2122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Notices 

Policy’s National Technical Assistance, 

Policy, and Research Center for 

Employers. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority: We will announce the 

final priority in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priority after considering responses to 

this notice and other information 

available to the Department. This notice 

does not preclude us from proposing 

additional priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria, subject 

to meeting applicable rulemaking 

requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priority justify 

the costs. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years in that similar 

projects have been completed 

successfully. This proposed priority will 

generate new knowledge through 

research and development activities. 

Another benefit of this proposed 

priority is that the establishment of a 

new RRTC will support the research and 

will improve the lives of individuals 

with disabilities. The new RRTC will 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that will 

improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to obtain, retain, and 

advance in employment. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

by contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, 

toll-free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. 

Note: 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 and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: January 8, 2010. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–480 Filed 1–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Additional Guidance Regarding 

Application of Current Procedures for 

Testing Energy Consumption of 

Refrigerator-Freezers With Automatic 

Ice Makers 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) guidance 

to ensure the consistent application of 

DOE’s current test procedure to 

refrigerator-freezers with French doors, 

bottom-mounted freezers, and throughthe-door (TTD) ice service (French door 

TTD models). This Guidance was issued 

on December 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stephanie Weiner at 202–586–9648. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 

1975, as amended, (EPCA or the Act) 

requires the Department of Energy (DOE 

or the Department) to prescribe 

standardized test procedures to measure 

the energy consumption of certain 

consumer products. See 42 U.S.C. 6293, 

6295(r). The Department’s current test 

procedure for residential refrigeratorfreezers is set forth at 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart B, Appendix A1, Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of Electric Refrigerators 

and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers 

(Appendix A1). DOE issues this 

guidance to ensure the consistent 

application of the current test procedure 

to refrigerator-freezers with French 

doors, bottom-mounted freezers, and 

through-the-door (TTD) ice service 

(French door TTD models). 

Appendix A1 requires products to be 

tested in accordance with the relevant 

sections of Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

standard HRF–1–1979 (HRF–1). See 

Appendix A1, section 2.2; 47 FR 34517 

(Aug. 10, 1982). HRF–1 specifies that 

‘‘automatic ice makers are to be 

inoperative during the test’’ (‘‘ice maker 

exclusion’’). See HRF–1, section 7.4.2. 

HRF–1 defines ‘‘automatic ice maker’’ as 

‘‘[a] device, connected to a water supply, 

which automatically produces, harvests, 

and stores ice in a storage bin, with 

means to automatically interrupt the 

harvesting operation when the bin is 

filled to a predetermined amount.’’ Id. at 

sec. 3.5. 

At the time when AHAM developed 

and DOE adopted HRF–1, refrigeratorfreezer models equipped with automatic 

ice makers located the ice maker in the 

freezer compartments, rather than 

separate ice compartments outside the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 30
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Notices 2123 

freezer. Further, ice maker controls were 

generally electro-mechanical (i.e. the 

electrical switches in the controls that 

turn functions on and off are operated 

by mechanical action). Thus, since the 

test procedure was adopted, DOE has 

typically applied HRF–1’s ice maker 

exclusion by raising the baler arm bar of 

an automatic ice maker into its upright 

locked position, which stops ice 

production during normal operation. 

More specifically, this action stops the 

harvesting functions—the process of 

freeing or removing ice pieces from the 

ice mold of an automatic ice maker. 

Preventing the removal of ice from the 

ice mold, in turn, stops the subsequent 

activation of solenoid valves that allow 

the flow of more water into the ice 

maker. This longstanding test procedure 

renders the ice maker inoperative 

without affecting any energy-using 

functions of the product beyond active 

ice making operations. It most 

accurately reflects the real-world energy 

use of these devices because it includes 

in the efficiency calculation the energy 

used whenever the ice maker is 

powered on (as it will be most, if not all, 

of the time in normal household use), 

while excluding from the efficiency 

calculation the additional energy used 

when the ice maker is operative—i.e., 

when it is actively making and 

harvesting ice. The additional energy 

that is used during these periods of 

active operation is excluded in 

recognition that these active ice making 

functions occur only intermittently— 

when the ice maker senses that the ice 

bin is not full. 

Over the last few years, several 

manufacturers have introduced French 

door refrigerator-freezer models with 

bottom-mounted freezers and TTD ice 

service, which are designed to permit 

ice to be produced, stored, and 

dispensed at a consumer-friendly height 

through the door. The ice compartment 

is typically a special insulated 

compartment located within the fresh 

food compartment or mounted on one of 

the fresh food compartment doors. As 

these French door TTD models grew in 

number, DOE became aware that design 

variations led to the use of ice making 

components, such as the fill tube heater 

and ice ejection heater, that may 

consume energy beyond that used when 

the ice maker is actively making and 

harvesting ice. As a result, in some 

designs, turning the ice maker and its 

components off results in the machine 

using significantly less energy than 

when the ice maker is on, but not 

making ice. 

In January 2009, DOE posted on its 

Web site a short statement on the 

application of this test procedure to 

refrigerator-freezers with automatic ice 

makers. See http://www.energystar.gov/ 

index.cfm?c=refrig.pr_refrigerators. That 

January statement made clear that an ice 

storage bin must be maintained at a 

temperature to prevent the ice from 

melting during testing. We also stated 

that under DOE’s test procedure, energy 

consumed by components that interact 

with the ice maker, but are not involved 

in making ice, must be included in 

calculating a product’s reported total 

energy use. 

We understand that, despite our 

consistent past practice and prior efforts 

to be clear, some manufacturers may 

have misapplied our test procedure with 

respect to ice making components in 

French door TTD models. DOE issues 

this guidance to eliminate any lingering 

inconsistency in the application of our 

procedure to these refrigerator-freezers. 

Specifically, we make clear our 

consistent view that, under the current 

test procedure, ice makers and all ice 

making components—including the fill 

tube heater and ice ejection heater— 

must be on and functioning as they 

would be when the icemaker is not 

actively making ice. The ice maker and 

all ice making components—including 

the fill tube heater and ice ejection 

heater—may be rendered ‘‘inoperative’’ 

by preventing the machine from making 

ice during the test, such as by creating 

a condition in which the machine 

senses a full bin of ice. Turning the ice 

maker and/or its components off during 

the test is not permitted because it may 

improperly exclude energy beyond that 

used during the intermittent periods 

when the ice maker is operative—i.e., 

when it is actively making ice. 

This application of the ice maker 

exclusion to French door TTD models 

follows from the plain language and 

intent of our test procedure, comports 

with the purpose of the Act, and is 

consistent with nearly 30 years of DOE 

understanding and practice. As stated 

above, HRF–1 specifies that ‘‘automatic 

ice makers are to be inoperative during 

the test.’’ See HRF–1, section 7.4.2. DOE 

interprets ‘‘inoperative’’ by reference to 

the definition of an automatic ice maker. 

HRF–1 defines ‘‘automatic ice maker’’ as 

‘‘[a] device, connected to a water supply, 

which automatically produces, harvests, 

and stores ice in a storage bin, with 

means to automatically interrupt the 

harvesting operation when the bin is 

filled to a predetermined amount.’’ Id. at 

sec. 3.5 (emphasis added). Thus, an ice 

maker is ‘‘inoperative’’ when the ice 

maker has ‘‘interrupt[ed] the harvesting 

operation,’’ such as when the unit senses 

that ‘‘the bin is filled to a predetermined 

amount.’’ As described above, such an 

action prevents the machine from 

making ice, by stopping the harvesting 

of ice, which in turn stops the 

production of additional ice, without 

affecting the energy consumed by other 

refrigerator-freezer functions. 

Our application is also informed by 

EPCA’s underlying purpose of 

advancing energy efficiency. 42 U.S.C. 

6201(5). In authorizing DOE to 

promulgate test procedures, the Act 

provides that ‘‘[a]ny test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency * * * of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3). Guided by this provision, we 

apply our test procedures, to the extent 

possible, to reflect the energy consumed 

during representative consumer use. In 

our view, keeping the ice maker and its 

associated components on, but 

preventing them from making ice, better 

represents the average use of a 

refrigerator-freezer, such as when the 

machine has a full bin of ice in a 

consumer’s home. Turning off either the 

ice maker or components associated 

with the ice maker, by contrast, does not 

represent the average use of a 

refrigerator-freezer, and may cause the 

machine to consume less energy than 

when the ice maker is on, but not 

making ice. 

Finally, we emphasize that—far from 

a change to our existing view—this 

clarification of DOE’s interpretation of 

HRF–1 is consistent with DOE’s 

longstanding practice with respect to 

the ice maker exclusion. DOE has never 

interpreted the ice maker exclusion in 

our current test procedure to allow 

manufacturers to turn the ice maker or 

its components off. Rather, as described 

above, since this test procedure was 

adopted over twenty-seven years ago, 

DOE has applied the ice maker 

exclusion with the view that the ice 

maker should be on but prevented from 

making ice. Indeed, the advent of 

French door TTD models reinforces the 

importance of DOE’s pre-existing 

approach, which ensures that the 

exclusion is narrowly targeted to 

exempt only active ice making energy 

from a product’s total energy 

consumption. 

This guidance, which reflects nearly 

30 years of Department practice, 

represents the Department’s 

interpretation of the existing test 

procedure. It is not intended to create or 

remove any rights or duties, nor is it 

intended to affect any other aspect of 

EPCA or DOE regulations. This 

guidance was originally issued on 

December 18, 2009, at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 30
2124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Notices 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

rf_test_procedure_addl_guidance.pdf. 

Dated: January 8, 2010. 

Scott Blake Harris, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–570 Filed 1–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. IC10–538–000, IC10–539–000, 

IC10–577–000, IC10–606–000, and IC10– 

607–000] 

Commission Information Collection 

Activities (FERC–538, FERC–539, 

FERC–577, FERC–606, and FERC–607); 

Comment Request; Extensions 

January 7, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed information 

collections and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. No. 104–13), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) is soliciting public comment on 

the specific aspects of the information 

collections described below. 

DATES: Comments in consideration of 

the collections of information are due 

March 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed 

either electronically or in paper format, 

and should refer to Docket Nos. IC10– 

538–000, IC10–539–000, IC10–577–000, 

IC10–606–000, and IC10–607–000. For 

comments that only pertain to some of 

the collections, specify the appropriate 

collection(s) and related docket 

number(s). Documents must be prepared 

in an acceptable filing format and in 

compliance with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission submission 

guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/ 

submission-guide.asp. 

Comments may be filed electronically 

via the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. First 

time users will have to establish a user 

name and password (http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

eregistration.asp) before eFiling. The 

Commission will send an automatic 

acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail 

address upon receipt of comments 

through eFiling. Commenters filing 

electronically should not make a paper 

filing. 

Commenters that are not able to file 

electronically must send their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Users interested in receiving 

automatic notification of activity in this 

docket may do so through eSubscription 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp. In addition, all 

comments and FERC issuances may be 

viewed, printed or downloaded 

remotely through FERC’s Web site using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and searching on 

Docket Numbers IC10–538, IC10–539, 

IC10–577, IC10–606, and IC10–607. For 

user assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support at: ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502– 

8659 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Brown may be reached by 

telephone at (202) 502–8663, by fax at 

(202) 273–0873, or by e-mail at 

ellen.brown@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the 

purpose of publishing this notice and 

seeking public comment, FERC requests 

comments on the following information 

collections: 

• FERC–538, Gas Pipeline Certificate: 

Section 7(a) Mandatory Initial Service, 

contained in 18 CFR Part 156; OMB 

Control No. 1902–0061; 

• FERC–539, Gas Pipeline 

Certificates: Import/Export Related, 

contained in 18 CFR Parts 153 and 157; 

OMB Control No. 1902–0062; 

• FERC–577, Gas Pipeline 

Certificates: Environmental Impact 

Statement, identifies FERC’s 

information collections relating to 18 

CFR Part 380 implementing NEPA and 

includes the environmental compliance 

conditions of 18 CFR 157.206(b); OMB 

Control No. 1902–0128; 

• FERC–606, Notification of Request 

for Federal Authorization and Requests 

for Further Information, contained in 18 

CFR Part 385; OMB Control No. 1902– 

0241; and 

• FERC–607, Report on Decision or 

Action on Request for Federal 

Authorization, contained in 18 CFR Part 

385; OMB Control No. 1902–0240. 

The associated regulations, 

information collections, burdens, and 

OMB clearance numbers will continue 

to remain separate and distinct. 

FERC–538. Under the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA) (Public Law 75–688) (15 U.S.C. 

717–717w), upon application by a local 

distribution company or municipality, a 

natural gas pipeline company may be 

ordered by the Commission to extend or 

improve transportation facilities, to 

establish physical connections to serve, 

and to sell natural gas to the applicant. 

Filings pursuant to the provisions of 

Section 7(a) of the NGA are to contain 

all information necessary to advise the 

Commission fully concerning the 

service which the applicant has 

requested the Commission to direct the 

natural gas pipeline company to render 

(such as a request to direct a natural gas 

company to extend or improve its 

transportation facilities, and to sell 

natural gas to the municipality or 

person and, for such purpose, to extend 

its transportation facilities to 

communities immediately adjacent to 

such facilities or to territories served by 

the natural gas pipeline company). 

FERC–539. Section 3 of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) (Public Law 75–688) (15 

U.S.C. 717–717w) provides, in part, that 

‘‘* * * no person shall export any 

natural gas from the United States to a 

foreign country or import any natural 

gas from a foreign country without first 

having secured an order from the 

Commission authorizing it to do so.’’ 

The 1992 amendments to Section 3 of 

the NGA concern importation or 

exportation from/to a nation which has 

a free trade agreement with the United 

States, and requires that such 

importation or exportation: (1) Shall be 

deemed to be a ‘‘first sale’’, i.e., not a sale 

for a resale, and (2) Shall be deemed to 

be consistent with the public interest, 

and applications for such importation or 

exportation shall be granted without 

modification or delay. 

With the ratification of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement and 

the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the 

Federal regulatory focus on 

construction, operation, and siting of 

import and export facilities increased 

significantly. 

FERC–577. Section 102(2)(c) of the of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91–190) 

requires that all Federal agencies must 

include in every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and 

other major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment, a detailed statement on: 

the environmental impact on the 

proposed actions; any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be 

implemented; alternatives to the 

proposed action; the relationship 

between local short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity; 

and any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources which would 

be involved in the proposed action 

should it be implemented. 

FERC–606 and FERC–607. Section 313 

of EPAct 2005 directs the Commission: 

(1) To establish a schedule for state and 

federal agencies and officers to act on 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 30