70994 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers .................................................................................................................. $200,000,000. 

From Whom To Whom? ............................................................................................................................... Federal Government to States. 

The Race to the Top Phase 3 award 

process will provide approximately 

$200 million in competitive grants to 

eligible States. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As we mentioned in the NPR, these 

final requirements contain information 

collection requirements. However, 

because the eligible applicants for Race 

to the Top Phase 3 awards are fewer 

than 10, these collections are not subject 

to approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A)(i)). 

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date and 

Congressional Review Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

requires that a substantive rule be 

published at least 30 days before its 

effective date, except as otherwise 

provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3)). The Secretary has 

determined that a delayed effective date 

for these final requirements is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest, and that good cause exists to 

waive the requirement for a delayed 

effective date. 

These final requirements are needed 

to award the Race to the Top funds 

provided by the FY 2011 

Appropriations Act to qualified 

applicants by December 31, 2011, or the 

funds will lapse. Even on an extremely 

expedited timeline, it is impracticable 

for the Department to adhere to a 30-day 

delayed effective date for the notice of 

final requirements and make grant 

awards to qualified applicants by the 

December 31, 2011 deadline. When the 

30-day delayed effective date is added 

to the time the Department will need to 

receive applications (approximately 20 

days), review the applications 

(approximately 20 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 21 

days), the Department will not be able 

to award funds authorized under the FY 

2011 Appropriations Act to applicants 

by December 31, 2011. 

These requirements have been 

determined to be major for purposes of 

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). However, for the 

reasons outlined in the preceding 

paragraph, the Department has 

determined that, pursuant to section 

808(2) of the CRA, the delay in the 

effective date generally required for 

congressional review is contrary to the 

public interest and waived for good 

cause. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are small LEAs 

receiving funds under this program. 

This regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

LEAs because they will be able to meet 

the costs of compliance with this 

regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. 

Effect on Other Levels of Government 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In the NPR, in accordance with 

section 411 of the General Education 

Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, we 

requested comments on whether the 

proposed requirements would require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Based on the response to the NPR and 

on our review, we have determined that 

these final requirements do not require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at 

http://www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: November 9, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29581 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is submitting to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

clearance a proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

proposed collection will support a 

National Evaluation of DOE’s State 

Energy Program (SEP) for the year 2008 

(pre-American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

funding) and the years 2009–2011 

(ARRA funding). 

A 60-day notice and request for 

comments was published in the Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices 70995 

Register on July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39860). 

One set of comments was received in 

response that notice. Those comments 

noted the responding organization’s 

concern with environmental issues, its 

past support for a long-term national 

energy strategy, and its belief that 

increased energy efficiency and use of 

alternative energy sources are important 

components of such a strategy. Because 

the information gained from the 

proposed information collection will 

help refine future State Energy Program 

energy efficiency and renewable energy 

initiatives, the commenting organization 

supports the Department of Energy’s 

information collection request. 

This subsequent 30-day notice allows 

public comment on the final version of 

this information collection request. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Please note that in the final 

version of the information collection 

request, the estimated burden has 

remained essentially the same. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

proposed information collection must 

be received on or before December 16, 

2011. If you anticipate difficulty in 

submitting comments within that 

period, contact the person listed in 

ADDRESSES as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent to Martin Schweitzer, 

Environmental Sciences Division, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel 

Valley Road, P.O. Box 2008, MS–6036, 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6036; 

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. 

The detailed technical evaluation 

plan for this information collection can 

be found at [http://weatherization.ornl.

gov/evaluation_sep.shtml]. The surveys 

and data collection forms that compose 

this information collection request can 

also be found at this same Web site. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

information collection request contains: 

(1) OMB No.: New. 

(2) Information Collection Request 

Title: National Evaluation of the United 

States Department of Energy’s State 

Energy Program. 

(3) Type of Request: New. 

(4) Purpose: The Department of 

Energy (DOE) is conducting an 

evaluation of the State Energy Program 

(SEP), a national program providing 

grants and technical support to the 

States, the District of Columbia, and the 

U.S. territories to implement energy 

efficiency and renewable energy 

activities that meet their unique energy 

needs, while also addressing DOE’s 

national goals, such as energy security. 

The SEP was created in 1996 by 

Congress, when the State Energy 

Conservation Program and the 

Institutional Conservation Programs 

were consolidated. In February 2009, 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a 

substantial increase in the funding 

available to support SEP activities. The 

additional $3.1 billion of ARRA funds 

began to be disbursed in late 2009 and 

are required to be expended by mid2012. Due to the large differences in 

volume, scope, and relative priority of 

policy goals between the pre-ARRA and 

ARRA-funded activities, this evaluation 

will assess the outcomes of SEP 

programmatic activities for one program 

year (2008) prior to distribution of the 

ARRA funding as well as for the ARRAfunded program years of 2009–2011. 

The principal objective of the 

evaluation is to estimate four key 

program outcomes: 

• Energy, cost, and demand savings; 

• Increases in renewable energy 

capacity and generation; 

• Carbon emissions reductions; and 

• Direct and indirect job creation 

The evaluation will require 

information to be collected from SEP 

State program managers, SEP program 

implementation staff in selected States, 

participants in selected SEP programs, 

and equipment vendors familiar with 

participants’ purchases of qualifying 

equipment. 

Scale of the Information Collection 

The evaluation effort will focus on 

programmatic activities implemented in 

2008 (prior to the ARRA funding) and 

in Program Years 2009–2011 (with 

ARRA funding). Programmatic activities 

will be organized into ‘‘Broad Program 

Area Categories’’ (BPACs) for purposes 

of conducting the research. For each 

evaluation period, DOE has determined 

that those BPACs accounting for 

approximately 80 percent of the total 

SEP activity will be evaluated. 

A sampling frame consisting of all 

relevant programmatic activities for 

Program Year 2008 and Program Years 

2009–2011 will be compiled, assigning 

each programmatic activity to a single 

BPAC. A probability sample of 82 

individual programmatic activities will 

be selected, using BPACs as strata, to 

represent the most heavily-funded 

activities in the portfolio of SEP’s 

energy efficiency and renewable energy 

efforts. The total level of effort for the 

evaluation will be allocated to BPACs 

within each study period in proportion 

to their level of spending. 

To use resources efficiently, the 

programmatic activities within the 

various BPACs will be studied at 

different levels of rigor, reflecting their 

relative size and expected contribution 

towards overall energy savings. Rigor 

level corresponds to both the statistical 

analysis and the quality of data 

necessary to support the analysis. High 

Rigor evaluation approaches will yield 

the most reliable impact estimates, 

using methods recognized by the 

California Evaluation Protocols, DOE’s 

Impact Evaluation Framework for 

Technology Deployment Programs, and 

the International Performance 

Measurement and Verification Protocol 

(IPMVP). The high-rigor evaluation 

methods will be applied to BPACs that 

(a) Account for a large proportion of 

funds spent on State-level initiatives; (b) 

are believed to achieve substantial 

energy savings; (c) are considered 

important by the States; and (d) are 

expected to play a major role in future 

SEP efforts. Medium-high rigor methods 

will require verification of savings and 

outcomes with individual participants, 

but will use less intensive data 

collection methods than those 

prescribed for high-rigor. For example, 

data may be collected by telephone 

contact with participants, rather than a 

site visit. Sample sizes will also be 

smaller in the medium-high rigor 

evaluations. Medium-low rigor 

evaluation approaches will not include 

any data collection from individual 

program participants to estimate savings 

or outcomes. These evaluations will use 

data that can be obtained from program 

records and secondary sources, as well 

as engineering-based methods to 

produce energy savings and outcome 

estimates. 

A range of qualitative, quantitative 

(survey), on-site inspection and 

verification, and secondary data will be 

used to support the evaluation. Different 

types of data will be required for each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70996 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices 

of the four types of previously-identified 

outcomes. 

For estimating energy, cost, and 

demand savings, the high and mediumhigh rigor evaluations require data such 

as pre- and post-participation energy 

use and demand, surveys of measure 

implementation or participation, and 

verification of installation of energy 

efficient equipment and operating 

conditions and schedule by interview 

and/or on-site inspection. The 

calculation of energy impacts will 

follow the IPMVP methods and will 

include estimation of gross and net 

savings, annualizing and normalizing 

results to post-participation levels to 

calculate impacts. Medium-high rigor 

evaluations will utilize telephone 

interview data, combined with 

engineering data and secondary data, 

such as published reports and program 

statistics to calculate energy impacts. 

The high and medium-high rigor 

evaluation of increases in renewable 

energy capacity and generation will 

require collection of meter data (where 

available from participants), on-site 

inspection and review of the system 

design and equipment used, interviews 

with project owners and operators, and 

review of project files. Medium-low 

rigor evaluations will utilize secondary 

data, such as published reports and 

statistics. 

The high and medium-high rigor 

evaluations of carbon emissions 

reductions will require an assessment of 

annualized carbon dioxide reductions 

achieved as a result of SEP-funded 

activities. This assessment will require 

calculation of reductions in 

consumption of fossil fuel and 

replacement of fossil fuel generation 

with renewable energy generation. The 

data required for these assessments will 

include the types of data identified 

above for energy savings and for 

increases in renewable generation. 

The high and medium-high rigor 

evaluations of direct and indirect job 

impacts will use a 51-region (State) 

Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) 

Policy Insight simulation model. Data 

required for the job creation analysis 

will include the types of data identified 

above for energy, cost, and demand 

savings to calculate the dollar savings to 

households and businesses resulting 

from energy and electric demand plus 

surveys of additional expenditures on 

new energy-efficient equipment and 

systems. State economic data on 

patterns of spending and business sales 

among key sectors affecting the flow of 

dollars into, out of, and within the state 

will also be required. 

The evaluation will utilize three 

distinct data collection methods. First, 

the evaluation will employ a total of six 

computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) survey instruments. 

With an average of approximately 669 

respondents per telephone survey, 4,016 

telephone survey respondents will be 

targeted for participation in the 

evaluation. Second, the study will 

utilize 28 individual in-depth interview 

guides targeting an average of 

approximately 31 respondents each, 

with a total target population of 881 

interviewees. Third, a total of 152 onsite data collections will be conducted 

as part of the evaluation. Together, these 

three methods will involve 4,897 

respondents and entail a total burden of 

5,094 hours. (This calculation is based 

on assumptions that telephone surveys 

require 45 minutes on average, in-depth 

interviews 90 minutes, and on-site data 

collections 300 minutes.) 

The above-described data collection 

methods will be supplemented by 

additional records research and 

database review activities applicable to 

all three methods across all participant 

categories. These general recordkeeping 

activities will require an estimated 

1,072 hours. Combining the burden 

hours associated with telephone 

surveys, in-depth interviews, and onsite data collections (5,094 hours) with 

the burden hours associated with 

general records review (1,072 hours) 

produces a total estimated burden of 

6,166 hours. 

The evaluation protocols will provide 

BPAC-level estimates for each of the 

outcome measures. The results of the 

evaluations for all the BPACs studied 

will be expanded to produce cumulative 

estimates. Outcome measures will be 

calculated for the 2008 (pre-ARRA) and 

the 2009–2011 (ARRA funding) 

evaluation periods. 

A number of steps are being taken to 

avoid duplicating the efforts of any 

concurrent evaluations of SEP activities 

sponsored by individual states. These 

include: (1) Coordinating with the 

National Association of State Energy 

Officials (NASEO) to share information 

on the programmatic activities being 

examined by specific states; (2) 

coordinating with regional DOE project 

officers to identify any State evaluation 

efforts with which they are associated; 

(3) meeting with selected State program 

managers to keep informed of ongoing 

evaluation efforts and the research 

approaches being employed; and (4) 

coordinating with evaluation 

contractors to learn of State evaluation 

efforts with which they are involved. 

These efforts will keep the national SEP 

evaluation informed of what States are 

doing so that the programmatic 

activities sampled for this study do not 

overlap with any independent State 

evaluations. In addition to these efforts 

to avoid duplication, DOE has provided 

a set of evaluation guidelines to the 

States to help inform their evaluation 

efforts and ensure that the results are 

reliable enough to allow them to be used 

to support the national SEP evaluation 

without the need to study the same 

activities again. 

The sample selection of BPACs and 

specific programmatic activities within 

each BPAC was completed in June 2011. 

Data collection and calculation of 

outcomes is scheduled to be completed 

by July 2012. 

The detailed study design and work 

plan for the SEP evaluation has been 

available for public review since May, 

2011 at http://weatherization.ornl.gov/

evaluation_sep.shtml. 

(5) Annual Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 4,897. 

(6) Annual Estimated Number of 

Total Responses: 5,049. 

(7) Annual Estimated Total Number 

of Burden Hours: 6,166. 

Statutory Authority: Title III of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, (42 

U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) as amended, authorizes 

DOE to administer the State Energy Program 

(SEP). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 

2011. 

Henry C. Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29603 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CW–020] 

Decision and Order Granting a Waiver 

to Samsung From the Department of 

Energy Residential Clothes Washer 

Test Procedure 

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 the 

decision and order (Case No. CW–020) 

that grants to Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. (Samsung) a waiver from 

the DOE clothes washer test procedure 

for determining the energy consumption 

of clothes washers for the basic models 

set forth in its petition for waiver. Under 

today’s decision and order, Samsung 

shall be required to test and rate these 

clothes washers using an alternate test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES