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

... . -, -..... ~. ~---..:.'-.'-'-

Tuesday . 

March 27, 1984 

Part IV 

Department of 

Energy 

Office of Conservation and Renewable 

Energy. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation P'rogram for 

Consumer Products; Final Rules 

Regarding State Petitions for Exemption 

From Federal Standards for Clothes 

Dryers and Kltct}en Ranges and Ovens 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

, 11764 Federal Register-! Vol. 49. No. 60 I Tuesday. March 27.1984 I Rules and Regulatio~ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of 'Conservatlon and .' . 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Nos. CE-sPRM NYOO1. WIOO2, 

CAOO3, MNOO4. OROOS] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Final Rules 

Regarding State Petitions for 

Exemption From Federal Standards for 

Clothes Dryers and Kitchen Ranges 

andOvena 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

AcnON: Final rules. 

auMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. as amended by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act. as a general matter requires that 

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 

t{'!chnologically reasible.m ;, not 

economically justified. 

On December 22.1982. DOE issued a 

final rule with respect to clothes dryers . 

and kitchen ranges and ovens in which 

·DOE determined that an energy 

fficiency standard for either of these . 

Jroducts 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 m<lY obtain 

exemption for State or local efficiency . 

standards 1hat are statutorily preempted 

as a result of a final rule with respect to 

energy efficiency standards. 

DOE 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 ignition devices {IIbIi) for 

clothes dryers and/or kitchen ranges 

and oveIlll ·be exempted from Federal 

preemption. 

On August I, 1983. the Department of 

Energy published proposed rules to 

grant each State's petition. Today's fmal 

rules reflect DOE's final determination 

with respect to each of the five petitions. 

DOE is adopting final rules granting 

each State's petition seeking exemption 

from Federal preemption for each State's 

applicable standard requiring lIDs for 

clothes dryers and/or for kitchen ranges 

and ovens. 

"'IATES: The effective date of these rules' 

\prj) 26. 1984. 

FOR FU8THER JHFORMAnON COIITACT: 

Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Departmeut of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE113.1. Room GF-217. Forrestal . , 

Building. 1000 Independence Avenue.' 

S.W .. Washington. D.C. 20585, {2(2) .' 

252-9127 :." 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. ~t of Energy. Office of General Counae1. 

Mail Station GC-33. Room 88-128, 

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

Avenue. S.W .. Washington, nc. 

20585.(202)252-9513 

.UPPLE~ENTARYINFORMATKHC 

I. Introduction 

o. Authority 

Part B of Title m of the ~ Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA). Pub. L . 

94-163. as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act . 

(NECPA). PUb. L 95-619.' created the 

Energy Conservation Program for . 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The consumer products 

subject 10 this program (referred to 

hereafter as "covered products") are: 

Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezera; 

freezers; -d",wasbers; clothes dryers; 

waier heaters; room air conditioDers; 

home beating equipment. not including 

furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges 

and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers 

and dehumidifiers; central air 

conditioners; and furnaces. as weU aa 

IIny other consumer product cl8llsified 

by the Secretary of Energy. if the 

product UeB Ii specified minimum 

~mount of energy. See Section 322. The 

Secretary has DOt so classified any 

~dditional products. 

Under the Act. the program consists 

essentiaHy 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 

anergy efficiency that is technologicall)' 

feasible and economically justi6ed. 

-Section 525(a) (1) and (c). The Act . 

provides. however. that no standard for 

a product is to be established, if there is 

no test procedure for the product. or if 

DOE determines by rule either that a 

standard would not result in significsDt 

conservation of energy or that a . 

standard is not technologically feasible' 

or economically justi.fied. Section 325(b). 

Section 327 of the Act addresees the 

effect of Federal rules concernias . 

testing. labeling. and standards 8D State 

• Part B of Title DJ ¢ EPCA. e. amended'by , '. 

NECPA.42 u.s.C. II 6291-6309. II refemid aciD .this' 

notice al the "Acl." 

Gr local laws or regulations concerning 

auch matters. Generally. allsucb State 

or local laws or regulations (State laws) 

8fIe superseded by the Federal rule. 

Section 327(a). A rule by DOE that an 

efficiency standard is not ' . 

Rchnologically feasible. economically , 

justified. or likely to save significant 

amounts of energy would be a rule that 

wpenedes any State standard. Section 

125(b). A State whose energy efficiency 

atandard would be superseded. 

lIowever. may petition the Department 

lor a rule that it not be superseded. on 

the basis that there is a significant State 

or local interest to justify the standard 

and the State standard is more stringent. 

However. DOE cannot issue the 

requested rule if it finds that the State 

.mndard would unduly burden 

._interstate commerce. Section 327{b)(3). 

Because Section 327(b)(3) requires . 

POE to consider each State petition 

individually before DOE can issue a rule 

exempting the State or local standard 

from preemption. DOE could not issue a 

ru1e that makes a blanket determination 

for all the five States that petitioned. 

b. Background 

-Dn December 22. 1982. DOE published 

• fmal rule \\ith respect to two covered 

products. clothes dryers and kitchen 

ranges and ovens. (47 FR 57198.) 

(Hereafter referred to as the December 

1982 rule.) With respect to both 

producta. DOE determined that a standard would not result in liigruficant 

conservation of energy and would not 

be economically justified. The December 

1962 rule also established procedures 

soveming petitions to DOE both by 

States to obtain exemption from 

preemption of State or local energy 

efficiency standards as well as by 

IIl8n:ufacturers to obtain exemption from> 

State or local energy efficiency 

standards.-

State standards subject to preemption 

include: energy efficiency requirements 

applicable to any particular type (or 

dass) of covered products established 

by mandatory State or local building 

codes. including c'odes that incorporate 

consensus standards. such as those 

developed and issued by the American 

Society of Heating. Refrigerating. and, 

Air Conditioning Engineers. Inc. 

(ASHRAE); prohibitions on standing 

,pilot lights; and prohibitions on tbe 

"Persons _ubjectlo a State efficiency standard 

thet haa nol been lupeneded by a Federal rule. may 

pelilioll OOE to have the IIsndard preempted based 

apon 8 &dinS by the Secretary of no lignificant 

S&8te or local interest sufficient tn justify the 

~.nd a nl\ding by the Secretary the' the 

lJlandard unduly burdens intentate commerce. Section 3Z7(bJ(lJ. 

\ 

i 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

" 

Federal Register I VoL 49, No.'Uo I Tuesday, March rl, 1984 I Rules and Regulations 11765 

manufa~ture, sale and/or hook-up of .. 

appliances with le8s than a certain 

efficiency. . , 

In the December 1982 rule, DOE also 

established the effective dates upon 

which BuperBeBoion of.State and local 

standards would take place. DOE 

determined that State and local laws for 

8 particular product would be 

superseded 180 days after Federal 

Register publication of a final rule 

soverning that particular product unless 

within 60 days of publication, a State. 

had filed With the Department a notice 

of intent to petition DOE for an 

exemption for that product. The fun 

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 it8p~tition, 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 interst in the 

. State's regulation. TheState 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'. 

. Five States. New York. California. 

Wisconsin. Minnesota. and Oregon. 

each submitted a notice of intent to 

petition and each petitioned the 

Department for a rule to allow each 

State to maintain its applicable energy 

efficiency standard for clothes dryers 

and/or kitchen ranges and ovens. 

~ Each of the five States met the filing 

requirements set forth in the December 

1982 rule. Each notice of intent to 

petition and each petition was received 

within the proper time period. The 

petitions also presented information . which indicated that each State's 

regulation is more stringent than the 

Federal standard and that there is a 

significant Sta te interest to justify the 

State regulation. DOE made a 

preliminary determination that there did 

not appear to be any undue burden on 

inter8tate commerce resulting from the 

State regulations and statutes. 

Therefore. on August 1. 1983. DOE 

proposed to amend § 430.33 to i8sue 

rules permitting each of the five States 

to maintain applicable appliance energy 

efficiency standards for clothes dryers 

and/or kitchen ranges and ovens. (48 FR 

S4858.) (Hereafter referred to as the 

August 1983 proposaJ.) 

DOE requested comments on the 

petitions ~nd encouraged interested 

parties to speak at public hearings to be 

held in each of the five States and in 

Washington. D.C. Although the . 

Departinent did not receive sufficient ' 

interest to hold all the public hearings, 

hearings were held in Madison. 

Wisconsin on September 13. 1983 and in 

Washington. D.C. on September 30. 

1983.s 

. D. Discu •• lon 

a. General 

DOE is adopting final rules granting 

e.ach of the five State petitions for 

exemption for each State's applicable 

8tandard requiring lIDs for clothes 

dryers and/or kitchen ranges and ovens. The comments submitted in favor of 

DOE's proposed rules to grant each 

petition are State specific. These 

comments were submitted by States. 

public ipterest groups and 80me utilities. 

The comments received recommending 

denials generally address generic issues 

pertaining to most or all of the five 

petitions. These comments were submitted by appliance manufacturers 

and appliance manufacturer trade 

associa tions. 

A very general criticism of the validity 

of the entirenliemaking proceS8 was 

8ubmitted by the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) 

(GAMA. No.7, at 1).· GAMA criticized 

DOE for 8 statement in the December 

1982 final rule which said that " •.• in 

general. these laws (those State laws 

.and regulations currently in force) 

would qualify for an exemptionfrom 

supersession. 5 GAMA coptends that the 

Department prejudged the results of the 

petition process without having seen the 

'l'equired documentation. 

GAMA's contention is without merit. 

DOE has held a full and open 

rulemaking process in its review of the 

five State petitions. Each State met the 

filing requirements set forth in the 

December 1982 rule within the proper 

time period. Moreover. each State was required to present information 

demonstrating that its regulation is more 

• DOE received only one reqUM to lpeek at 

each of the hearill88 acheduled to be held In 

Minnesola. New York. Califomia and Oregon. 

These personl were Inviled 10 participate In the 

other hearill8l. The representative from Minnelota 

lpoke at the WilConlln hearill8 and the 

reprtlaenlalive from New York lpoke at the 

Walhinston. D.C. The Indlviduall from Californt. 

and Oreson did nol preHnl leltimon), al either of 

the hear\nal. 

·CommentJ on the rulemaltlll8 were given docket 

numben. Cillllona 10 commentJ provide thOM 

docket DlJIIIben. 

"7 FRi7Z14. 

stringent than the,Federal standard and 

that there is a significant State interest 

to justify the State regulation. DOE's 

preliminary determination with regard 

to these petitions and the proposal to 

grant each petition were based on 

DOE's initial review of the State 

regulations and a88essment of each 

petition. 

In these rulemakiags, 8S in any 

rulemaking proceeding, the data 

received during the comment period i8 

crucial to th~ Department's rmal 

determination. The statement GAMA 

quotes in the December 1982 preamble 

merely indicated DOE's belief 

concerning State and local standards 

prior to the actual implementation of a 

full rulemaking proceeding. Clearly. the 

final determinations contained in 

today'saction were based on all of the 

materials contained in the record. 

b. Stringency of State Standards. State 

Interest. aJ(ld Effect on Interstate 

Commerce 

Several manufacturers and industry 

a8sociations argue that the States 

overstated the energy savings derived 

from their respective standards and 

failed to show significant State interest. 

Most of these commenters focused on 

issues pertaining to gas clothes dryers. 

General Electric Company (GEl (GE. 

No.6. at 4) and GAMA (GAMA. No.7. 

at 3) first maintain that the State bans 

on pilot lights fail the EPCA requirement 

that a State standard be more stringent 

than the Federal standard. GAMA's 

position is that a ban on pilot lights in ' 

clothes dryers is equivalent to a de facto 

national standard since they 88sert that 

all gas clothes dryen produced are now 

equipped wilh UDs. GE argues that a State standard must be greater than any 

standard DOE analyzed. GE maintains 

that the State bans are less stringent 

than the highest levels analyzed by DOE 

in the December 1982 final rule. 

DOE rejects both of these arguments 

since the Act requires that a State 

standard, to be eligible for·exemption 

from Federal preemption, must be more 

stringent than a Federal standard 

established by regulation. Clearly. the 

State standards requiring lIDs are more 

stringent than the Federal standard. 

since the Federal "no standard" 

standard allows the manufacture and 

sale of clothes dryers and ranges and 

ovens with pilot lights. Furthermore, the 

Act prescribes no criteria that States 

must meet in the exemption process 

concerning meeting or exceeding the 

efficiency levels analyzed by DOE to 

determine cost effectiveneas of 

.tandards. Therefore. DOE rejects the 

argument that a State standard must be 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

, U766 Federal ~ I Vol. 49. No. 00 I Tuesday, March 2:1. 1984 I Rules and Regulations 

more stringent than the levell stndi,d by 

DOE. 

The A.eiIoc\ation of Home Appliance 

Manufactureni (AHAM) {AllAM. No.9. 

at 4). Whirlpool Corporation {Whirlpool. 

No. 12. at 1). GAMA (GAMA.. No.1. at 3) 

and General Electric (GE. No. ti, at 3) 

point out that each of the three petitions 

, seeking exemption for standards for gas 

clothes dryer! rest on the at!flImption 

that the existing lltandards wiD fl8ve the 

energy claimed by each State. These 

commentenl dispute the claims that . 

State regulations have beim responSible 

for the extermve 8fle of lIDs in gas . 

dryers. since HDs W1lre already widely 

used prior to tiny State'fl requirement for 

them. In fact. these commenters argue. 

there are no energy savings attributable 

to State laws banniIl8 pilot lights in gas . 

dryers since no dJ:yers containing pilot 

lights have been produced since 197ti. 

The elimination of the a6odw, pi~t 

light in gss clothel dryers. aC<lllf'ding to 

these commenters. was the resu.lt of 

market forces (the risingcost.of gas and 

maintenance problems with the pilot 

light design) and the cost of re'lurniIl8 to 

a pilot light model would be much less 

cost effective than the current un 

models. 

With respect to ja8 dolbes dryers. GE 

(GB. No. 6, at 2) also userts that since 

'eemptloll does oot become effective 

litl DOE issues a fmal determination. 

.e saviIl8s data that result from earlier 

:ate actions are irrelevant. GE 

maintainlthat only future sav.i.ngs that 

the States expect to acbieve /iii a result 

of the exemption are pertinent to the 

justification of the State'. resulalions. 

AHAM (AHAM. No. 9. al 7) maintains 

that the States have failed to meet the 

criteria of demonstrlltiIl8 significant 

State or local interest since if thet-e are 

no energy £Bviogs. no benefitl can accrue to· the resulation and there am 

be no significant interest in retainjng the 

existing standards. GE (GE . .No. 6. at 2). 

GAMA (GAMA. No.7, al 4) and 

WhirlpoollWhirlpool No. 7. a114) 

concur on this point and .state thai DOE 

has not required. nor haW! the Slaw 

shown. that some disl.in.ctive benefit will 

result if the State resulaUons are 

exempted from preemption. 

DOE has reviewed the data nbmitted 

by these .commentert and BgreB5 that 

under current oaod.itions there ie little 

specific dBta wlUdl eels forth energy 

savins- decived from the !aWl! baonin,g 

piloll~ to dothes dryen. However;, 

DOE believefi that 'here is a significant .. State interellt in St.tes maintaining their 

han on pilot ~180", Without lIuch 8 ban 

1 pOOt Itjhte.. lllaDufadonn in the 

)lure oould laie.ign their clothe. 

dryers and setl clothe!! dryers with pilot 

lights. 

DOE agrees that market forces and 

cost considerations were contributing 

factors for discontinuing production of 

clothes dryers with pilot lights. and 

since such models do not appear to be 

available in the marketplace. the . 

Department edmowledges that these 

requirements do not result in . 

measurable energy savings currently. 

However. 1!everal commenters 

supporting the ban on clothes dryers 

with pilot lights emphasized -that while ' 

there appear to be no such clothes 

dryers in production now. it is of 

significant interest to the Stale to 

maintain sach a ban Bince there is no 

guarantee of what the market will be 

like in the future. See testimony of 

September 1S.1983. by P. Herriges. West 

Central WiscoJUrin Community Action 

Agency. 8t 15; R. Christianlon. 

Wisconsin Department of 

Administnltion. at 22; Sen. ,. Strohl. 

Chairman. Wisconsin Senate Committee 

on Energy and Environment. at 38; D. 

Shott. Off JOe of the GOvernor of 

Wisconsin. at 48; and Rep. C. Gerlach. 

Chairman. Wisconsin House Committee 

on Energy and Utilities. at 65. 

DOE agrees with the commenters 

from Wisconsin. Although data suggests 

that manufacturers will not return to the 

manufadllre of clothe!! dryers with pilot 

lights. DOE ires received no a51!UTances 

that pilot light manufacture will never 

be resumed for clothes dryers. In fact. 

the manufacturers Bnd AHAM could not 

assme DOE that only clothes dryers 

with 1ID'1l will be manufactmed and 

sold in the future. 

White Consolidated Industries. mc. 

(WCI) {WCI. No.3. st 2) and GAMA 

(GAMA. No.7. at 3) comment that Ihe 

States are providing old data. that the 

rismg cost of gas eliminated pilot lights 

from clothes dryers and seems likely to 

do the same for ranges and ovens. WCl 

asserts that since 1980 lbe percentage of 

ranges shipped with pilot lights has 

dropped from 58 percent to 43 percent 

nationwide and that some 

manufacturerl. such as Frigidaire. no 

10Il8er offer any pilot ligbt models for. 

ranges and ovens. 

WCI. GAM;\. and Whirlpool 

submitted dBta on the energy savings 

and! or the number of pilot lights 

presumab!y kept out of the States as a 

result of Sla I.e requirements for liDs on 

ranges and O\'eillO. (See WeI. No. 3. at 1; 

GAMA. N4. f. at Z. end Whir1pool. No. 

12. lit 4.) For example. using GAMA 

data. WCI calculates that in the States 

of Wilconlin and Minnesota 19,155 and 

14.925 pilot lights. respectively. would 

be banned each year in those 81ates. 

These figures contrast to Wisconsin's 

revised estimate of 86.000 pilot lights 

banned each year. and Minnesota's 

64.495. Futhermore. GAMA (GAMA. No. 

7 at 1) maintains that all of the petitions 

overstat~ the yearly energy 1!avings 

resulting froin II ban 1m pilot Ughts in 

renges and ovens. Moreover. Whirlpool 

(Whirlpool. No. 12 at 4. 1) argues that 

the savings claims by Wisconsin. 

California and Minnesota. do nol 

account for the sales ohanges and 

ovens which would have been sold with 

liDs in the absence of fltandards. 

The Department recognizes that the 

increasing cost of gas and other market 

forces contributed to the apparently 

unifonn production of clothes dryers 

with !IDs. DOE also agrees that these 

factors may contn"bute to the increase in 

UD's kitchen ranges and ovens. In 

addition. DOE is aware thet Bome of the 

data provided in the petitions may be 

outdated OT incomplete. However. no 

data were submitted to demonstrate that 

the existing regulations pertaining to 

kitchen ranges and ovens do not save 

energy. These commenters do not 

dispute the fact thal energy is being 

saved. on!y the amount of energy saved. 

The States have demonstrated that their 

standards are more stringent than the 

Federal "no standard" standard with 

re'spect to kitchen ranges and ovens. 

DOE believes. moreover, that because 

energy is being tntved. the States have 

shown a significant State interest in 

these cases in maintaining their 

applicable laws. 

Whirlpool and Gt: also assert that 

. DOE should provide more meaningful 

criteria for determining whether there is 

. a significant State or local interest to 

justify a regulation. (Sef! Whirlpool. No. 

2. at 14; and GE. No.6. at 2.) These 

commenters suggest that a State should 

demonstrate that some distinctive 

benefit will result from a standard or 

that no standard will result in adverse 

consequences. Whetber GE and 

Whirlpool intend "'more meaningful 

criteria" to nrean more stringent criteria 

or additional criteria is unclear to DOE. 

The Department already requires a State 

petition to demonstrate a benefit of the 

existing standard and provide evIdence 

that the State standard is more stringent 

than the Federal standard. DOE believes 

that if either a peflt or future energy 

savings can be attributed to a State or 

local fltBndard. tben that clearly 

demonstrates a benefit and therefore a 

significant State interest in maintaining 

the regulation. 

Three commenten. GAMA. AHAM. 

and the National LP Gas Association 

(NLPGA). argue that the granting of the 

petitions poses a burden on interstate 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. «t I Tuesday. March 27, 1984 /Rules and Regulations 11767 

commerce. (See GAMA. No. '1, ~t 2; ~ 

AHAM. No.9. at 2: and NLPGA, No.ll. 

at 2.) GAMA argues thlit granting these 

petitions will weaken thl!. economies of a nationwide distribution system that 

results from the opportunities for , ,- national advertising and centralized 

warehousing and distribution. AHAM 

maintains that the mere existence of any 

State regulation is a burden on 

commerce and that if DOE accepts the 

States'"Ciaims. the door may be open to 

future outrageous or exaggerated claims 

a bout the benefits of standards. AHAM 

maintains that this could be the ntin of 

the national appliance marketplace. 

NLPGA states that the burden on interstate commerce will result from a "hodge-podge" of regulations where 

pilot lights are permitted in some States 

but not in others. Economic pressures 

will force some manufacturers to 

discontinue the production of appUances 

with pilot lights, leaving consumers with 

only one option. that of purchasing the more expensive lID-equipped 

appliances. GAMA also states that the 

petitions show thal the potential gas 

aavings associated with the State laws 

is so small. there appears to be no benefit from these laws which exceeds 

the burden on interstate commerce and 

the ensuing costs to the consumer. 

The Department rejects these 

arguments. First. with regard to clothes 

dryers. the matter of any burden on interstate commerce is non-existent .. ince few. if any. products are being 

produced or sold that would be affected 

if the Department were to grant the 

petitions. Second. the commenters have 

not provided any evidence to 

demonstrate how the eXisting State 

regulations banning pilot lights in 

kitchen ranges and ovens have caused an undue burden on interstate commerce. The New York State Energy 

Office stated that the New York law 

Jl.llows for manufacturers to petition for a waiver of the State regulation. and 

that no manufacturers have petitioned 

for a waiver from the State ban on pilot 

lights. Further. the New York State 

Energy Office' concluded that since no manufacturer has petitioned for relief 

from the ban on pilot lights. the lawdid 

not impose an undue burden on manufacturers. DOE agrees with the 

New York State Energy Office that the 

manufacturers' failure to petillon the 

State for relief from the ban on pilot 

lights inrocates that the law has not 

placed an undue burden on interstate commerce. The other States phivided no specific information on this maUer. 

However, DOE did not receive any 

eYidence that these regulations caused 

undue burden on manufacturers. No 

evidence has been provided that the mere existence of these State 

r,lgulations is a burden on interstate 

commerce. especially in light of the fact 

that 80me of these same commenters 

emphasize that It was market forces 

only. not regulations. that led to 

industry-wide use of lIDs in clothes 

dryers and that the same market forces 

are responsible for the increase of lIDs 

in' kitchen ranges and ovens. GAMA did not submit data to support 

its claim that the savings associated 

with the State laws is so insignificant 

that there is no benefit which exceeds 

the burden on interstate commerce and 

consumer ooats. A State petition to 

maintain an energy efficiency standard 

for a particular covered product must 

only show that the State standard is 

more Itringent than the Federal 

standard and that there is a significant 

State interest in maintaining that , standard. Nothing in the Act or in DOE's 

regulations requires a State to meet or 

exceed an energy savings threshold. 

m_ Conclusions and Determinations OD 

Stale PetitioDs 

o. General Conclusion 

The Department has determined that 

eacb State petition seeking to maintain 

applicable appliance energy efficiency 

standards for gas clothes dryers and/or 

kitchen ranges and ovens has 

demonstrated that the State standard is more stringent than the Federal 

standard and that there is a significant 

State interest to justify each State's . 

regulation. Even if the energy saved for 

ranges and ovens was less than the 

amount of energy set forth in the 

petitiomi, there is agreement, even from 

those opposing the granting of these 

petitions. that the State regulations do save energy. While clothes dryer 

standards presently would not appear to save much energy. the possibility exists 

that without standards. manufacturers 

could reintroduce pilot lights which use more energy than lIDs. Furthermore. the 

Department received no data showing 

thai any of the State regulations impose an undue burden on interstate 

'Commerce. 

. b. Determinations on State Petitions 

1. New York (NYoo1). The petition 

1JUbmitted by the New York State Energy 

Office leeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption Section 16-116 of 

New York State's Energy Law as it 

.opertains to gas kitchen ranges and ovens. Section 16-116 of New York's law 

prohibits the lale. delivery or installation of any stove or range using a gsseout! fuel (other than propane) that is 

nol equipped with an lID. Exempted 

from this requirement are 8aS stoves or ranges containing a separate component 

specifically designed to provide space 

heating. 

DOE bas reviewed New York'ii 

petition and the comments on the 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

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

Act and I 430.47. of the regulation. Based on its analysis, DOE has determined 

that New York has demonstrated that 

Section 16-116 is more stringent than 

DOE's rule for gas kitchen ranges imd ovens. is justified by a" significant State 

interest and does not impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE is amending 1430.33 

exempting Section 16-116 of the New 

York Energy Law from the preemptive 

provisions pC Section 327{a)(2)(A) of the 

Act. 

2. Wisconsin (W1OO2)_ The petition 

submitted by the Wisconsin Department 

of Administration seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) as it 

pertains to gas clothes dryers and gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens. The 

Wisconsin law prohibita the sale, 

rostribution or installation of a new gas 

appliance that is not equipped with a State-certified lID. 

DOE has reviewedWiaconsin's 

petition and the comments on the 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327{b)(~ of the 

Act and Section 430.47 of the regulation. 

Based on this analysis, DOE has 

determined that Wisconsin has 

demonstrated that Wisconsin Statute 

101.655 (1981) is more stringent than 

DOE's rule for gas clothes dryers and 

kitchen ranges and ovens. is justified by a significant State interest and does not 

impose an undue burden on interstate oommerce. Accordingly, DOE is 

amending I 430.33 exempting Wisconsin 

Statute 101.655 (1981) as it pertains to 

gas clothes dryers and kitchen ranges 

and ovens from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(8)(2) of the 

Act. 

3. Califomia (CAOO3). The petition 

submitted by the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Sections 25960 and 25964 of Califomia's 

Public Resources 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 are not equipped with a State-certified 

no. 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

" 11768 }'ederal Register /Vol. 49, No. 00 I Tuesday, March 27,1984 I Rules and Regulations 

DOE has reviewed California'a. 

Jetition and the comments on the 

)Toposed rule in accordance with the 

'equirements of Section 327[b)(3) of the 

A.ct and Section 430.47 of the regulation. 

Based on this analysis. pOE has 

determined that California has 

demonstrated that Sections 25960 and 

25964 of the California Public Resources 

Code, Title 20. California Admini&trative 

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, are justified by 8 

" significant State interest and do not 

impose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. Accordingly. DOE is 

amending I 430.33 exempting Section 

25960 and 25964 of the California Public 

Resources Code, and Title 20 California 

Administrative Code. Section 1605 and 

Title 24, California Administrative Code, 

Section 2-5352(1) and 2-5365 from the 

preemptive proviSions of Section 

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

4. Minnesota (MN004). The petition . 

submitted by the Minnesota Department 

of Energy seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption Minnesota Statute 

Section 116).18. SuM. 14, ae it pretains 

to gas clothes dryers and gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens. Minnesota's law 

,prohibits the sale or instaJlation of gail 

clothes dryers and gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens that are equipped with a 

continuously burning gas pilot light. 

DOE has reviewed Minnesota's 

petition and the comments on the 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

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

Act and I 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that Minnesota has demonstrated that 

Minnesota Stat. 1116).18, Subd. 14 is 

more stringent than DOE's rule for gall 

clothes dryers and kitchens ranges and ovens. is justified by a significant State 

interest and does not Impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE is amending § 430.33 

exempting Minnesota Stat. 1116).9 

Subd. 14 as it pertains to gas clothes 

dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens 

from the preemptive provisions of 

Section 327(a)(2) of the Act. , 5. Oregon (OR005). The petition 

submitted by the Oregon Department of 

Energy seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption Section 1 of the 

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 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 unless they are equipped 

with lIDs. 

DOE has reviewed Oregon's petition 

and the comments on the proposed rule 

i 

in accordance with the requirements of 

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

of the regulations. Based on its analysis, 

DOE bas determined that Oregon bas 

demonstrated that Sectloo.1 ORS 

479.770 is more stringent than DOE':8. , ' 

,rule for gas clothes dryers and kitchen 

ranges and ovens, il justified by 8 " 

significant State interest and poes not' 

impose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. Accordingly, DOE iii 

amending 1 430.33 exempting Section i 

ORS 479.770 as it pertains to gas clothes 

dryers and kitchen ranges imdovens 

froin the preemptive provisions of 

Section 327(a)(2) of ~e Act. ~ ~ ., . 

IV. Environmental, Regulatory Impact, 

and SmaU Entity Impact Reviewl 

o. Envi"!pnmentaJ Review 

In eacb case where DOE is requested 

to approve State standards, DOE 

conducts 8 National Environmental '. 

Policy Act (NEPA) review on a case-by- . 

case basis. Currently, the five States . 

have regulations requiring lIDs .on gas 

c1othe.s 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 final rule 

granting the petitions with respect to 

clothes dryers and/or ranges and ovens, 

will result in no change in the . 

environmental status quo of the five . -, 'States, and therefore. will clearly have 

no significant environmental impact. No 

evironmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

It should also be noted that the 

Department bas prepared and issued an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). DOE/ 

EA-m13. on the impact of setting and 

implementing energy efficiency . 

standards for all 13 types of consumer 

products identified in section 322(a) (1)-

(13) of the Act. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact and Notice of 

Availability of that EA were published 

with the June 30, 1960 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 today's actions. DOE bas . 

concluded thai the rules are nol "major 

rules" for the 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 government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition. employment, investment, 

. productivity. innovati_on. or on the -

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreign-

-based enterprises in ~omestic or export 

markets. Therefore, in' accordance with 

section 3(c)(3} of the Executive Order, 

which applies to rulea "ther than major 

rules, the rules were submitted to OMB 

for review. without a regulatory .impact 

. ,analysis. 

,;c. Smal) Entity Impact 'Review 

In light of the foregoing, the 

Department has determined and hereby 

certifices pursuant to section 605(b} of 

the Regula tory' Flexibility Act tha t the 

final rules will not have a "Iignificant 

economic impact on 8 lubstantial 

number of small entities." Granting the 

,State petitions will not affect the status , quo. Based on evidence provided in 

these rulemakings. the existing State 

regulations have not had 8 significant . impact on manufacturers. including 

small businesses. , 

, In consideration of the foregoing, Part 

430 of Chapter U of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, is 8mend~d as set 

forth below. . 

Ust of Subjects in to CFR Part 430 

- Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation. 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington, D.C.. March 15. 1964. 

Pat Collin., 

Acting Assistant SeCretary, Conservation OJId 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 43O-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. Section 430.33 i, revised to read as follows: . 

§ .30.33 Preemption of State l"e'gu18tJons. 

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) Kitchen ranges and ovens: 

(1) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in New York subject to the New York 

State Energy Law, Section If}-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: 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 0F

• 

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No; 60 I Tue~day, March 27, 1984 I Rules and Regwations 11769 

(3) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in California subject to 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 

exempt from preemption; 

(4) All gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

in Minnesota subject to Minnesota 

Statute I 116J.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. 

. (b) 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 Statute I 1I6}.19. 

Subd. 14. are exempt from preemption; 

and 

(3) All gss clothes dryers in Oregon 

subject to Section 1 of the Oregon 

Revised Statutes 479.770 are exempt 

from preemption. 

. IfR Doc. M--.s F'iIed ~ 11:45 amI 

-.uNO COOt: .........