Federal Register Vol. 83, No.57,

Per the General Mining Law of 1872, the miner is entitled to conduct operations that are reasonably incident to exploration and development of mineral deposits on its mining claims pursuant to applicable U.S. laws and regulations and is asserting its right under the General Mining Law to develop, mine, and remove the mineral deposit subject to regulatory laws.

The purpose and need for action is to (1) respond to the proposed Plans of Operations (Plans) to conduct mining activities within the Powder River watershed; (2) ensure that the selected alternative, where feasible, would minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System (NFS) surface resources; and (3) ensure that measures would be included that provide for reclamation of the surface disturbance.

The Powder River Watershed Mining Plans analysis area is located on the Whitman Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, approximately 14 miles southwest of Baker City, Oregon. The decision area will cover 22 proposed mining Plans within the Powder River Watershed, an analysis area encompassing approximately 126,831 acres of NFS lands in Baker County. Typically, each project would disturb and reclaim an area of approximately 1-10 acres annually.

This EIS will evaluate each of the 22 Plans and propose additional operational requirements for some or all of the Plans. The final Record of Decision (ROD) would identify which Plans will be approved, and any specific Plans that require further action prior to Plan approval.

Once the ROD is signed and issued, reclamation bonds and any 401 certifications deemed necessary to be consistent with the Clean Water Act would be presented to the Forest Service before the Plans are approved. PACFISH (which amended the WWNF Forest Plan in 1995) Minerals Management standard #1 requires a reclamation plan and reclamation bond for mineral operations in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs).

The Whitman District Ranger, Jeff Tomac, will be the responsible official for making the decision and providing direction for the analysis.

The responsible official will decide whether or not to move forward with approving specific mining Plans within the Powder River Watershed Mining Plans analysis area. The responsible official will also decide whether or not to select the proposed action as stated or modified, or to select an alternative to it; any mitigation measures needed; and any monitoring that may be required.

The interdisciplinary team has conducted field surveys and data research to identify preliminary issues of concern with this proposal. The primary concern is the potential for sediment or heavy metal discharges into streams from mining operations, potentially impacting water quality, and Endangered Species Act-listed bull trout and bull trout habitat (pools and temperature). Based on these preliminary issues and the level of activity proposed at some sites, there is the potential for significant impacts to some resources, therefore an EIS fits the scope of this analysis rather than an Environmental Assessment.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. Public participation is especially important at several points during the development of the EIS. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies, and tribal governments, individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The most useful comments to developing or refining the proposed action would be site-specific concerns and those that pertain to authorizing mining activities within the Powder River Watershed Mining Plans analysis area that meet the purpose of and need for action.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action and will be available for public inspection.

Title: Information Collection Clearance for the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP).

OMB Number: 0596-0240.

Type of Request: Renewal.

Abstract: Local environmental stewardship groups are essential for ensuring the vibrancy of natural areas in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas, including National Forest lands and the surrounding areas. Natural areas provide a range of benefits and services including storm water management, air pollution removal, urban heat island mitigation, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, stress reduction, aesthetic beauty, noise reduction, increased property values, and reduced energy use. The work of civic environmental stewards leverages the efforts of local government officials in maintaining these resources, especially in lean budget times. Civic stewardship organizations, including nonprofits, faith-based groups, formal and informal community groups, and coalitions, are often involved in, for example, planting trees, organizing community gardens, offering environment-themed classes, engaging with local officials on behalf of the environment, monitoring plants or animals, and cleaning up nearby parks or natural areas. People who do this work are stewards of their local environments, even if they do not normally use the word “steward” or think of what they do as “stewardship.”

The roles of civic environmental stewards and their levels of engagement and commitment are often not understood by land managers and other decision makers. This means that the valuable services they provide may not be recognized and built on to full advantage. In addition, stewards themselves may not be aware of others doing similar work in their area so there may be lost opportunities for collaboration between groups.

The purpose of this research is to gather information on civic stewardship groups and their efforts such as where they work, the types of projects they focus on, and how they are organize. This information will be summarized and made publicly available online for use by policy makers, land managers, environmental professionals, the general public, stewards themselves, and other natural resource management stakeholders.

There are three phases to a STEW-MAP project:

• Phase One (Census) is a census of stewardship groups in the target region, generating a master list of known stewardship groups and their contact information.

• Phase Two (Survey) is a survey which is distributed to all of the organizations identified in Phase One to collect information about what they work on, how their group is structured, where they work, and what other groups they collaborate with.

• Phase Three (Follow-Up Interviews) is follow-up interviews with key responding organizations identified during Phase Two to collect more detailed information about the organizations and their histories.

A primary goal of STEW-MAP is to visualize stewardship activities, which can span across the urban to rural landscape. The geographic information provided by stewardship groups on the survey (Phase Two) will allow the researchers to do a spatial analysis of where stewardship groups are working, identify “gaps” where little to no stewardship is being done, and provide locally relevant geographic information like what kinds of stewardship groups are working in particular places. This geographic information will be displayed on maps to show stewards, local land managers, policy makers, and other interested stakeholders how stewardship work is distributed across the region with the goal of encouraging collaboration, building innovative partnerships, increasing organizational capacities, and generally making stewardship efforts more effective.

Information from STEW-MAP will help planners, natural resource decision makers, land managers, and the general public work across property jurisdictions, management regimes and political boundaries to conserve, protect, and manage natural resources effectively. It will also be used to enhance local resource management efforts by helping public officials, land managers, and civic stewards connect to local stewardship groups.

STEW-MAP is being led by researchers from the Forest Service in partnership with researchers from universities and nongovernment organizations. The exact makeup of the research team will vary from location to location where STEW-MAP is conducted. The Forest Service Research and Development branch is authorized to conduct basic scientific research to improve the health of forests and rangelands involving State, Federal, Tribal agencies, and private landowners across multiple jurisdictions including in urban areas. The study is aligned with the U.S. Department of Agriculture policy of an “all-lands approach” to resource management, which “requires land managers to work across jurisdictions and land-use types, viewing forests landscapes as an integrated whole, both ecologically and socially” (National Report on Sustainable Forests, 2010). This all lands approach applies to urban ecosystems as well. Our project goals are also consistent with the Forest Service, Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) program, which focus on urban forest ecosystems and the role of stewardship and trail connections to parks and public lands that promote health and sustainability for urban residents. This study seeks to identify opportunities for stewardship organizations to better collaborate and, thus, be more effective in the stewardship of all natural areas.

Due to local geographical and/or cultural differences, and to meet the needs of any particular collaborative effort, we may tailor the survey and interview questions to accommodate the unique requirements of individual communities.

Affected Public: Representatives from civic environmental stewardship groups, and from State, local, or Tribal Governments.

Estimate of Burden per Response: 15 to 60 minutes.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:

Phase One (Census): 600.

Phase Two (Survey): 15,000.

Phase Three (Follow-up Interviews): 300.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 7,925 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [03/01/2018 through 03/04/2018] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) PowerFilm, Inc 1287 XE Place, Ames, IA 50014 3/1/2018 The firm manufactures thin-film solar products, including solar panels. MRT Sureway, Inc. d/b/a Sureway Tool & Engineering Company 2959 Hart Drive, Franklin Park, IL 60131 3/2/2018 The firm manufactures metal display racks and other display furniture for the commercial display market.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [03/05/2018 through 03/13/2018] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

Commerce published the Preliminary Results on September 12, 2017.1 In the Preliminary Results, we determined that GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company (GODACO) did not act to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's questionnaires and, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce applied an adverse inference in calculating a margin for GODACO.2 Commerce also determined a margin for the companies subject to this review which demonstrated that they were separate from the Vietnam-wide entity.3 Between February 5 and 15, 2018, interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs. On February 27, 2018, Commerce held a public hearing limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016.

The product covered by the order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius) and Pangasius Micronemus. These products are classifiable under tariff article code 0304.62.0020 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius, including basa and tra), and may enter under tariff article codes 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100 and 1604.19.8100 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).4 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached as the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have determined that a different rate is appropriate to apply to GODACO, which in turn results in a different rate applied to the separate rate companies from the margins assigned in the Preliminary Results.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd. (SAMEFICO), and QVD 6 had no shipments during the POR. Consistent with Commerce's refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, we completed the review with respect to the above-named companies.7 Based on the certifications submitted by these companies, we continue to find that they did not have any shipments during the POR. As noted in the “Assessment Rates” section below, Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP for the above-named companies based on the final results of the review.

We noted in the Preliminary Results that a review was requested, but not rescinded, for Golden Quality Seafood Corporation (Golden Quality). Golden Quality failed to answer Commerce's antidumping duty questionnaire and is not eligible for separate rate status; thus, we find Golden Quality to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity, which is not under review. As Golden Quality is part of the Vietnam-wide entity, it will receive the Vietnam-wide entity's antidumping duty margin of $2.39/kg. Additionally, consistent with Commerce's practice to assign the Vietnam-wide rate to companies under review that do not submit separate rate certifications or applications and, thus, are not eligible for separate rate status, we are also assigning the Vietnam-wide entity's rate to Anvifish Joint Stock Company (Anvifish) and Thuan An Production Trading and Service Co., Ltd. (Tafishco).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 19 CFR 351.401(f), and in accordance with our decision in Comment 7 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to An Giang Agriculture and Food Import-Export Joint Stock Company (Afiex), Bien Dong Seafood Co., Ltd. (Bien Dong) and Vinh Hoan Corporation (Vinh Hoan).

The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results of this administrative review are as follows:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Additions

On 12/15/2017 (82 FR 240) and 12/22/2017 (82 FR 245), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to furnish the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

The purpose of the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School (NAM) program is to award grants to eligible entities to develop and enhance capacity to provide effective instruction and support to Native American students, including Native Hawaiian and Native American Pacific Islander students, who are identified as English learners (ELs). The goal of this program is to support the teaching, learning, and studying of Native American languages while also increasing the English language proficiency and academic achievement of students served.

Through previous competitions, the NAM program has funded a range of grantees that are currently implementing 22 projects across the country. As we are focused on closing longstanding achievement and attainment gaps that have continued to grow, there is also a need to increase the knowledge of what practices work to effectively improve learning outcomes for Native American and Alaska Native ELs.

Congress, in the Native American Languages Act of 1990, recognized the fundamental importance of preserving Native American languages. This legislation provides that it is the policy of the United States to:

Preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.

In addition, the legislation states that it is the policy of the United States to encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction in order to encourage and support—

(A) Native American language survival,

(B) Educational opportunity,

(C) Increased student success and performance,

(D) Increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history, and

(E) Increased student and community pride.

This Federal policy is supported by growing recognition of the importance of native language preservation in facilitating educational success for Native students. In a 2007 study by Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages (TESOL), the majority of Native youth surveyed stated that they value their native language, view it as integral to their sense of self, want to learn it, and view it as a means of facilitating their success in school and life.1 Collaborative efforts between educators, families, and communities, the study suggests, may be especially promising ways to ensure that all Native students have the critical opportunity to learn their native languages.

Not only is native language instruction critical for student engagement and fostering a rich sense of self, but research has shown that students who are bilingual have certain cognitive and social benefits that their monolingual peers may lack.2 Additionally, for students who are classified as ELs, well-implemented language instruction educational programs (as defined in this notice), including dual language approaches, may result in ELs performing equal to or better than their peers in English-only language instruction programs. These approaches have shown promise in increasing language acquisition in English and native languages, and may also promote greater achievement in the academic content areas, including English language arts and mathematics.3

Therefore, to facilitate high-quality language instruction and academic success for Native American students who are classified as ELs, this competition includes an absolute priority for projects that will support the preservation and revitalization of Native American languages while also increasing the English language proficiency of the children served under the project.

In addition, the Department is interested in projects designed to promote literacy. Families play a critical role in preparing their children to enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life. Research suggests that when families and schools work together and support each other in their respective roles, children have a more positive attitude toward school and experience more school success. Specifically, research has found that having parents reinforce specific literacy skills is effective in improving children's literacy.4 Accordingly, this notice includes one invitational priority related to promoting literacy. Addressing this priority may include activities to build greater and more effective family engagement in the education of their children.

In addition, in order to grow the evidence available on effective ways to support Native American and Alaska Native ELs, we include a selection criterion to evaluate the extent to which an applicant's proposed project design is supported by a logic model that connects key project components to outcomes relevant to the program's purpose. We encourage NAM program grantees to use a portion of their budgets to conduct high-quality evaluations of their projects. Such evaluations help ensure that projects contribute to expanding the knowledge base on effective language instruction educational programs, including dual language practices, that prepare Native American and Alaska Native ELs to achieve college, career, and life success.

Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority and one invitational priority. The absolute priority is from section 3127 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (20 U.S.C. 6848).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Projects that support the teaching, learning, and studying of Native American languages while also increasing the English language proficiency of the children served.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent years in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets an invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Projects that are designed to address the following priority area: Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include providing families with access to books or other physical or digital materials or content about how to support their child's reading development, or providing family literacy activities (as defined in section 203(9) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).

Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, and sections 3201 and 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7011 and 7801), and apply to the priorities, selection criteria, and performance measures in this notice. The source of each definition is noted in parentheses following the text of the definition.

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure. (34 CFR 77.1)

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set. (34 CFR 77.1)

English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—

(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a Native resident of the outlying areas; and

(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(i) The ability to meet the State's challenging State academic standards;

(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 8101 of the ESEA)

Language instruction educational program means an instruction course—

(A) In which an English learner is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic achievement standards; and

(B) That may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander native language educational organization means a nonprofit organization with—

(A) A majority of its governing board and employees consisting of fluent speakers of the traditional Native American languages used in the organization's educational programs; and

(B) Not less than five years successful experience in providing educational services in traditional Native American languages. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project. (34 CFR 77.1)

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,300,000.

The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process before the end of the current fiscal year, if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: $275,000-325,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $287,500.

Estimated Number of Awards: 8.

Project Period: 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: The following entities, when they operate elementary, secondary, or postsecondary schools primarily for Native American children (including Alaska Native children), are eligible applicants under this program:

(a) Indian Tribes.

(b) Tribally sanctioned educational authorities.

(c) Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander native language educational organizations.

(d) Elementary schools or secondary schools that are operated or funded by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education, or a consortium of these schools.

(e) Elementary schools or secondary schools operated under a contract with or grant from the Bureau of Indian Education in consortium with another such school or a Tribal or community organization.

(f) Elementary schools or secondary schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education and an IHE, in consortium with an elementary school or secondary school operated under a contract with or a grant from the Bureau of Indian Education or a Tribal or community organization.

Under section 3112(c) of the ESEA, EL students served under NAM grants must not be included in the child count submitted by a school district under section 3114(a) for purposes of receiving funding under the English Language Acquisition State Grants program.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

4. Equitable Participation by Public and Private School Students and Educational Personnel in an ESEA Title III Program: An entity that receives a grant under the NAM program must provide for the equitable participation of private school children and their teachers or other educational personnel. To ensure that grant program activities address the needs of private school children, the applicant must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the program. This consultation must take place before the applicant makes any decision that affects the opportunities for participation by eligible private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel. Administrative direction and control over grant funds must remain with the grantee. (See section 8501 of the ESEA, Participation by Private School Children and Teachers.)

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the NAM competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because (consistent with the process followed in the FY 2016 NAM competition) we plan to post on our website the full application narrative sections of all applications, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative [Part III] to no more than 35 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.

(a) Quality of the project design. (up to 40 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(2) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replications of project activities or strategies including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.

(3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(b) Quality of project personnel. (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(c) Quality of the management plan. (up to 30 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and the principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(d) Quality of the project evaluation. (up to 20 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen applications that are submitted for NAM grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all eligible applications for NAM grants that are submitted by the established deadline on the four selection criteria.

Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a NAM grant application does not meet a NAM eligibility requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.

We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20(c).

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) The Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on achievement. One important source of program information on successes and lessons learned is the project evaluation conducted under individual grants.

(a) Measures. The Department has developed the following GPRA performance measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the NAM program:

• Measure 1: The number and percentage of English learners (ELs) served by the project who score proficient or above on the State reading assessment.

• Measure 2: The number and percentage of ELs served by the project who have attained proficiency in English as measured by the State-approved English language proficiency assessment.

• Measure 3: The number and percentage of students participating in the Native language program who are making progress in learning a Native language, as determined by each grantee, including through measures such as performance tasks, portfolios, and pre- and post-tests.

(b) Baseline data. Applicants must provide baseline data for each of the GPRA performance measures listed in paragraph (a) and include why each proposed baseline is valid; or, if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, explain why there is no established baseline and explain how and when, during the project period, the applicant will establish a valid baseline for the performance measure. 34 CFR 75.110.

(c) Performance measure targets. In addition, the applicant must propose in its application annual targets for the measures listed in paragraph (a). Applications must also include the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) Why each proposed performance target (as defined in this notice) is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.

(2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data.

(3) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

(d) Performance Reports. All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures. The Department will consider these data in making annual continuation awards.

(1) The performance reports for all NAM 2018 grantees must include the following project performance data (34 CFR 75.253, 75.590, 75.591, and 75.720):

• The number of students who are eligible to participate in the program;

• The number of participants in the program; and

• The number of participants who met the performance target.

(2) The performance reports for the NAM 2018 grantees that addressed the promoting literacy priority must also include:

• The number of family literacy activities including the number of or access to books or other physical or digital materials or content that they provided.

(e) Department Evaluations. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program must comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) 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 and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/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 PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Substations are critical points within the vast U.S. power grid, serving a number of functions important to the safe, reliable, and cost-effective delivery of electricity. Substations serve as the entry point to the grid for electric power generators as well as the exit point for large industrial customers. Substations also form the boundaries between the high voltage transmission network and the distribution system, enabling the network to reconfigure to ensure stability and reliability, and to regulate power quality for down-stream electricity customers. As the electric power system continues to evolve, with stakeholders integrating higher amounts of variable renewable generation, deploying electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure, and connecting more dynamic end-use devices and subsystems, substations will need to evolve as well. These critical nodes will need to continue providing their traditional functions as well as new functions and capabilities required in a future grid.

The SSPS Roadmap will present a path for the strategic integration of high voltage power electronic converters in substations to provide enhanced capabilities and support the evolution of the grid. Ultimately envisioned as a modular, scalable, flexible, and adaptable power block that can be used within all substations, SSPS converters will serve as power routers or hubs that have the capability to electrically isolate system components and provide bidirectional alternating current or direct current power flow control from one or more sources to one or more loads—indifferent to magnitude and frequency. Deployment of SSPS technology within substations can facilitate evolution of the grid by enabling better asset utilization, increasing system efficiency, enhancing security and resilience, and easing the integration of distributed energy resources and microgrids.

The draft SSPS Roadmap was developed by the OE Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components program with support from the Savannah River National Laboratory. The roadmap is structured to provide the context, rationale, and potential benefits of utilizing SSPS technology, and articulates a research and development pathway to accelerate maturation of SSPS. It aims to capture the state-of-the-art in critical enabling technologies, highlight research gaps and opportunities, and align disparate activities across the stakeholder communities to realize the SSPS vision.

This RFI provides the public, industry, and interested stakeholders, the opportunity to play an important role in defining and refining the SSPS vision and the potential technology development pathway. The intent of this RFI is to solicit input concerning the benefits offered by SSPS technology, the application areas where SSPS technology can provide a value proposition, the current state-of-the-art, and the gaps that are most critical to fill. The information obtained will be public and is meant to be used by DOE to guide and inform research and development activities. Please provide your comments next to the relevant questions in the Excel spreadsheet and supporting information if noted, including studies, reports, references, data, and examples relevant to SSPS.

What issues and concerns not captured in the roadmap most deeply impact the ability of substations to meet the demands of an evolving grid? What are additional challenges faced by utilities that would necessitate power electronic converters in substations?

Are there any other issues or comments regarding these Chapters?

Is there evidence of a growing need for power electronic converters in substations? If so, in what capacity? What specific challenges would the use of power electronic converters address?

Comments are requested on the SSPS vision and the three classification of SSPS converters articulated in the roadmap, as well as on the defining feature and functions and the voltage and power ratings.

Comments are requested on the SSPS technology development pathway presented in the roadmap. For each classification of SSPS converters, are there other potential applications that have not been captured?

What are additional benefits of using SSPS converters that should be captured?

Are there any other issues or comments regarding these Chapters?

Comments are requested on the R&D challenges identified in the roadmap and their associated goals. Are they sufficiently aggressive and appropriate to realize the defining feature and functions for each classification of SSPS converter? What R&D challenges not yet identified would prevent SSPS technologies from being realized, as envisioned? For these additional R&D challenges, what would be the associated goals for each classification of SSPS converter?

Comments are requested on the state-of-the-art and the research gaps identified in the roadmap for each of the R&D challenges. What on-going work, that can be publicly shared, should be reflected in the state-of-the-art? What additional gaps needs to be highlighted to address the R&D challenges identified? What specific actions will need to be taken in the near-, mid-, and long-term to sufficiently address the gaps identified?

What additional non-technical challenges are there that would prevent SSPS converters from being accepted by industry? What additional standards would be relevant to SSPS technology, as envisioned? What are potential market or regulatory barriers that will need to be addressed?

Are there any other issues or comments regarding this Chapter?

Comments are requested on the technology topic described in the roadmap. What is the appropriate Federal role in advancing this technology area? What are some organizational roles in helping to advance this technology concept? What amount of resources would be required to fully implement the roadmap?

I. Background and Authority

Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes ceiling fans that are the subject of this notice.2 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 measuring energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for ceiling fans is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix U (referred to in this notice as “appendix U”).

DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered product when: The basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedure to 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). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).

The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE 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(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).

On June 14, 2017, BAS filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to ceiling fans set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix U. According to BAS, testing at low speed for the basic models listed in the petition,3 may cause BAS undue hardship in meeting the requirements of the stability requirements contained in appendix U. Consequently, in its petition, BAS offered two alternate test procedures for determining the stability criteria for testing low-speed small-diameter ceiling fans at low speed: (1) BAS's preferred method, which would require BAS to employ a stability criteria using airflow instead of air velocity measurements, and (2) BAS's alternate method, which would require relaxing the low speed stability criteria from DOE's requirement of 5 percent to 10 percent. BAS initially stated that this second method is not preferred because it could add significant variability to the calculated airflow on low speed. BAS also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure.

However, by email dated December 6, 2017, BAS withdrew their preferred method for modifying the stability criteria from consideration. Instead, BAS requested that DOE consider their alternative method as their recommendation for the alternate test procedure.4

DOE understands that the basic models identified in BAS's petition cannot be tested under the DOE test procedure because at the lower operating speeds for these fans, air speed is so low that the acceptable variance under the stability criteria (often less than 2 feet per minute) falls below the required accuracies for air velocity sensors in section 3.2 of the DOE test procedure. DOE also understands that absent an interim waiver, BAS's products cannot be tested and rated according to the DOE test procedure, and BAS is unable to advertise performance data for these models. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by BAS and concludes that relaxing the stability criteria for low speed will allow for the accurate measurement of efficiency of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with BAS's implementation of ceiling fan testing for the basic models specified in its petition. Further discussion on DOE's review of the alternate test procedure are provided in section IV of this notice. Consequently, DOE has determined that BAS's petition for waiver will likely be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant BAS immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

DOE has reviewed the manufacturer specifications and test data provided by BAS and agrees that it demonstrates that the basic models specified in the petition cannot be tested under the DOE test procedure because, when testing the basic models at low speed, the air speed is so low that the acceptable variance under the stability criteria (often less than 2 feet per minute) falls below the required accuracies for air velocity sensors in section 3.2 of the DOE test procedure. DOE compared BAS's test data to DOE's own test data from previous rulemakings and observed that the air velocities at low speed for the new BAS basic models are much lower than the test data previously evaluated. DOE's understanding is that the primary purpose of low speed for the basic models included in BAS's petition is to mix air in the room. Achieving the desired mixing effect requires much lower airflow that creates highly variable airflow patterns in the room. These atypically variable airflow patterns make it hard for the ceiling fan to achieve the stability criteria required by the DOE test procedure.

For the reasons stated above, DOE is granting BAS's application for interim waiver from testing for its specified ceiling fan basic models. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized.

BAS is required to use the alternate test procedure set forth in this notice to test and rate the ceiling fan basic models listed in the petition (Isis F-IS2-0601S4, Isis F-IS2-0601, Isis F-IS2-0401L8S4, Isis F-IS2-0401L8, Isis F-IS2-0401I06L8S4, Isis F-IS2-0401I06L8, Isis F-IS2-0501L8S4 and Isis F-IS2-0501L8). BAS is permitted to make representations about the ceiling fan efficiency of these basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.32.

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. BAS may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429. See also 10 CFR 430.27(a) and (i).

The interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Similarly, BAS may request that DOE rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver if BAS discovers an error or determines that the waiver is no longer necessary or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).

Under EPCA, manufacturers may not make representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of a covered product unless the basic model has been tested in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure and the representation fairly discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to the regulations applicable to waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for BAS in a subsequent Decision and Order.

In its petition, BAS proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for ceiling fans prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix U, except that the stability criteria at low speed for low-speed small-diameter ceiling fans be modified to either of the recommended alternate test procedures as follows:

(1) Replace the stability criteria to allow a percentage variation around airflow, instead of average air velocity, between two consecutive tests. Therefore, the suggested test procedure should instead state: “In a successive set of measurements, the lower recorded value for airflow multiplied by 1.03 is greater than or equal to the higher recorded value for airflow, or these airflow measurements vary less than 15 cfm” (preferred), OR

(2) Relax the current low speed stability criteria tolerances such that the average air velocity measurements for each sensor varies by less than 10 percent, instead of 5 percent, compared to the average air velocity measured for the same sensor in a successive set of air velocity measurements (alternative).

However, by email dated December 6, 2017, BAS withdrew their preferred method for modifying the stability criteria. Instead, BAS requested that DOE consider their alternative method as their recommendation for the alternate test procedure.

DOE reviewed both alternate test procedures and preliminarily concluded that the BAS alternate test procedure of applying stability criteria to airflow instead of air velocity could allow a greater variation in airflow and efficiency results between multiple tests of the same fan. Under the current DOE test procedure, air velocity is measured at each sensor along the sensor arm, and airflow is calculated based on these measurements. The air velocity measurements indicate both the amount and location of air provided by the fan within the effective area (i.e., the air profile). DOE found that large variations in air profile often indicate test room instability (e.g., localized temperature gradients that effect airflow). Applying stability criteria to the air velocity measurements ensures that successive sets of measurements result in similar air profiles, which is indicative of test room stability. On the other hand, DOE observed that stability criteria applied only to airflow could be met with large variations in air profile (i.e., at unstable test room conditions). This allows for airflow, and in turn fan efficiency, to vary significantly between multiple tests of the same fan because stable airflow can be achieved at varied test room conditions.

DOE also evaluated whether increased tolerances for the air velocity stability criteria for low speed tests could be used to reduce test burden without materially affecting the results of the test procedure. Specifically, DOE used test data from the previous rulemaking to compare the airflow and efficiency results using the current test procedure and the alternate test procedure. DOE found that increasing the stability criteria to 10 percent for low speed would allow more fans to meet the stability criteria and reduce the number of successive measurements needed to do so without materially changing the efficiency results of the test procedure. Under this approach, the section of the test procedure would read as follows:

Measure the airflow (CFM) and power consumption (W) for HSSD ceiling fans until stable measurements are achieved, measuring at high speed only. Measure the airflow and power consumption for LSSD ceiling fans until stable measurements are achieved, measuring first at low speed and then at high speed. Airflow and power consumption measurements are considered stable for high speed if:

(1) The average air velocity for all axes for each sensor varies by less than 5% compared to the average air velocity measured for that same sensor in a successive set of air velocity measurements, and

(2) Average power consumption varies by less than 1% in a successive set of power consumption measurements.

Airflow and power consumption measurements are considered stable for low speed if:

(1) The average air velocity for all axes for each sensor varies by less than 10% compared to the average air velocity measured for that same sensor in a successive set of air velocity measurements, and

(2) Average power consumption varies by less than 1% in a successive set of power consumption measurements.

Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of BAS's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of BAS ceiling fans, and grants BAS an interim waiver from the test procedure for the ceiling fan basic models listed in BAS's petition. DOE is publishing BAS's petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 439.27(b)(1)(iv). BAS provided confidential performance information that is not included in this notice.

DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedures offered by the petitioner. DOE seeks comment on whether either of BAS' alternative test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the EPCA test procedure requirements that a test procedure measure the energy use or energy efficiency of ceiling fans during a representative use cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE seeks comment on whether the alternate test procedure of applying stability criteria to airflow instead of air velocity a greater variation in airflow and efficiency results between multiple tests of the same fan. DOE also seeks comment on whether use of the test method specified in this interim waiver would result in variability in the calculated airflow, and if so, to what extent.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Taylor Sawyer <[email protected]>, Big Ass Solutions, 2348 Innovation Drive, Lexington, KY 40511. All comment submissions to DOE must include the Case Number 2017-011 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 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.

Big Ass Solutions respectfully requests a waiver of one element in the Test Procedures for Ceiling Fans, finalized by DOE on July 25, 2016. The compliance date for representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of ceiling fans under this final rule was January 23, 2017. The docket number is EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050.

It has come to our attention that the stability requirements contained in the final test procedure, when tested at low speed for certain small-diameter ceiling fan models, may cause Big Ass Solutions undue hardship in meeting the requirements of the test procedure.

The final rule includes a specification for the stability criteria of the sensors used on small-diameter ceiling fans to evaluate airflow and power consumption:

Airflow and power consumption measurements are considered stable if: (1) the average air velocity for all axes for each sensor varies by less than 5% compared to the average air velocity measured for that same sensor in a successive set of air velocity measurements, and (2) average power consumption varies by less than 1% in a successive set of power consumption measurements.

When Big Ass Solutions initiated testing, we discovered that we are unable to meet this stability requirement at the lower operating speeds of a certain fan containing design characteristics that prevent testing per the current DOE test procedures. The average air speed is so low, that the acceptable variance under the stability criteria above is often less than 2 feet per minute, which falls below the required accuracies for airflow sensors that is stated in section 3.2 of the Final Rule. The measured velocity at this point also falls below the calibrated ranges of our two models of airflow sensors, (~30−1969 fpm) and (~30−196 fpm), which are in accordance with the requirements of the DOE test method and similar to sensors used at other small-diameter fan test labs. We have run several different tests and contracted an independent test lab to conduct additional testing, and all testing appears to have the same issue with stability at very low airspeeds, even with the use of two sets of sensors with different calibrated ranges.

An example test for stability we have conducted is as follows:

While we are moving forward with testing on other BAS products not affected by this issue, the potential for future innovative fan products with blade spans under 7ft to become burdened by this may be substantial.

Big Ass Solutions currently manufactures a series of affected small-diameter HVLS fans with a blade spans of 6ft and markets them as Isis model Big Ass Fans. The two basic model Big Ass Fans found below, have physical and mechanical characteristics that meet the criteria for LSSD ceiling fan blade thickness and tip speed. Big Ass Solutions has included data detailing the exactness of this model's LSSD classification eligibility.

On May 2, 2017, JCI originally filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the applicable CAC and HP test procedure set forth in Appendix M and subsequently amended its petition once in May and again in June. On September 20, 2017, DOE published a notice announcing its receipt of the petition for waiver and also granting JCI an interim waiver. 82 FR 43952. In that notice, DOE also solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and specified an alternate test procedure that must be followed for testing and certifying the specific basic models for which JCI requested a waiver. Id.

On March 23, 2018, DOE publishes this notice announcing a Decision and Order regarding JCI's petition. This notice includes a copy of the Decision and Order, with information JCI marked as confidential business information redacted, DOE issued to JCI.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes the CACs and HPs which are the subject of this Order. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3)) Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures.

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their product complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered products during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The currently applicable CAC and HP test procedure is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps” (“Appendix M”).

Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic models for which the waiver was requested contain a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic models according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy or water consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

On May 17, 2017, JCI filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the applicable CAC and HP test procedure set forth in Appendix M.3 On June 2, 2017, JCI supplemented its petition with additional information. According to JCI, testing its CAC and HP basic models that use variable-speed, oil-injected scroll compressors (VSS systems) with only a 20-hour break-in period produces results unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics, and would provide materially inaccurate comparative data. JCI requested that in lieu of the 20-hour break-in limit, it be permitted to test its VSS systems with a 72-hour break-in period. Consequently, JCI seeks a waiver from DOE to permit it to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific CAC and HP basic models, which increases the break-in time limit stipulated in section 3.1.7 of Appendix M.

JCI submitted data indicating that the VSS system basic models specified in the petition have compressors that may require more than the 20 hours of break-in time allowed by the DOE test procedure. The purpose of the DOE break in period is to represent the wearing process that smooths out irregularities in the mating surfaces of the compressor. These irregularities can increase friction between mating surfaces and/or result in reduced refrigerant mass flow, both of which would reduce compressor and in turn, overall product efficiency. The majority of the operational life of the compressor occurs after this wearing process. Hence, testing after a sufficient break in period is more representative of field performance. Based on data submitted on the issue and facts presented as a record of DOE's central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure rulemaking to date, DOE determined that a 20 hour break in period is appropriate for central air-conditioners and heat pumps. 77 FR 28928, 28944 (May 16, 2012). Specifically, stakeholders commented that a break-in period of 16 to 20 hours would generally be appropriate for testing of commercial air-conditioners with capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28928, 28943. However, in the basic models specified by JCI in its petition, the oil injected into the oil-injected scroll compressors increases the coverage of the viscous oil layer between mating surfaces of the scroll. This is presumably its purpose, i.e., to provide additional sealing in the gaps of the mating surfaces to improve compressor volumetric efficiency (relationship between displacement rate and volume flow rate of refrigerant drawn into the compressor). By enhancing this oil layer, the direct contact between irregularities in the surfaces is reduced. The reduction in direct contact slows the wearing process that smooths out these irregularities. Thus, the 20-hour break-in period may not allow for sufficient smoothing of irregularities that reduce compressor efficiency and would result in an efficiency measurement that is unrepresentative of actual field use. Hence a longer break-in period would be appropriate for these products.

On September 20, 2017, DOE published a notice announcing its receipt of the petition for waiver and also granting JCI an interim waiver. 82 FR 43952. In that notice DOE also solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and specified an alternate test procedure that must be followed for testing and certifying the specific basic models for which JCI requested a waiver. Id. Following close of the comment period, DOE received a comment from Goodman Global, Inc. (a member of the Daikin Group) that was supportive of DOE granting the waiver.4 DOE did not receive any other comments relevant to this petition.5

Based on the information provided by JCI, DOE has determined that the current test procedure at Appendix M would evaluate the specified CAC and HP basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Therefore, in the Decision and Order, DOE is requiring that JCI test and rate the CAC and HP basic models for which it has requested a waiver according to the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order, which is identical to the procedure provided in the interim waiver.

In its petition JCI sought a test procedure waiver for certain models. The Decision and Order is applicable only to the basic models listed within it and does not extend to any other basic models.

Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not later than 60 days after March 23, 2018 any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States products employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a petition for waiver.

Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of those products in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.

In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2), DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff concerning JCI's petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting the waiver to JCI.

After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by JCI in this matter, DOE grants a waiver regarding the below specified basic models. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is ordered that:

(1) JCI must test and rate the CAC and HP basic models listed in paragraph (1)(A) that use the variable-speed, oil-injected scroll compressors that are listed in paragraph (1)(B) with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes EPSs, which are the focus of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)).

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether a product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered products during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for EPSs is contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) Part 430, subpart B, appendix Z, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 provide that upon receipt of a petition, DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy or water consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).

The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE 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(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).

On December 1, 2017, Huawei filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for EPSs under 10 CFR 430.27 for several basic models of adaptive EPSs 3 that meet the provisions of the International Electrotechnical Commission's “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power—Part 1-2: Common components—USB Power Delivery” (“IEC 62680-1-2:2017”) specification.4 The IEC specification describes the particular architecture, protocols, power supply behavior, connectors, and cabling necessary for managing power delivery over a universal serial bus (“USB”) connection at power levels of up to 100 watts (“W”). The purpose behind this specification is to help provide a standardized approach for power supply and peripheral developers to ensure backward compatibility while retaining product design and marketing flexibility. See generally, IEC 62680-1-2:2017 (Abstract) (describing the standard's general provisions and purpose).

In Huawei's view, applying the DOE test procedure to the adaptive EPSs specified in its petitions would yield results that would be unrepresentative of the active-mode efficiency of those products. The DOE test procedure requires that the average active-mode efficiency for adaptive EPSs be measured by testing the unit twice—once at the highest achievable output voltage (“V”) and once at the lowest. The test procedure requires that active-mode efficiency be measured at four loading conditions relative to the nameplate output current of the EPS. See 10 CFR 430.23(bb) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. The lowest achievable output voltage supported by the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification is 5V and the nameplate current at this voltage output is 3 amps (“A”), resulting in a power output of 15 W. Huawei contends that while the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification requires the tested EPS to support this power output, the 15W at 5V condition will be rarely used and only for brief periods of time, and that adaptive EPSs operating at 5V do not exceed 10W for almost all usage conditions.

Huawei contends that, when charging a product that is sold or intended to be used with the EPS, the EPS charges at 5 volts only with a dead battery or fully charged battery (and then at 0.5A or less). At other times when more power is needed, the EPS will use a higher voltage rail (greater than 5V). (A “voltage rail” refers to a single voltage provided by the relevant power supply unit through a dedicated circuit/wire used for that voltage.) Huawei further states that when using an adaptive EPS that supports the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification to charge an end-use product of a manufacturer different from the one who manufactured the EPS, it is likely that the product would charge at less than 10W at 5V, or may even be capable of exploiting the ability of an adaptive EPS to provide higher voltages for faster charging.

Accordingly, Huawei asserts that the DOE test procedure's measurement of efficiency at the prescribed power level (i.e., 5V, 3A) is unrepresentative of the true energy consumption of these EPSs. Consequently, it seeks a waiver from DOE to permit it to use an alternate test procedure to measure the energy efficiency of the specified adaptive EPSs that support the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification by testing these devices at the lowest voltage, 5V, and at an output power at 10W instead of 15W.

Huawei also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).

DOE understands that, absent an interim waiver, applying the current DOE test procedure to the specified adaptive EPS basic models would not produce results representative of the actual field usage of these products. DOE notes that it has recently granted interim waivers in response to petitions that presented the same issue as in Huawei's petition.5 DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by Huawei. The procedure, which is the same as that specified in the recently granted interim waiver, will allow for the accurate measurement of efficiency of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with Huawei's implementation of EPS testing for the basic models specified in its petition. Consequently, it appears likely that Huawei's petition for waiver will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant Huawei immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards.

In its petition, Huawei suggested that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the DOE EPS test procedure prescribed at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix Z, except to modify the average active mode efficiency calculations by using the average of four loading conditions representing the same respective percentages of an output current of 2A rather than at its highest nameplate output current—in this case, 3A. Under the current test procedure, when testing an adaptive EPS at the lowest achievable output voltage, the measured average active mode efficiency is equal to the average efficiency when testing the EPS at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of the nameplate output current of the EPS at that voltage. See 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix Z, sections 1.f and 4(a)(i)(E), and Table 1. Thus, for an adaptive EPS with a lowest output voltage of 5V and a nameplate output current of 3A (resulting in a 15W output at 100% of the nameplate output current), the average active mode efficiency at the lowest output voltage would be equal to the average of the efficiencies when testing at 15W, 11.25W, 7.5W, and 3.75W. Under the alternate test procedure suggested by Huawei, the average active mode efficiency would equal the average of the efficiencies when testing at 10W, 7.5W, 5W, and 2.5W. The petitioner suggested taking the results from this alternate approach and comparing them against the DOE efficiency requirements at 10W.

During the period of the interim waiver in this notice, the petitioner must test the specified basic models according to the test procedure as discussed in this section. Pursuant to the test procedure waiver regulations at 10 CFR 430.27 and after considering public comments on the petition, DOE will announce its decision as to an alternate test procedure for the petitioner in a subsequent Decision and Order.

For the reasons stated above, DOE has informed the petitioner that it is granting the petition for interim waiver from testing for the specified EPS basic models. The substance of the Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.

Huawei is required to use the alternate test procedures set forth in this notice to test and rate the EPS basic models listed in the petition (HW-200200UPX, HW-200300UPX, HW-200325UPX, and HW-200500UPX). Huawei is permitted to make representations about the EPS efficiency of these basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.37.

DOE evaluates and grants waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Huawei may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429. See also 10 CFR 430.27(a) and (i).

Unless otherwise rescinded or modified, the interim waiver shall remain in effect until such time as when DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in the waiver and use of the amended test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h). DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, Huawei may request that DOE rescind or modify the interim waiver if Huawei discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the understanding that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by Huawei are valid and accurate.

Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of Huawei's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of Huawei's EPSs, and DOE grants Huawei an interim waiver from the test procedure for the EPS basic models listed in Huawei's petition. DOE is publishing Huawei's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv).6 The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as discussed in section III of this notice, to determine the EPS efficiency of Huawei's specified EPSs. DOE may consider including this alternate procedure in a subsequent Decision and Order.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by April 23, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Mr. Dennis Amari, Director of Federal & Regulatory Affairs, Huawei Technologies, Co. Ltd., 875 15th Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20005.

Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. 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.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

In the Matter of Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedures for External Power Supplies, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0043, RIN 1904-AD36.

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) 1 respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver to the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) on the test procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 430.23, Subpart B, Appendix Z,2 for determining the energy efficiency of certain adaptive external power supplies (“EPSs”).3 As set forth herein, Huawei submits that the basic models of the adaptive EPSs identified in Appendix I of this petition satisfy the criteria for a waiver as specified in rules governing DOE's Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products.4 That is, the prescribed test procedures for evaluating these adaptive EPSs are so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics that such testing would result in materially inaccurate comparative data. Huawei therefore requests that the alternate test procedure described below serve the purpose of evaluating the energy consumption characteristics of these adaptive EPSs.5

Huawei also notes that basic models of adaptive EPSs listed in Appendix I incorporate similar design characteristics to those for which DOE has already granted an interim waiver conditioned on the use of an alternate testing procedure.6 Thus, as the prescribed test procedures would result in materially inaccurate comparative data for the basic models of the adaptive ESPs listed in Appendix I and DOE has granted interim waivers for testing of other manufacturers' basic models with similar design characteristics, Huawei requests that DOE grant a waiver for these basic models and provide for the same alternate testing procedures as those approved for other manufacturers.7

The basic models for which a waiver is requested are the adaptive EPSs set forth in Appendix I. All of these basic models are manufactured by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and will be distributed in commerce in the United States under the “Huawei” brand name.

As described in the earlier petitions for which DOE granted interim waivers, adaptive EPSs are highly useful consumer products that have beneficial environmental attributes.8 For example, they provide energy efficient charging with less resistive loss and accelerate the charging process which reduces the overall time needed to charge a product's battery. They can also be readily reused when devices are replaced.9 While convenient for consumers, adaptive EPSs further yield environmental benefits by providing more efficient energy use, reduced packaging with less landfill waste and a decreased need for transportation shipments.10

The current DOE test procedure requires measurement of average active-mode efficiency for adaptive EPSs at four load points—100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%—for each of the highest and lowest voltage levels.11 The average efficiency is deemed to be the arithmetic mean of the efficiency values calculated at the four load points.12

The lowest achievable output voltage supported by the basic models is 5 volts (V), which corresponds to a maximum power of 15W.13 According to International Electrotechnical Commission's (“IEC”) USB Power Delivery Specification (IEC 62680-1-2:2017), the product shall support 15 W at 5V.14

Adaptive EPSs are increasingly used with tablets, mobile phones, and similar hand-held devices. These devices constitute the typical primary load of adaptive EPSs. In conformance with the IEC USB Power Delivery Specification, the adaptive EPSs listed in Appendix I are required to support 15W (5V 3A[amps]) when used with these devices.15 However, these devices very rarely consume the power of 15W and do not exceed 10W in nearly all real-world usage scenarios.

As described to DOE in earlier petitions,16 evaluation of adaptive EPSs at the 15W power level does not represent actual energy consumption characteristics of the basic models listed in Appendix I because the 15W at 5V power level will only be used in extremely rare instances for very short periods of time. Therefore, Huawei agrees that “evaluation of adaptive EPSs at the 15W power level when evaluating efficiency at the lowest voltage rail (5V) is grossly unrepresentative of the actual energy consumption characteristics of these models in real world usage.” 17 As such, Huawei joins the earlier petitioners' request that DOE grant a waiver with the alternate test procedure described below.

Consistent with the approved alternate test procedure included in the earlier waiver petitions granted by DOE,18 Huawei requests that the same test procedure be allowed for purposes of evaluating the performance of the basic models of adaptive EPSs listed in Appendix I. Specifically, Huawei requests DOE allow performance testing as follows:

“The applicable method of test for the basic models . . . is the test procedure for EPSs prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z, except that under section 4(a)(i)(E) and Table 1 of Appendix Z, adaptive EPSs that meet the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification must be tested such that the 100% nameplate loading condition when testing at the lowest achievable output voltage is 2A (which corresponds to all output power of 10 watts). The 75%, 50% and 25% loading conditions shall be scaled accordingly and the nameplate output power of such an EPS, at the lowest output voltage, shall be equal to 10 watts.” 19

Huawei also requests that DOE grant an interim waiver for testing and rating of the basic models of adaptive EPSs listed in Appendix I. As DOE stated on the earlier petitions, “absent an interim waiver, the basic models identified. . . cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on the basis of their true characteristics.” 20 Further, DOE concluded “that [the alternate test procedure] will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with petition's implementation of EPS testing for their adaptive EPSs that support the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification,” and that “the petition for waiver will likely be granted and has decided that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant petitioners immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver,” 21

In addition, without waiver relief, Huawei will be subject to requirements that should not apply to these products; that is, compliance with both the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification and the current DOE test procedure requirements for these adaptive EPSs, simultaneously, is not possible. Further, Huawei's ability to distribute its adaptive EPSs in commerce in the United States will be impaired, thereby placing Huawei at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other manufacturers and distributors absent a favorable determination by DOE.22 For all of the reasons outlined above, Huawei likewise requests an interim waiver for the basic models of the adaptive EPSs listed in Appendix I.

A list of manufacturers of all other basic models of adaptive ESPs distributed in commerce in the United States and known to Huawei that incorporate design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic models that are the subject of the petition is provided in Appendix II. The list is identical to the list included in the earlier petitions with the addition of the four petitioners.23

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On April 16, 2013, DOE issued Order No. EA-336-A to COP which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on April 16, 2018. On February 13, 2018, COP filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-336-A for an additional five-year term.

In its application, COP states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities. The electric energy that COP proposes to export to Mexico would be purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by COP have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning COP's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-336-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Casey P. McFaden and Robert F. Bonner, ConocoPhillips Company, 600 North Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77079.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Air Alliance Houston dated August 8, 2016, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1553, issued by TCEQ to ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant in Harris County, Texas. The Petition claims that: (1) TCEQ did not have the authority to create a federally-enforceable PAL permit at the time PAL6 was issued, (2) the PAL6 permit is not federally enforceable because of alleged defects with how TCEQ calculated the facility's baseline emissions, and (3) PAL6 does not establish a PAL for PM2.5.

On March 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than May 22, 2018.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides and/or the potential impacts of pesticide use on listed species and designated critical habitat. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

A copy of the Biological Opinion on Pesticides: Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion is available in the docket under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0141.

The ESA requires Federal agencies, such as EPA, to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of such species. The registration of a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) constitutes an EPA “action” under the ESA. If EPA determines a pesticide may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat, EPA must initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or NMFS (the Service or Services), as appropriate. In response to a Federal agency initiating formal consultation, the Service(s) develops a BiOp in which it provides its opinion on whether the “action” is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or is likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat and, if so, describes reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to avoid the determination. The BiOp will also address whether the action will result in incidental take of listed species and, if so, provide a statement specifying the amount of any permitted incidental take and setting forth reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of such take.

Consistent with EPA's responsibility under the ESA, on January 18, 2017, EPA released national-level endangered species Biological Evaluations (BEs) for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion to assess risks to listed species from registered uses of these pesticides. These BEs were completed in accordance with the joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. The NAS report outlined recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the FWS and NMFS must conduct to meet their obligations under the ESA. In November 2013, the Services, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the November 1, 2013 white paper Interim Approaches for National-Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report. The methods developed as part of the joint Interim Approaches will continue to be vetted before EPA utilizes these methods broadly to meet its ESA obligations. Additional information on endangered species risk assessment and the NAS report recommendations are available at https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/implementing-nas-report-recommendations-ecological-risk-assessment-endangered-and.

On December 29, 2017, in response to a court-ordered deadline in the case of Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides, et al. v. NMFS, Stipulation and Order, Dkt. 50, No. 07-1791-RSL (D. Wash. May 21, 2014), NMFS transmitted to EPA its final BiOp regarding the effects of the registration review under section 3 of FIFRA of these pesticides on listed species. The BiOp addressed the effects of these three pesticides on 77 listed species and 50 designated critical habitats and, in sum, 38 different species would likely be jeopardized with extinction and 37 critical habitat units would be destroyed or adversely modified. NMFS had sought from the court, but was not provided, additional time to complete the BiOp. On January 8, 2018, EPA confirmed receipt of the BiOp and informed NMFS of EPA's intention to reinitiate informal consultation on the BiOp so that the consultation on the pesticides could be informed by (1) input from stakeholders, (2) further interagency discussion and agreement on the jeopardy determination interim methods, and (3) additional data and analysis, including consideration of the best scientific and commercial data available on use and usage information. On February 21, 2018, EPA sent NMFS a letter requesting informal consultation on the same action. EPA will use the information and analysis received and developed in the course of the informal consultation to inform whether formal reinitiation of consultation on the BiOp is appropriate.

As a result of the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle's failure to extend NMFS's court-ordered deadline, NMFS issued the final BiOp without having received input from the public and applicants (pesticide registrants), which is at odds with EPA's 2013 public stakeholder process for ESA consultations—an open and transparent process supported by the Services, EPA, and USDA. As explained in the 2013 public stakeholder document, stakeholder input is critical to the development and evaluation of any measures EPA may implement to address risks to listed species and designated critical habitat. Accordingly, EPA is seeking comment on the BiOp to receive stakeholder and public input prior to either reinitiating consultation on the BiOp or implementing the measures of BiOp. EPA will evaluate the input received in determining how it will proceed with respect to the final BiOp.

The BiOp for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion is being included in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0141) to seek input on NMFS's jeopardy findings, RPMs and RPAs, and to solicit additional use and usage information. Specifically:

1. Comments on the scientific approaches and data sources used to support the BiOp and reach determinations for the listed species and critical habitat.

2. Comments on the RPAs and RPMs. Can they be reasonably implemented? If not, describe why not. Are there different measures that may provide equivalent protection to the ones in the BiOp but result in less impact to pesticide users?

3. Comments on national- and state-level use and usage data and information. In particular, EPA is seeking usage data and information for non-agricultural use sites (e.g., nurseries, managed forests, pasture, rights-of-way, golf courses, and wide-area mosquito control). If possible, provide sources of data and information that should be considered.