49292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

economic sustainability including 

ecosystem services and food, feed, and 

fiber production. 

DATES: Comments regarding the RFI 

must be received on or before 

September 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The RFI is available at 

https://eere-exchange.energy.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Responses to the RFI and questions 

should be sent via email or email 

attachments to 

BETOLandscapeDesignRFI@ee.doe.gov. 

Further instructions can be found in the 

RFI document posted on EERE 

exchange. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy 

Technologies Office plans to support the 

continued increase of sustainably 

produced domestic bioenergy from 

renewable feedstocks. This Request for 

Information (RFI) is directed at 

landscape design approaches for 

integrating cellulosic bioenergy 

feedstock production into existing 

agricultural and forestry systems in a 

way that maintains or improves 

environmental sustainability— 

specifically, greenhouse gas mitigation, 

water quality, water quantity, soil 

quality, air quality, and biodiversity. 

‘‘Landscape design’’ refers to a spatially 

explicit plan for resource allocation and 

management that meets multiple 

desired objectives including 

environmental (maintains or enhances 

ecosystem services), social (is 

acceptable to relevant stakeholders), and 

economic (maintains or improves 

livelihoods and landowner 

profitability). DOE is seeking 

information on cost-effective, feasible 

approaches for testing the landscape 

design approach for increasing 

bioenergy feedstock production at a 

watershed, multi-landowner, or 

comparable spatial scale through a 

combination of modeling, data 

collection, field research, and 

engagement with landowners and other 

relevant stakeholders. DOE is 

specifically interested in information on 

appropriate experimental designs for 

assessing comprehensive environmental 

sustainability indicators, potential 

barriers to implementing landscape 

design, approaches for assessing needed 

feedstock logistic systems, and possible 

projects to test landscape design 

approaches for bioenergy systems on the 

landscape. 

This is solely a request for 

information and not a Funding 

Opportunity Announcement (FOA). 

EERE is not accepting applications for 

funding project proposals. 

Issued in Golden, CO, on August 14, 2014. 

Jonathan Male, 

Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19767 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–038] 

Decision and Order Denying a Waiver 

to Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) gives notice of its decision 

and order (Case No. RF–038) denying 

Felix Storch, Inc. a waiver from the DOE 

electric refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer test procedures used for 

determining the energy consumption of 

residential refrigerator-freezers for the 

basic models set forth in its petition for 

waiver. The decision and order 

continues to require that the currently 

applicable DOE test procedure be used 

when testing the company’s Keg Beer 

Coolers, Assisted Living Refrigeratorfreezers and Ultra-Compact Hotel 

Refrigerators. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective August 20, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371, Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(l)), 

DOE gives notice of the issuance of its 

decision and order as set forth below. 

The decision and order denies Felix 

Storch, Inc. (FSI) a waiver from the 

applicable residential refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer test procedures 

found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A1 and appendix A for certain 

basic models of its Keg Beer Coolers, 

Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers and 

Hotel Refrigerators and Ultra-Compact 

Hotel Refrigerators, as applicable. Under 

today’s decision and order, FSI must 

continue to use the applicable DOE test 

procedure found in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1 and appendix 

A. 

Distributors, retailers, and private 

labelers are held to the same standard 

when making representations regarding 

the energy efficiency of these products. 

42 U.S.C. 6293(c). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Felix Storch, Inc. 

(FSI) (Case No. RF–038) 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Pub. L. 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as 

codified) established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, a 

program covering most major household 

appliances, which includes the 

residential electric refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of 

this notice.1 Part B includes definitions, 

test procedures, labeling provisions, 

energy conservation standards, and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers. Further, 

Part B authorizes the Secretary of 

Energy to prescribe test procedures that 

are reasonably designed to produce 

results that measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated operating costs 

and not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test 

procedure for residential electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is 

currently set forth in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1. That procedure 

will be superseded by a new Appendix 

A contained in the same part and 

subpart. Manufacturers are required to 

use Appendix A starting in September 

2014. 

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 

430.27, which were recently amended, 

contain provisions that enable a person 

to petition DOE to obtain a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered products. See 79 FR 26591 

(May 9, 2014) (revising 10 CFR 430.27, 

effective June 9, 2014). (DOE notes that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices 49293 

2The caption to the December 12th petition 

stated that FSI is seeking a waiver from both 

appendix A1 and appendix A. However, the actual 

relief sought, as stated in the conclusion of FSI’s 

petition, states that the company is seeking to waive 

the applicability of appendix A from its products. 

Regarding the products affected by this petition, 

DOE is viewing FSI’s request as applying to both 

appendices A1 and A. 

while the previous version of 10 CFR 

430.27 was effective at the time of FSI’s 

submission, the substantive aspects of 

this regulation have not been changed 

by the May 9th rule.) A person may 

petition for a waiver from the test 

procedure requirements that would 

ordinarily apply to a particular basic 

model covered under DOE’s regulations 

when (1) the petitioner’s basic model for 

which the petition for waiver was 

submitted contains one or more design 

characteristics that prevent testing 

according to the prescribed test 

procedure, or (2) when 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. 10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1) (noting that a person may 

petition to waive for a particular basic 

model any requirements of 10 CFR 

430.23 or of ‘‘any appendix’’ under 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B). Petitioners 

must include in their petition any 

alternate test procedures known to the 

petitioner to evaluate the basic model in 

a manner representative of its energy 

consumption characteristics. 

The Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the 

Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver 

subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

See 10 CFR 430.27(l) (prior to June 9, 

2014) and 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2) (effective 

June 9, 2014). Waivers remain in effect 

pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 

430.27(m) (prior to June 9, 2014). See 

also 10 CFR 430.27(h) (effective June 9, 

2014). 

Any interested person who has 

submitted a petition for waiver may also 

file an application for interim waiver of 

the applicable test procedure 

requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The 

Assistant Secretary will grant an interim 

waiver request if it is determined that 

the applicant will experience economic 

hardship if the interim waiver is denied, 

if it appears likely that the petition for 

waiver will be granted, and/or the 

Assistant Secretary determines that it 

would be desirable for public policy 

reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination on the petition 

for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g). 

II. FSI’s Petition for Waiver: Assertions 

and Determinations 

On December 12 and 17, 2013, FSI 

submitted two separate petitions for 

waiver from the test procedure 

applicable to residential electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set 

forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices A and A1. The December 

12th petition, which was accompanied 

by a request for an interim waiver that 

DOE denied, sought a waiver from 

appendices A1 and A with respect to 

the following specific product and 

model lines—Keg Beer Coolers (Models 

SBC590, SBC590OS, and SBC635M), 

Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44 and ALBF68), and 

Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 and 

HTL3).2 The December 17th petition, 

which was not accompanied by a 

request for an interim waiver, sought a 

waiver from the upcoming test 

procedure requirements in appendix A, 

which will be required to be used 

starting in September 2014, for the 

following specific product and model 

lines—Keg Beer Coolers (Models 

SBC490B and SBC570R), Assisted 

Living Refrigerators (Models FF71TB, 

FF73, FF74, AL650R, ALB651BR, 

AL652BR, ALB653BR, CT66RADA, 

CT67RADA, AL750R, ALB751R, 

AL752BR, and ALB753LBR), and UltraCompact, Hotel Refrigerators (Models 

FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, and 

FFAR2H). FSI did not contend in either 

petition that the products at issue have 

a design characteristic preventing the 

testing of any of the affected models. FSI 

also asserted generally that a denial of 

its waiver request would result in 

economic hardship. 

With respect to the technical aspects 

of its petition, FSI asserted that its 

products could not be tested and rated 

for energy consumption on a basis 

representative of their true energy 

consumption characteristics. In 

particular, it asserted that the DOE test 

procedures for residential refrigeration 

products (both the current Appendix A1 

and the new Appendix A that will be 

mandatory beginning on September 15, 

2014) require that FSI’s products be 

tested under conditions that would not, 

in its view, yield a fair and accurate 

representation of the actual energy use 

of its products. FSI stated that DOE’s 

procedure (both current and future) 

require an ambient temperature of 90 °F, 

which would, in FSI’s view, yield 

results that would not accurately reflect 

the energy use of its products during 

normal use. 

The 90 °F ambient temperature 

condition simulates the effects of door 

openings and closings, which are not 

performed during testing. See 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10) (explaining that ‘‘[t]he 

intent of the energy test procedure is to 

simulate typical room conditions 

(approximately 70 °F (21 °C)) with door 

openings, by testing at 90 °F (32.2 °C) 

without door openings.’’). As FSI 

pointed out, this particular aspect of the 

procedure, which has been widely 

accepted by industry, has been in place 

for at least 30 years. See, e.g. FSI 

Petition at 3 (Dec. 12, 2013). FSI 

contended that the products addressed 

by its waiver petitions will be sold for 

uses where door openings and closings 

are highly infrequent. As a result, in its 

view, testing these products in 

accordance with the required DOE test 

procedure conditions, which are based 

on long-accepted industry-based testing 

standards, would result in 

measurements of energy use that are 

unrepresentative of the actual energy 

use of its products when considering the 

conditions of expected use by 

consumers. 

As an alternative to the DOE test 

procedure, FSI submitted an alternate 

test procedure to account for the energy 

consumption of its products. That 

procedure would test these units at 70 

°F or 72 °F over a 24-hour period 

instead of the required 90 °F ambient 

temperature condition. In FSI’s view, 

using this alternate test procedure will 

allow for the accurate measurement of 

the energy use of its products. 

On March 17, 2014, DOE published 

FSI’s petitions for waiver in their 

entirety. That notice also denied FSI’s 

request for an interim waiver from the 

test procedure. 79 FR 14686. In 

explaining its denial of FSI’s interim 

waiver request, DOE indicated that FSI’s 

petition provided insufficient 

information for DOE to determine 

whether the alternative test procedure 

that FSI proposed to use would be likely 

to provide a measurement of the energy 

use of these products that is 

representative of their operation under 

conditions of expected consumer use. 

Since DOE had found it unlikely that 

FSI’s waiver petition would be granted 

and had determined that it was not 

desirable for public policy reasons to 

grant FSI with immediate relief, DOE 

declined to grant an interim waiver and 

sought additional information on the 

underlying basis for FSI’s proposed 

alternative. In seeking comments on 

FSI’s proposal, DOE noted that the 

existing test procedures in appendices A 

(refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers) 

and B (freezers) to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430, as well as recent test 

procedure waivers, contain a method for 

addressing certain types of products for 

which less frequent door openings 

occur. See 79 FR at 14688. Specifically, 

the test procedure for residential 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices 

freezers, which continues to apply a 90 

°F ambient temperature during testing, 

applies an adjustment factor to account 

for the relatively fewer expected door 

openings of upright and chest freezers, 

each of which has a corresponding 

adjustment factor for the overall energy 

use. 

DOE received a single comment in 

response to the March 17th notice. That 

comment, a submission from FSI dated 

April 14, 2014, disagreed with DOE’s 

decision to deny FSI’s interim waiver. 

In support of its position, FSI restated 

the general position expressed in its 

petition regarding the less frequent door 

openings it expected its products to 

experience, which it believed justified 

its claim that testing at 90 °F would 

result in measurements of energy 

consumption that were not 

representative of its products’ energy 

use. FSI further stated that if DOE were 

to deny FSI’s waiver request, it would 

be less able to plan its product selection, 

marketing, and sales programs and 

would be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage compared with larger 

multinational appliance manufacturers. 

FSI also indicated that if its products 

were to be forced off the market, the 

hotel industry may increasingly turn to 

more consumptive products such as 

those that rely on thermoelectric or 

absorption cooling. 

To support its view, FSI cited several 

studies preceding DOE’s recent efforts to 

update and revise its test procedures 

that evaluated the representativeness of 

the 90 °F test condition. While some of 

the studies do indicate that the 90 °F 

test condition is an imperfect 

approximation of the additional thermal 

loading imposed by the door openings 

expected during typical consumer use, 

the extent to which the findings can be 

generalized to all products covered by 

DOE standards on a national basis is 

limited in several respects. For example, 

some studies were based on a relatively 

small sample of products (e.g., one 

study used only two units), others were 

based on in situ (i.e., on-site) test 

conditions that may not be 

representative at a national level (e.g., 

one study only evaluated homes in 

Florida), and not all studies relied on 

testing conducted in a manner 

consistent with the DOE test in respects 

other than that 90 °F test condition (e.g., 

one study tested the units with spacing 

to the wall behind the unit closer than 

DOE requires). FSI also cited results 

from its own testing of the products that 

are the subject of the petition. FSI 

claimed that its test data demonstrate 

that the 90 °F test condition is not 

appropriate. (FSI did not submit any of 

the reports from this testing.) These 

various pieces of information, however, 

do not substantiate FSI’s claim that its 

products experience fewer door 

openings during actual use or that its 

suggested alternate temperature 

conditions would be appropriate in this 

context. 

DOE notes that it first adopted the 

90 °F ambient test condition in 1977 

after conducting a public notice and 

comment proceeding to discuss the 

merits of a proposed test procedure that 

included the possibility of adopting the 

90 °F ambient temperature condition or 

a higher one. See 42 FR 46140, 46142 

(Sept. 14, 1977) (rejecting adoption of a 

104 °F ambient test condition in favor of 

90 °F). DOE explained the basis for 

selecting this temperature condition in 

its proposal leading to that final rule by 

noting in part that the selected 

temperature is designed to compensate 

for door openings when they occur and 

a correction factor can be applied 

‘‘when appropriate.’’ 42 FR 21584, 

21586 (April 27, 1977). Further, the 

industry’s more recent efforts at revising 

and updating the test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers have continued to consistently 

apply the 90 °F ambient condition 

during testing. These industry efforts 

culminated in the development of the 

current version of the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers’ Energy 

and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances, HRF–1–2008 (‘‘HRF–1’’), 

which DOE has incorporated by 

reference into its regulations. See 77 FR 

3559 (Jan. 25, 2012) and 79 FR 22320 

(April 21, 2014). That industry 

procedure continues to rely on the 90 °F 

ambient condition during testing. See 

HRF–1, sec. 1.2. The continued reliance 

on this ambient condition indicates that 

it continues to provide materially 

accurate comparative data that are 

representative of the true energy 

consumption characteristics of the 

various categories of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

In view of the substantial amount of 

effort and analysis conducted both by 

the industry and DOE regarding the 

appropriateness of applying a 90 °F 

ambient condition, the supporting 

information offered by FSI does not 

provide a sufficient basis for permitting 

the use of an alternative procedure for 

the particular products addressed in 

FSI’s petition. Additionally, the limited 

information provided by FSI (i.e. 

summary results without supporting 

data) does not indicate that its 

alternative testing approach would be 

appropriate. 

FSI also cited the requirement in 

EPCA that DOE’s ‘‘test procedures be 

reasonably designed to measure energy 

consumption representatively and not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct.’’ 

DOE notes that the complete text of this 

section, found at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 

states that ‘‘any test procedures 

prescribed under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use (in the 

case of showerheads, faucets, water 

closets and urinals), or estimated annual 

operating cost of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, as determined by 

the Secretary.’’ Emphasis added. 

In DOE’s view, adopting FSI’s 

alternative testing method would 

prevent DOE from providing a test 

procedure that would meet the statutory 

requirement prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 

6293. The already prescribed 90 °F 

ambient condition has been 

substantially vetted and accepted by the 

refrigeration industry for decades and is 

widely viewed as being reasonably 

designed to produce results that 

measure the energy use and efficiency of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers—such as those at issue in FSI’s 

petitions—during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. 

Given this background, and the limited 

supporting data offered by FSI in favor 

of an alternative test procedure, DOE 

cannot conclude that a waiver is 

appropriate with respect to FSI’s 

request. 

Lastly, FSI asserted that it would 

suffer unnecessary economic hardship 

and financial burdens if it is not granted 

a test procedure waiver. DOE notes that 

the criteria for granting a waiver, in 

contrast to an interim waiver, do not 

weigh the potential economic hardships 

that a particular applicant may claim are 

likely to occur. Notwithstanding this 

fact, FSI provided no financial details 

following the publication of its petition 

that would demonstrate the extent of 

any economic hardship or impact that 

would have enabled DOE to further 

evaluate the merits of FSI’s claim. And 

as indicated in DOE’s earlier notice 

denying FSI’s request for an interim 

waiver, the company did not provide 

sufficient information for DOE to 

evaluate its claim. See 79 FR at 14688. 

Accordingly, DOE cannot provide FSI 

with the relief it seeks under its claims 

of economic hardship. 

III. Conclusion 

As DOE stated previously in its March 

2014 notice, FSI’s waiver petition did 

not provide DOE with sufficient 

information to establish that FSI’s 

alternative test procedure would 

evaluate its models in a manner that is 

representative of their actual energy use 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices 49295 

under conditions of expected consumer 

use. Since it did not appear likely that 

FSI’s petition for waiver would be 

granted as submitted and that it is not 

desirable for public policy reasons to 

grant FSI immediate relief pending a 

determination on the petition for 

waiver, DOE declined to grant FSI’s 

request for an interim waiver and sought 

comment from stakeholders and the 

public on the merits of FSI’s proposed 

alternative test method. While FSI 

submitted comments disagreeing with 

DOE’s decision, those comments did not 

provide sufficient justification for DOE 

to change its decision in light of the 

issues discussed above. However, 

should FSI or other interested 

stakeholders raise this issue in the 

context of a test procedure rulemaking 

or revised petition for waiver, DOE may 

consider the adoption of an alternative 

approach such as an appropriate 

adjustment factor to reassess the 

situation presented by FSI. At this time, 

however, given the absence of sufficient 

information, DOE cannot grant FSI’s 

petition for waiver as requested. 

Thus, by this decision and order, DOE 

denies FSI’s waiver request from the 

applicable residential refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer test procedures 

found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A–1 and appendix A for the 

following basic models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M); 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44 and ALBF68); and 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 

and HTL3). 

DOE is also denying FSI’s waiver 

request from the applicable residential 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test 

procedures found in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A for the following 

basic models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC490B 

and SBC570R); 

• Assisted Living Refrigerators 

(Models FF71TB, FF73, FF74, AL650R, 

ALB651BR, AL652BR, ALB653BR, 

CT66RADA, CT67RADA, AL750R, 

ALB751R, AL752BR, and ALB753LBR); 

and 

• Ultra-Compact, Hotel Refrigerators 

(Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, 

and FFAR2H). 

Under today’s decision and order, FSI 

must test its specific models of its Keg 

Beer Coolers, Assisted Living 

Refrigerator-freezers and Hotel 

Refrigerator variants using the DOE test 

procedure found in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A–1 and, when, 

applicable, the test procedure found in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19768 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. DI14–4–000] 

Mahannah & Associates, LLC; Notice 

of Declaration of Intention and 

Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or 

Motions To Intervene 

Take notice that the following 

application has been filed with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection: 

a. Application Type: Declaration of 

Intention. 

b. Docket No: DI14–04–000. 

c. Date Filed: July 17, 2014. 

d. Applicant: Mahannah & Associates, 

LLC. 

e. Name of Project: John Wiseman 

Domestic Power Project. 

f. Location: The existing John 

Wiseman Domestic Power Project will 

be located on a Thomas Creek, 

southwest of Reno, in Washoe County, 

Nevada, affecting T. 18N, R. 19E, S. 29 

and 30, M.D.B.&M. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) 

of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 

817(b) (2012). 

h. Applicant Contact: John Wiseman, 

18000 Logan Meadows Lane, Reno, NV 

89511 telephone: (818) 402–1663, 

johnw@chaosvisual.com. 

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to 

Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502–6437, or 

Email address: Jennifer.Polardino@

ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments, 

protests, and/or motions is: September 

12, 2014, 30 days from the issuance of 

this notice by the Commission. 

Comments, Motions to Intervene, and 

Protests may be filed electronically via 

the Internet. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(l)(iii) (2014) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. If unable 

to be filed electronically, documents 

may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an 

original and eight copies should be 

mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. For more information on how to 

submit these types of filings, please go 

to the Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. 

Please include the docket number 

(DI14–4–000) on any comments, 

protests, and/or motions filed. 

k. Description of Project: The existing 

run-of-river John Wiseman Domestic 

Power Project will consist of: (1) An 

existing diversion box and headgate, 

which will divert water from Thomas 

Creek, (2) an approximately 500-footlong, 10-inch pipe; (3) an existing three 

foot by three foot water collection box 

screen; (4) a 6-inch-diameter Pelton 

wheel; (5) a Harris 48V/15 Amp 

generator rated at 130 gallons per 

minute; 44 feet of total head; (6) and 

appurtenant facilities. The existing 

diversion box, headgate, and 115 feet of 

the pipe are located within the 

Humbolt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

When a Declaration of Intention is 

filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, the Federal Power Act 

requires the Commission to investigate 

and determine if the project would 

affect the interests of interstate or 

foreign commerce. The Commission also 

determines whether or not the project: 

(1) would be located on a navigable 

waterway; (2) would occupy public 

lands or reservations of the United 

States; (3) would utilize surplus water 

or water power from a government dam; 

or (4) would be located on a nonnavigable stream over which Congress 

has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and 

would be constructed or enlarged after 

1935. 

l. Locations of the Application: Copies 

of this filing are on file with the 

Commission and are available for public 

inspection. This filing may be viewed 

on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the Docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

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

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, call 1–866–208–3676 or 

email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov for 

TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also 

available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES