60 Day FRN

57240

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices

Dated: November 28, 2017.
Tomakie Washington,
Acting Director. Information Collection
Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy
Officer, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2017–25968 Filed 12–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[OE Docket No. PP–441]

Application for Presidential Permit;
Clean Power Northeast Development
Inc.
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Application.
AGENCY:

Clean Power Northeast
Development Inc. (CPNE) has applied
for a Presidential permit to construct,
operate, maintain, and connect an
electric transmission line across the
United States border with Canada.
DATES: Comments or motions to
intervene must be submitted on or
before January 3, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments or motions to
intervene should be addressed as
follows: Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability (OE–20), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office)
at 202–586–5260 or via electronic mail
at [email protected];
Rishi Garg (Program Attorney) at 202–
586–0258.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
construction, operation, maintenance,
and connection of facilities at the
international border of the United States
for the transmission of electric energy
between the United States and a foreign
country is prohibited in the absence of
a Presidential permit issued pursuant to
Executive Order (EO) 10485, as
amended by EO 12038.
On September 28, 2017, CPNE filed
an application with the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability of the Department of Energy
(DOE) for a Presidential permit for the
Atlantic Link Project (Atlantic Link).
CPNE is an indirectly wholly owned
subsidiary of Emera Inc. CPNE is a
development company headquartered
and operating in Boston, Massachusetts.
Emera Inc., headquartered in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada, is an energy
company operating in the United States,
Canada, and four Caribbean countries.
CNPE proposes to construct, operate,
maintain and connect a subsea, 1000

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

megawatt, high voltage direct current
(HVDC) transmission cable system to
deliver electricity from Atlantic Canada
to Massachusetts. The final transmission
cable system route is anticipated to be
located within rights-of-way (ROW)
selected from two current route
alternatives, and would connect Coleson
Cove, New Brunswick, Canada to
Plymouth, Massachusetts for a total
length of approximately 375 miles,
depending on which route alternative is
selected. Over 99 percent of the route
would be subsea. A majority of the total
transmission cable system route would
be located in United States federal
waters; however, short sections of the
route would traverse Massachusetts
state waters for a total of approximately
20 to 34 miles, depending on which
route alternative is selected. The total
length of the submarine transmission
cable system route in U.S. federal waters
(i.e., areas exclusive of Massachusetts
state waters) would be approximately
230 miles depending on which route is
selected.
Since the restructuring of the electric
industry began, resulting in the
introduction of different types of
competitive entities into the
marketplace, DOE has consistently
expressed its policy that cross-border
trade in electric energy should be
subject to the same principles of
comparable open access and nondiscrimination that apply to
transmission in interstate commerce.
DOE has stated that policy in export
authorizations granted to entities
requesting authority to export over
international transmission facilities.
Specifically, DOE expects transmitting
utilities owning border facilities to
provide access across the border in
accordance with the principles of
comparable open access and nondiscrimination contained in the Federal
Power Act and articulated in Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Order No. 888, (Promoting Wholesale
Competition Through Open Access
Non-Discriminatory Transmission
Services by Public Utilities), 61 FR
21,540 (May 10, 1996), as amended.
Procedural Matters: Any person may
comment on this application by filing
such comment at the address provided
above. Any person seeking to become a
party to this proceeding must file a
motion to intervene at the address
provided above in accordance with Rule
214 of FERC’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Two copies
of each comment or motion to intervene
should be filed with DOE on or before
the date listed above.
Additional copies of such motions to
intervene also should be filed directly

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

with: Dan Muldoon, P. Eng, President,
Clean Power Northeast Development
Inc., 101 Federal Street Suite 1101,
Boston, MA 02110, Dan.Muldoon@
Emera.com AND Gerald Weseen, Vice
President, Clean Power Northeast
Development Inc., 101 Federal Street
Suite 1101, Boston, MA 02110,
[email protected].
Before a Presidential permit may be
issued or amended, DOE must
determine that the proposed action is in
the public interest. In making that
determination, DOE may consider the
environmental impacts of the proposed
project pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
project’s impact on electric reliability by
ascertaining whether the proposed
project would adversely affect the
operation of the U.S. electric power
supply system under normal and
contingency conditions, and any other
factors that DOE may also deem relevant
to the public interest. Also, DOE must
obtain the concurrences of the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Defense
before taking final action on a
Presidential permit application.
Copies of this application will be
made available, upon request, for public
inspection and copying at the address
provided above, by accessing the
program Web site at http://energy.gov/
oe/services/electricity-policycoordination-and-implementation/
international-electricity-regulatio-2.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
28, 2017.
Christopher A. Lawrence,
Electricity Policy Analyst, National Electricity
Delivery Division, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2017–26052 Filed 12–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[EERE–2017–BT–CRT–0054]

Agency Information Collection
Extension, With Changes
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Submission for Office of
Management and Budget review;
comment request.
AGENCY:

Pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is forwarding an
information collection request to the
Office of Management and Budget

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices
(OMB) for review and comment. With
this information collection request DOE
intends to extend with changes for three
years with the OMB, the Certification
Reports, Compliance Statements,
Application for a Test Procedure
Waiver, and Recordkeeping for
Consumer Products and Commercial/
Industrial Equipment subject to Energy
or Water Conservation Standards
Package under OMB No. 1910–1400.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before January 3, 2018.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, please
advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of
your intention to make a submission as
soon as possible. The Desk Officer may
be telephoned at 202–395–4718 or
contacted by email at Chad_S_
[email protected].
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for the Office of Personnel
Management or sent via electronic mail
to [email protected] or
faxed to (202) 395–6974;
And to:
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.
doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.
doe.gov.
The PRA,
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue
two notices seeking public comment on
information collection activities before
OMB may approve paperwork packages.
44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5,
1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On August
22, 2017, DOE published a 60-day
notice in the Federal Register soliciting
comment on the information collection

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

request for which it is now seeking
OMB approval. See 82 FR 39780. DOE
received eight comments in response to
this notice, which are discussed in
section I of this document.
I. Summary of Comments
DOE requested comments as to
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility.
ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, NCLC, NEEP,
NEEA, and NPCC 1 (hereafter referred to
as ASAP et al.) submitted a joint
comment in support the extension of
information collection related to the
appliance standards program. ASAP et
al. emphasized that publicly-available
certification data provides valuable
information to consumers because it can
help consumers make purchasing
decisions. ASAP et al. further
commented that DOE’s compliance
certification database provides easy-touse information about all basic models
that have been certified to DOE, which
can help facilitate efficiency programs
by providing reliable model-specific
information. (ASAP et al., No. 7 at pp.
1–2) ASAP et al. also supported DOE’s
collection of information related to
applications for extensions regarding
representations because these
applications provide a mechanism to
limit burden on manufacturers. (ASAP
et al., No. 7 at p. 3)
The California Investor Owned
Utilities 2 (CA IOUs) fully supported the
collection of appliance information in
terms of utility and necessity, and are
proponents of the proposed extension
by three years. CA IOUs stated that the
information collected by DOE is
invaluable for standards development,
energy efficiency programs, marketplace
research, and other types of appliancerelated analyses conducted by industry
participants as well as consumers and
consumer advocate groups. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 2)
Lennox commented that consistent
information collection and enforcement
of DOE energy efficiency regulations are
needed to maintain a level playing field
in the market. Information reporting
should strike a balance between
1 Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),
Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National
Consumer Law Center (NCLC), Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and Northwest Power
and Conservation Council (NPCC).
2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), San
Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern
California Edison (SCE).

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57241

providing sufficient information and
excessive reporting burden. Lennox
further stated that DOE should not
eviscerate reporting and compliance
provisions, as doing so would chill
manufacturer investment in developing
new and improved products. (Lennox,
No. 9 at pp. 1–2)
Plumbing Manufacturers International
(PMI) commented that the current
reporting requirements are no longer
needed for commercial pre-rinse spray
valves, faucets, showerheads, urinals
and water closets because water
consumption requirements in line with
Federal regulations are already
addressed in industry standards and/or
codes. (PMI, No. 2 at pg. 1) DOE notes
that while industry standards may help
ensure that plumbing products comply
with Federal standards, industry
standards are voluntary. DOE also notes
that state building codes do not
uniformly adopt the most recent
industry standards. In addition to
ensuring compliance with the Federal
standards, DOE’s certification database
provides consumers with
comprehensive, up-to-date efficiency
information. Therefore, DOE does not
agree that industry standards and state
building codes negate the impact of
certification.
NAFEM commented that the
proposed requirements to submit
certificates of admissibility to the U.S.
Customs for each imported shipment is
an incredible burden and redundant
with other reporting obligations.
(NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2) DOE appreciates
NAFEM’s comments, and notes that the
proposal to which NAFEM was referring
is part of an open rulemaking, has not
been finalized, and is not part of this
information collection. Any additional
information collection burden that
would be imposed under such a
regulation, were one to be finalized,
would be evaluated and addressed in
the course of that rulemaking. For more
information about DOE’s rulemaking on
import data collection see docket
number: EERE–2015–BT–CE–0019.
DOE received several comments about
the accuracy of DOE’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
activities. ALA, AHAM, HPBA, ITI, and
NEMA (hereafter referred to as ALA et
al.) jointly commented that on average
the total annual certification burden is
358 hours per manufacturer. (ALA et al.,
No. 5 at p. 2) In addition, NAFEM
commented that its small business
members report that CCMS-related
testing and reporting cost a minimum
between $10,000–$15,000 for every
product line. (NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2)
In the August 2017 60-day notice,
DOE estimated that annually

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

57242

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices

respondents file 10 certification reports
per year with an average burden of 30
hours per response resulting in an
average of 300 burden hours per
respondent. In response to comments
received, DOE is increasing the
certification burden to 35 hours per
response, which better aligns with ALA
et al.’s estimate of 358 hours per
manufacturer.
DOE appreciates NAFEM’s feedback
on the cost for small businesses to test
and certify their products. However,
DOE wants to make clear that its
certification requirements do not require
manufacturers to test their basic models
annually in order to submit a
certification report. DOE only requires
manufacturers to determine the basic
model’s representative efficiency or
energy consumption before distribution
in U.S. commerce according to the
product-specific provisions found in
subpart B of 10 CFR part 429. For most
products, these provisions require
manufacturers to test at least two units
per basic model according to the DOE
test procedure, and DOE accounts for
the burden associated with testing when
adopting or amending a test procedure
or energy conservation standard.
NAFEM’s estimated burden includes
both the cost of testing and certification
and did not break out the cost
associated only with certification. For
this reason DOE cannot compare
NAFEM’s estimate to its own.
ALA et al. commented that
certification is primarily done by
product/compliance/design engineers,
but that additional staff involved in
reporting activities include lab
technicians, plant/product managers,
data entry personnel, compliance
officers, regulatory affairs staff, interns,
general support staff, and assistants. In
order to determine the total reporting
and recordkeeping cost burden, DOE
estimated a fully burdened labor rate 3
of $100/hr. In addition to consideration
of an engineer’s labor rate, the fully
burdened labor rate also reflects the
labor rates of the other staff as described
by ALA et al., as well as that of a staff
attorney.
DOE also received comments
suggesting ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information
being collected and suggestions to
minimize the burden of information
collection activities.
A number of comments focused on
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Management System (CCMS). ASAP et
al. and Lennox commented in support
3 A fully burdened labor rate includes the
employee’s salary, fringe benefits, health insurance,
and administrative costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

of DOE’s electronic CCMS because it
reduces reporting burdens and
streamlines the certification process.
(ASAP et al., No. 7 at p. 3; Lennox No.
9 at p. 2)
However, Acuity opined that DOE
uses the CCMS system to check that
manufacturers have completed the
requisite administrative tasks and that
the system provides no value in
validating a product’s performance.
Acuity asserted that DOE’s enforcement
efforts are focused entirely on entry
mistakes, while ignoring manufacturers
who do not report at all. Acuity further
asserted that its prior complaints
regarding manufacturers that do not
comply with the certification reporting
obligations have gone unaddressed.
Acuity suggested DOE could establish a
Web site or reporting mechanism,
similar to the FTC’s public claims filing
system, which would allow
manufacturers to report suspected
nonreporting manufacturers to help
facilitate enforcement against
nonreporting entities. (Acuity, No. 3 at
pp. 4–5)
The Office of the Assistant General
Counsel for Enforcement reviews
manufacturers’ compliance with
certification requirements to ensure that
manufacturers provide information
demonstrating compliance with DOE
standards and regulations. In addition,
this program investigates all complaints
about potential noncompliance. DOE
notes that it currently has a mechanism
for the submission of complaints.
Anyone wishing to make a complaint
may send an email to energyefficiency
[email protected] or call 202–
287–6997. Additional information about
submitting complaints of noncompliance may be found on DOE’s
Web site at: https://energy.gov/gc/
action-center-office-general-counsel/
report-appliance-regulation-violation.
DOE also received suggestions to
improve CCMS. Lennox commented
that DOE should publish certification
record numbers on its public
certification database to further
streamline verification of product
certification. (Lennox, No. 9 at pp. 2–3)
Acuity commented that CCMS has an
outdated data entry system, which
requires manual input of numerous
fields of information for hundreds of
product models into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet that cannot be edited or
updated after filing. Acuity suggested
the data entry system should be
replaced with a dynamic Web-based
platform that would allow companies to
enter and update—and DOE to
analyze—real-time compliance data. In
addition, Acuity commented that a
Web-based portal or similar construct

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

could be secured by password/
credential protection from both the
manufacturer and DOE sides. (Acuity,
No. 3, pp. 2–3 and p. 5) Traulsen
commented that DOE should better
align annual product certification
deadlines with new template usage so
that manufacturers are not required to
certify multiple times. In addition,
Traulsen suggested that DOE release a
revision log noting changes made in
certification templates to aid the entities
completing the templates. (Traulsen,
No. 4 at p. 1)
DOE appreciates the feedback from
Lennox, Acuity, and Traulsen and will
consider these comments going forward.
In response to Acuity’s comment, DOE
emphasizes that it elected to use
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for
certification templates because of its
flexibility and because it is a widely
adopted standard product across
industries. The certification templates
allow data to be entered manually, with
copy-and-paste, or imported from
another system. In addition, these
Microsoft Excel templates allow
manufacturers to work on it over time,
save it locally, and have several people
work on it without having to have an
open user session in CCMS. Further,
DOE’s CCMS system is currently
secured by password protection. All
users are required to register with CCMS
and establish usernames and passwords
to access CCMS.
Interested parties also commented on
aligning DOE’s reporting requirements
with other entities. The CA IOUs
commented in support of aligning the
data collected for DOE and the
California Energy Commission (CEC)
because the reduction of duplicative
reporting requirements helps avoid
inconsistencies in data and benefits
manufacturers serving the California
marketplace by minimizing their
compliance overhead. The CA IOUs
urged DOE to work very closely with
CEC to make sure their data and systems
align. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2–3)
Traulsen also supports DOE’s
consideration of revisions to the CCMS
to facilitate a reduction in duplicative
reporting under California’s Appliance
Efficiency Regulations. (Traulsen, No. 4
at p. 2) Lennox stated that DOE’s CCMS
system should be utilized as the central
information repository to satisfy other
regulatory or program requirements and
DOE should work to utilize the existing
data to satisfy CEC’s reporting
requirements. (Lennox, No. 9 at pp.
2–3) ALA et al. also commented that
CCMS should be the central place for
manufacturers to report data related to
energy use. In addition to aligning
reporting requirements with FTC, ALA

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices
et al. suggested that DOE could further
streamline the database by adding a
column to each template so that
ENERGY STAR qualification can be
indicated. ALA et al. also supported
eliminating duplicative reporting
requirements between California and
DOE by ensuring that the information
reported on CCMS can satisfy the CEC
requirements. (ALA et al., No. 5 at pp.
3–5) NAFEM suggested that the U.S.
and Canada harmonize reporting
requirements and templates because
their programs and markets are similar.
NAFEM stated that DOE should survey
Canada, U.S. states and other agencies
to identify additional information that
should be included in the CCMS
database so that CCMS is a one-stop
location where manufacturers list their
products. (NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2)
PMI commented that Federal and
state requirements should be reported
separately, even though it could
possibly eliminate duplicative
reporting, as DOE should maintain its
national focus and let states manage
themselves. PMI also questioned how
DOE would address differences in
reporting requirements and covered
products. (PMI, No. 2 at p. 2)
Based on the comments received,
DOE has incorporated the cost of
reporting any additional fields to its
certification templates, which would aid
in facilitating a reduction in duplicative
reporting under the California’s
Appliance Efficiency Regulations and
the ENERGY STAR program. At this
time, DOE will work with CEC and EPA
on ways it could reduce duplicative
reporting on a case-by-case basis. In
response to PMI’s concern about
addressing differences in reporting
requirements, DOE would simply add
additional fields to its certification
templates to account for any additional
information needed for reporting to CEC
or ENERGY STAR. Submission of the
additional information would not be
mandatory for the purpose of complying
with DOE’s Federal requirements.
ALA et al. commented that DOE
should reevaluate its annual
certification requirements and that
manufacturers should be required to
report only when a new product is
introduced, when a model is changed in
a way that impacts measured energy or
efficiency, and when a product is no
longer in production. ALA et al. opined
that annual reporting does nothing to
enhance consumer knowledge and
serves no purpose for DOE rulemaking
or enforcement efforts. ALA et al.
estimated that removing annual
reporting requirements would reduce
the annual reporting burden on average
by 126.6 hours per manufacturer. In

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

addition, ALA et al. commented that
DOE should limit the data reporting to
only information that is essential to
show compliance with the standards.
(ALA et al., No. 5 at pp. 2–4) Acuity
commented that annual reporting adds
unnecessary costs for manufacturers.
Acuity also stated that DOE uses
valuable enforcement resources
reviewing vast amounts of repetitive
data. Acuity recommended DOE
eliminate the annual reporting
requirement when products and
information have not changed from the
previous report. Instead, Acuity
suggested that annual reporting be
replaced with an annual certification
requirement from reporting companies
that their information is correct and upto-date or, alternatively, allow for
certification of only updated
information. (Acuity, No. 3 at pp. 1, 3
and 5)
ASAP et al. stated that the
requirement to submit certification
reports annually provides DOE with upto-date information about regulated
products available for sale. ASAP et al.
commented that the submission of
certification and compliance reports
along with records retention is essential
for DOE to conduct effective
enforcement and that effective
enforcement protects manufacturers
who are complying with the law from
unscrupulous competitors and ensures
products purchased by consumers
deliver the required levels of efficiency
and, in turn, utility bill savings. (ASAP
et al., No. 7 at pp. 1–2)
DOE is not considering amending its
regulations as part of this notice;
however, it will consider these
comments in any future rulemakings
that address certification requirements.
ALA et al. commented DOE should
commit to issuing related CCMS
templates no later than one year before
the compliance date of the standard or
test procedure. (ALA et al., No. 5 at pp.
4) NAFEM and Acuity commented that
at times DOE does not provide
certification templates in a timely
manner. (NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2; Acuity,
No. 3 at p. 3) NAFEM added that
templates should be provided more than
three months before a certification
deadline. (NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2) DOE
appreciates the feedback from ALA et
al., NAFEM, and Acuity. DOE strives to
make certification templates available in
a timely manner and will work to post
new or revised templates well in
advance of certification deadlines to
address concerns of the commenters.
Lennox commented that DOE should
employ negotiated or working group
consensus approaches as an integral
part of the DOE rulemakings unless

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57243

there is not a reasonable likelihood that
the requisite consensus can be reached.
Certification and information reporting
requirements should be included in this
process. (Lennox, No. 9 at p. 2) DOE
appreciates Lennox’s comment and will
take it under consideration for future
rulemakings.
DOE also received comments on its
test procedure waiver process. ASAP et
al. commented that the test procedure
waiver process helps to ensure that
manufacturers can continue to
introduce products with new features,
even when those features may not have
been contemplated at the time the test
procedure was established. (ASAP et al.,
No. 7 at pp. 2) NAFEM commented that
DOE’s current test procedure waiver
process is burdensome, lengthy, costly,
and an inhibitor to innovation and small
business. NAFEM stated that the test
waiver process needs to be streamlined
to allow the manufacturers and DOE to
be more flexible and responsive, thus
allowing continued product
development and innovation of
products that further energy efficiency.
(NAFEM, No. 6 at p. 2–3) Acuity
suggested that DOE should allow waiver
applications from trade associations or
similar industry groups because this
would streamline the application
process and allow manufacturers to pool
compliance resources, while saving
DOE time and expense in reviewing
repetitive company applications. In
addition, Acuity urged DOE to approve
or deny test procedure waivers in a
timely manner. (Acuity, No. 3 at p. 5)
Traulsen suggested that an interim
waiver should be considered granted if
the applicant does not receive a
response from DOE within 30 business
days. In addition, Traulsen suggested an
amendment to the waiver process that if
public comment or rebuttal is not
submitted to DOE within the allotted
comment period after an interim waiver
is granted, then a final determination on
the waiver can be expected within three
months of issuance of the interim
waiver. Traulsen asserted that the time
lost during a waiver’s review delays the
product from being available to the
market, resulting in lost opportunity.
(Traulsen, No. 4 at p. 2) While DOE is
not considering amending its
regulations, including those for the
waiver process, as part of this notice, it
will consider these comments in any
future rulemakings that address
certification or other regulatory
requirements.
Acuity also commented that there is
a lack of guidance and compliance
resources from DOE regarding
compliance expectations and
interpretations, particularly when

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

57244

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices

The summaries below describe the
information collection request and its
expected burden. DOE is submitting this
renewal request for clearance by OMB,
as the PRA requires.
Comments are invited on the
following information collection request
regarding: (1) Whether the information
collection activities are necessary for
DOE to properly execute its functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
DOE’s estimates of the burden of the
information collection activities,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for
DOE to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information being
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of information collection
activities on the public, including the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
This information collection request
contains:
(1) OMB No. 1910–1400;
(2) Information Collection Request
Title: Certification Reports, Compliance
Statements, Application for a Test
Procedure Waiver, Application for
Extension of Representation
Requirements, Labeling, and
Recordkeeping for Consumer Products
and Commercial/Industrial Equipment
subject to Federal Energy or Water
Conservation Standards;
(3) Type of Request: Renewal with
changes;
(4) Purpose:
Pursuant to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ or
‘‘the Act’’),4 Public Law 94–163 (42
U.S.C. 6291–6317, as codified), DOE
regulates the energy efficiency of a

number of consumer products, and
commercial and industrial equipment.
Title III, Part B 5 of EPCA established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles, which sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency of covered consumer
products (‘‘covered products’’). Title III,
Part C 6 of EPCA, added by Public Law
95–619, Title IV, § 441(a), established
the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency of
covered commercial and industrial
equipment (collectively referred to as
‘‘covered equipment’’).
Covered products and covered
equipment are described in 10 CFR
parts 429, 430, and 431. These covered
products and covered equipment,
including all product or equipment
classes, include: (1) Consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and
freezers; (2) Room air conditioners; (3)
Central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps; (4) Consumer
water heaters; (5) Consumer furnaces
and boilers; (6) Dishwashers; (7)
Residential clothes washers; (8) Clothes
dryers; (9) Direct heating equipment;
(10) Cooking products; (11) Pool heaters;
(12) Television sets; (13) Fluorescent
lamp ballasts; (14) General service
fluorescent lamps, general service
incandescent lamps, and incandescent
reflector lamps; (15) Faucets; (16)
Showerheads; (17) Water closets; (18)
Urinals; (19) Ceiling fans; (20) Ceiling
fan light kits; (21) Torchieres; (22)
Compact fluorescent lamps; (23)
Dehumidifiers; (24) External power
supplies; (25) Battery chargers; (26)
Candelabra base incandescent lamps
and intermediate base incandescent
lamps; (27) Commercial warm air
furnaces; (28) Commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; (29)
Commercial heating and air
conditioning equipment; (30)
Commercial water heating equipment;
(31) Automatic commercial ice makers;
(32) Commercial clothes washers; (33)
Distribution transformers; (34)
Illuminated exit signs; (35) Traffic signal
modules and pedestrian modules; (36)
Commercial unit heaters; (37)
Commercial pre-rinse spray valves; (38)
Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines; (39) Walk-in coolers
and walk-in freezers and certain
components; (40) Metal halide lamp
ballasts and fixtures (41) Integrated

4 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015),
Public Law 114–11 (April 30, 2015).

5 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
6 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.

regulations are, in Acuity’s opinion,
ambiguous or conflicting. (Acuity, No. 3
at pp. 1, 3–4, 5) DOE appreciates
Acuity’s comment and notes that it has
a mechanism in place for manufacturers
to seek guidance. DOE posts guidance
and frequently asked questions on its
Web site at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/
default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. DOE
encourages manufacturers and other
entities with questions to email
questions to [email protected] or
submit questions via the online form on
the aforementioned Web page.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

II. Information Collection Request and
Expected Burden

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

light-emitting diode lamps; (42) General
service lamps; (43) Furnace fans; (44)
Pumps; (45) Commercial packaged
boilers; (46) Consumer miscellaneous
refrigeration equipment; (47) Portable
air conditioners; (48) Compressors; (49)
Electric motors, and (50) Small electric
motors.
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. For consumer
products, relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42
U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296). For covered equipment, relevant
provisions of the Act include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316). DOE is seeking to renew its
information collection related to the
following aspects of the appliance
standards program: (1) Gathering data
and submittal of certification and
compliance reports for each basic model
distributed in commerce in the U.S.
including supplemental testing
instructions for certain commercial
equipment; (2) maintaining records
underlying the certified ratings for each
basic model including test data and the
associated calculations; (3) applications
for a test procedure waiver, which
manufacturers may elect to submit if
they manufacture a basic model that
cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE
test procedure; (4) applications
requesting an extension of the date by
which representations must be made in
accordance with any new or amended
DOE test procedure; and (5) labeling.
DOE’s certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of
covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States.
Manufacturers of all covered products
and covered equipment must submit a
certification report before a basic model
is distributed in commerce, annually
thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase
the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that
the certified rating is no longer
supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices
production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part
of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires
the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to
establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification
testing, and of any other testing
conducted to satisfy the requirements of
10 CFR part 429, part 430, and/or part
431. Certification reports provide DOE
and consumers with comprehensive,
up-to-date efficiency information and
support effective enforcement.
As the result of a negotiated
rulemaking, DOE adopted additional
certification requirements for
commercial HVAC, water heater, and
refrigeration equipment. Specifically,
DOE requires manufacturers of
commercial refrigeration equipment and
some types of commercial HVAC
equipment to submit a PDF with
specific testing instructions to be used
by the Department during verification
and enforcement testing. Manufacturers
of commercial water heating equipment
and some types of commercial HVAC
equipment have the option of
submitting a PDF with additional testing
instructions at the manufacturer’s
discretion. For additional information
on the negotiated rulemaking or
supplemental testing instructions see
docket number EERE–2013–BT–NOC–
0023.
On December 18, 2014, Congress
enacted the EPS Service Parts Act of
2014 (Pub. L. 113–263, ‘‘Service Parts
Act’’). That law exempted
manufacturers of certain external power
supplies (‘‘EPSs’’) that were made
available as service and spare parts for
end-use products manufactured before
February 10, 2016, from the energy
conservation standards that DOE
promulgated in its February 2014 rule.
See 79 FR 7846 (Feb. 10, 2014).
Additionally, the Service Parts Act
permits DOE to require manufacturers of
an EPS that is exempt from the 2016
standards to report to DOE the total
number of such EPS units that are
shipped annually as service and spare
parts and that do not meet those
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii))
DOE may also limit the applicability of
the exemption if the Secretary
determines that the exemption is
resulting in a significant reduction of
the energy savings that would result in
the absence of the exemption. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(5)(A)(iii)) In a final rule
published on May 16, 2016, DOE
adopted reporting requirements for EPS
manufacturers to provide the total
number of exempt EPS units sold as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

service and spare parts for which the
manufacturer is claiming exemption
from the current standards. 81 FR
30157.
DOE currently requires manufacturers
or their party representatives to prepare
and submit certification reports and
compliance statements using DOE’s
electronic Web-based tool, the
Compliance and Certification
Management System (CCMS), which is
the primary mechanism for submitting
certification reports to DOE. CCMS
currently has product and equipment
specific templates which manufacturers
are required to use when submitting
certification data to DOE. DOE believes
the availability of electronic filing
through the CCMS system reduces
reporting burdens, streamlines the
process, and provides the Department
with needed information in a
standardized, more accessible form.
This electronic filing system also
ensures that records are recorded in a
permanent, systematic way.
Manufacturers also may rely on CCMS
reporting to satisfy certain reporting
requirements established by the Federal
Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’). EPCA
directs the FTC generally to prescribe
labeling rules for the consumer products
subject to energy conservation standards
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6296) The
required labels generally must disclose
the estimated annual operating cost of
such product (determined in accordance
with Federal test procedures); and
information respecting the range of
estimated annual operating costs for
covered products to which the rule
applies. (42 U.S.C 6296(c)(1)) Pursuant
to EPCA, the FTC prescribed the Energy
Labeling Rule, which in part, requires
manufacturers to attach yellow
EnergyGuide labels to many of the
covered consumer products. See 16 CFR
part 305. EnergyGuide labels for most
products subject to the FTC labeling
requirement contain three key
disclosures: estimated annual energy
cost (16 CFR 305.5); a product’s energy
consumption or energy efficiency rating
as determined from DOE test procedures
(Id.); and a comparability range
displaying the highest and lowest
energy costs or efficiency ratings for all
similar models (16 CFR 305.10).
The Energy Labeling Rule also
contains reporting requirements for
most products, under which
manufacturers must submit data to the
FTC both when they begin
manufacturing new models and on an
annual basis thereafter. 16 CFR 305.8.
These reports must contain, among
other things, estimated annual energy
consumption or energy efficiency
ratings, similar to what is required

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57245

under DOE’s reporting requirement. Id.
Prior to 2013, FTC collected energy data
on products subject to the Energy
Labeling Rule separate from DOE
through paper and email submissions to
the FTC. This arrangement required
manufacturers to submit nearly
duplicative reports to DOE and FTC.
However, in 2013 the FTC
streamlined and harmonized its
reporting requirements by giving
manufacturers the option to report FTCrequired data through DOE’s CCMS, in
lieu of the traditional practice of
submitting directly to FTC. 78 FR 2200
(Jan. 10, 2013); 16 CFR 305.8(a)(1). As
such, the CCMS reduces duplicative
reporting for manufacturers of covered
consumer products that are also
required to report under the FTC Energy
Label Rule.
DOE allows manufacturers of both
consumer products and/or commercial
equipment to apply for a test procedure
waiver. A manufacturer may submit an
application for a test procedure waiver
at its discretion if the basic model for
which the petition for waiver was
submitted contains one or more design
characteristics that prevents testing of
the basic model according to the
prescribed test procedures, or if the
prescribed test procedures may evaluate
the basic model in a manner so
unrepresentative of its true energy
consumption characteristics as to
provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. The Department
currently uses and will continue to use
the information submitted in the
application for a waiver as the basis for
granting or denying the petition. See 10
CFR 430.27 for additional information
on petitions for waivers and for
consumer products. See 10 CFR 431.401
for additional information on petitions
for waivers for commercial equipment.
DOE also allows manufacturers of
both consumer products and/or
commercial equipment to submit
applications requesting an extension of
the date by which representations must
be made in accordance with any new or
amended DOE test procedure. DOE may
grant extensions of up to 180 days if it
determines that making such
representations would impose an undue
hardship on the petitioner. The
Department currently uses and will
continue to use the information
submitted in these applications as the
basis for granting or denying the
petition.
In addition to the FTC labeling
requirements for consumer products
discussed, EPCA directs DOE to
establish labeling requirements for
covered industrial and commercial
equipment when specified criteria is

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

57246

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2017 / Notices

met. If the Department has prescribed
test procedures for any class of covered
equipment, a labeling rule applicable to
such class of covered equipment must
be prescribed. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a)) EPCA,
however, requires that certain criteria
must be met prior to DOE prescribing a
given labeling rule. Specifically, DOE
must determine that: (1) Labeling is
technologically and economically
feasible with respect to any particular
equipment class; (2) significant energy
savings will likely result from such
labeling; and (3) labeling is likely to
assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)) DOE has
established labeling requirements under
the authority in 42 U.S.C. 6315 for
electric motors (10 CFR 431.31), walk-in
coolers and freezers (10 CFR 431.305),
and pumps (10 CFR 431.466).
(5) Proposed changes to the
information collection, including
description of additional information
that would be collected.
No changes are being made to the
information collection instrument at
this time; any such changes would be
made through a rulemaking to amend
the applicable regulations. DOE
accounted for the reporting that would
be needed in order to facilitate a
reduction in duplicative reporting under
the California’s Appliance Efficiency
Regulations and the ENERGY STAR
program, similar to what was achieved
with the FTC. Under its Appliance
Efficiency Regulations, California
requires manufacturers to certify and
report to the CEC energy efficiency data
of certain consumer products. See
California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 20, section 1606. For consumer
products that are reported to the
California Energy Commission and are
subject to Federal test procedures, the
California regulations generally require
submission of data from those Federal
test procedures (i.e., the same data
reported to DOE). While DOE continues
to explore this pathway on a case-bycase basis with the other agencies or
States involved, DOE would just add
fields to the CCMS that would allow the
California Energy Commission to accept
a CCMS report in satisfaction of the
state reporting requirement. Submission
of the additional information would not
be mandatory (from DOE’s perspective)
and would consist of information that
manufacturers are already submitting to
the California Energy Commission.
Should the California Energy
Commission choose to streamline and
harmonize its reporting requirements by
giving manufacturers the option to
report California-required data through
DOE’s CCMS, use of CCMS would
reduce duplicative reporting between

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Dec 01, 2017

Jkt 244001

the California and DOE requirements. In
addition, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) currently requires
ENERGY STAR program participants to
send information about the energyefficiency characteristics of those
models participating in the ENERGY
STAR program. Should DOE and EPA
decide that a single submittal system
could satisfy DOE’s regulatory
requirements and EPA’s voluntary
ENERGY STAR reporting requirements,
then DOE would add minimal
additional fields to CCMS and collect
them from certifiers in order to reduce
overall burden. DOE believes its
estimates in this information collection
account for the burden associated with
these two potential harmonization
efforts, which would result in a
reduction in cost for the scheme in
place today.
(6) Annual Estimated Number of
Respondents: 2,000;
(7) Annual Estimated Number of
Total Responses: 20,000;
(8) Annual Estimated Number of
Burden Hours: 775,000 (35 hours per
certification, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information; 16 additional hours for
creating supplement testing instructions
for commercial HVAC, water heating,
and refrigeration equipment
manufacturers; 160 hours for test
procedure waiver preparation; 160
hours for representation extension
request preparation; 1 hour for creating
and applying a label for walk-in cooler
and freezer, commercial and industrial
pump, and electric motor
manufacturers);
(9) Annual Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping Cost Burden:
$77,500,000.
Authority: Section 326(d) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94–
163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6296); 10 CFR
parts 429, 430, and 431.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
28, 2017.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2017–26056 Filed 12–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 9088–051]

Sugar River Power LLC; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing,
Soliciting Comments, Protests and
Motions to Intervene
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection:
a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of
License Term.
b. Project No.: P–9088–051.
c. Date Filed: November 2, 2017.
d. Licensee: Sugar River Power LLC.
e. Name and Location of Project:
Lower Village Project, located on the
Sugar River in Sullivan County, New
Hampshire.
f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r.
g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr.
Robert King, Manager, Sugar River
Power LLC, 42 Hurricane Rd., Keene,
New Hampshire 03431, 603–352–3444,
[email protected].
h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai,
(202) 502–8370, [email protected].
i. Deadline for filing comments,
motions to intervene and protests, is 30
days from the issuance date of this
notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. Please file motions to
intervene, protests, comments, and
recommendations, using the
Commission’s eFiling system at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], (866)
208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659
(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The first page of any filing should
include docket number P–9088–051.
j. Description of Proceeding: The
licensee, Sugar River LLC, requests the
Commission extend the term of the
license for the Lower Village Project No.
9088, from August 31, 2026 to August
31, 2031, which will align its modified
expiration date with that of the nearby
Sweetwater Project No. 10898, which
has an expiration date of February 28,
2031. The licensee received a 40-year

E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM

04DEN1