30 Day FRN

70994

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Category

Transfers

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Annualized Monetized Transfers ..................................................................................................................
From Whom To Whom? ...............................................................................................................................

The Race to the Top Phase 3 award
process will provide approximately
$200 million in competitive grants to
eligible States.

congressional review is contrary to the
public interest and waived for good
cause.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As we mentioned in the NPR, these
final requirements contain information
collection requirements. However,
because the eligible applicants for Race
to the Top Phase 3 awards are fewer
than 10, these collections are not subject
to approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)(i)).

The Secretary certifies that this
regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this regulatory
action will affect are small LEAs
receiving funds under this program.
This regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on small
LEAs because they will be able to meet
the costs of compliance with this
regulatory action using the funds
provided under this program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date and
Congressional Review Act
The Administrative Procedure Act
requires that a substantive rule be
published at least 30 days before its
effective date, except as otherwise
provided for good cause (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3)). The Secretary has
determined that a delayed effective date
for these final requirements is
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest, and that good cause exists to
waive the requirement for a delayed
effective date.
These final requirements are needed
to award the Race to the Top funds
provided by the FY 2011
Appropriations Act to qualified
applicants by December 31, 2011, or the
funds will lapse. Even on an extremely
expedited timeline, it is impracticable
for the Department to adhere to a 30-day
delayed effective date for the notice of
final requirements and make grant
awards to qualified applicants by the
December 31, 2011 deadline. When the
30-day delayed effective date is added
to the time the Department will need to
receive applications (approximately 20
days), review the applications
(approximately 20 days), and finally
approve applications (approximately 21
days), the Department will not be able
to award funds authorized under the FY
2011 Appropriations Act to applicants
by December 31, 2011.
These requirements have been
determined to be major for purposes of
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5
U.S.C. 801, et seq.). However, for the
reasons outlined in the preceding
paragraph, the Department has
determined that, pursuant to section
808(2) of the CRA, the delay in the
effective date generally required for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:45 Nov 15, 2011

Jkt 226001

Effect on Other Levels of Government
We have also determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPR, in accordance with
section 411 of the General Education
Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, we
requested comments on whether the
proposed requirements would require
transmission of information that any
other agency or authority of the United
States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPR and
on our review, we have determined that
these final requirements do not require
transmission of information that any
other agency or authority of the United
States gathers or makes available.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

$200,000,000.
Federal Government to States.

person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register is
available via the Federal Digital System
at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this
site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader,
which is available free at this site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at
http://www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: November 9, 2011.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2011–29581 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
Proposed Agency Information
Collection
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice and Request for
Comments.
AGENCY:

The Department of Energy
(DOE) is submitting to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
clearance a proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
proposed collection will support a
National Evaluation of DOE’s State
Energy Program (SEP) for the year 2008
(pre-American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
funding) and the years 2009–2011
(ARRA funding).
A 60-day notice and request for
comments was published in the Federal

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM

16NON1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices
Register on July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39860).
One set of comments was received in
response that notice. Those comments
noted the responding organization’s
concern with environmental issues, its
past support for a long-term national
energy strategy, and its belief that
increased energy efficiency and use of
alternative energy sources are important
components of such a strategy. Because
the information gained from the
proposed information collection will
help refine future State Energy Program
energy efficiency and renewable energy
initiatives, the commenting organization
supports the Department of Energy’s
information collection request.
This subsequent 30-day notice allows
public comment on the final version of
this information collection request.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology. Please note that in the final
version of the information collection
request, the estimated burden has
remained essentially the same.
DATES: Comments regarding this
proposed information collection must
be received on or before December 16,
2011. If you anticipate difficulty in
submitting comments within that
period, contact the person listed in
ADDRESSES as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
sent to Martin Schweitzer,
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel
Valley Road, P.O. Box 2008, MS–6036,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6036;
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to: Martin
Schweitzer, Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road,
P.O. Box 2008, MS–6036, Oak Ridge, TN
37831–6036; [email protected].
The detailed technical evaluation
plan for this information collection can
be found at [http://weatherization.ornl.
gov/evaluation_sep.shtml]. The surveys
and data collection forms that compose

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:45 Nov 15, 2011

Jkt 226001

this information collection request can
also be found at this same Web site.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
information collection request contains:
(1) OMB No.: New.
(2) Information Collection Request
Title: National Evaluation of the United
States Department of Energy’s State
Energy Program.
(3) Type of Request: New.
(4) Purpose: The Department of
Energy (DOE) is conducting an
evaluation of the State Energy Program
(SEP), a national program providing
grants and technical support to the
States, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. territories to implement energy
efficiency and renewable energy
activities that meet their unique energy
needs, while also addressing DOE’s
national goals, such as energy security.
The SEP was created in 1996 by
Congress, when the State Energy
Conservation Program and the
Institutional Conservation Programs
were consolidated. In February 2009,
the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a
substantial increase in the funding
available to support SEP activities. The
additional $3.1 billion of ARRA funds
began to be disbursed in late 2009 and
are required to be expended by mid2012. Due to the large differences in
volume, scope, and relative priority of
policy goals between the pre-ARRA and
ARRA-funded activities, this evaluation
will assess the outcomes of SEP
programmatic activities for one program
year (2008) prior to distribution of the
ARRA funding as well as for the ARRAfunded program years of 2009–2011.
The principal objective of the
evaluation is to estimate four key
program outcomes:
• Energy, cost, and demand savings;
• Increases in renewable energy
capacity and generation;
• Carbon emissions reductions; and
• Direct and indirect job creation
The evaluation will require
information to be collected from SEP
State program managers, SEP program
implementation staff in selected States,
participants in selected SEP programs,
and equipment vendors familiar with
participants’ purchases of qualifying
equipment.
Scale of the Information Collection
The evaluation effort will focus on
programmatic activities implemented in
2008 (prior to the ARRA funding) and
in Program Years 2009–2011 (with
ARRA funding). Programmatic activities
will be organized into ‘‘Broad Program
Area Categories’’ (BPACs) for purposes
of conducting the research. For each
evaluation period, DOE has determined

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

70995

that those BPACs accounting for
approximately 80 percent of the total
SEP activity will be evaluated.
A sampling frame consisting of all
relevant programmatic activities for
Program Year 2008 and Program Years
2009–2011 will be compiled, assigning
each programmatic activity to a single
BPAC. A probability sample of 82
individual programmatic activities will
be selected, using BPACs as strata, to
represent the most heavily-funded
activities in the portfolio of SEP’s
energy efficiency and renewable energy
efforts. The total level of effort for the
evaluation will be allocated to BPACs
within each study period in proportion
to their level of spending.
To use resources efficiently, the
programmatic activities within the
various BPACs will be studied at
different levels of rigor, reflecting their
relative size and expected contribution
towards overall energy savings. Rigor
level corresponds to both the statistical
analysis and the quality of data
necessary to support the analysis. High
Rigor evaluation approaches will yield
the most reliable impact estimates,
using methods recognized by the
California Evaluation Protocols, DOE’s
Impact Evaluation Framework for
Technology Deployment Programs, and
the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol
(IPMVP). The high-rigor evaluation
methods will be applied to BPACs that
(a) Account for a large proportion of
funds spent on State-level initiatives; (b)
are believed to achieve substantial
energy savings; (c) are considered
important by the States; and (d) are
expected to play a major role in future
SEP efforts. Medium-high rigor methods
will require verification of savings and
outcomes with individual participants,
but will use less intensive data
collection methods than those
prescribed for high-rigor. For example,
data may be collected by telephone
contact with participants, rather than a
site visit. Sample sizes will also be
smaller in the medium-high rigor
evaluations. Medium-low rigor
evaluation approaches will not include
any data collection from individual
program participants to estimate savings
or outcomes. These evaluations will use
data that can be obtained from program
records and secondary sources, as well
as engineering-based methods to
produce energy savings and outcome
estimates.
A range of qualitative, quantitative
(survey), on-site inspection and
verification, and secondary data will be
used to support the evaluation. Different
types of data will be required for each

E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM

16NON1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70996

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices

of the four types of previously-identified
outcomes.
For estimating energy, cost, and
demand savings, the high and mediumhigh rigor evaluations require data such
as pre- and post-participation energy
use and demand, surveys of measure
implementation or participation, and
verification of installation of energy
efficient equipment and operating
conditions and schedule by interview
and/or on-site inspection. The
calculation of energy impacts will
follow the IPMVP methods and will
include estimation of gross and net
savings, annualizing and normalizing
results to post-participation levels to
calculate impacts. Medium-high rigor
evaluations will utilize telephone
interview data, combined with
engineering data and secondary data,
such as published reports and program
statistics to calculate energy impacts.
The high and medium-high rigor
evaluation of increases in renewable
energy capacity and generation will
require collection of meter data (where
available from participants), on-site
inspection and review of the system
design and equipment used, interviews
with project owners and operators, and
review of project files. Medium-low
rigor evaluations will utilize secondary
data, such as published reports and
statistics.
The high and medium-high rigor
evaluations of carbon emissions
reductions will require an assessment of
annualized carbon dioxide reductions
achieved as a result of SEP-funded
activities. This assessment will require
calculation of reductions in
consumption of fossil fuel and
replacement of fossil fuel generation
with renewable energy generation. The
data required for these assessments will
include the types of data identified
above for energy savings and for
increases in renewable generation.
The high and medium-high rigor
evaluations of direct and indirect job
impacts will use a 51-region (State)
Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI)
Policy Insight simulation model. Data
required for the job creation analysis
will include the types of data identified
above for energy, cost, and demand
savings to calculate the dollar savings to
households and businesses resulting
from energy and electric demand plus
surveys of additional expenditures on
new energy-efficient equipment and
systems. State economic data on
patterns of spending and business sales
among key sectors affecting the flow of
dollars into, out of, and within the state
will also be required.
The evaluation will utilize three
distinct data collection methods. First,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:45 Nov 15, 2011

Jkt 226001

the evaluation will employ a total of six
computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) survey instruments.
With an average of approximately 669
respondents per telephone survey, 4,016
telephone survey respondents will be
targeted for participation in the
evaluation. Second, the study will
utilize 28 individual in-depth interview
guides targeting an average of
approximately 31 respondents each,
with a total target population of 881
interviewees. Third, a total of 152 onsite data collections will be conducted
as part of the evaluation. Together, these
three methods will involve 4,897
respondents and entail a total burden of
5,094 hours. (This calculation is based
on assumptions that telephone surveys
require 45 minutes on average, in-depth
interviews 90 minutes, and on-site data
collections 300 minutes.)
The above-described data collection
methods will be supplemented by
additional records research and
database review activities applicable to
all three methods across all participant
categories. These general recordkeeping
activities will require an estimated
1,072 hours. Combining the burden
hours associated with telephone
surveys, in-depth interviews, and onsite data collections (5,094 hours) with
the burden hours associated with
general records review (1,072 hours)
produces a total estimated burden of
6,166 hours.
The evaluation protocols will provide
BPAC-level estimates for each of the
outcome measures. The results of the
evaluations for all the BPACs studied
will be expanded to produce cumulative
estimates. Outcome measures will be
calculated for the 2008 (pre-ARRA) and
the 2009–2011 (ARRA funding)
evaluation periods.
A number of steps are being taken to
avoid duplicating the efforts of any
concurrent evaluations of SEP activities
sponsored by individual states. These
include: (1) Coordinating with the
National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO) to share information
on the programmatic activities being
examined by specific states; (2)
coordinating with regional DOE project
officers to identify any State evaluation
efforts with which they are associated;
(3) meeting with selected State program
managers to keep informed of ongoing
evaluation efforts and the research
approaches being employed; and (4)
coordinating with evaluation
contractors to learn of State evaluation
efforts with which they are involved.
These efforts will keep the national SEP
evaluation informed of what States are
doing so that the programmatic
activities sampled for this study do not

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

overlap with any independent State
evaluations. In addition to these efforts
to avoid duplication, DOE has provided
a set of evaluation guidelines to the
States to help inform their evaluation
efforts and ensure that the results are
reliable enough to allow them to be used
to support the national SEP evaluation
without the need to study the same
activities again.
The sample selection of BPACs and
specific programmatic activities within
each BPAC was completed in June 2011.
Data collection and calculation of
outcomes is scheduled to be completed
by July 2012.
The detailed study design and work
plan for the SEP evaluation has been
available for public review since May,
2011 at http://weatherization.ornl.gov/
evaluation_sep.shtml.
(5) Annual Estimated Number of
Respondents: 4,897.
(6) Annual Estimated Number of
Total Responses: 5,049.
(7) Annual Estimated Total Number
of Burden Hours: 6,166.
Statutory Authority: Title III of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, (42
U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) as amended, authorizes
DOE to administer the State Energy Program
(SEP).
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3,
2011.
Henry C. Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–29603 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Case No. CW–020]

Decision and Order Granting a Waiver
to Samsung From the Department of
Energy Residential Clothes Washer
Test Procedure
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) gives notice of the
decision and order (Case No. CW–020)
that grants to Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. (Samsung) a waiver from
the DOE clothes washer test procedure
for determining the energy consumption
of clothes washers for the basic models
set forth in its petition for waiver. Under
today’s decision and order, Samsung
shall be required to test and rate these
clothes washers using an alternate test

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM

16NON1