[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30061-30064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE is announcing an appeals process for eligibility
determinations published in the funding opportunity announcement issued
under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
program. This notice specifies the issues that can be appealed, the
process for filing an appeal, and the procedure applicable to
adjudicate such appeals. All appeals will be reviewed by the DOE Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The deadline for submitting an appeal
with OHA is 30 days following the publication of this notice.
DATES: All appeals must be filed, as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice, no later than July 24, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the EECBG
Program contact EERE's Information Center, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter/, or call toll-free at 1-877-
EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463), between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday.
For questions regarding the EECBG appeals process contact Fred L.
Brown, Deputy Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-0107, (202) 287-1545,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established
the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program,
which provides, in part, for a direct formula grant program for States,
eligible units of local government, and Indian Tribes. (42 U.S.C.
17151-17158) On April 15, 2009, DOE published in the Federal Register
formulas for allocation of direct grants under the EECBG Program. 74 FR
17461. DOE also published a funding opportunity announcement that
identified the ``eligible units of local government,'' Funding
Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000013, Amendment 00003 (available at:
http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/).
For the purpose of the EECBG program, an ``eligible unit of local
government'' was defined by EISA to be a city or county that met
population thresholds specified in statute. (42 U.S.C. 17151) Further,
to be defined as an ``eligible unit of local government,'' DOE
determined that a geographical subdivision also must have a functional
government with responsibilities and jurisdiction capable of
implementing the broad range of programs identified by EISA. EISA
specifically enumerated the following activities as activities that
achieve the purpose of the EECBG Program--
(1) Development and implementation of an energy efficiency and
conservation strategy as required by EISA;
(2) Retaining technical consultant services to assist the
eligible entity in the development of such a strategy, including--
(A) Formulation of energy efficiency, energy conservation, and
energy usage goals;
(B) Identification of strategies to achieve those goals--
(i) Through efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce
energy consumption; and
[[Page 30062]]
(ii) By encouraging behavioral changes among the population
served by the eligible entity;
(C) Development of methods to measure progress in achieving the
goals;
(D) Development and publication of annual reports to the
population served by the eligible entity describing the goals and
progress in achieving the goals;
(E) Other services to assist in the implementation of the energy
efficiency and conservation strategy;
(3) Conducting residential and commercial building energy
audits;
(4) Establishment of financial incentive programs for energy
efficiency improvements;
(5) The provision of grants to nonprofit organizations and
governmental agencies for the purpose of performing energy
efficiency retrofits;
(6) Development and implementation of energy efficiency and
conservation programs for buildings and facilities within the
jurisdiction of the eligible entity, including--
(A) Design and operation of the programs;
(B) Identifying the most effective methods for achieving maximum
participation and efficiency rates;
(C) Public education;
(D) Measurement and verification protocols; and
(E) Identification of energy efficient technologies;
(7) Development and implementation of programs to conserve
energy used in transportation, including--
(A) Use of flex time by employers;
(B) Satellite work centers;
(C) Development and promotion of zoning guidelines or
requirements that promote energy efficient development;
(D) Development of infrastructure, such as bike lanes and
pathways and pedestrian walkways;
(E) Synchronization of traffic signals; and
(F) Other measures that increase energy efficiency and decrease
energy consumption;
(8) Development and implementation of building codes and
inspection services to promote building energy efficiency;
(9) Application and implementation of energy distribution
technologies that significantly increase energy efficiency,
including--
(A) Distributed resources; and
(B) District heating and cooling systems;
(10) Activities to increase participation and efficiency rates
for material conservation programs, including source reduction,
recycling, and recycled content procurement programs that lead to
increases in energy efficiency;
(11) The purchase and implementation of technologies to reduce,
capture, and, to the maximum extent practicable, use methane and
other greenhouse gases generated by landfills or similar sources;
(12) Replacement of traffic signals and street lighting with
energy efficient lighting technologies, including--
(A) Light emitting diodes; and
(B) Any other technology of equal or greater energy efficiency;
(13) Development, implementation, and installation on or in any
government building of the eligible entity of onsite renewable
energy technology that generates electricity from renewable
resources, including--
(A) Solar energy;
(B) Wind energy;
(C) Fuel cells;
(D) Biomass; and
(14) Any other appropriate activity, as appropriately determined
by the Secretary of Energy.
(42 U.S.C. 17154)
Therefore, for the purpose of the EECBG Program, DOE defined
``eligible unit of local government'' as a city or county that--
Is listed in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 Edition of the
Governments Integrated Directory (2007 GID) as a currently incorporated
entity;
Meets the required population threshold according to the
Population Estimates Program 2007 population estimates (including
successful challenges to these estimates) published by the U.S. Census
Bureau;
Is identified by the 2007 Census of Governments as having
a governance structure consisting of an elected official and governing
body; and (perhaps most particularly)
Has a governing structure, as indicated by the 2007 Census
data, with the capabilities and jurisdiction necessary to carry out the
broad range of EECBG programs.
In determining population, DOE used the Census 2007 Population
Estimates Program population estimates with updates to reflect
challenges to the 2007 population estimates submitted to and accepted
by the Census Bureau. The list of successful challenges can be found at
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2007/07s_challenges.html.
For the purposes of the EECBG program, DOE included the following
clarifications to the records used to calculate which cities were
``eligible units of local government:''
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Municipios were
treated as cities. Though designated as counties by the Census,
governments of Municipios have the functionality of city governments.
Towns, townships and boroughs listed as
incorporated Places tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development
Block Grant Program were treated as cities. The governments of these
places have the functionality of city governments.
For those populations residing in one
incorporated place that is within the geographic boundary of another
incorporated place, DOE credited the population to the first
incorporated place. For example, for a town listed in the 2007 GID as
an incorporated entity that has within its geographic boundaries a
village listed in the 2007 GID, the village population was subtracted
from the town population. DOE assumed that an entity listed as
incorporated by the 2007 GID has a functional government with
responsibilities and jurisdiction capable of implementing the broad
range of programs identified by EISA. Therefore, DOE subtracted the
population of the village from the total population of the town in
which the village is located to avoid double-counting of populations.
A consolidated or unified city-county government in which
a city and a county overlap geographically and govern as one
consolidated government was considered by DOE as an eligible city.
City-county governments have the functionality of city governments.
74 FR 17462. As indicated previously, to be defined as an
``eligible unit of local government,'' DOE determined that a
geographical subdivision must have the requisite population, but also
must have a functional government with responsibilities and
jurisdiction capable of implementing the broad range of programs
identified by EISA. Some counties, for example, are vested with no
governmental authority whatsoever.
In determining whether particular county governments have the types
of functions and authority necessary to support the programs EISA
directs DOE to fund, DOE relied on the 2007 Census of Governments,
published by the U.S. Census Bureau. A county that has the requisite
population, but has an associated government that, as described by the
2007 Census of Governments, has ``relatively few [governmental]
responsibilities,'' or an equivalent evaluation, was understood to lack
the government functions and authority necessary to discharge the
energy efficiency and conservation programs and projects identified by
EISA. Such local entities with limited responsibilities are not units
of local ``government'' for the purpose of defining eligibility under
the EECBG Program.
Additionally, EISA distinguishes between cities that are eligible
units of local government and counties that are eligible units of local
government. Consistent with the EISA distinction, DOE distinguished the
population of a city that met the requisite population threshold for an
eligible unit of local government from the population of the county in
which that city is situated. For the purpose of the EECBG Program, DOE
removes the population of an
[[Page 30063]]
eligible city in determining the population of a county.
By removing the population of an eligible city in determining the
population of a county, DOE reduced the instances in which a person
would be double-counted, i.e., counted once for determination of a
city's eligibility and again in determining a county's eligibility.
This distinction between city and county populations yields a
determination of eligibility that results in funds being distributed
more on a per capita basis, which DOE believes is one way to provide
greater equity in the allocation of funds between cities and counties
under the direct formula grants.
A complete discussion of how DOE determined whether a city or
county is an ``eligible unit of local government'' is provided in the
April 15, 2009, Federal Register notice (74 FR 17461).
II. Issues Giving Rise to the Appeals Process
As indicated above, DOE applied four factors in the evaluation of
whether a city or county qualifies as ``eligible unit of local
government'' for the purpose of the EECBG Program. A city or county is
an ``eligible unit of local government'' under the EECBG Program if
it--
Is listed in the 2007 GID as an incorporated entity;
Meets the required population threshold according to the
Population Estimates Program 2007 population estimates (including
successful challenges to these estimates) published by the U.S. Census
Bureau;
Is identified by the 2007 Census of Governments as having
a governance structure consisting of an elected official and governing
body; and
Has a governing structure, as indicated by the 2007 Census
data, with the capabilities and jurisdiction necessary to carry out the
broad range of EECBG programs.
DOE relied on the 2007 Census data and information in evaluating
each factor, as it is the official government source for this type of
data and information. Moreover, the U.S. Census Bureau provided an
opportunity for local governments to request corrections to the 2007
data and information. That process closed on January 5, 2009.
Additional information on the U.S. Census Bureau population estimates
process can be found at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html.
A. Assumption Regarding Government Function and Jurisdiction
In evaluating the four factors, DOE relied on the characterization
of city and county governing structures to determine whether cities and
counties had sufficient jurisdiction and government function to carry
out the activities set forth in Title V, Subtitle E of the EISA.
However, the characterization of city and county governments in the
2007 Census data was not in the context of the EECBG Program. DOE
recognizes that the characterization of the governing structure of a
city or county may not have been sufficiently informative for the
purpose of determining eligibility under the EECBG Program. As such,
there are two specific instances in which the characterization of a
city or county government may be reviewable on appeal.
The first instance in which the characterization of government may
not have been sufficiently informative, and therefore reviewable on
appeal, is for those counties (or county equivalents) listed by the
2007 Census of Governments as having limited governmental functions. As
stated earlier in this notice, DOE determined that in order to be an
``eligible unit of local government,'' a geographical subdivision must
not only have the requisite population but also must have a functional
government with responsibilities and jurisdiction capable of
implementing the broad range of programs identified by EISA, and listed
earlier in this notice. The Department deemed ineligible those counties
characterized by the 2007 Census of Governments as having limited
governmental function. The capability of a county to discharge the
broad range of programs authorized by the EISA is reviewable on appeal.
If a county (or county equivalent) was determined to be ineligible
by DOE based on the 2007 Census of Governments characterization of
government function, that county would need to demonstrate on appeal
that it has the jurisdiction and functional capabilities necessary to
carry out the types of projects identified by EISA. The information
provided on the appeal should be authoritative but need not be
exhaustive. The appeal should demonstrate that the county (or county
equivalent) is capable of implementing programs or projects that are
consistent with those listed by EISA as activities that further the
goals of EECBG. A county (or county equivalent) may include previous
examples where the applicant has carried out such activities.
The second instance in which the characterization of government by
the 2007 Census data may not have been sufficiently informative, and
therefore reviewable on appeal, involves the assumption by DOE that a
city (or city equivalent) listed by the 2007 GID as an incorporated
entity has a functional government with responsibilities and
jurisdiction capable of implementing the broad range of programs
identified by EISA. Based on this assumption, DOE subtracted from the
population of an incorporated city (or city equivalent) the population
of an incorporated city (or city equivalent) that is located within the
boundaries of the first incorporated city. DOE adjusted population in
this manner so as to avoid double-counting the population of two
potentially eligible entities. However, in some instances the ``nested
city'' (i.e., the city located within the boundaries of another city)
may not have sufficient jurisdiction and government function to carry
out the types of programs identified in EISA and in turn rely on the
larger city for such services.
If DOE determined that a city (or city equivalent) was ineligible
because it did not have the requisite population and the population
relied on by DOE excluded the population of a ``nested city,'' that
city (or city equivalent) would need to demonstrate that the ``nested
city'' lacks sufficient jurisdiction and government function to carry
out the types of projects listed in EISA, and the ``nested city''
relies on the appellant city for such services. Again, the information
provided on the appeal should be authoritative but need not be
exhaustive. The appeal should demonstrate that the larger city provides
services to the ``nested city'' of the type necessary to implement
programs or projects that are consistent with those listed by EISA. A
city (or city equivalent) may include previous examples where the
applicant has carried out such activities.
B. Corrections to the 2007 Census Data
As indicated above, DOE used the Census 2007 Population Estimates
Program population estimates with updates to reflect challenges to the
2007 population estimates submitted to and accepted by the Census
Bureau. However, a unit of local government may appeal an eligibility
determination that was based upon 2007 Census data that was
successfully challenged, but the successful challenge was not reflected
in the DOE's determination of eligibility. An appeal based on this
issue would need to provide documentation of a successful challenge to
the 2007 Census data.
C. Issues Not Reviewable on Appeal
Issues regarding the methodology established by DOE to determine
the population of a city or county are not reviewable on appeal. For
example, the
[[Page 30064]]
decision by DOE to exclude the population of an eligible city from the
population of the county in which the city is located is not reviewable
on appeal.
Additionally, the determination of DOE to rely on the 2007 Census
data is not reviewable on appeal. DOE recognizes that more recent data
have been made available by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, in order
to provide certainty as to the funding levels of entities determined to
be ``eligible units of local government,'' DOE relied on the most
recent data available at the time the formula allocations were
announced. The availability of updated (as opposed to corrected 2007
data) is not reviewable on appeal.
III. Opportunity to Appeal
DOE is providing cities and counties an opportunity to appeal to
OHA a determination of ineligible under the EECBG Program. The appeals
process, including an explanation of issues reviewable on appeal, is
provided in the following section.
If an appeal is granted, appellant will have 30 days in which to
file an application for funding under the direct formula grant
provision of EECBG. The application must be consistent with the
application requirements provided in Funding Opportunity Number: DE-
FOA-0000013, Amendment 00003 (available at http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/
). Allocation of funding to a city or county resulting from a Decision
and Order by OHA shall not affect any previous allocation made by DOE
to other eligible units of local government.
IV. EECBG Eligibility Appeals Procedure
These procedures may be cited as the Department of Energy (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program Appeals
Procedures (EECBGAP).
A. Who may appeal?
Any unit of local government determined to be ineligible to receive
a direct formula grant under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program (``EECBG Program''), based upon eligibility
criteria established by the U.S. Department of Energy, 74 FR 17461
(April 15, 2009).
B. What eligibility determinations are appealable?
A unit of local government may file an appeal under these
procedures where it has been denied eligibility for the EECBG Program
based: (1) Upon a determination that it is incapable of carrying out
activities set forth in Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (EISA); (2) upon an
adjustment to its population as the result of a determination that
another entity that is located within its borders is capable of
carrying out activities set forth in Title V, Subtitle E of EISA; or
(3) upon 2007 Census data that was corrected by the U.S. Census Bureau,
but the correction was not reflected in the Department's determination
of eligibility.
Except as specified in IV.B.(2) and (3) in the preceding paragraph,
a denial of eligibility for the EECBG Program for failure to meet
required population thresholds, based upon 2007 U.S. Census estimate
data, is not appealable under these procedures.
C. What must the appeal contain and what is the standard of review?
The appeal shall contain a concise statement of the ground(s) upon
which the excluded entity contests denial of eligibility under the
EECBG Program and the remedy sought.
The appeal should include any data, documentation or other relevant
information supporting a showing by the appellant that the denial of
eligibility under the EECBG Program is erroneous, not supported by the
whole record, or is arbitrary and capricious. The appeal shall also
state whether the appellant is requesting a conference or hearing
regarding the appeal.
The appeal shall include a signed certification stating that the
facts contained in the appeal are, to the best knowledge of the
applicant, true.
D. How should the appeal be filed?
Any appeal, including attachments, should be electronically filed
with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), U.S. Department of
Energy, at: [email protected].
Alternatively, appeals and other associated documents, may be
mailed to: Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0107.
Appellants may also hand-deliver appeals and associated documents to
OHA at Room 7117, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20585, during
official filing hours. Official filing hours are from 1:30 to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Upon receipt, OHA will confirm receipt of the appeal and assign a
case number to the filing.
E. What are the steps in the process?
(1) Any appeal under these procedures must be filed within thirty
days (30) of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the
notice announcing the present appeals process and procedures.
(2) In evaluating an appeal, OHA may require the submission of
additional information by the appellant regarding any statement in an
appeal. OHA may also solicit and accept submissions of relevant
information from other sources, provided that the appellant is afforded
an opportunity to respond to all such submissions. OHA on its own
initiative may convene a conference or hearing if, in its discretion,
it considers that such conference or hearing will advance its
evaluation of the appeal. OHA will determine the scope and format of
any conference or hearing convened under these procedures, as well as
the parties allowed to participate.
(3) OHA may issue an order summarily dismissing an appeal if: (a)
Not filed by a unit of local government that was found ineligible under
the EECBG Program; (b) not filed in a timely manner, unless good cause
is shown; (c) the filing is defective on its face; or (d) there is
insufficient information upon which to base a decision and if, upon
request, the necessary additional information is not submitted.
(4) Within forty-five (45) days of receiving all required
information, OHA shall issue a written decision granting or denying the
appellant eligibility to apply for a direct formula grant under the
EECBG Program. The decision shall include a written statement setting
forth the relevant facts and basis for the determination. Upon
issuance, OHA shall serve an electronic version of the decision upon
the appellant and the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. The decision will also be published on the OHA Web site: http://www.oha.doe.gov. The decision of OHA shall constitute final agency
action and the appellant's final right of administrative review
regarding eligibility under the EECBG Program.
(5) All expenses incurred in pursuing any appeal before OHA shall
be borne exclusively by the appellant(s).
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-14891 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P