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

### 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 ofthis noticE; ofproposed 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 ofConservation ahd Renewable Energy. DOE.

ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemakings and public hearings.

.

SUMMAnv:The Energy Policy and Conservation Act. a$ amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. as a general matterrequires that persons an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules and to invite ' interested personsto 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 ofEnergy prescribe an energy efficiency standard for each of certain majorhousehold appliances unless it determines. by rule. that a standard will not result in significant conservation ofenergy, is not technologically feasible. or is not economicallyjustified. 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 than4 p.m.• September 7. 1983; speakers willbe notified by4p.m.• September 8. 1983. Ten copies ofthe statement ofeach speaker for these two hearings mustbe received by the Department no later than 4p.m.• September9. 1983. Requests
to speak at the hearings being held September 20 and 23 must be received by the Departmentno later than4p.m., September 14. 1983; speakers will be

, notified by 4p.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 ofthese products would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy and would not be economicallyjustified. In addition. the Final Rule set forth the procedures by which States may obtain exemption for state orlocal efficiency standards that are statutorily preempted

as a result ofa 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 ofCalifornia. 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/orkitchenranges and ovens be exempted from Federal preemption. '

The Department ofEnergy is today proposing to grant each State's petition. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend Title 10. Part 430 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations to include a determination ofexemption from Federal preemption for each State's applicable standard Ten copies ofthe statement ofeach speaker for these two**hearing~** mustbe received by the Department no later than 4p.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 4p.m.• September20. 1983; speakers will be notified by4 p.m.• September 21. 1983. Ten copies ofthe
statement ofeach speakerfor these 

### two hearings must be received by the

. Department no laterthan4p.m

.. September23. 1983.

The length ofeachpresentationis limited to 20 minutes.

ADDRESSES: Written comments. statements and requests to speak at the bearings are to be submitted to: U.S. Department ofEnergy. Office 

### of Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings 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. InternalRevenue Service. 

### San Francisco. California. on September20. 1983. at 9:00 a.m.; at the Edith Green· Wendell WyattFederal Building, Room 229.1220 SouthwestThird Avenue. Portland. Oregon

..on September22. 1983.
at9:00 a.m.; atJacob 

### K. lavitsFederal Building. 26 Federal Plaza. Room 305e. New York. New Xork. on September26. 1983. at 9:00 a.m.; and at the U.S. Department ofEnergy. Forrestal Building. Room lE-245. 1000 Independence Avenue SW•• Washington. D.C.• on September30. 1983. at 9 a.m.

Copies ofthe State petitions and transcripts ofpublichearings. and public comments received maybe obtainedfrom the DOEFreedom

### of Information Reading Room: U.S. Department ofEnergy. 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 ofConservation 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 ofEnergy. Mail Station GC-33. Room 6B-144. ForrestalBuilding. 1000 Independence Avenue SWo, Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252- 9507,

or Eugene Margolis. Esq

.. U.S. Department

ofEnergy. Office ofGeneral Counsel. Mail Station GC-33. Room 68-128.

. ForrestalBuilding. 1000 Independence Avenue SW.• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-9513. U.S. Department ofEnergy.

Conservation and RenewableEnergy. Office ofHearings and Dockets. Room 6B-025. Forrestal Building.1000 IndependenceAvenue. SW•• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252- 9319. SUMMARY:

. l Introduction

8.AuthOrity

, b. Background 

## n. Discussion

a. General

. b. Summary ofState 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. Participation inRulemakill8 

# j 

# IFederal 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

PartBofTitle 

### III ofthe 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 Conservalion Program for Consumer Products OtherThan 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 otherconsumerproduct classified by the Secretary ofEnergy. ifthe product uses a specified minimum
amount ofenergy. 

### See Section 322. The Secretaryhas not so classified any additional products.

Under the Act. the program consists essentially ofthree parts; testing. labeling. and energy efficiency standards.

Foreach ofthe 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 economicallyjustified. Section 325 (a)(1) and (c). The Act provides. however. that no standard for"

Il product is to be established ifthere is

no test 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 economicallyjustified. Section 325(b).

Section 327 ofthe Act addresses the effect ofFederal rules concerning testing. labeling. and standards on State laws orregulations 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 ofenergy 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

IPart BofTitle III ofEPCA. 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 maypetition 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 ifthe State standard would unduly burden interstate

commerce. Section 327(b)(3).


### b. Bacxgroun..d

OnDecember 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 ofenergy and would nolbe economicallyjustified. The December 1962 rule also established procedures governing petitions to DOE both by states to obtain exemption from· preemption ofState or local energy efficiency standards as well asby manufas;turers to obtain exemption from State orlocal energy efficiency standards.



## n. Discussion



### a. General

Section 327(a)(2) ofEPCA. 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 orlocal standard. Section 327(b)(3). however, provides that a State maypetition for and DOE mayissue a rule exempting a Stateor local standard from supersession. "

State standards subject to preemption include: energy efficiency requirements applicable to anyparticular type (or class) ofcovered 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 ofHeating. 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 ofappliances with less than a certain efficiency.

In the December 1982 rule. DOE established the effective dates upon which supersession ofState 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 afterFederal Register publication ofa final rule

. governing that particularproduct unless within 60 days ofpublicalion, a State had filed with the Department a notice ofintent to petition DOE for

### an exemption for that product. The 

### full petition itselfhad to be filed within 120 days ofpublication ofthe 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 interestin issuance ofthe 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 wouldplace an undue burden on interstate commerce. Such a person may also present information to rebut the State's initial submission. Information presentedby both the State and opposingpersons would be open for cornmentand rebuttal.

.

In reviewing the petitions. the DOE will evaluate and analyze all factual and legal material presented by the petitioners and all otherinterested or opposing parties. Itis DOE's intention in applying Section 327 to determine whether a State standardunduly burdens interstate commerceby balancing the significant State interest in having a standardwith the burden. 

### if
any, oninterstate commerce createdby the standard.

Because Section 327(b)(3) requires DOE to considereach State petition individuallybefore DOE can issue a rule exempting the State orlocal standard from preemption. DOE cannotissue a rule that makes a blanket determination for all five States.

The Departmentmust. ofcourse. treat such petitions asrequests 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

### 34860 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 48. 

### No. 148 

## I Monday. August 1. 1983 

## I Proposed Rules

ofthe proposed rule will be a major Federal action having a significant impact on the quality ofthe environment. The DOE must also consider the impact ofthe 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 ifDOE determines that the proposed rule is a major rule. as that term is defined in the Order.

Five states. New York. California. Wisconsin. Minnesota. and Oregon, eachhas submitted a notice ofintent 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/orkitchen ranges and ovens.

Each ofthe five States has met the filing requirements set forth in December 1982 rule. Each notice of intenltopetition 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 ofthe five States to maintain applicable appliance energy efficiency standards for clothes dryer.s and/orkitchen ranges and ovens. 

### b. Summaryof StatePetitions
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 ofNew York'slaw prohibits the sale, delivery or installation ofany 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 ofNew 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 ofthe appliance. Accor<!ing to the Petition, in terms ofStatewiae fuel savings, gas kitchen ranges and ovens with lIDs save 92 million-186 million· therms peryear. Atthe January 1. 1983 State average retaifprice of$0.758/ 

### therm for a consumer using 150 therms permonth. the associated Statewide
cost savings are $69.7 million--$141 million peryear. New York points out that at least 36 percent· ofthese annual savings is directly attributable to Section 16-116. giving the lID 

### requirement a value to the State's economy ofbetween $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 ofthe law will place no newburden on the industry.

DOE has reviewed New York's Petition in accordance 

### with the requirements ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its analysis. DOE has determined

t Simple life cycle cost savings were computed using the following assumptions: cost oflID $60.00;
cost ofinstalling an electrical outlet for the lID· equipped range, $75.00; consumerfinancing ofthe added cost ofthe 110 and installation ofelectrical outlet for 8 five year tenn at an interest rate of 18 percent peryear; 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.pageD7-9); 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 ofa range of 18 years (See DOE Engineering Analysis Document. March 1982. page 42).These assumptions

were made to arrive at slowerbound oflife cycle
cost savings for residents ofthe State ofNew York

..

• Simple life cycle cost savings were computed using the follOWing assumptions; cost ofliD S20.00; electrical service already available at range; no financing.ofadditional cost ofllD; naturalg88 rate 

### pr $1.416 per thenn; pilot light energy consumption
rate of 175 Btu perhour [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 

### ·thatNew York has provided prima facie evidence shOWIng that Section 16-116is

more stringen.t than DOE's rule for gas kitchen ranges an.d ovens, is justifiedby

a significant State interest and does not appear to impose anundue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue'a rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting Section 16-116 ofthe New York Energy Law from the preemptive provisions ofSection 327(a)[2)(A) ofthe Act.

2. Wisconsin {WlOO2j. 

### The Petition submitted by the Wisconsin Department ofAdministration seeks a rule exempting from Federalpreemption 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 ofa newgas appliance that is not equipped with a State certified lID.

In

### its Petition. Wisconsin states that its law for bothproducts saves substantial amounts ofnatural gas. produces life cycle cost savings and does not create an undue burdenon interstate commerce. Wisconsin states that it bans approximately 100.000pilot lights peryear•underthe law. According to the State. the Wisconsin law saves approximately 150billion Btu's ofenergy peryear.' Although the lID on the appliance raises the first cost by approximately $70 for a stove,- Wisconsin states that at the current Wisconsin rate of65¢/therm, the costis

. paid backwithin three yearS. The State also asserts that up to $15 million in fuel bills would be savedifall of Wisconsin's 700,000 gas kitchenranges and ovens were equipped with lIDs. The State offers no estimate ofsavingsfor clothes dryers.

Analysis Document. March 1982. page 42). These assumptions were made to arrive at an upper bound

, oflife cycle cost savings for residents ofthe Slate of New York. 

### Wisconsin states that since July 1. 1980. the effective date ofthe Wisconsin law. no manufacturerhas askedfor exemption from this rule based on loss ofsales or inability to ship products

across State lines. Accordingly. Wisconsin asserts that its rule hasnot burdened interstate commerce in

### the past and thus no burdenis anticipated 

### if the ban onpilot lights for gas clothes

•The Petition references data collected from the Association ofHome Appliance ManufactureNl and the 1900Census. and the assumption that gas ranges have three pilot lighu andgas clothes dryers have

one pilotlight. •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 perfootnote 2. while for the higher figure. pilol lights do not contribute to useful
apace hearing.

•This figure resulted from an analysis ofnational gao range and oven sales included in the petition that showed that in Slates that do not ban pilots. 64 percent ofsale. were units equipped with lID•. The remaining sales. 36 percent. were uniu equipped with pilot.lighta. •An lID i& estimated to save 15therm& ofnatural 888 peryear.

•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 ofpilotlightawith lIDs is estimated 10 increase the price pf 8 standard gas ovenby $33.00 snd a gaa cooking lop by $35.10.)

### 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 ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and Section 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on this analysis, DOE has determined thatWisconsin 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 Stateinterest 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) ofthe Act.

3. California {CAOO3}. 

### The Petition submitted by the California Energy Commission (CEq seeks a rule exempting from Federalpreemption Sections 25960 and 25964 ofCalifornia'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 ofgas 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 ofthe 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 ofmore 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 ofa 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 ofthe first year energy saved by all California installed kitchen
ranges and ovens in 1983 having lIDs versus all California installed kitchen ranges 8ndovens in 1983 ha"ing pilots. Assumptions include 8 net energy savings of35.5 therms peryear per unit and

_ an average 11'83 gas cost**~f$.46** per thermo No discounting ofsavings due to beneficial heating and allowed exceptions to the California lID regulation

are included.

IOThis is an estimate01 the value ofthe 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 Stateknows ofno manufacturer that has moved out of California orgone out ofbusiness as a result ofthe laws; and that there
appears to be no greater decline in the sales ofgas 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 ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and Section430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on this analysis, DOE has determined that California hasprovided prima facie evidence showing that Sections 25960 and 25964 ofthe California Public Resources Code, Title 20, California Administrative Code, Section 1605 andTitle 24, California Administrative Code, Sections 2-5352(1) and 2-5365 are more stringent than DOE's rule for gas kitchen ranges and
ovens, arejustifiedby 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 ofthe 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 ofSection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

4. Minnesota {MNOO4}. 

### The Petition submitted by the Minnesota Department ofEnergy 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 assumptionsinclude those mentioned in footnote 9. supra. along with a prediction offuture gas prices based on escalation schedule which outraces a 4percent 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 ofkitchen ranges and ovens of

an 18year life. the existence ofIlDs in California regardless ofFederal preemption. and beneficial heating would all result in a reduction ofthis estimate. California realizes the arguable nature of its BSsumptions and offers a defense ofmost of them in its discussion. Notwithstanding California believes the savings would still be significant. 

### prohibits the sale or installation ofgas clothes dryers and gas kitchenranges and ovens that are equippedwith a continuouslyburning gas pilot light.

In its Petition, Minnesota asst!rts that its law results'in significant savings of both energy and money for the citizens ofMinnesota and does not create an undue burden'on interstate commerce. Specifically,Minnesota argues thatits appliance standard ensures that 96,743 11 

### MCF ofgas are saved eachyear due to the ban on gas pilot lights. Thus, at a current cost of$5.67/MCF, Minnesota
asserts that $548,533 is saved eachyear due to the standard. By 1995,Minnesota
asserts that 1,660,000 12

### pilotlights will have been banned, saving enough natural gas to heat 20,750 homes. According to the Petition, anlID also is
cost effective, saving approximately $117 13

### over an average 18-yearlife of the appliance. Subtracttng the $45 cost ofan 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 everbeen 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 ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and Section 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis, DOEhas determined that Minnesota has presented prima facie evidenceto 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 appearto impose

anundue burden on interstate CDmmerce. Accordingly, DOEproposes

IIThe underlying assumptions for this figure are: the wasted energy consumption of a pilot light is 1.5 milion Btu peryear (after accounting for the contribution ofthe pilot to useful spaceheating):
average annual shipments ofgas ranges and ovens and gas clothes dryers to Minnesota since 1975

were 15.575 units per year and 17.770 units peryear. 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,)

"Itis assumed that an lID saves 1.5 MCF ofgas per year. At a natural gas price of$5.67 per MCF. this amounts to a yearly savings of$8.50. The real
cost ofcapital above energy price inflation is assumed to be three percent. Then the presentvalue ofenergy cost savings over the average product life
span of18 years is $117.

### 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 ofSection 327(a)(2} ofthe Act.



### 5. Oregon. (GR{}()S). The Petition submitted bythe Oregon Department of Energy.seeks a rule exempting from Federal-preemption Section 1 ofthe Oregon Revised Statutes (DRS) 479.770

as it pertains to gas clothes dryers and
gas kitchen ranges and ovens. The Oregon lawprohibits the sale ofgas 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 ofboth energy and money for the citizens of Oregon. Oregon points out that the
average citizen can save about 15.3 therms ofgas peryear. I.or about $9.60
peryearfor clothes dryers equipped with lIDs. Gas kitchen ranges and ovens equipped with an lID save about 23.3 therms per year 15or about $14.70 per year. Oregon notes that savings since the law became effective in January 1979. are over 150.000 therms. 16Oregon projects savings in the year 2002 of nearly 

### one million therms peryear. 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 ofOregon'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 hadreviewed Oregon's Petition in accordance with the requirements of Section 327(b)(3} ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe 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 ofthe stock ofkitchen ranges and ovens and clothes dryers and the assumption that absent the Oregon law. 33 percent ofthe Btock ofkitchen 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 ofSection 327(a}(2) ofthe,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 NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPAJ review on a case-bycasebasis. Currently, 

### the five States have regulations requiring lIDs on gas , clothes dryers and!orgas 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 ofthe five States. and therefore, 

### will clearlyhave no significant environmental impact. No " environmental assessment or environmental impact .statement is required.

It should also benoted that the Department has prepared and issued an Environmental Assesssment (EA) (DOEI EA-0113) on the imppact ofsetting and implementing energy efficiency standards for all 13 types ofconsumer products identified in Section 322(a)(I)- (13) oftheAct. A Finding ofNo Significant Impact and Notice of Availability ofthat EA were published with the June 30. 1980. proposed rule for minimum energy efficiency standards for eight ofthe products (45 FR 44088). Copies ofthe EA may be obtained from the addressindicated at the beginning of this notice.

.. 

### b. RegulatoryImpactReview

In light ofthe foregoing analysis ofthe effect ofthe proposed actions, DOE has

. concluded that the rules are not "major

rules" for purposes ofExecutive Order 12291 because they will not result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more; (2) a majorincrease in
costs or prices for consumers. individual industries.Federal. State. orlocal govern:ment agencies. or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects

on competition. employment. investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability ofUnited States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export markets, Therefore. in accordance with section 3(c)(3} ofthe 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. 

### SinallEntityImpactReview

In light ofthe foregoing. the Departmenthas determined and hereby certifies pursuant to section 605(b) ofthe Regulatory FlexibilityAct thatthe proposals. ifpromulgated. 

### will not have

a "significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities." The impacts on small businesses which

are appliance manufacturers were assessed very closely togetherwith other relevant factors. Forpurposes of assessing these impacts, the term "small business" was defined in consultation with the Small Business Administration.

IV. Public Comment Procedures



### a. Participation inRulemakings..

DOE encourages the maximumlevel ofpublic participation in these rulemakings.

Individual consumers, representatives ofconsumergroups. manufacturers' associations. States or other governmental entities. utilities, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and others

are urged to submitwritten statements

on the proposals.The Department also encourages interestedpersonsto participate in the public hearings to

### be held in NewYork. New York; Madison. Wisconsin; Minneapolis. Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; SanFrancisco, California; and Washington. D.C.. at the times and places indicated atthe beginning ofthis notice.

Copies ofeach State's notice ofintent andpetition maybe found in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room. Interested persons may obtain copies of any ofthese documents by writing to the address specified at the beginning of this notice.

The DOE has established a comment period of75 days follOwing publication ofthis notice. for persons to comment upon these proposals. All comments and transcripts of all hearings willbe available for review in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room.



### b. Written CommentProcedures

Interested persons are invitedto**participa~e** in this proceedingby 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 ofthis notice and below. Itis requested that. wherever reasonably possible. corriments for each petition be addressed separately.

Comments should be labeledboth on the envelope and on the documents "Appliances (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM [appropriate State coders)]) and mustbe received by the date specified at the

# ..

Federal 

### Register 

## I Vol. 48, No. 148 

## I Monday, August 1, 1983 

## I Proposed Rules 34863

beginning ofthis 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 ofthis notice and other relevant information will be considered by DOE before final action is taken on the**p~oposed** rules.

Allwritten comments received on the proposed rules will be available for public inspection at the Freedom of Information Reading Room.

Pursuantto the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting

. information or data which is believed to be confidential and exempt by lawfrom public disclosure, should submit one complete copy ofthe 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 ofthe information of data and treat it according to its determination.

Factors ofinterest to DOE, when evaluating requests for confidentiality include: (1) A description ofthe item; (2)

an indication as to whether and why such items ofinformation 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 ofthe 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 oftime; and (7) whether disclosure ofthe information would be in the public interest.



### c. PublicHearings

1. Procedurefor SubmittingRequests
to Speak. In order to have the benefit of

a broad range ofpublic viewpoints in these rulemakings, DOE will hold six public hearings. Listed at the beginning ofthis-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 ofa group or class ofpersons 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 ofState 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, ifappropriate. state why he or she is a proper representative ofthe group

or class ofpersons that has such an interest. and give a telephone number where he or she maybe 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 ofthis notice.

Each person selected to be heard is requested to submit 10 copies ofthe
statement by tbe date given at the beginning ofthis notice. In the event any persons wishing to testify cannot meet this requirement, alternative arrangements canbe made in advance with the Office ofHearings and Dockets by so indicating in the letterrequesting
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 e5tablish the procedures governing the conduct ofthe hearing. The length of eachpresentation 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) ofthe Act. Each day, at the conclusion ofall initial oral

. statements. each person who has made

an oral statement willbe 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 interestedperson may submit to the presiding official written .questions to be asked ofany 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 ofthe hearing will be announced by the presiding official.

A transcript ofeach hearing will be made. and the entire record ofthis rulemaking. including the transcripts, will be retained by DOE and made available for inspection at the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room

as provided at the beginning ofthis notice. Any person may purchase a copy ofthe transcript from the transcribing reporter.



# a· Consolidation of Hearings. DOE
may consolidate any or all ofthe public hearings ifDQE 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 Statehearing or at the hearing to be held in Washington. D.C.

In consideration ofthe foregoing. itis proposed to amend Part430 ofChapter II ofTitle 10, Code ofFederal

.Regulations, as set forth below.

List ofSubjects 

### in 10 CFR 

### Part430

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation. Household appliances.

.

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

### J. Tribble, AssistantSecretary. Conservationand RenewableEnergy.

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 ofa 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 exemptfrom preemption; and

(3) All gas clothes dryers in Oregon subject to Section 1 ofthe 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,

### 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 ofthe Oregon Revised Statutes 479.770 are exempt from preemption.

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

BILLING COOE:**6450~H"** I I 

# -