39860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

September 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden 

and/or the collection activity 

requirements should be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or 

mailed to U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please 

note that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Information 

Management and Privacy Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. The Department 

of Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. 

Dated: July 1, 2011. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Privacy, Information and Records 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Innovation and Improvement 

Type of Review: New. 

Title of Collection: Charter School 

Facilities National Questionnaire. 

OMB Control Number: Pending. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: Once. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government, State Educational 

Agencies or Local Educational Agencies. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 369. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 1,107. 

Abstract: According to Part B section 

5201 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, one of the established 

purposes of the Charter School Program 

office in the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) is ‘‘encouraging the 

States to provide support to charter 

schools for facilities financing in an 

amount more nearly commensurate to 

the amount the States have typically 

provided for traditional public schools’’. 

Currently, there is no national database, 

report, or analysis on the state of charter 

school facilities. This collection will 

help to understand the state of charter 

school facilities nationwide. 

In the summer of 2007, the Colorado 

League of Charter Schools (the League) 

launched its Facilities 2010 Task Force, 

which was established to address 

charter school facility needs. One of the 

initiatives of the Facilities 2010 Task 

Force was to develop a questionnaire 

that inventoried the facilities landscape 

in Colorado. This questionnaire has 

since been customized and 

administered in several additional 

states. ED is looking to use and 

administer this questionnaire in 

additional states and compile the data 

from all states into a national facilities 

database. ED has plans to conduct this 

survey in approximately three to four 

states per year. ED will use the 

information from the questionnaire to 

include in a national database that will 

provide comprehensive information 

about the facilities for charter schools 

and the issues that charter school face 

in trying to obtain adequate facilities. 

The data will then be used to develop 

a report and an analysis. 

Copies of the proposed information 

collection request may be accessed from 

http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4645. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17018 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) invites public comment on a 

proposed collection of information for a 

National Evaluation of the State Energy 

Program that DOE is developing for 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’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. Information about the 

outcomes of the program, including 

energy savings, the number of jobs 

created, increases in the production of 

renewable energy, and reductions in 

carbon emissions, are needed for a 

rigorous evaluation of the program. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

proposed information collection must 

be received on or before September 6, 

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; 

schweitzerm@ornl.gov. 

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; schweitzerm@ornl.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

information collection request contains: 

(1) OMB No. New. 

(2) Information Collection Request 

Title: National Evaluation of the United 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 39861 

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 mid-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 

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 

approximately 90 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 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 

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) 

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, 

the evaluation will employ a total of six 

computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) survey instruments. 

With an average of approximately 670 

respondents per telephone survey, 4,000 

telephone survey respondents will be 

targeted for participation in the 

evaluation. Second, the study will 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
39862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 

utilize 28 individual in-depth interview 

guides targeting an average of 

approximately 30 respondents each, 

with a total target population of 

approximately 880 interviewees. Third, 

a total of 152 on-site data collections 

will be conducted as part of the 

evaluation. Together, these three 

methods will involve approximately 

5,050 respondents and entail a total 

burden of approximately 5,090 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 

1,070 hours. Combining the burden 

hours associated with telephone 

surveys, in-depth interviews, and onsite data collections (5,090 hours) with 

the burden hours associated with 

general records review (1,070 hours) 

produces a total estimated burden of 

6,160 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 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 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 is scheduled to be 

completed in May 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 will be 

available for public review in May, 2011 

at http://weatherization.ornl.gov/ 

evaluation_sep.shtml. 

(5) Annual Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 5,050. 

(6) Annual Estimated Number of 

Total Responses: 5,050. 

(7) Annual Estimated Total Number 

of Burden Hours: 6,160. 

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 June 13, 

2011. 

Henry C. Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16996 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following exempt 

wholesale generator filings: 

Docket Numbers: EG11–97–000. 

Applicants: Post Rock Wind Power 

Project, LLC. 

Description: Notice of SelfCertification of Exempt Wholesale 

Generator Status of Post Rock Wind 

Power Project, LLC. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110628–5147. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, July 19, 2011. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER10–1478–002. 

Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric 

Company. 

Description: Pennsylvania Electric 

Company submits tariff filing per 35: 

Revised Market-Based Rate Power Sales 

Tariff to be effective 6/29/2011. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110628–5044. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, July 19, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2040–002. 

Applicants: Schuylkill Energy 

Resources, Inc. 

Description: Supplement to Refund 

Report of Schuylkill Energy Resources, 

Inc. 

Filed Date: 06/10/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110610–5138. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, July 20, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2585–001; 

ER10–2618–001; ER10–2619–001; 

ER10–2616–001; ER10–2647–001; 

ER10–2591–001; ER10–2617–001; 

ER10–2613–001. 

Applicants: Ontelaunee Power 

Operating Company, LLC, Dynegy 

Power Marketing, Inc., Casco Bay 

Energy Company, LLC, Dynegy 

Marketing and Trade, LLC, Dynegy 

Danskammer, LLC, Dynegy Kendall 

Energy, LLC, Dynegy Roseton, LLC, 

Sithe/Independence Power Partners, LP. 

Description: Updated Market Power 

Analysis of Casco Bay Energy Company, 

LLC, et al. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110628–5189. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, August 29, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2881–001; 

ER10–2882–001; ER10–2883–001; 

ER10–2884–001; ER10–2885–001; 

ER10–2641–001; ER10–2663–001; 

ER10–2886–001. 

Applicants: Alabama Power 

Company, Southern Company Services, 

Inc., Georgia Power Company, 

Mississippi Power Company, Gulf 

Power Company, Oleander Power 

Project, L.P., Southern Company— 

Florida LLC, Southern Turner Cimarron 

I, LLC, Southern Power Company. 

Description: Notification of NonMaterial Change in Status of Southern 

Companies. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110628–5177. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, July 19, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–3260–002. 

Applicants: Granite Ridge Energy, 

LLC. 

Description: Updated Market Power 

Analysis of Granite Ridge Energy, LLC. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110628–5188. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, August 29, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–3286–003; 

ER10–3299–002. 

Applicants: Millennium Power 

Partners, L.P., New Athens Generating 

Company, LLC. 

Description: Updated Market Power 

Analysis for MILLENIUM POWER 

PARTNERS, L.P. 

Filed Date: 06/28/2011. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES