Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29331 

building codes. Today’s action would 

not impose a Federal mandate on State, 

local or tribal governments, and it 

would not result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

G. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s action would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s action under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OMB a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy 

action. For any proposed significant 

energy action, the agency must give a 

detailed statement of any adverse effects 

on energy supply, distribution, or use, 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s action would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy and is 

therefore not a significant energy action. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175. ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 

2000)), requires DOE to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ refers to regulations that 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ Today’s 

regulatory action is not a policy that has 

‘‘tribal implications’’ under Executive 

Order 13175. 

DOE has reviewed today’s action 

under Executive Order 13175 and has 

determined that it is consistent with 

applicable policies of that Executive 

Order. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2012. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12000 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–022] 

Publication of the Petition for Waiver 

From Sanyo E&E Corporation From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of re-opening of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2012, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

the Sanyo E&E Corporation (Sanyo) 

petition for waiver from the residential 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test 

procedure. Comments were required to 

be submitted by May 2, 2012. This 

document announces that the period for 

submitting comments on the Sanyo 

petition for waiver is re-opened until 

June 18, 2012. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the Sanyo 

petition for waiver received no later 

than June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Sanyo E&E 

Corporation petition for waiver, and 

provide case number RF–022. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov. 

Include the case number [Case No. RF– 

022] in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

2, 2012, DOE published the Sanyo 

petition for waiver from the residential 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer test procedure in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 19654). The notice 

provided for the submission of 

comments by May 2, 2012. After the 

notice of petition for waiver was 

published, Sanyo provided DOE with 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

1SEE clarifies here that the .85 correction factor 

should be applied to the entire formula for the wine 

storage compartment, {ET1 + [(ET2¥ET1) × (55 

°F¥TW1)/(TW2¥TW1)]}. 

2As DOE itself noted in its Framework Public 

Meeting for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous 

Refrigeration Products, the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, the California Energy 

Commission, and Natural Resources Canada ‘‘all 

use a standardized compartment temperature of 55 

°F’’ and a .85 K factor. Framework at pp. 34–35, 

available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/ 

wc_fw_meeting_presentation_draft.pdf. In the 

absence of an existing federal standard, SEE 

accordingly employed these prevailing standards in 

its proposed alternative testing method with respect 

to the wine storage compartment of SEE’s hybrid 

models. 

clarifications on certain items in its 

original petition, and requested that the 

comment period for its petition for 

waiver be extended so that commenters 

would have an opportunity to comment 

on the petition with these clarifications 

included. DOE is publishing Sanyo’s 

request in its entirety. The request 

contains no confidential information. 

The request includes a suggested 

alternate test procedure to determine the 

energy consumption of Sanyo’s 

specified hybrid refrigerators. To 

provide all manufacturers of 

domestically marketed units of the same 

product type additional time to submit 

comments on the additional information 

provided by Sanyo, DOE has 

determined that re-opening of the public 

comment period is appropriate and is 

hereby re-opening the comment period. 

DOE will consider any comments 

received by June 18, 2012 and deems 

any comments received between May 2, 

2012 and June 18, 2012 to be timely 

submitted. 

Further Information on Submitting 

Comments 

Under 10 CFR part 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: One copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on May 

9, 2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY 

Washington, DC 20585 

In the Matter of: SANYO E&E Corp., 

Petitioner). 

Case Number: RF–022 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 

COMMENT DEADLINE 

SANYO E&E Corporation (‘‘SEE’’) 

submits this Request for Extension of 

Comment Deadline (‘‘Request’’) with 

respect to its Petition for Waiver 

(‘‘Petition’’) filed with the Department 

of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) on June 2, 2011. 

Notice of SEE’s Petition was published 

in the April 2, 2012 Federal Register 

(Vol. 77, No. 63, p. 19654) (‘‘Notice’’) 

and the public comment period is 

currently scheduled to close on May 2, 

2012. SEE respectfully requests that 

interested parties be granted thirty (30) 

additional days from the publication of 

this Request to file comments on SEE’s 

Petition so that any commenters have 

sufficient time to provide a response 

incorporating the clarifications to the 

Petition SEE provides below. Granting 

the extension will not prejudice any 

interested parties, and will promote the 

efficient resolution of SEE’s Petition. 

1. SEE’s Proposed Alternative Testing 

Method For Its Hybrid Models 

As SEE explained in its Petition, 

which SEE incorporates herein, SEE’s 

hybrid models contain design 

characteristics that prevent testing of the 

basic models according to the test 

procedures prescribed in 10 C.F.R. 

§ 430, subpart B, appendix A1. 

Specifically, while the beverage 

compartment of these hybrid models is 

cable of achieving temperatures at or 

below 38 °F, the wine storage 

compartment of these single-cabinet 

units can only achieve a minimum 

temperature of 45 °F. As a result, it is 

impossible to test these hybrid models 

under DOE’s current testing procedures, 

which mandate that energy 

consumption be measured when each 

compartment temperature is set at 38 °F. 

In order to properly certify and rate 

these hybrid models, SEE proposed the 

following two formulas to measure the 

maximum allowable energy 

consumption of the wine storage and 

beverage compartments, respectively: 

Energy consumption of the wine storage 

compartment: 

EWine = {ET1 + [(ET2¥ET1) × (55 

°F¥TW1)/(TW2¥TW1)]} *0.85 1

Energy consumption of the refrigerated 

beverage compartment: 

EBeverage Compartment= ET1 + 

[(ET2¥ET1) × (38 °F¥TBC1)/ 

(TBC2¥TBC1)]. 

As SEE also explained, the K factor 

from CAN/CSA 300–08 6.3.1.2 and 

HRF–1–2007 8.7.2.1.1 was used because 

SEE’s hybrid models will typically have 

a door-opening usage aligned with 

household freezers, and thus 0.85 was 

the employed K factor (correction 

factor). Further, to evaluate the models 

in a manner truly representative of their 

actual energy consumption 

characteristics, the standard 

temperature of single wine coolers (55 

°F) for the wine storage compartment 

and the standard temperature (38 °F) for 

the refrigerated beverage compartment 

was used.2

Applying these proposals, and in 

accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 430, subpart 

B, Appendix A1, SEE hybrid model 

MBCM24FW, which would be classified 

as a compact refrigerator with automatic 

defrost without through-the-door ice 

service and which has a total adjusted 

volume of 5.75 cubic feet, would have 

a maximum allowable annual energy 

usage of 436 kWh/year. Similarly, SEE 

hybrid models JUB248LB, JUB248RB, 

JUB248LW, JUB248RW, KBCO24LS, 

KBCS24LS, KBCO24RS, and KBCS24RS, 

which would also be classified as 

compact refrigerators with automatic 

defrost without through-the-door ice 

service and which have a total adjusted 

volume of 5.41 cubic feet, would have 

a maximum allowable annual energy 

usage of 431 kWh/year. 

2. Clarification Of SEE Proposed 

Alternative Testing Method 

In its Notice, DOE stated that ‘‘[w]e 

also note that the energy consumption 

of the basic models detailed in Sanyo’s 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29333 

1 18 CFR section 385.2010. 

petition suggests that these products, 

when tested in accordance with the 

alternate test procedure Sanyo is 

requesting to use, would appear to use 

an amount of energy that exceeds the 

energy conservation standards for the 

likely product classes that would 

apply.’’ Notice at 19655. SEE apologizes 

for any confusion caused by the 

proposed formulas in its Petition, as 

SEE did not mean to suggest that 436 

kWh/year and 431 kWh/year were the 

actual energy consumption values for 

the applicable hybrid models. Rather, 

SEE was attempting to demonstrate that 

these energy consumption figures would 

be the theoretical maximum allowable 

annual values under SEE’s proposed 

alternative testing method. In order to 

avoid further confusion, SEE provides 

below a more detailed explanation as to 

how it derived these maximum 

allowable values. 

With respect to basic model 

MBCM24FWBS, the total adjusted 

volume of the beverage compartment is 

2.8 cubic feet, while the total adjusted 

volume of the wine storage 

compartment is 2.95 cubic feet, for a 

total adjusted volume of 5.75 cubic feet. 

To calculate the maximum allowable 

annual energy consumption figure, 

however, SEE first calculated the 

maximum allowable energy 

consumption of this model as if it were 

entirely governed by the class 13 allrefrigerator standard, and then 

calculated the maximum allowable 

energy consumption figure as if it were 

entirely governed by the current CAN/ 

CSA–C300–08 type 20 wine chiller 

standard: 

10 CFR 430.32 class 13 all-refrigerator: 

12.70 × 5.75 + 355 kWh/year = 428 

kWh/year 

CAN/CSA–C300–08 type 20 wine 

chiller: 17.4 × 5.75 + 344 kWh/year 

= 444 kWh/year 

SEE then took the weighted average of 

these figures based upon the actual total 

adjusted volume of the beverage 

compartment (2.8 cubic feet) and the 

wine storage compartment (2.95 cubic 

feet) to derive the proposed maximum 

allowable energy consumption figure 

contained in its Petition: 

Combined standard: (428 kWh/year × 

2.8/5.75) + (444 kWh/year × 2.95/ 

5.75) = 436 KWh/year 

With respect to basic models 

JUB248LB, JUB248RB, JUB248LW, 

JUB248RW, KBCO24LS, KBCS24LS, 

KBCO24RS, and KBCS24RS, SEE 

derived the maximum allowable energy 

consumption figure in the same manner, 

with the only difference being that the 

total adjusted volume of the wine 

storage compartment is 2.61 cubic feet 

for these basic models (the beverage 

compartment for these basic models is 

also 2.8 cubic feet), for a total adjusted 

volume of 5.41 cubic feet: 

10 CFR 430.32 class 13 all-refrigerator: 

12.70 × 5.41 + 355 kWh/year = 424 

kWh/year 

CAN/CSA–C300–08 type 20 wine 

chiller: 17.4 × 5.41 + 344 kWh/year 

= 438 kWh/year 

Combined standard: (424 kWh/year × 

2.8/5.41) + (438 kWh/year × 2.61/ 

5.41) = 431 kWh/year 

Thus, the 436 kWh/year and 431 

kWh/year figures reflect the weighted 

average of the maximum allowable 

energy consumption standard pertaining 

to class 13 all-refrigerators, as applied to 

SEE’s hybrid models’ beverage 

compartment, and the CAN/CSA–C300– 

08 type 20 standard for wine chillers, as 

applied to SEE’s hybrid models’ wine 

storage compartment. SEE realizes that 

the bases for these figures may not have 

been entirely clear from SEE’s Petition, 

and therefore SEE respectfully requests 

that DOE publish this clarification in 

order to provide interested parties with 

a more thorough understanding of how 

SEE derived its proposed alternative 

testing method and related maximum 

allowable energy consumption figures. 

SEE further requests that interested 

parties be granted thirty (30) additional 

days from the publication of this 

Request to file comments on SEE’s 

Petition so that interested parties have 

sufficient time to provide a proper 

response without the need for an 

additional round of comments. 

If DOE requires any additional 

information to properly consider SEE’s 

Petition, please do not hesitate to 

contact the undersigned. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s lllllllllllllllllll

Alan G. Fishel 

Adam D. Bowser 

ARENT FOX LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036–5369 

(202) 857–6450 

fishel.alan@arentfox.com 

bowser.adam@arentfox.com 

April 20, 2012 

[FR Doc. 2012–11998 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 12968–001] 

City of Norwich Department of Public 

Utilities; Notice of Proposed Restricted 

Service List for a Programmatic 

Agreement for Managing Properties 

Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

provides that, to eliminate unnecessary 

expense or improve administrative 

efficiency, the Secretary may establish a 

restricted service list for a particular 

phase or issue in a proceeding.1 The 

restricted service list should contain the 

names of persons on the service list 

who, in the judgment of the decisional 

authority establishing the list, are active 

participants with respect to the phase or 

issue in the proceeding for which the 

list is established. 

The Commission staff is consulting 

with the Connecticut State Historic 

Preservation Officer (hereinafter, 

Connecticut SHPO), and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation 

(hereinafter, Advisory Council) 

pursuant to the Advisory Council’s 

regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, 

implementing section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended, (16 U.S.C. section 470f), to 

prepare and execute a programmatic 

agreement for managing properties 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, 

the National Register of Historic Places 

that could be affected by issuance of a 

new license for the Scotland 

Hydroelectric Project No. 12968–001. 

The programmatic agreement, when 

executed by the Commission and the 

Connecticut SHPO would satisfy the 

Commission’s section 106 

responsibilities for all individual 

undertakings carried out in accordance 

with the license until the license expires 

or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The 

Commission’s responsibilities pursuant 

to section 106 for the Scotland 

Hydroelectric Project would be fulfilled 

through the programmatic agreement, 

which the Commission proposes to draft 

in consultation with certain parties 

listed below. The executed 

programmatic agreement would be 

incorporated into any Order issuing a 

license. 

City of Norwich Department of Public 

Utilities, as the competitor applicant for 

the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES