# ...

. -, 

### -
.....**~. ~---..:.'-.'-'-**  

## 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

### , 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 ofConservation 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 matterrequires that the Department ofEnergy prescribe an energy efficiency standard for each of certain majorhousehold appliances unless it determines. byrule. that a standard will not result in significant conservation ofenergy. 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 eitherofthese

. Jroducts 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 m<lY obtain exemption for State orlocal 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 ofCalifornia. New York. Wisconsin. Minnesota and Oregon requesting. in each case. thatthe State
energy efficiency standard requiring intermittent ignition devices {IIbIi) for clothes dryers and/orkitchen 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 ofthe 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/orfor kitchen ranges and ovens. "'IATES: The effective date ofthese rules'

\prj) 26. 1984. FOR FU8THER JHFORMAnON COIITACT: Michael

## J. McCabe, U.S. Departmeut

### of

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

. , Building. 1000 IndependenceAvenue.' S.W

.. Washington. D.C. 20585, {2(2) .' 252-9127 :." Eugene Margolis. Esq.• U.S.

### ~t

ofEnergy. Office ofGeneral

### 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

PartB ofTitle 

## mofthe

### ~ Policy and ConservationAct (EPCA).Pub. L . 94-163. as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act

. (NECPA). PUb. 

### L 95-619.' createdthe Energy Conservation Program for

. Consumer Products OtherThan Automobiles. The consumerproducts subject 10 this program (referred to hereafter as "covered products") 

### are: Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezera; freezers; -d",wasbers; clothes dryers; waierheaters; 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 consumerproduct cl8llsified by the Secretary ofEnergy. 

### ifthe product UeB Ii specified minimum**~mount** ofenergy. 

### See Section 322. 

### The Secretaryhas DOt so classified any**~dditional** products.

Under the Act. the program consists essentiaHy 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
anergy efficiency that is technologicall)' feasible and economicallyjusti6ed. -Section 525(a) (1) and (c). The Act

. provides.however. that no standard for

a product is to be established,ifthere is

no test procedure for the product. orif DOE determines by rule either that a standard would not result in significsDt conservation ofenergy or that a . standard is not technologically feasible'

or economicallyjusti.fied. Section 325(b).

Section 327 ofthe Act addresees the effect ofFederal rules concernias

. testing. labeling. and standards 8D State

•PartB ofTitle 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



### orlocal laws orregulations (State laws)

8fIe superseded by the Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by DOE that an efficiency standard is not ' . Rchnologicallyfeasible. economically

, justified. orlikely to save significant
amounts ofenergy would be 

### a rule that wpenedes any State standard. Section 125(b). A State whose energy efficiency atandard wouldbe superseded. lIowever. maypetition the Department 

### lor a rule that it not be superseded. on 

### the basis that there is a significant State



### or local interest tojustifythe standard and the State standard is more stringent. However. DOE cannotissue the requested rule ifitfinds that the State .mndard would unduly burden ._interstate commerce. Section 327{b)(3). Because Section 327(b)(3) requires

. POE to considereach State petition individuallybeforeDOE can issue a rule exempting the State orlocal standard from preemption.DOE could not issue a ru1e that makes a blanketdetermination 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.) (Hereafterreferred to as the December 1982 rule.) With respect to both producta. DOE determined that 

### a standard would notresult in liigruficant conservation ofenergy and would not 

### be economicallyjustified.The December 1962rule also established procedures soveming petitions to DOE both by States to obtain exemption from preemption ofState orlocal energy efficiency standards as well as 

### by IIl8n:ufacturers to obtainexemption from> State orlocal energy efficiency standards.-

State standards subject to preemption include: energy efficiency requirements applicable to any particular type (or dass) ofcovered products established by mandatory State orlocal building 

### codes. including c'odes that incorporate

consensus standards. such as those developed and issued by the American Society ofHeating. 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 ofno 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" 

### Federal Register 

## I VoL 49, No.'Uo 

## I Tuesday, March rl, 

### 1984 

## I Rules and Regulations 

### 11765**manufa~ture,** sale and/orhook-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 particularproduct would be superseded 180 days after Federal Registerpublication ofa final rule soverningthat particularproductunless within 60 days ofpublication, a State. had filed With the Department a notice ofintent to petition DOE for an exemption for that product. The

# fun petition itselfhad to be filed within 120 days ofpublication ofthe rule. When such a submission is made, the State or localrule will remain in effect until DOE reaches a final determination on the State petition.



### , In**it8p~tition,** a State is required to presentinformation 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 orlocal interst in the

. State's regulation. TheState is not

required to provide information concerning the State regulation's impact

oninterstate commerce. A person opposing the State'spetition 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 ofintent 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/orkitchen ranges and ovens.**~** Each ofthe five States met the filing requirements set forth in the December 1982 rule. Each notice ofintent 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 State 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 rulespermitting each ofthe five States
to maintain applicable appliance energy efficiency standards for clothes dryers and/orkitchen 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 tobe held in each ofthe 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 ofthe five State petitions for exemption for each State's applicable 8tandard requiring lIDs for clothes dryers and/orkitchen 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 ofthe five petitions. These comments were submitted by appliance manufacturers and appliance manufacturer trade associations.

A very general criticism ofthe validity ofthe entirenliemaking proceS8 was 8ubmitted by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) (GAMA. No.7, at 1).·GAMA criticized DOE for 

### 8 statementin the December 1982 final rule which said that "•.•in general. these laws (those Statelaws .and regulations currently in force) would qualify for an exemptionfrom supersession. 5 GAMA coptends that the Department prejudged the results ofthe 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 ofthe five State petitions. Each State met the filing requirements set forth inthe 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 onereqUM tolpeek at each ofthe 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 initialreview ofthe State regulations and a88essment ofeach petition.



### Inthese rulemakiags, 8S 

### in any rulemaking proceeding, the data received during the comment periodi8 crucial to**th~** Department's rmal determination.The statement GAMA quotes in the December 1982preamble merely indicatedDOE's belief concerning State and localstandards prior to the actual implementationofa full rulemaking proceeding. Clearly. the final determinations containedin today'saction were based on all ofthe materials contained in the record.


### b. Stringency of State Standards. State Interest. aJ(ldEffect on Interstate Commerce

Several manufacturers and industry a8sociations argue that the States overstated the energy savings derived from theirrespective standards and failed to show significant State interest. Most ofthese 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 pilotlights 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 mustbe greater than any standard DOE analyzed. GEmaintains that the Statebans are less stringent than the highest levels analyzed byDOE in the December 1982 final rule.

DOErejects both ofthese arguments since the Act requires that a State standard, to be eligible for·exemption fromFederal preemption, must be more stringent than a Federal standard established by regulation. Clearly. the State standards requiring lIDs are more stringent thanthe Federal standard. since the Federal "no standard" standard allows the manufacture and sale ofclothes dryers and ranges and

ovens with pilot lights. Furthermore, the Act prescribes no criteria that States
mustmeet 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

### , 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 ofHome 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, at3) pointout that each ofthe three petitions

, seeking exemption for standards for gas

clothes dryer! rest on the at!flImption that the existinglltandards 

### wiD fl8ve the
energyclaimed by each State.These commentenl dispute the claims that

. Stateregulations havebeim responSible forthe extermve 8fle oflIDs in gas

. dryers. since HDs

### W1lre already widely used prior totiny State'fl requirement for them. In fact. these commenters argue. there are noenergy savings attributable
to StatelawsbanniIl8 pilot lights in gas

. dryers since nodJ:yers containing pilot lights have been produced since 197ti. 

### The elimination ofthe 

### a6odw,**pi~t** light in gss clothel dryers. aC<lllf'ding to these commenters. was the resu.lt of market forces (the risingcost.ofgas and maintenance problems with thepilot light design) andthe cost 

### ofre'lurniIl8 to

a pilot light model wouldbe much less
cost effective than the current

## un models.

With respect toja8 dolbes dryers. GE (GB. No. 6, at 2) also userts that since

'eemptloll 

### does ootbecome 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 Statesexpect to acbieve /iii a result ofthe exemption are pertinent to the justification ofthe State'. resulalions. AHAM 

## (AHAM. No. 9. al 7) maintains that the States have failed 

### to meet the criteria 

### ofdemonstrlltiIl8 significant State orlocal interest since

### ifthet-e are

no energy £Bviogs. no benefitl 

### can

accrue to·the resulation and there am be no significant interest inretainjng 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 

### ifthe State resulaUons are exempted from preemption.

DOE has reviewed thedata nbmitted by these .commentert and BgreB5 that undercurrent oaod.itions there ie little specificdBta wlUdleels forth energy savins- decived 

### from the 

### !aWl! baonin,g**piloll~** to 

### dothes dryen. However;, DOE believefi that 

### 'here is a significant

.. Stateinterellt in St.tes maintaining their

han on pilot**~180",** Without lIuch 8 ban

1 pOOt 

### Itjhte.. lllaDufadonnin 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 dryerswithpilot lights. and since such models do not appeartobe available in the marketplace. the

. Department edmowledges that these requirements do not result in

. measurable energy savingscurrently. 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 theStale to maintain sach a ban Bincethere is no guarantee

### ofwhat 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 SenateCommittee

onEnergy 

### and Environment. at 38; D. Shott. Off JOe ofthe GOvernorof Wisconsin. at 48; andRep. C. Gerlach. Chairman.Wisconsin House Committee

on Energy and Utilities. at 65.

DOE agrees with the commenters from Wisconsin. Although data suggests thatmanufacturers will notreturn to the manufadllre ofclothe!! dryers with pilot lights. DOE ires received no a51!UTances that pilot lightmanufacture 

### will never beresumed for clothes dryers. Infact. the manufacturers Bnd AHAM could not

assme DOE that only clothes dryers with 1ID'1l will bemanufactmed and sold in thefuture.

White Consolidated Industries.

## mc. (WCI) {WCI. No.3. st 2) and GAMA (GAMA. No.7. at 3) comment that Ihe States areproviding old data. that the rismg cost ofgas eliminated pilot lights from clothes dryers and seems likely to do the samefor ranges and ovens. WCl
asserts that since 1980 lbe percentage of ranges shipped with pilot lights has dropped from 58percent to 43 percent nationwide and that some manufacturerl. such asFrigidaire. no 10Il8er offer anypilotligbt models for.
ranges and ovens.

WCI. GAM;\. and Whirlpool submitted dBta on the energy savings and!or the number ofpilot lights presumab!ykept out ofthe States as a result ofSlaI.e requirements for liDs on ranges and O\'eillO. (See 

### WeI.No. 

### 3. at 1; GAMA. N4. f. at

### Z. end Whir1pool. No. 12. lit4.) Forexample. using GAMA data. WCI calculates thatin the States 

### ofWilconlin and Minnesota 19,155and 14.925 pilot lights. respectively.would be banned each year in those 81ates. These figures contrast toWisconsin's revised estimate of86.000 pilot lights banned each year. and Minnesota's 64.495. Futhermore.GAMA (GAMA. No. 7 at 1) maintains that all ofthe petitions**overstat~** the yearly energy 1!avings resulting 

### froin IIban 1mpilotUghts in
renges and ovens. Moreover. Whirlpool (Whirlpool. No. 12 at 4. 1)argues that the savings claimsbyWisconsin. California andMinnesota. do nol
account for the sales ohanges and

ovenswhich wouldhavebeen soldwith liDs in the absenceoffltandards.

The Departmentrecognizes that the increasing cost ofgas and othermarket forces contributed

### to the apparently unifonn production ofclothes dryers with !IDs. DOE also agrees thatthese factors may contn"bute 

### to the increase in UD's kitchen ranges and ovens. 

### In addition. DOE is aware thet Bome ofthe data provided in the petitionsmay be outdated OT incomplete.However. no data were submitted to demonstrate that the existing regulations pertaining to kitchen ranges and ovens donot save energy.These commenters do not dispute the fact thal energy is being saved. on!y the amountofenergy saved. 

### The Stateshave demonstrated that their standards are more stringentthan the Federal "no standard" standard with re'spect to kitchenranges and ovens. DOE believes.moreover, that because
energy is being tntved. theStates have shown a significantState interestin these cases inmaintainingtheir applicable laws.

Whirlpool and Gt:also assert that

.DOE should provide more meaningful criteria for determining whetherthere is

. a significant Stateorlocal 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 resultfrom 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 criteriaisunclearto DOE. The Department already requires 

### a State petitionto demonstrate a benefit ofthe existing standard and provide evIdence that 

### the State standard is more stringent than the Federal standard. DOE believes that ifeither a peflt 

## or future energy savings canbe attributed to a State or local fltBndard. tben that clearly demonstrates a benefit and therefore a significant State interestinmaintaining the regulation.

Three commenten. GAMA. AHAM. and the National 

### LP Gas Association (NLPGA). argue that the granting ofthe petitions poses a burden on interstate

### FederalRegister 

## 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 ofany State regulation

# is a burden on

commerce and that ifDOE accepts the States'"Ciaims. the door may be open to future outrageous or exaggerated claims

about the benefits ofstandards.

### 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" ofregulations where pilot lights are permitted in some States but not in others. Economic pressures will force some manufacturersto discontinue the production ofappUances with pilot lights, leaving consumers with only one option. that ofpurchasing 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 ofany 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 ofthe 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 relieffrom the ban on pilot lights inrocates that the law has not placed an undue burden oninterstate

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 hasbeenprovided that the

mere existence ofthese State r,lgulations is a burden on interstate

commerce. especially in light ofthe fact that 80me ofthese same commenters emphasize that It

### was market forces only. not regulations. that led to industry-wide use oflIDs

# in clothes dryers and that the same market forces

are responsible for the increase oflIDs 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. GeneralConclusion



### The Department has determined that eacb State petition seeking to maintain applicable appliance energy efficiency standardsfor 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 ifthe energy saved for ranges and ovens was less than the
amount ofenergy set forth in the petitiomi, there is agreement, even from those opposing the granting ofthese petitions. that the Stateregulations 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 ofany 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 ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and 

### I 430.47.oftheregulation. 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 justifiedby a" significant State interest and does not impose an 

### undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE is amending 1430.33 exempting Section 16-116 ofthe New York Energy Law from the preemptive provisions

### pC Section 327{a)(2)(A) ofthe Act.

2. 

### Wisconsin (W1OO2)_ The petition submitted by the Wisconsin Department ofAdministration seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption Wisconsin Statute 101.655 

### (1981) as it 

### pertains to gas clothes dryers andgas kitchen ranges and ovens. The Wisconsin law prohibita the sale, rostribution or installation ofa 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 

### ofSection**327{b)(~** 

### ofthe Act and Section 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on this analysis, DOEhas determined thatWisconsin has demonstrated thatWisconsin 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, DOEis amending 

### I 430.33 exempting Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) as it pertains to gas clothes dryers andkitchen ranges and ovens from the preemptive provisions of

### section 327(8)(2) ofthe Act.

3. Califomia (CAOO3). The petition submitted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption Sections 25960 and 25964 ofCalifomia's Public Resources Code andTitle 20, California Administrative Code. Section 1605 andTitle 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

are not equipped with a State-certified 

## no.

### " 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 ofSection 327[b)(3) ofthe A.ct and Section 430.47 of the regulation. Based on this analysis.pOEhas determined that California has demonstrated that Sections 25960 and 25964 ofthe 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, arejustified 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 

### ofthe 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 ofSection 327(a)(2) of the Act. ' .

4. Minnesota (MN004). 

### The petition

. submitted by the Minnesota Department ofEnergy 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 ofgail 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 ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and 

### I 430.47 ofthe 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) ofthe Act.

,

5. Oregon (OR005). The petition submitted by the Oregon Department of Energy seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption Section 1 ofthe 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 ofgas 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 withthe requirements of Section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulations. Based on its analysis, DOE bas determined that Oregon bas demonstrated that Sectloo.1 ORS 479.770 is more stringent thanDOE':8. , ' ,rule for gas clothes dryers and kitchen
ranges and ovens, iljustified by 8 " 

### significant Stateinterest and poes not' impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce. Accordingly, DOE iii 

### amending 

### 1430.33 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"!pnmentaJReview

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/orgas 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 ofsetting and implementing energy efficiency

. standards for all 13 types ofconsumer products identified in section 322(a) (1)- (13) ofthe Act. A Finding ofNo Significant Impact and Notice of Availability ofthat EA were published with the June 30, 1960 proposedrule for minimum energy efficiency standards

,for eight ofthe products. 45 FR 44088. Copies ofthe EA may be obtained from the address indicated at the beginning of this notice.



### b. RegulatoryImpact

### Review

.In 

### light ofthe foregoing analysis ofthe effect oftoday's actions. DOE bas

. concluded thai the rules are nol "major rules" for the purposes ofExecutive 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 orprices for

.consumers. individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, orgeographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition. employment, investment,

. productivity. innovati_on. oron the

-

ability ofUnited States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- -based enterprises in**~omestic** 

### or export markets. Therefore, in' accordance with section 3(c)(3} ofthe Executive Order, which applies torulea "therthan major rules, the rules were submitted to OMB for review.without a regulatory.impact

.,analysis.

,;c. Smal)EntityImpact 'Review

In

### light ofthe foregoing, the Departmenthas determined and hereby certifices pursuant to section 605(b} of the Regulatory'Flexibility Act that the final rules will not have a "Iignificant economic impact on 8 

### lubstantial number ofsmall 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 ofthe foregoing, Part 430 ofChapter U 

### ofTitle 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is**8mend~d** 

### as set forth below.

. Ust ofSubjects in

### to CFR Part 430

- Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation. Household appliances.

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

### Pat Collin., ActingAssistantSeCretary, Conservation OJId RenewableEnergy.

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 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) 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:

### •

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 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. 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Oregon Revised Statutes 479.770 

### are exempt from preemption.

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

-.uNO COOt:

.........