

information which would show that the 

State's proposed 'rule would place an 

undue burden on interstate commerce. 

Such a person may also present 

information to rebut the State's initial 

submission. Information presented by 

both the State and opposing persons 

would be open for cornment and 

rebuttal. . 

In reviewing the petitions. the DOE 

will evaluate and analyze all factual and 

legal material presented by the 

petitioners and all other interested or 

opposing parties. It is DOE's intention in 

applying Section 327 to determine 

whether a State standard unduly 

burdens interstate commerce by 

balancing the significant State interest 

in having a standard with the burden. if 

any, on interstate commerce created by 

the standard. 

Because Section 327(b)(3) requires 

DOE to consider each State petition 

individually before DOE can issue a rule 

exempting the State or local standard 

from preemption. DOE cannot issue a 

rule that makes a blanket determination 

for all five States. 

The Department must. of course. treat 

such petitions as requests for ' 

rulemaking and must adhere to general 

rulemaking procedures. The DOE must 

conduct an environmental review 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969.42 U.S.C. 4321, to 

determine whether or not the adoption 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

34860 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 148 I Monday. August 1. 1983 I Proposed Rules 

of the proposed rule will be a major 

Federal action having a significant 

impact on the quality of the 

environment. The DOE must also 

consider the impact of the proposed 

regulation on small businesses pursuant 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 . 

U.S.C. 501 et seq. Finally. under 

Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 1393. 

February 19. 1981). the DOE is required 

to prepare a regulatory impact analysis 

if DOE determines tha t the proposed 

rule is a major rule. as that term is 

defined in the Order. 

Five states. New York. California. 

Wisconsin. Minnesota. and Oregon, 

each has submitted a notice of intent to 

petition and each has petitioned the 

Department for a rule to allow the State 

to maintain its applicable energy 

efficiency standard for clothes dryers 

and/or kitchen ranges and ovens. Each of the five States has met the 

filing requirements set forth in 

December 1982 rule. Each notice of 

intenlto petition and each petition was 

received within the proper time period. 

Eacb petition also presented information 

demonstrating that its regulation is more stringent than the Federal standard and 

that there is a significant St~te interest 

to justify the State regulation. Moreover. 

DOE has made a preliminary 

determination that there does not 

appear to be any undue burden on interstate commerce resulting from the 

State regulations and statutes. 

Accordingly. DOE is proposing to amend 

§ 430.33 to issue rules which permit each 

of the five States to maintain applicable 

appliance energy efficiency standards 

for clothes dryer.s and/or kitchen ranges 

and ovens. 

b. Summary of State Petitions 

1. New York {NY001j. The Petition 

submitted by the New York State Energy 

Office seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption Section 16-116 of 

New York State's Energy Law as it 

pertains to gas kitchen ranges and ovens. Section 16-116 of New York'slaw 

prohibits the sale, delivery or installation of any stove or range using a 

gaseous fuel (other than propane) that is 

not equipped with an lID. Exempted 

from this requirement are gas stoves or ranges containing a separate component 

specifically designed to provide space 

heating. 

In its Petition. New York argues that 

this requirement produces substantial 

benefits for the citizens of New York 

and does not create an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. New York asserts 

that although gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens equipped with lIDs have higher 

first costs than those with pilot lights, 

the life cycle costs are less, saving New 

Yorkers $37.57' to $1152.45· over the 

life of the appliance. Accor<!ing to the 

Petition, in terms of Statewiae fuel 

savings, gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

with lIDs save 92 million-186 million· 

therms per year. At the January 1. 1983 

State average retaif price of $0.758/ 

therm for a consumer using 150 therms 

per month. the associated Statewide 

cost savings are $69.7 million--$141 

million per year. New York points out 

that at least 36 percent· of these annual 

savings is directly attributable to 

Section 16-116. giving the lID 

requirement a value to the State's 

economy of between $25.1 million and 

$50.6 million per year. The State argues 

that the law also contributes to 

improvement in indoor air quality by 

eliminating pollutants emitted by 

standing pilot lights. Finally. New York 

notes that Section 16-116, which has 

been in effect since 1980. has not 

created an undue burden on 

manufacturers competing in the New 

York market and continuation of the law 

will place no new burden on the 

industry. 

DOE has reviewed New York's 

Petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has determined 

t Simple life cycle cost savings were computed 

using the following assumptions: cost of lID $60.00; 

cost of installing an electrical outlet for the lID· 

equipped range, $75.00; consumer financing of the 

added cost of the 110 and installation of electrical 

outlet for 8 five year tenn at an interest rate of 18 

percent per year; a natural gas rate of $0.593 per 

thenn; a pilot light energy consumption rate of 175 

Btu per hour (See DOE Engineering Analysis 

Document. March 1982. page D7-9); 8 fange 

equipped with three pilot lights. pilot light. 

contribute useful space heating for 200 days per 

year at 92 percent efficiency: and s useful life of a 

range of 18 years (See DOE Engineering Analysis 

Document. March 1982. page 42). These assumptions 

were made to arrive at slower bound of life cycle 

cost savings for residents of the State of New York .. 

• Simple life cycle cost savings were computed 

using the follOWing assumptions; cost of liD S20.00; 

electrical service already available at range; no 

financing.of additional cost of llD; naturalg88 rate 

pr $1.416 per thenn; pilot light energy consumption 

rate of 175 Btu per hour [See DOE Engineering 

Analysis Document. March 198.2. page 07-9); range 

equipped with three pilot lights. pilot lights do not 

contribute to useful space heating; and a usefulHfe 

of a range of 18 yeaNl [See DOE Engineering 

·that New York has provided prima facie 

evidence shOWIng that Section 16-116 is 

more stringen.t than DOE's rule for gas 

kitchen ranges an.d ovens, is justified by 

a significant State interest and does not 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes to issue 'a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting Section 16-116 of the 

New York Energy Law from the 

preemptive provisions of Section 

327(a)[2)(A) of the Act. 

2. Wisconsin {WlOO2j. The Petition 

submitted by the Wisconsin Department 

of Administration seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Wisconsin's Statute 101.655 (1981) as it 

pertains to gas clothes dryers and gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens. The 

Wisconsin law prohibit~ the sale. 

distribution or installation of a new gas 

appliance that is not equipped with a 

Sta te certified lID. 

In its Petition. Wisconsin states that 

its law for both products saves 

substantial amounts of natural gas. 

produces life cycle cost savings and 

does not create an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Wisconsin states 

that it bans approximately 100.000 pilot 

lights per year • under the law. 

According to the State. the Wisconsin 

law saves approximately 150 billion 

Btu's of energy per year.' Although the 

lID on the appliance raises the first cost 

by approximately $70 for a stove,-

Wisconsin states that at the current 

Wisconsin rate of 65¢/therm, the cost is . 

paid back within three yearS. The State 

also asserts that up to $15 million in fuel 

bills would be saved if all of 

Wisconsin's 700,000 gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens were equipped with lIDs. The 

State offers no estimate of savings for 

clothes dryers. 

Analysis Document. March 1982. page 42). These 

assumptions were made to arrive at an upper bound , 

of life cycle cost savings for residents of the Slate of 

New York. 

Wisconsin states that since July 1. 

1980. the effective date of the Wisconsin 

law. no manufacturer has asked for 

exemption from this rule based on loss 

of sales or inability to ship products 

across State lines. Accordingly. 

Wisconsin asserts that its rule has not 

burdened interstate commerce in the 

past and thus no burden is anticipated if 

the ban on pilot lights for gas clothes 

• The Petition references data collected from the 

Association of Home Appliance ManufactureNl and 

the 1900 Census. and the assumption tha t gas ranges 

have three pilot lighu and gas clothes dryers have 

one pilot light. 

• The underlying assumption is that there are 

4.033.000 gas kitchen ranges and ovens in Ihe State 

and. for the lower figure. that pilot lights contribute 

useful space heating per footnote 2. while for the 

higher figure. pilol lights do not contribute to useful 

apace hearing. 

• This figure resulted from an analysis of national 

gao range and oven sales included in the petition 

that showed that in Slates that do not ban pilots. 64 

percent of sale. were units equipped with lID •. The 

remaining sales. 36 percent. were uniu equipped 

with pilot.lighta. 

• An lID i& estimated to save 15 therm& of natural 

888 per year. 

• The Petition reference. DOE's Engineering 

Analysi. Document. June 1980. pages 07-25 and 07-

26. as Ihe 80urce for this estimate. (DOE notes that 

In this document the replacement of pilotlighta with 

lIDs is estimated 10 increase the price pf 8 standard 

gas oven by $33.00 snd a gaa cooking lop by $35.10.) 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 148 I Monday, August 1: 1983 I Proposed Rules 34861 ::w; .~~ .F« "'6 2"!ZI"'\S&a0iUCU:; ===nns_..-....... 

dryers Bnd gas ranges and ovens is 

maintained. 

DOE has reviewed Wisconsin's 

Petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and Section 430.47 of the regulation. 

Based on this analysis, DOE has 

determined that Wisconsin has provided 

primiffacie evidence showing that 

Wisconsin's Statute 101.655 (1981) is more stringent than DOE's rule for gas 

clothes dryers and gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens, is justified by a significant 

State interest and does not appear to 

impose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting Wisconsin Statute 101.655 

(1981) from the preemptive provisions of 

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

3. California {CAOO3}. The Petition 

submitted by the California Energy 

Commission (CEq seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Sections 25960 and 25964 of California's 

Public Resourc~s Code and Title 20, 

California Administrative Code, Section 

1605 and Title 24, California 

Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(1) 

and 2-5365 as they pertain to gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens. The 

California laws prohibit the sale or installation of gas appliances using a 

gaseous fuel (other than propane) that is 

not equipped with a State-certified lID. 

The CEC states that the California 

laws produce substantial benefits to the 

citizens of the State and impose no 

burden on interstate commerce. According to the CEC, gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens equipped with lIDs 

represent an annual savings per 

consumer of more than $18 in Northern 

California and more than $15 in 

Southern California. The CEC states that 

lIDs and $30 to $40 to the initial cost of 

the appliance, which is repaid in less 

than three years. The CEC asserts that 

utility bill savings will total more than 

$400 per consumer during the average 

life of a gas range and oven from 1983-

2002. Statewide savings for gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens purchased in 1983 are 

projected to be $5.6 million 11 in 1983. 

Further, Cr;:C claims a total savings of 

$1.8 billion 10 for all gas ranges and 

'This i. an estimate 01 the v.alue of the first year 

energy saved by all California installed kitchen 

ranges and ovens in 1983 having lIDs versus all 

California installed kitchen ranges 8nd ovens in 

1983 ha"ing pilots. Assumptions include 8 net 

energy savings of 35.5 therms per year per unit and _ 

an average 11'83 gas cost ~f$.46 per thermo No 

discounting of savings due to beneficial heating and 

allowed exceptions to the California lID regulation 

are included. 

IOThis is an estimate 01 the value of the enargy 

saved in 20 years by all kitchen ranges and ovens 

installed in California after 1983 having liDs versus 

all kitchen ranges and ovens installed in California 

ovens purchased during the period 1983-

2002. CEe also asserts that the 

California laws result in a reduction of 

pollutant levels through replacement of 

pilot lights with lIDs. 

Moreover, the CEC alleges that the 

California lawll,have not disrupted in 

the appliance industry serving the State. 

CEC asserts that the State knows of no manufacturer that has moved out of 

California or gone out of business as a result of the laws; and that there 

appears to be no greater decline in the 

sales of gas kitchen ranges and ovens in 

California, nor any greater shift to 

electric appliances in California than in 

other states. Accordingly the CEC 

foresees no undue burden on interstate 

commerce created by continuation of 

these laws. 

DOE has reviewed California's 

Petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and Section 430.47 of the regulation. 

Based on this analysis, DOE has 

determined that California has provided 

prima facie evidence showing that 

Sections 25960 and 25964 of the 

California Public Resources Code, Title 

20, California Administrative Code, 

Section 1605 and Title 24, California 

Administrative Code, Sections 2-5352(1) 

and 2-5365 are more stringent than 

DOE's rule for gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens, arejustified by a significant State 

interest and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

Section 25960 and 25964 of the 

California Public Resources Code, Title 

20, California Administrative Code, 

Section 1605 and Title 24, California 

Administrative Code, Sections 2-5352(1) 

and 2-5365 from the preemptive 

provisions of Section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

4. Minnesota {MNOO4}. The Petition 

submitted by the Minnesota Department 

of Energy seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption Minnesota Statue 

Section 116J.19, Subd. 14, as it pertains 

to gas clothes dryers and gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens. Minnesota's law 

after 1983 having pilots. The assumptions include 

those mentioned in footnote 9. supra. along with a prediction of future gas prices based on escalation 

schedule which outraces a 4 percent discount rate 

resuhing in a 2002 gas price of $1.09 per therm in 

1983 dollars. Also. the post 1983 kitchen ranges and 

ovens in the California stock for each year is 

predicte.d by a CEC applicance stock model. Other 

assumptions such as a 10 percent discount rate. 

rigorous retirement of kitchen ranges and ovens of 

an 18 year life. the existence of IlDs in California 

regardless of Federal preemption. and beneficial 

heating would all result in a reduction of this 

estimate. California realizes the arguable nature of 

its BSsumptions and offers a defense of most of 

them in its discussion. Notwithstanding California 

believes the savings would still be significant. 

prohibits the sale or installation of gas 

clothes dryers and gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens that are equipped with a 

continuously burning gas pilot light. 

In its Petition, Minnesota asst!rts that 

its law results'in significant savings of 

both energy and money for the citizens 

of Minnesota and does not create an 

undue burden'on interstate commerce. 

Specifically, Minnesota argues that its 

appliance standard ensures that 96,743 11 

MCF of gas are saved each year due to 

the ban on gas pilot lights. Thus, at a 

current cost of $5.67/MCF, Minnesota 

asserts that $548,533 is saved each year 

due to the standard. By 1995, Minnesota 

asserts that 1,660,000 12 pilot lights will 

have been banned, saving enough 

natural gas to heat 20,750 homes. 

According to the Petition, an lID also is 

cost effective, saving approximately 

$117 13 over an average 18-year life of 

the appliance. Subtracttng the $45 cost 

of an lID, results in a net cost savings of 

$72 per consumer. 

Moreover, Minnesota points out that 

its law contributes to indoor air quality 

in homes. In addition, the State asserts 

that no complaints have ever been 

submitted to it concerning any negative 

impacts on interstate commerce produced by its law. 

DOE has reviewed Minnesota's 

Petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and Section 430.47 of the regulation. 

Based on its analysis, DOE has 

determined that Minnesota has 

presented prima facie evidence to 

demonstrate that Minnesota Stat. 

Section 116J.19, Subd. 14 is more stringent than DOE's rule for gas clothes 

dryers and gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens, is justified by a significant State 

interest and does not appear to impose 

an undue burden on interstate 

CDmmerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes 

II The underlying assumptions for this figure are: 

the wasted energy consumption of a pilot light is 1.5 

milion Btu per year (after accounting for the 

contribution of the pilot to useful space heating): 

average annual shipments of gas ranges and ovens 

and gas clothes dryers to Minnesota since 1975 

were 15.575 units per year and 17.770 units per year. 

respectively; the average gas fange contains three 

pilot lights. and the gas clothes dryers contains one 

pilot light. 

I2The assumption is that by 1995. 470.000 888 

ranges and ovens and 250.000 gas clothes dryers in 

service in Minnesota prior to 1977 (when 

Minnesota's ban on pilot lights went into effect) will 

have been replaced with liD-equipped units. 

(Minnesota uses DOE's estimated useful lifetime of 

18 years for those products,) 

"It is assumed that an lID saves 1.5 MCF of gas 

per year. At a natural gas price of $5.67 per MCF. 

this amounts to a yearly savings of $8.50. The real 

cost of capital above energy price inflation is 

assumed to be three percent. Then the present value 

of energy cost savings over the average product life 

span of 18 years is $117. 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

34862 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 148 I Monday. August 1. 1983 I Proposed Rules ...... ~~0ll"7'ZCC"R? ............ ....-.. V:-~a:a:&ial'Wl'ft .. tC) .... :JtJiVIWl ~. 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting Minnesota Stat. Section 

116J.19. Subd. 14 from the preemptive 

provision of Section 327(a)(2} of the Act. 

5. Oregon. (GR{}()S). The Petition 

submitted by the Oregon Department of 

Energy.seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal-preemption Section 1 of the 

Oregon Revised Statutes (DRS) 479.770 

as it pertains to gas clothes dryers and 

gas kitchen ranges and ovens. The 

Oregon law prohibits the sale of gas 

clothes dryers and gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens unles they are equipped wHh 

lIDs. 

In its Petition. Oregon asserts that its 

law results in significant savings of both 

energy and money for the citizens of 

Oregon. Oregon points out that the 

average citizen can save about 15.3 

therms of gas per year. I. or about $9.60 

per year for clothes dryers equipped 

with lIDs. Gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

equipped with an lID save about 23.3 

therms per year 15 or a bout $14.70 per 

year. Oregon notes that savings since 

the law became effective in January 

1979. are over 150.000 therms. 16 Oregon 

projects savings in the year 2002 of 

nearly one million therms per year. I' 

Oregon further alleges that its law 

contributes to improving indoor air 

quality in homes by reducing the 

combustion products emitted by pilot 

lights. Moreover. the State notes that 

although all of Oregon's market is 

supplied by out-of-state manufacturers. 

the State has not received any 

manufacturer complaints to date. Thus. 

retaining the law creates no undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

DOE had reviewed Oregon's Petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

Section 327(b)(3} of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulations. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Oregon has 

presented prima facie evidence showing 

that Section 1 DRS 479.770 is more 

stringent than DOE's rule for gas clothes 

dryers and gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens. 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 

§ 430.33 exempting Section 1 DRS 

"Thi. is based on one 175 Btufhr pilot light 

running aU year. 

.. This is based on three 175 Blu/hr pilot DgMs 

running all year adjusted for beneficial heating. 

"This'is based on Oregon's estimate of the stock 

of kitchen ranges and ovens and clothes dryers and 

the assumption that absent the Oregon law. 33 

percent of the Btock of kitchen ranges and ovens 

and clothes dryers would have pilots. 

n This based on the assumption mentioned above 

in footnotes 14. 15. 16 and the Oregon estimate of 

kitchen fanges and ovens and clothes dryer stock In 

2OOZ- -

479.770 from the preemptive provisions 

of Section 327(a}(2) of the,Act. 

III. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. 

and Small Entity Impact Review. 

a. EnvironmenttiUleview 

In each case where DOE is requested 

to approve State standards, DOE 

conducts a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPAJ review on a case-bycase basis. Currently, the five States 

have regulations requiring lIDs on gas , 

clothes dryers and! or gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens. Granting the petitions 

received from these States will mean 

that these regulations will remain in 

effect. The Department's proposed rule 

to grant these petitions will result in no 

change in the environmental status quo 

of the five States. and therefore, will 

clearly have no significant 

environmental impact. No " 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact .statement is 

required. 

It should also be noted that the 

Department has prepared and issued an 

Environmental Assesssment (EA) (DOEI 

EA-0113) on the imppact of setting and 

implementing energy efficiency 

standards for all 13 types of consumer 

products identified in Section 322(a)(I)-

(13) of the Act. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact 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 the EA may be obtained from 

the address indicated at the beginning of 

this notice. .. 

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. State. or local 

govern:ment 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. Sinall Entity Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing. the 

Department has determined and hereby 

certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act that the 

proposals. if promulgated. will not have 

a "significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities." 

The impacts on small businesses which 

are appliance manufacturers were 

assessed very closely together with 

other relevant factors. 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. utilities, retailers, 

distributors, manufacturers, and others 

are urged to submit written statements 

on the proposals. The Department also 

encourages interested persons to 

participate in the public hearings to be 

held in New York. New York; Madison. 

Wisconsin; Minneapolis. Minnesota; 

Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, 

California; and Washington. D.C.. at the 

times and places indicated at the 

beginning of this notice. 

Copies of each State's notice of intent 

and petition may be found in the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room. 

Interested persons may obtain copies of 

any of these documents by writing to the 

address specified at the beginning of 

this notice. 

The DOE has established a comment 

period of 75 days follOwing publication 

of this notice. for persons to comment 

upon these proposals. All comments and 

transcripts of all hearings will be 

available for review in the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room. 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

Interested persons are invited to 

participa~e in this proceeding 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. It is requested that. wherever 

reasonably possible. corriments for each 

petition be addressed separately. 

Comments should be labeled both on 

the envelope and on the documents 

"Appliances (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM 

[appropriate State coders)]) and must be 

received by the date specified at the 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

.. 

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 148 I Monday, August 1, 1983 I Proposed Rules 34863 

beginning of this notice in order to 

insure full consideration. Ten (10) copies 

are requested to be submitted. All 

comments received by the date specified 

at the beginning of this notice and other 

relevant information will be considered 

by DOE before final action is taken on 

the p~oposed rules. 

All written comments received on the 

proposed rules will be available for 

public inspection at the Freedom of 

Information Reading Room. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 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 

complete copy of the document, and if 

possible, 10 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 of 

data and treat it according to its 

determination. 

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 

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 

personal 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 Hearings 

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 six 

public hearings. Listed at the beginning 

of this-notice are the dates. addresses, 

and DOE contacts for these hearings. 

Any person who has an interest in these 

proceedings. or who is a representative 

of a group or class of persons having an 

interest. may make 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 Preemption 

of State Efficiency Standards (Docket 

No. CE-CP-SPRM [appro.priate 

States(s)])" and should be sent to the 

proper address and must be received by 

77"«PF!Z;Z 

the time specified at the beginning of 

this notice. 

The person making the request should 

briefly describe the intetest concerned 

and, if appropriate. state why he or she 

is a proper representative of the group 

or class of persons that has such an 

interest. and give a telephone number 

where he or she may be contacted. Each 

person requesting an opportunity to 

speak shou)d give a concise summary of 

tpe proposed oral presentation. Each 

person selected to be beard will be so 

notified by DOE by the date specified at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Each person selected to be heard is 

requested to submit 10 copies of the 

statement by tbe date given at the 

beginning of this notice. In the event any 

persons wishing to testify cannot meet 

this requirement, alternative 

arrangements can be made in advance 

with the Office of Hearings and Dockets 

by so indicating in the letter requesting 

to make an oral presentation. 

2. Conduct of Hearing. DOE reserves 

the right to select the persons to be . 

heard at this hearing. to schedule the 

respective presentations, and to 

e5ta blish the procedures governing the 

conduct of the hearing. The length of 

each presentation is limited to 20 

minutes. 

A DOE official will be designated to 

preside at the hearing. The hearing will 

not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type 

hearing, but will be conducted in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and 

Section 336(a)(l) of the Act. Each day, 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 

statement, subject to time limitations. 

The rebuttal statements will be given in 

the order in which the initial statements 

were made. The official,conducting the 

hearing will accept additional comments 

or questions from those attending, as 

time permits. Any interested person may 

submit to the presiding official written 

.questions to be asked of any person 

making a statement at the hearing. The 

presiding official will determine whether 

the question is relevant and whether 

time limitations permit it to be presented 

for answer. 

Any further procedural rules regarding 

proper conduct of the hearing will be 

announced by the presiding official. 

A transcript of each hearing will be 

made. and the entire record of this 

rule making. including the transcripts, 

will be retained by DOE and made 

available for inspection at the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

as provided at the beginning of this 

notice. Any person may purchase a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

a· Consolidation of Hearings. DOE 

may consolidate any or all of the public 

hearings if DQE does not receive 

sufficient interest concerning a 

particular hearing. In that event, DOE 

will contact e~ch speaker and provide 

that person the opportunity to present 

testiIl!Dny at another State hearing or at 

the hearing to be held in Washington. 

D.C. 

In consideration of the foregoing. it is 

proposed to amend Part 430 of Chapter 

II of Title 10, Code of Federal . Regulations, as set forth below. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation. 

Household appliances. . 

Issued in Washington. D.C. July 22. 1983. 

Joseph J. Tribble, 

Assistant Secretary. Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 43D-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. Section 430~33 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.33 Preemption of State regulations. 

. Any State regulation providing for any 

energy efficiency standard or other 

requirement with respect to the energy 

efficiencies or energy use of a covered 

product that is not identical to a Federal 

standard (including a determination of 

no standard) in effect under this subpart 

is preempted by that standard, except 

that with respect to: 

(a) Clothes dryers: 

(1) All gas clothes dryers in Wisconsin 

subject to Wisconsin Statute 101.655 

(1981) are exempt from preemption; • 

(2) All gas clothes dryers in Minnesota 

subject to Minnesota Stalute Section 

116J.19. Subd. 14, are exempt from 

preemption; and 

(3) All gas clothes dryers in Oregon 

subject to Section 1 of the Oregon 

Revised Statutes 479.770 are exempt 

from preemption. 

(b) Kitchen ranges and ovens: 

(1) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in New York subject to the New York 

State Energy Law. Section 16-116, are 

exempt from preemption; 

(2) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in Wisconsin subject to Wisconsin 

Statute 101.655 (1981) are exempt from 

preemption; 

(3) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in California subject to Sections 25964 ot 

the California Public Resources Code, 

Titie 20, California Administrative Code, 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0A

34864 Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 148 I Monday, August 1. 1983 I Proposed Rules r~ .~ ~ ..... .a 

Sections 2-5352(1) and 2-5365, are 

exempt from preemption; 

(4) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in Minnesota subject to Minnesota 

Statute Section 116}.19, Subd. 14. are 

exempt from preemption: and 

(5) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in Oregon -subject to Section 1 of the 

Oregon Revised Statutes 479.770 are 

exempt from preemption. 

IFR Doc. 83-20552 Filed 7-29-83: 8:45 ami 

BILLING COOE: 6450~H" 

I 

I 

-