50148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• DOE requests additional 

information and data on the effects of 

using different automatic cycle 

termination settings. When providing 

test results, please also indicate the type 

of sensor technology used for the 

clothes dryers under test (e.g., 

temperature sensors or moisture 

sensors) and the starting and final 

moisture content of the test load (when 

possible use the starting moisture 

content of 57.5 percent with an 8.45 

pound (lb) test load for standard size 

dryers and 3.00 lb test load for compact 

dryers). 

• DOE requests comments on 

methodology for accounting for various 

cycle setting options in the DOE test 

procedure. In particular, if interested 

parties believe that DOE should test 

multiple cycles, please provide 

consumer usage data on the percentage 

of drying cycles that consumers use for 

each automatic cycle termination 

setting. 

• DOE also requests comment on the 

additional testing burden associated 

with a requirement to measure multiple 

cycle settings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 9, 

2011. 

Roland J. Risser, 

Program Manager, Building Technologies 

Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20604 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0051] 

RIN 1904–AC62 

Notice of Intent to Negotiate Proposed 

Rule on Energy Efficiency Standards 

for Distribution Transformers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to establish a 

subcommittee and negotiate a proposed 

rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) is 

giving notice that it intends to establish 

a negotiated rulemaking subcommittee 

under ERAC in accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal 

standards for the energy efficiency of 

low-voltage dry-type distribution 

transformers. The purpose of the 

subcommittee will be to discuss and, if 

possible, reach consensus on a proposed 

rule for the energy efficiency of 

distribution transformers, as authorized 

by the Energy Policy Conservation Act 

(EPCA) of 1975, as amended. The 

subcommittee will consist of 

representatives of parties having a 

defined stake in the outcome of the 

proposed standards, and will consult as 

appropriate with a range of experts on 

technical issues. 

DATES: Written comments and requests 

to be appointed as members of the 

subcommittee are welcome and should 

be submitted by August 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0051, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: LVDT-2011-STD0051@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0051 and/or RIN 1904–AC62 

in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0051 and/or RIN 

1904–AC62, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, a copy of 

the transcript of the public meeting, or 

comments received, go to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Building Technologies (EE–2J), 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. E-mail: 

John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov. Ms. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel 

(GC–71), 1000 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. E-mail: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Background 

III. Proposed Negotiating Procedures 

IV. Comments Requested 

I. Statutory Authority 

This notice announcing DOE’s intent 

to negotiate a proposed regulation 

setting energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers was developed 

under the authority of sections 563 and 

564 of the NRA (5 U.S.C. 561–570, Pub. 

L. 104–320). The regulation setting 

energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers that DOE is 

proposing to develop under a negotiated 

rulemaking will be developed under the 

authority of EPCA, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) and 6317(a). 

II. Background 

As required by the NRA, DOE is 

giving notice that it is establishing a 

subcommittee under ERAC to develop 

proposed energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers. 

EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to 

adopt energy conservation standards for 

those distribution transformers for 

which standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)(2)). DOE published a final rule 

in October 2007 that established energy 

conservation standards for liquidimmersed and medium-voltage dry-type 

(MVDT) distribution transformers. 72 

FR 58190 (October 12, 2007); see 10 CFR 

431.196(b)–(c). During the course of that 

rulemaking, the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58, 

amended EPCA to set standards for lowvoltage dry-type (LVDT) distribution 

transformers. (EPACT 2005, Section 

135(c); codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(y)) 

Consequently, DOE removed these 

transformers from the scope of that 

rulemaking. 72 FR at 58191 (October 12, 

2007). 

On July 29, 2011, DOE published a 

notice of its intent to establish a 

subcommittee under the ERAC to 

negotiate a proposed rule for liquidimmersed and MVDT distribution 

transformers (76 FR 45472). The 

negotiated rulemaking contemplated in 

today’s notice is complimentary of that 

process. 

A. Negotiated Rulemaking 

DOE has decided to use the negotiated 

rulemaking process to develop proposed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50149 

energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers. Under EPCA, 

Congress mandated that DOE develop 

regulations establishing energy 

efficiency standards for covered 

residential and commercial appliances 

that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) The primary reason 

for using the negotiated rulemaking 

process for developing a proposed 

Federal standard is that stakeholders 

strongly support a consensual 

rulemaking effort. DOE believes such a 

regulatory negotiation process will be 

less adversarial and better suited to 

resolving complex technical issues. An 

important virtue of negotiated 

rulemaking is that it allows expert 

dialog that is much better than 

traditional techniques at getting the 

facts and issues right and will result in 

a proposed rule that will effectively 

reflect Congressional intent. 

A regulatory negotiation will enable 

DOE to engage in direct and sustained 

dialog with informed, interested, and 

affected parties when drafting the 

regulation, rather than obtaining input 

during a public comment period after 

developing and publishing a proposed 

rule. Gaining this early understanding of 

all parties’ perspectives allows DOE to 

address key issues at an earlier stage of 

the process, thereby allowing more time 

for an iterative process to resolve issues. 

A rule drafted by negotiation with 

informed and affected parties is 

expected to be potentially more 

pragmatic and more easily implemented 

than a rule arising from the traditional 

process. Such rulemaking improvement 

is likely to provide the public with the 

full benefits of the rule while 

minimizing the potential negative 

impact of a proposed regulation 

conceived or drafted without the full 

prior input of outside knowledgeable 

parties. Because a negotiating 

subcommittee includes representatives 

from the major stakeholder groups 

affected by or interested in the rule, the 

number of public comments on the 

proposed rule may be decreased. DOE 

anticipates that there will be a need for 

fewer substantive changes to a proposed 

rule developed under a regulatory 

negotiation process prior to the 

publication of a final rule. 

B. The Concept of Negotiated 

Rulemaking 

Usually, DOE develops a proposed 

rulemaking using Department staff and 

consultant resources. Typically, a 

preliminary analysis is vetted for 

stakeholder comments after a 

Framework Document is published and 

comments taken thereon. After the 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

published for comment, affected parties 

may submit arguments and data 

defining and supporting their positions 

with regard to the issues raised in the 

proposed rule. Congress noted in the 

NRA, however, that regulatory 

development may ‘‘discourage the 

affected parties from meeting and 

communicating with each other, and 

may cause parties with different 

interests to assume conflicting and 

antagonistic positions * * *.’’ (5 U.S.C. 

561(2)(2)) Congress also stated that 

‘‘adversarial rulemaking deprives the 

affected parties and the public of the 

benefits of face-to-face negotiations and 

cooperation in developing and reaching 

agreement on a rule. It also deprives 

them of the benefits of shared 

information, knowledge, expertise, and 

technical abilities possessed by the 

affected parties.’’ (5 U.S.C. 561(2)(3)) 

Using negotiated rulemaking to 

develop a proposed rule differs 

fundamentally from the Departmentcentered process. In negotiated 

rulemaking, a proposed rule is 

developed by an advisory committee or 

subcommittee, chartered under FACA (5 

U.S.C. App. 2), composed of members 

chosen to represent the various interests 

that will be significantly affected by the 

rule. The goal of the advisory committee 

or subcommittee is to reach consensus 

on the treatment of the major issues 

involved with the rule. The process 

starts with the Department’s careful 

identification of all interests potentially 

affected by the rulemaking under 

consideration. To help with this 

identification, the Department publishes 

a notice such as this one in the Federal 

Register, identifying a preliminary list 

of interested parties and requesting 

public comment on that list. Following 

receipt of comments, the Department 

establishes an advisory committee or 

subcommittee representing the full 

range of stakeholders to negotiate a 

consensus on the terms of a proposed 

rule. Representation on the advisory 

committee or subcommittee may be 

direct; that is, each member may 

represent a specific interest, or may be 

indirect, such as through trade 

associations and/or similarly-situated 

parties with common interests. The 

Department is a member of the advisory 

committee or subcommittee and 

represents the Federal government’s 

interests. The advisory committee or 

subcommittee chair is assisted by a 

neutral mediator who facilitates the 

negotiation process. The role of the 

mediator, also called a facilitator, is to 

apply proven consensus-building 

techniques to the advisory committee or 

subcommittee process. 

After an advisory committee or 

subcommittee reaches consensus on the 

provisions of a proposed rule, the 

Department, consistent with its legal 

obligations, uses such consensus as the 

basis of its proposed rule, which then is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

publication provides the required public 

notice and provides for a public 

comment period. Other participants and 

other interested parties retain their 

rights to comment, participate in an 

informal hearing (if requested), and 

request judicial review. DOE 

anticipates, however, that the preproposal consensus agreed upon by the 

advisory committee or subcommittee 

will narrow any issues in the 

subsequent rulemaking. 

C. Proposed Rulemaking for Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Distribution 

Transformers 

The NRA enables DOE to establish an 

advisory committee or subcommittee if 

it is determined that the use of the 

negotiated rulemaking process is in the 

public interest. DOE intends to develop 

Federal regulations that build on the 

depth of experience accrued in both the 

public and private sectors in 

implementing standards and programs. 

DOE has determined that the 

regulatory negotiation process will 

provide for obtaining a diverse array of 

in-depth input, as well as an 

opportunity for increased collaborative 

discussion from both private-sector 

stakeholders and government officials 

who are familiar with energy efficiency 

of distribution transformers. In July of 

2011, DOE initiated the convening stage 

of the negotiated rulemaking process to 

identify and interview appropriate 

public- and private-sector stakeholders. 

DOE retained an expert convener to 

contact parties potentially affected by 

energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers to determine 

whether stakeholders are interested in 

participating in a negotiated rulemaking 

process and whether they believe 

stakeholder issues can be addressed and 

resolved through a regulatory 

negotiation. Following an evaluation of 

initial stakeholder interest and input, 

the independent convener determined 

that there is sufficient enthusiasm 

among stakeholders to support a 

negotiated rulemaking process and that 

that there is a reasonably good chance 

of successfully reaching a consensus 

agreement among stakeholders on the 

rule. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

D. Department Commitment 

In initiating this regulatory 

negotiation process to develop energy 

efficiency standards for distribution 

transformers, DOE is making a 

commitment to provide adequate 

resources to facilitate timely and 

successful completion of the process. 

This commitment includes making the 

process a priority activity for all 

representatives, components, officials, 

and personnel of the Department who 

need to be involved in the rulemaking, 

from the time of initiation until such 

time as a final rule is issued or the 

process is expressly terminated. DOE 

will provide administrative support for 

the process and will take steps to ensure 

that the advisory committee or 

subcommittee has the dedicated 

resources it requires to complete its 

work in a timely fashion. Specifically, 

DOE will make available the following 

support services: properly equipped 

space adequate for public meetings and 

caucuses; logistical support; word 

processing and distribution of 

background information; the service of a 

facilitator; and such additional research 

and other technical assistance as may be 

necessary. 

To the maximum extent possible 

consistent with the legal obligations of 

the Department, DOE will use the 

consensus of the advisory committee or 

subcommittee as the basis for the rule 

the Department proposes for public 

notice and comment. 

E. Negotiating Consensus 

As discussed above, the negotiated 

rulemaking process differs 

fundamentally from the usual process 

for developing a proposed rule. 

Negotiation enables interested and 

affected parties to discuss various 

approaches to issues rather than asking 

them only to respond to a proposal 

developed by the Department. The 

negotiation process involves a mutual 

education of the various parties on the 

practical concerns about the impact of 

standards. Each advisory committee or 

subcommittee member participates in 

resolving the interests and concerns of 

other members, rather than leaving it up 

to DOE to evaluate and incorporate 

different points of view. 

A key principle of negotiated 

rulemaking is that agreement is by 

consensus of all the interests. Thus, no 

one interest or group of interests is able 

to control the process. The NRA defines 

consensus as the unanimous 

concurrence among interests 

represented on a negotiated rulemaking 

committee or subcommittee, unless the 

committee or subcommittee itself 

unanimously agrees to use a different 

definition. (5 U.S.C. 562) In addition, 

experience has demonstrated that using 

a trained mediator to facilitate this 

process will assist all parties, including 

DOE, in identifying their real interests 

in the rule, and thus will enable parties 

to focus on and resolve the important 

issues. 

III. Proposed Negotiating Procedures 

A. Key Issues for Negotiation 

The convener identified the following 

issues and concerns that will underlie 

the work of the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee on Energy Efficiency 

Standards for Distribution Transformers: 

• DOE’s key issues include assuring 

full compliance with statutory 

mandates. Congress has mandated that 

DOE establish minimum energy 

efficiency standards that are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

• The committee must find ways to 

balance the goals and priorities of State 

regulatory programs and DOE’s program 

for energy efficiency standards. 

• Manufacturers desire that standards 

not diminish or constrain innovation for 

these products. 

• Environmental advocates seek to 

ensure that standards achieve the 

maximum energy savings that are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justifiable. 

To examine the underlying issues 

outlined above, and others not yet 

articulated, all parties in the negotiation 

will need DOE to provide data and an 

analytic framework complete and 

accurate enough to support their 

deliberations. DOE’s analyses must be 

adequate to inform a prospective 

negotiation—for example, a preliminary 

Technical Support Document or 

equivalent must be available and timely. 

B. Formation of Subcommittee 

A subcommittee will be formed and 

operated in full compliance with the 

requirements of FACA and in a manner 

consistent with the requirements of the 

NRA. DOE has determined that the 

subcommittee not exceed 25 members. 

The Department believes that more than 

25 members would make it difficult to 

conduct effective negotiations. DOE is 

aware that there are many more 

potential participants than there are 

membership slots on the subcommittee. 

The Department does not believe, nor 

does the NRA contemplate, that each 

potentially affected group must 

participate directly in the negotiations; 

nevertheless, each affected interest can 

be adequately represented. To have a 

successful negotiation, it is important 

for interested parties to identify and 

form coalitions that adequately 

represent significantly affected interests. 

To provide adequate representation, 

those coalitions must agree to support, 

both financially and technically, a 

member of the subcommittee whom 

they choose to represent their interests. 

DOE recognizes that when it 

establishes energy efficiency standards 

for residential products and commercial 

equipment, various segments of society 

may be affected in different ways, in 

some cases producing unique 

‘‘interests’’ in a proposed rule based on 

income, gender, or other factors. The 

Department will pay attention to 

providing that any unique interests that 

have been identified, and that may be 

significantly affected by the proposed 

rule, are represented. 

FACA also requires that members of 

the public have the opportunity to 

attend meetings of the full committee 

and speak or otherwise address the 

committee during the public comment 

period. In addition, any member of the 

public is permitted to file a written 

statement with the advisory committee. 

DOE plans to follow these same 

procedures in conducting meetings of 

the subcommittee. 

C. Interests Involved/Subcommittee 

Membership 

DOE anticipates that the 

subcommittee will comprise no more 

than 25 members who represent affected 

and interested stakeholder groups, at 

least one of whom must be a member of 

the ERAC. As required by FACA, the 

Department will conduct the negotiated 

rulemaking with particular attention to 

ensuring full and balanced 

representation of those interests that 

may be significantly affected by the 

proposed rule governing standards for 

the energy efficiency of distribution 

transformers. Section 562 of the NRA 

defines the term interest as ‘‘with 

respect to an issue or matter, multiple 

parties which have a similar point of 

view or which are likely to be affected 

in a similar manner.’’ Listed below are 

parties the Department to date has 

identified as being ‘‘significantly 

affected’’ by a proposed rule regarding 

the energy efficiency of distribution 

transformers. 

• The Department of Energy 

• Distribution transformers 

manufacturers and trade associations 

representing manufacturers 

• Component manufacturers and 

related suppliers 

• Utilities 

• Energy efficiency/environmental 

advocacy groups 

• Consumers 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50151 

One purpose of this notice is to 

determine whether Federal standards 

regarding the energy efficiency of 

distribution transformers will 

significantly affect interests that are not 

listed above. DOE invites comment and 

suggestions on its initial list of 

significantly affected interests. 

DOE also developed an initial list of 

stakeholders who could serve on the 

subcommittee to represent the abovelisted interests. The following list 

includes organizations DOE tentatively 

has identified as being either potential 

members of the subcommittee, or 

potential members of a coalition that 

would in turn nominate a candidate to 

represent one of the significantly 

affected interests listed above. DOE 

invites comment and suggestions on 

whether the following list of 

stakeholders identifies an accurate and 

comprehensive pool of stakeholders, or 

subcommittee members. 

• Department of Energy 

• John Cymbalsky 

• EarthJustice 

• Tim Ballo 

• National Electrical Manufacturers 

Assocation 

• Jim Creevy 

• Clark Silcox 

• Appliance Standards Awareness 

Program 

• Andrew DeLaski 

• Federal Pacific 

• Robert Greeson 

• American Council for an Energy 

Efficiency Economy 

• Steve Nadel 

• Natural Resources Defense Council 

• Robin Roy 

• AK Steel Corporation 

• Jerry Schoen 

• California Energy Commission (as 

resource party) 

• Acme Electric 

• Joe Ashley 

• Eaton Corp 

• Carlos Siqueiros 

• Federal Pacific 

• Rob Greeson 

• GE 

• Bill Forsythe 

• Hammond Power Solutions 

• Dhiru Patel 

• Power Paragon 

• Thomas Proctor 

• Mirus International 

• Tony Hoevenaars 

• ONYX Power 

• Vijay Tendulkar 

• Power Quality International 

• Jeffrey Turner 

• Powersmiths International 

• Philip Ling 

• Schneider Electric 

• Thomas Patzner 

• Sola HD/Emerson 

• Dale Corel 

• WEG Electric 

• Bill Oliver 

The list provided above includes 

stakeholders whom DOE tentatively has 

identified as being either a potential 

member of the subcommittee or a 

potential member of a coalition that 

would in turn nominate a candidate to 

represent one of the significantly 

affected interests, also listed above. The 

list is not presented as a complete or 

exclusive list from which subcommittee 

members will be selected. Nor does 

inclusion on the list of potential parties 

mean that a listed party has agreed to 

participate as a member of the 

subcommittee or as a member of a 

coalition. The list merely indicates 

parties that DOE tentatively has 

identified as representing significantly 

affected interests in the proposed rule 

establishing energy efficiency standards 

for distribution transformers. 

DOE requests comments and 

suggestions regarding its tentative list of 

potential members of the subcommittee 

on energy efficiency standards for 

distribution transformers. Members may 

be individuals or organizations. If the 

effort is to be fruitful, participants on 

the subcommittee should be able to 

fully and adequately represent the 

viewpoints of their respective interests. 

This document gives notice of DOE’s 

process to other potential participants 

and affords them the opportunity to 

request representation in the 

negotiations. Those who wish to be 

appointed as members of the 

subcommittee, including those that have 

been tentatively identified by DOE in 

this Notice, should submit a request to 

DOE, in accordance with the public 

participation procedures outlined in the 

‘‘Dates’’ and ‘‘Addresses’’ sections of 

this Notice. Membership of the 

subcommittee is likely to involve: 

• Attendance at approximately five 

(5), one (1) to two (2) day meetings; 

• Travel costs to those meetings; and 

• Preparation time for those meetings. 

Members serving on the 

subcommittee will not receive 

compensation for their services. 

Interested parties who are not selected 

for membership on the subcommittee 

may make valuable contributions to this 

negotiated rulemaking effort in any of 

several ways: 

• The person may request to be 

placed on the subcommittee mailing list 

and submit written comments as 

appropriate. 

• The person may attend 

subcommittee meetings, which are open 

to the public; caucus with his or her 

interest’s member on the subcommittee; 

or even address the subcommittee 

during the public comment portion of 

the subcommittee meeting. 

• The person could assist the efforts 

of a workgroup that the subcommittee 

might establish. 

A subcommittee may establish 

informal workgroups, which usually are 

asked to facilitate committee 

deliberations by assisting with various 

technical matters (e.g., researching or 

preparing summaries of the technical 

literature or comments on specific 

matters such as economic issues). 

Workgroups also might assist in 

estimating costs or drafting regulatory 

text on issues associated with the 

analysis of the costs and benefits 

addressed, or formulating drafts of the 

various provisions and their 

justifications as previously developed 

by the subcommittee. Given their 

support function, workgroups usually 

consist of participants who have 

expertise or particular interest in the 

technical matter(s) being studied. 

Because it recognizes the importance of 

this support work for the subcommittee, 

DOE will provide appropriate technical 

expertise for such workgroups. 

D. Good Faith Negotiation 

Every subcommittee member must be 

willing to negotiate in good faith and 

have the authority, granted by his or her 

constituency, to do so. The first step is 

to ensure that each member has good 

communications with his or her 

constituencies. An intra-interest 

network of communication should be 

established to bring information from 

the support organization to the member 

at the table, and to take information 

from the table back to the support 

organization. Second, each organization 

or coalition therefore should designate 

as its representative a person having the 

credibility and authority to ensure that 

needed information is provided and 

decisions are made in a timely fashion. 

Negotiated rulemaking can require the 

appointed members to give a significant 

amount of time, which must be 

sustained for as long as the duration of 

the negotiated rulemaking. Although the 

ERAC advisory committee charter will 

be in effect for 2 years from the date it 

is filed with Congress, DOE expects the 

subcommittee’s deliberations to 

conclude or be terminated earlier than 

that. Other qualities of members that 

can be helpful are negotiating 

experience and skills, and sufficient 

technical knowledge to participate in 

substantive negotiations. 

Certain concepts are central to 

negotiating in good faith. One is the 

willingness to bring all issues to the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

bargaining table in an attempt to reach 

a consensus, as opposed to keeping key 

issues in reserve. The second is a 

willingness to keep the issues at the 

table and not take them to other forums. 

Finally, good faith includes a 

willingness to move away from some of 

the positions often taken in a more 

traditional rulemaking process, and 

instead explore openly with other 

parties all ideas that may emerge from 

the subcommittee’s discussions. 

E. Facilitator 

The facilitator will act as a neutral in 

the substantive development of the 

proposed standard. Rather, the 

facilitator’s role generally includes: 

• Impartially assisting the members of 

the subcommittee in conducting 

discussions and negotiations; 

• Impartially assisting in performing 

the duties of the Designated Federal 

Official under FACA; and 

F. Department Representative 

The DOE representative will be a full 

and active participant in the consensusbuilding negotiations. The Department’s 

representative will meet regularly with 

senior Department officials, briefing 

them on the negotiations and receiving 

their suggestions and advice so that he 

or she can effectively represent the 

Department’s views regarding the issues 

before the subcommittee. DOE’s 

representative also will ensure that the 

entire spectrum of governmental 

interests affected by the standards 

rulemaking, including the Office of 

Management and Budget, the Attorney 

General, and other Departmental offices, 

are kept informed of the negotiations 

and encouraged to make their concerns 

known in a timely fashion. 

G. Subcommittee and Schedule 

After evaluating the comments 

submitted in response to this notice and 

the requests for nominations, DOE will 

either inform the members of the 

subcommittee that they have been 

selected or determine that conducting a 

negotiated rulemaking is inappropriate. 

Due to the court-ordered deadline, DOE 

plans for the subcommittee to conduct 

deliberations in the summer and fall of 

2011 and hopes that the subcommittee 

will come to an agreement on a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking in time to 

publish that proposal by the October 1, 

2011 date contained in the settlement 

agreement described above. 

DOE will advise subcommittee 

members of administrative matters 

related to the functions of the 

subcommittee before beginning. DOE 

will establish a meeting schedule based 

on the settlement agreement and 

produce the necessary documents so as 

to adhere to that schedule. While the 

negotiated rulemaking process is 

underway, DOE is committed to 

performing much of the same analysis 

as it would during a normal standards 

rulemaking process and to providing 

information and technical support to the 

subcommittee. 

IV. Comments Requested 

DOE requests comments on whether it 

should use negotiated rulemaking for its 

rulemaking pertaining to the energy 

efficiency of distribution transformers 

and the extent to which the issues, 

parties, and procedures described above 

are adequate and appropriate. DOE also 

requests comments on which parties 

should be included in a negotiated 

rulemaking to develop draft language 

pertaining to the energy efficiency of 

distribution transformers and 

suggestions of additional interests and/ 

or stakeholders that should be 

represented on the subcommittee. All 

who wish to participate as members of 

the subcommittee should submit a 

request for nomination to DOE. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s notice of intent to 

establish a subcommittee and negotiate 

a proposed rule. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20541 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–24785; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NE–20–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming 

Engines (L)O–360, (L)IO–360, AEIO– 

360, O–540, IO–540, AEIO–540, (L)TIO– 

540, IO–580, and IO–720 Series 

Reciprocating Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to the products listed above. 

The existing AD currently requires 

replacing certain crankshafts. Since we 

issued that AD, Lycoming Engines 

discovered that the start date of affected 

engine models in Mandatory Service 

Bulletin (MSB) No. 569A, is incorrect. 

This proposed AD would correct that 

start date. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent failure of the crankshaft, which 

will result in total engine power loss, inflight engine failure, and possible loss of 

the aircraft. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 26, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Lycoming, 652 Oliver 

Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; 

telephone (570) 323–6181; fax (570) 

327–7101, or on the Internet at http:// 

www.Lycoming.Textron.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516–228– 

7337; fax: 516–794–5531; e-mail: 

norman.perenson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1