26998 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities of State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 870 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government employees, Life 

insurance, Retirement. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Beth F. Cobert, 

Acting Director. 

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR 

part 870 as follows: 

PART 870—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ 

GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 5 CFR 

part 870 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8716; Subpart J also 

issued under section 599C of Pub. L. 101– 

513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 

870.302(a)(3)(ii) also issued under section 

153 of Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec. 

870.302(a)(3) also issued under sections 

11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) and (c) of 

Pub. L. 105–33, 111 Stat. 251, and section 

7(e) of Pub. L. 105–274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 

870.302(a)(3) also issued under section 145 of 

Pub. L. 106–522, 114 Stat. 2472; Secs. 

870.302(b)(8), 870.601(a), and 870.602(b) also 

issued under Pub. L. 110–279, 122 Stat. 2604; 

Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8702(c); 

Sec. 870.601(d)(3) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 

8706(d); Sec. 870.703(e)(1) also issued under 

section 502 of Pub. L. 110–177, 121 Stat. 

2542; Sec. 870.705 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 

8714b(c) and 8714c(c); Public Law 104–106, 

110 Stat. 521. 

Subpart G—Annuitants and 

Compensationers 

■ 2. Amend § 870.705 by revising 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii), adding paragraph 

(b)(4), and revising paragraph (d)(1)(i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 870.705 Amount and election of Option B 

and Option C. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section, after reaching age 

65, an annuitant or compensationer 

cannot change from Full Reduction to 

No Reduction. 

(4)(i) Shortly before an annuitant or 

compensationer’s 65th birthday, an 

annuitant’s retirement system will send 

a reminder about the post-age-65 

reduction election he/she made and will 

offer the individual a chance to change 

the initial election made at the time of 

retirement. 

(ii) If the individual is already 65 or 

older at the time of retirement or 

becoming insured as a compensationer, 

the retirement system will process the 

retirement using the current 

Continuation of Life Insurance Coverage 

(SF 2818) on file, send the reminder, 

and give the opportunity to change the 

election as soon as the retirement 

processing or compensation transfer is 

complete. 

(iii) If the individual assigned his/her 

insurance as provided in subpart I of 

this part, and if the employee elected No 

Reduction for Option B coverage at the 

time of retirement or becoming insured 

as a compensationer, the retirement 

system will send the reminder notice for 

Option B coverage to the assignee. 

(iv) An annuitant or compensationer 

who wishes to change his/her reduction 

election must return the notice by the 

end of the month following the month 

in which the individual turns 65, or if 

already over age 65, by the end of the 

4th month after the date of the letter. An 

annuitant or compensationer who does 

not return the election notice will keep 

his/her initial election or the default 

election, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(i) Annuitants and compensationers 

who were under age 65 were notified of 

the option to elect No Reduction. The 

retirement system will send these 

individuals an actual election notice 

before their 65th birthday, as provided 

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–10539 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–63–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

RIN 1904–AD63 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Establishment of Procedures for 

Requests for Correction of Errors in 

Rules 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or the ‘‘Department’’) is 

establishing a procedure through which 

an interested party can, within a 30-day 

period after DOE posts a rule 

establishing or amending an energy 

conservation standard, identify a 

possible error in such a rule and request 

that DOE correct the error before the 

rule is published in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

June 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: See the companion 

document titled ‘‘Notice of Opportunity 

to Submit a Petition to Amend the Rule 

Establishing Procedures for Requests for 

Correction of Errors in Rules’’ published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register for addresses to submit a 

petition to amend, or a comment on a 

petition to amend, this rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692 or 

John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Rule 

III. Paragraph-by-Paragraph Analysis 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’) 

establishes a program designed to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

consumer products (other than 

automobiles) and of certain industrial 

equipment. Pursuant to EPCA, the 

Department sets energy conservation 

standards and other requirements for 

covered products and equipment; 

prescribes protocols to test products and 

equipment against the standards; 

requires labeling of covered products 

and equipment; and establishes 

procedural mechanisms such as 

certification programs and enforcement 

procedures. See 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq. 

This rule establishes error-correction 

procedures that DOE will use in the 

course of prescribing energy 

conservation standards under EPCA. It 

also interprets several provisions of 

EPCA that may be relevant to the 

functioning of those procedures. 

One of EPCA’s many purposes is to 

improve energy efficiency for a variety 

of major consumer products and 

industrial equipment. To achieve this 

purpose, the Act directs the Department 

both to undertake certain rulemakings to 

establish or revise energy conservation 

standards and to consider amending 

such standards on a periodic basis—for 

many products within six years of 

issuance of a prior final rule. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1). The Act contemplates that 

such a rulemaking or periodic review 

will result in a new or amended 

standard if the Department concludes 

that such standard would be 

technologically feasible and 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26999 

1This error-correction process would not 

supplant or otherwise replace the error correction 

process established under 1 CFR Chapter 1 

applicable generally to all documents published in 

the Federal Register. 

economically justified and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Act also bars DOE from 

‘‘prescrib[ing] any amended standard 

which increases the maximum 

allowable energy use . . . or decreases 

the minimum required energy 

efficiency’’ of a covered product. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). This prohibition 

against ‘‘backsliding,’’ together with the 

periodic reviews just described, has the 

effect over the long term of gradually 

increasing the energy efficiency of 

regulated products and equipment. 

The process of developing an 

amendment to an energy conservation 

standard ordinarily involves extensive 

technical analyses and voluminous 

amounts of data. The Department 

weighs a range of competing 

technological and economic 

considerations, such as the feasibility 

and cost of various energy-saving 

technologies, the effects of 

implementing those technologies in 

products on the market, and the need 

for national energy and water 

conservation. It must make predictive 

judgments regarding the expected effect 

of its standards over decades, in part 

because compliance with a standard is 

usually required a few years out from 

the rulemaking and in part because 

many products have decades of useful 

life. Meanwhile, the drafting of an 

energy conservation standard on its own 

(separate from the deliberation involved 

in selecting the standard) involves 

substantial technical analysis. In short, 

an energy conservation standards 

rulemaking is usually a highly 

complicated undertaking. 

In light of all the considerations 

described in this preamble, DOE also 

recognizes that, given the complexity of 

these rules, it is conceivable that a 

standards regulation, as issued, may 

occasionally contain an error. For 

example, an accidental transposition of 

digits could result in a standard that is 

inconsistent with the Department’s 

analysis. Often, it will be evident from 

the full context what standard DOE 

intended to set, but the text of a 

regulation, even if erroneous, has legal 

effect. Moreover, should such an error 

go uncorrected for too long, there is a 

risk that the Department would be 

unable to undo it because of the 

limitations on reducing the stringency 

of its standards. Meanwhile the relevant 

industries would face uncertainty about 

the standard, as well as some difficult 

choices—whether to comply with it, 

hope that the error is addressed 

sometime later, or challenge it in court. 

The process established by this 

document is meant to avoid undesirable 

outcomes like these by providing 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

timely point out errors to DOE and 

request that DOE correct them. 

II. Summary of the Rule 

This rule establishes DOE’s 

procedures for accepting errorcorrection requests for its energy 

conservation standards rules. 

Specifically, after issuing an energy 

conservation standards rule subject to 

this process, the Department will not 

publish that rule in the Federal Register 

for 30 days. This 30-day period begins 

upon the posting of the rule on a 

publicly-accessible Web site. During the 

30-day window, interested parties can 

review it, including the regulatory text 

which is to be placed in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. If, during this 

period, a party (as defined in this rule) 

identifies an error in the regulatory text, 

that party can submit a request that DOE 

correct the error. An error-correction 

request must identify the claimed error, 

explain how the record demonstrates 

the regulatory text to be erroneous, and 

state what the corrected version should 

be.1

The error-correction process is not an 

opportunity to submit new evidence or 

comment on the rule, seek to reopen 

issues that DOE has already addressed 

or argue for policy choices different 

from those reflected in the final rule. 

DOE will not accept new evidence 

included in or with error-correction 

requests, and a submitter must rest its 

explanation solely on the materials 

already in the record. The Department 

posts a rule with the appropriate 

official’s signature only after concluding 

its deliberations and reaching decisions 

on the relevant factual determinations 

and policy choices. Consistent with this 

approach, the Department considers the 

record with respect to a rule subject to 

the error correction process closed upon 

posting of the rule. 

After reviewing error-correction 

requests meeting the criteria set out in 

this rule, the Department will have a 

range of options with respect to a rule. 

If it concludes that the claims of error 

are not valid, and if it has identified no 

errors on its own, DOE will proceed to 

submit the rule for publication in the 

Federal Register in the same form it was 

previously posted. By doing so, the 

Department will effectively be rejecting 

any error-correction requests it has 

received; DOE will ordinarily not 

respond directly to a requester or 

provide additional notice regarding the 

request. If, on the other hand, DOE 

identifies an error in a rule, DOE can 

correct the error. 

As noted in this preamble, in some 

circumstances, an error may lead the 

standard contained in DOE’s regulation, 

as originally posted, to require higher 

energy efficiency or lower energy use 

than the Department intended based on 

the record and its deliberations. 

Correcting such an error through the 

process established by this rule would 

not be inconsistent with section 

325(o)(1) (or its analogs applicable to 

certain types of product or equipment). 

The error-correction process occurs 

during a window between DOE’s 

posting of a rule and publication of the 

rule in the Federal Register. As 

discussed more fully below, DOE 

interprets section 325(o)(1) and its 

analogs to permit corrections of a rule 

that has not yet been published in the 

Federal Register. 

III. Paragraph-by-Paragraph Analysis 

The following discussion describes 

the provisions of this rule in detail, so 

as to explain further how the errorcorrection process will work. 

§ 430.5(a): Scope and Purpose 

This section describes the purpose of 

this rule. Consistent with the discussion 

in this preamble, the rule describes 

procedures through which the 

Department will accept and consider 

submissions regarding possible errors in 

its standards rules. The section also 

states the scope of the rule. DOE will 

apply the procedures described in the 

rule to those rulemakings establishing or 

amending energy conservation 

standards under EPCA. ‘‘Energy 

conservation standard’’ is a term 

defined in EPCA, although it has a 

slightly different definition for 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. With respect to the former, 

an ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ is 

generally a performance standard that 

prescribes a minimum efficiency level 

or maximum quantity of energy usage 

for a covered product or, in certain 

instances, a design requirement. See 42 

U.S.C. 6291(6). 

Similarly, for commercial equipment, 

an ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ is a 

performance standard prescribing a 

minimum level of energy efficiency or a 

maximum quantity of energy use for the 

covered equipment at issue or a design 

requirement. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(18). 

When the Department posts a rule 

establishing or amending an energy 

conservation standard, per the statutory 

definition, for a given type of product or 

equipment, the Department will engage 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
27000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

in the error-correction process 

established by this rule. 

DOE undertakes a variety of other 

rulemakings under the Act, such as 

rules to set test procedures, 

requirements for labeling or 

certification, and procedures for 

enforcement. DOE will not routinely 

utilize this error-correction process for 

such rules. The Department recognizes 

the importance of correcting errors in 

any of its rules, and consistent with the 

principles of good government, it 

intends to be responsive to input from 

members of the public that point out 

such errors. However, the combination 

of features described in this preamble— 

the regular occurrence of high 

complexity, potentially large 

significance of the rules, and the 

possibility that uncorrected errors will 

have unavoidable long-term 

consequences—is specific, for rules 

under the Act, to energy conservation 

standards. Therefore, the Department 

considers it appropriate to implement a 

routine error-correction mechanism 

only for such rules. 

This rule also excludes from its scope 

any energy conservation standards that 

DOE sets by issuing direct final rules 

pursuant to section 325(p)(4) (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)) of EPCA. Section 325(p)(4) 

allows the Department to set an energy 

conservation standard, in some 

circumstances, by issuing a direct final 

rule. Before doing so, DOE must receive 

‘‘a statement that is submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view,’’ and the Department must 

determine that the recommended 

standard is ‘‘in accordance with’’ either 

section 325(o) or section 342(a)(6)(B) 

(i.e., 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) as 

appropriate depending on the product 

or equipment at issue. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4). Together with issuing a 

direct final rule, DOE must publish a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

proposing a standard identical to that 

established in the direct final rule, and 

DOE must allow a period of at least 110 

days for public comment on the direct 

final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B). If 

the Department receives one or more 

adverse comments related to the rule 

and concludes that the comments ‘‘may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawing the direct final rule,’’ the 

Department can withdraw the direct 

final rule and proceed with the 

proposed rule. A withdrawn rule ‘‘shall 

not be considered to be a final rule for 

purposes of [section 325(o)].’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C)(iii). 

DOE notes that, as a practical matter, 

the mechanisms of the direct final rule 

process provide an opportunity for 

correcting errors that is at least as 

effective as what this rule achieves. If a 

direct final rule contains an error, the 

public has an opportunity to identify 

that error through the comment process 

provided by statute and any error that 

a person would have identified during 

the 30-day window set by this rule 

could also be identified in the 110-day 

comment period required by EPCA. See 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B). The 

Department’s options for responding to 

a claim of error in a direct final rule are 

essentially equivalent to what this rule 

provides for other standards rules. 

Absent an error (and if there is no other 

reason to withdraw the rule), the 

Department can let a direct final rule 

stand as-is. Should there be an error, 

DOE can withdraw the direct final rule. 

It can then issue a final rule that is 

based on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking and avoid the error. 

Moreover, withdrawing a direct final 

rule and replacing it with a final rule 

based on the associated proposal would 

not violate section 325(o) even if the 

change resulted in a lower standard. 

The direct final rule procedure enacted 

by Congress is a unique one that 

provides DOE with the authority to 

withdraw a direct final rule when 

certain conditions are met. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). Accordingly, that 

specific procedure already provides a 

means for DOE to address an error if one 

is identified. 

In sum, the statutory mechanisms for 

direct final rules permit the correction 

of errors in a manner similar to what 

this rule lays out for other EPCA 

standards rules. Accordingly, the 

Department considers it unnecessary to 

apply this particular error-correction 

process to direct final rules. 

§ 430.5(b): Definitions 

This paragraph sets forth several 

definitions that clarify the meaning of 

this section and the application of the 

error-correction process. 

DOE is defining the term, ‘‘Secretary,’’ 

as referring to the Secretary of Energy or 

the Secretary’s delegate. 

The term, ‘‘Act,’’ under this rule 

means the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended. 

The term, ‘‘Error’’ for purposes of this 

rule is defined as an aspect of the 

regulatory text of a rule that is 

inconsistent with what the Secretary 

intended regarding the rule at the time 

of posting. The ‘‘regulatory text,’’ for 

these purposes, means the material that 

is to be placed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), together with the 

amendatory instructions by which the 

rule communicates what should go in 

the CFR. In most cases, the Department 

encapsulates everything about a rule 

that is legally binding by setting forth 

specific text in the CFR. The point of the 

error-correction process is to avoid the 

harmful consequences of errors in that 

legally binding material. Errors in 

explanatory material or interpretive 

matter in the preamble of a rule may be 

important, but they can ordinarily be 

corrected without use of a procedure 

like the one established by this rule 

(e.g., issuing a correction notice to 

clarify or otherwise resolve an error 

without the need for notice and 

comment.) 

The definition provides illustrative 

examples of mistakes that might 

produce Errors. For example, a 

typographical mistake might cause the 

text of a regulation to be incorrect; 

suppose, for example, the text of the 

regulation stated a party has 50 days to 

submit an error-correction request, even 

though the Department has made clear 

in the preamble that it intends to allow 

30 days. As a second example, a 

calculation mistake might cause the 

numerical value of a standard to differ 

from what DOE’s technical analyses 

would justify. The calculations involved 

in deriving a standard are complex, 

which could result in an error that 

causes the regulatory text to codify a 

standard different from what DOE 

described in its preamble. As a third 

example, an amendment to the relevant 

portions of the regulations might 

renumber them, but DOE might 

overlook a cross-reference in another 

portion of its regulations, which would 

then refer to the wrong formula. These 

examples—and those detailed in the 

regulatory text—are not meant to be 

exhaustive but highlight two common 

features: (1) The regulatory text departs 

from what DOE intended it to be and (2) 

the rulemaking record reveals what DOE 

intended. These are the sorts of 

problems that the Department seeks to 

offer the opportunity to correct through 

this rule. 

The term, ‘‘Party,’’ means a person 

that has participated in a rulemaking by 

submitting timely comments during the 

rulemaking or by providing substantive 

input during a public meeting regarding 

the rulemaking. 

This definition is relevant because, as 

discussed in this preamble, the 

Department will accept requests for 

error-correction under this rule only 

from a person that is a ‘‘party’’ to the 

rulemaking proceeding in accordance 

with this definition. The errorcorrection process is intended to be 

rapid and streamlined. By pausing to 

receive suggestions of error, DOE will be 

delaying the eventual benefits to be 

produced by an amended standard. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 27001 

Accordingly, the Department is setting 

the period for error submissions at 30 

calendar days. 

In furtherance of expeditious review, 

these requests must be sufficiently 

detailed to readily identify and resolve 

the error. In DOE’s view, those persons 

who actively participated during the 

rulemaking process by providing the 

agency with substantive feedback 

regarding its proposal and analyses are 

in the best position to readily and 

quickly identify errors that this rule 

seeks to address in a timely manner. 

The complexity and comprehensive 

nature of these analyses also make it 

more likely that active participants 

during the rulemaking proceeding 

would have the requisite foundation to 

be able to assist DOE with identifying 

errors and accompanying solutions. 

Without this procedural limit, DOE’s 

review of error requests would likely be 

hampered by overly broad (or otherwise 

inaccurate) submissions from non-party 

persons that would hinder the agency’s 

ability to expeditiously address 

meritorious claims identifying 

erroneous regulatory text. For these 

reasons, in DOE’s view, it is appropriate 

to accept submissions only from those 

persons that have engaged in the 

rulemaking and are already familiar 

with the record. 

The principal means for participating 

in a rulemaking proceeding is by 

submitting written comments in 

response to a notice. Many of DOE’s 

rulemakings to establish or amend its 

energy conservation standards involve 

several rounds of public comment, such 

as notices of proposed rulemaking and 

supplemental notices of proposed 

rulemaking. The Department also 

occasionally publishes notices of data 

availability through which it solicits 

comment on its technical analyses, as 

well as requests for information in 

which DOE solicits information from 

the public regarding particular issues. 

All of these procedures involve the 

substance of a rule under consideration, 

and the Department accordingly 

considers comment on any of them to be 

sufficient participation to qualify a 

person as a party. ‘‘Comment,’’ for these 

purposes, also includes ex parte 

submissions, which often represent as 

much engagement with the issues of a 

rulemaking as do ordinary comment 

filings. Similarly, the Department seeks 

public input by hosting public meetings 

(both in person and online through 

webinars), at which it presents some 

substantive information on a given 

proposed rule and permits participants 

to speak. This form of participation can 

also qualify a person as a party. (The 

definition of ‘‘party’’ requires 

‘‘substantive input’’ at a public meeting. 

DOE does not intend to judge the 

substantiality of each participant’s 

statements at a public meeting. By 

‘‘substantive input,’’ the Department 

means simply to exclude merely 

procedural statements such as a 

participant’s identifying himself or 

herself for the record.) 

It bears emphasis, however, that an 

untimely or improperly submitted 

comment—including an ex parte 

submission made after the close of the 

relevant comment period—will not 

qualify the submitter as a ‘‘party’’ for 

purposes of this rule. While a late-filed 

comment may address substantive 

issues raised as part of the relevant 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE is not obligated to 

consider late comments when reaching 

its decisions. For the Department to 

engage in a case-by-case assessment of 

whether a given person did in fact 

submit a comment would be 

inconsistent with the streamlined nature 

of the error-correction process. 

Accordingly, for the sake of 

administrative simplicity, DOE will not 

entertain an error-correction request 

from a person whose only participation 

in the rulemaking was an untimely or 

improper submission. 

Lastly, for purposes of this errorcorrection process, DOE is defining a 

‘‘rule’’ as a rule establishing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard under the Act. DOE will not 

apply this rule’s error-correction process 

for documents such as general 

statements of policy, guidance 

documents, and interpretive guidelines. 

§ 430.5(c): Posting of Rules 

This section describes the beginning 

of the error-correction process. At the 

outset, DOE will post a rule bearing the 

signature of an appropriate official of 

DOE on a publicly-accessible Web site. 

The record of the rulemaking is closed, 

and the Department has concluded its 

deliberations. 

However, the Department will not 

publish the rule in the Federal Register 

for 30 calendar days. This period of time 

will allow the public an opportunity to 

review the rule in order to identify any 

potential errors and submit a request to 

DOE to correct such errors. DOE 

recognizes that it has an obligation 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

to publish a ‘‘rule,’’ as defined in this 

part, in the Federal Register. The time 

for error-correction contemplated by 

this rule will not be a departure from 

that obligation. The Administrative 

Procedure Act does not specify that 

publication in the Federal Register must 

occur at a particular point following a 

specified period of time after posting. 

Meanwhile, as discussed in this 

preamble, and as is currently the case, 

no energy conservation standards rule 

will be effective for some period of time 

after it has been published in the 

Federal Register, and the start of the 

lead-time provided to manufacturers to 

comply with the standards will begin at 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Consequently, the delay in publication 

in the Federal Register will comply 

with the Administrative Procedure Act 

and will not cause prejudice to any 

interested parties. 

§ 430.5(d): Requests for Correction 

This section explains how to submit 

a request that DOE correct an error in a 

rule and describes what a request must 

contain. 

A request must be submitted within 

30 calendar days of the posting of the 

rule. As discussed in this preamble, the 

error-correction process is meant to be 

rapid and streamlined. In undertaking 

the procedure, DOE must balance the 

value of being able to correct errors in 

its regulations against the cost of delay 

(e.g., delayed energy savings). The 

Department believes 30 days should be 

enough time for persons already familiar 

with a rulemaking to review the text of 

the regulation being adopted and 

identify any errors. In light of that 

assessment and bearing in mind the cost 

of delay, a longer period would be 

inappropriate. 

A request must identify an Error, as 

that term is defined in this rule. A 

request must identify the claimed Error 

with particularity by stating what text is 

erroneous and providing a corrected 

substitute. Because the error-correction 

process is focused on the regulatory 

text, an Error will necessarily involve 

some piece of text that should be 

changed. DOE expects a party 

requesting a change to identify 

specifically what text is mistaken and 

why, as well as how DOE should change 

it. 

Consistent with the definition of 

Error, the error-correction process is not 

an opportunity to dispute the 

Department’s determinations or policy 

choices. An energy conservation 

standards rulemaking is usually a 

lengthy process, in which the 

Department provides repeated 

indications of its proposals, 

stakeholders have multiple 

opportunities to provide input, and the 

Department engages in extensive 

deliberation. To achieve the energy 

conservation goals of the Act, as well as 

to minimize uncertainty for industry 

and consumers, it is important that the 

issues in a rulemaking come to a 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
27002 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

2Because EPCA involves rulemaking and the 

APA specifies that substantive rules shall be 

published in the Federal Register and not effective 

until they have been, the Department takes 

‘‘published’’ in EPCA to refer to publication in the 

Federal Register. 

resolution. The error-correction process 

should not undermine the stability of 

DOE’s already well-established energy 

conservation standards-setting process, 

because it will simply ensure that the 

regulatory text accurately reflects the 

determinations that DOE has already 

reached. Accordingly, an errorcorrection request must identify how 

the regulatory text departs from DOE’s 

decision, rather than criticizing it on the 

requester’s own grounds or reviving 

issues from comments previously raised 

and addressed. 

As noted, for the sorts of errors for 

which this process is appropriate, the 

rulemaking record should indicate what 

the correct regulatory text ought to be. 

Consistent with that observation, an 

error-correction request must base its 

claims of what DOE intended on 

materials in the rulemaking record, such 

as the preamble to the rule, technical 

support documents, published notices, 

comments, and other record materials. 

A request may not include new 

evidence, as new evidence would not be 

relevant for illuminating what the 

Secretary meant for the regulation to 

say. Given the ample opportunity for 

comment and other public input during 

the rulemaking process, in DOE’s view, 

there is a need to bring finality to a 

given rulemaking and to avoid having 

an open-ended regulatory process, and, 

therefore, the agency will not accept 

new evidence and further defer the 

energy saving benefits of the energy 

conservation standards that are the 

subject of the rulemaking. Meanwhile, 

the task of evaluating new evidence 

would require time beyond what is 

appropriate for the error-correction 

process. 

Because only parties are allowed to 

file error-correction requests, a 

submitter must demonstrate that the 

requester is a ‘‘party’’ in accordance 

with this rule’s definition of that term. 

The requester must identify the 

comment(s) or other input that the 

requester submitted in the course of the 

rulemaking. 

Finally, this rule requires that 

requests be submitted electronically by 

email. This rule does not specify an 

email address to which requests should 

be sent, as each final rule will specify 

the appropriate email address for errorcorrection requests. The Department 

may consider a filing submitted by 

another mechanism if email filing is not 

feasible; a party seeking to use a 

different mechanism should consult 

first with the DOE program point of 

contact identified in the notice of the 

final rule for further information. 

§ 430.5(e): Correction of Rules 

This section describes the courses of 

action that the Department may 

undertake if it believes a request for 

correction may have identified an error. 

DOE may undertake to correct the rule, 

if doing so would be consistent with the 

applicable requirements of EPCA and 

the Administrative Procedure Act. In 

such cases, DOE will ordinarily make 

the correction before submitting the rule 

to the Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. Publication of the 

submitted rule will take place pursuant 

to the ordinary procedures of the Office 

of the Federal Register. 

§ 430.5(f): Publication in the Federal 

Register 

This section describes how the 

Department will eventually publish a 

final rule in the Federal Register. If, 

after 30 calendar days have elapsed 

since DOE posted a rule subject to this 

process, DOE receives no proper 

requests for correction of errors, and 

identifies no errors on its own, it will 

simply submit the rule as posted to the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. If DOE receives errorcorrection requests but decides not to 

undertake any corrections to the rule, it 

will submit the rule as posted to the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. Such submission indicates 

that the Department has rejected the 

requests it received, and the Department 

will ordinarily provide no other 

response to such requests. Barring 

extenuating circumstances, the 

Department will review proper errorcorrection submissions and submit the 

rule to the Office of the Federal Register 

for publication within 30 calendar days 

after the close of the 30-day period for 

submitting error-correction requests. 

Publication of submitted rules will take 

place in accordance with the ordinary 

procedures of the Office of the Federal 

Register. 

The Department’s rejection of a 

request does not necessarily mean the 

claim of error was mistaken. The 

regulatory text in the posted rule may 

indeed have been inconsistent with the 

Department’s decision as reflected in 

the rulemaking record. However, DOE 

may choose not to correct the regulation 

because it concludes the regulatory text 

is nonetheless acceptable; for instance, 

because it considers the error 

insignificant. 

This section also reiterates certain 

mandates from EPCA and from the 

Administrative Procedure Act with 

respect to publication. DOE will not 

make any rule subject to this part 

effective until after DOE has published 

the rule in the Federal Register. Further, 

DOE notes that compliance with a new 

or amended standard is generally linked 

to a specified lead-time from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register to 

provide the affected industries with 

sufficient time to adjust their products 

and manufacturing to satisfy the new or 

amended standard. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(4)(B) (providing a lead-time of 

two to five years for walk-in cooler and 

freezer performance standards); see also 

42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) (specifying 

applicable lead-times for a variety of 

different consumer products) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(l) (providing that energy 

conservation standards for newly 

covered products shall not apply to 

‘‘products manufactured within five 

years after the publication of a final rule 

establishing such standard.’’). The 

Department will adhere to that 

framework for all rules subject to this 

part. 

§ 430.5(g): Alteration of Standards 

This paragraph articulates the 

Department’s conclusion that it may 

change a standard that it has posted but 

has not yet published in the Federal 

Register. A change pursuant to this 

process is permissible even if the effect 

of such a change is to increase the 

maximum energy use or decrease the 

energy efficiency that the standard 

would reflect. 

The Department interprets section 

325(o)(1) (and its analogs applicable to 

certain types of equipment) to permit 

this approach. These provisions prohibit 

DOE from ‘‘increas[ing] the maximum 

allowable energy use’’ or ‘‘decreas[ing] 

the minimum required energy 

efficiency.’’ However, they do not 

indicate unambiguously what are the 

relevant maximum ‘‘allowable’’ use and 

minimum ‘‘required’’ efficiency against 

which an amended standard should be 

compared. Applying these terms to refer 

only to rules published in the Federal 

Register is consistent with the Act and 

will further its purposes. 

DOE notes that the Act uniformly sets 

compliance dates based on the 

‘‘publication’’ of rules.2 For example, for 

certain consumer products, compliance 

with an amended standard is required 

for products manufactured three years 

after publication; for others, compliance 

is required five years after an amended 

standard is published. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4). ‘‘Publication’’ does not 

appear to be simply the term used in the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 27003 

Act for producing a rule. For example, 

EPCA distinguishes issuance from 

publication by stating that DOE is to 

begin a rulemaking to review a standard 

within six years after ‘‘issuance’’— 

rather than ‘‘publication’’—of the 

standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1). 

Thus, ‘‘publication,’’ rather than other 

steps involved in rulemaking, is the 

trigger for eventual manufacturer 

compliance. A manufacturer can 

lawfully make products that do not meet 

the amended standards until the 

compliance date, and until the rule has 

been published there is not even a date 

certain at which a manufacturer will 

have to comply. 

Besides being consistent with the text 

and structure of EPCA, the Department’s 

interpretation furthers the Act’s 

purposes. DOE understands the overall 

purpose of the Act’s standards 

provisions to be achieving an increase, 

over time, in the conservation of energy 

in the United States. Other goals of 

EPCA include mitigating adverse 

economic consequences that energy 

conservation can sometimes cause, and 

reducing the costs of the changes 

required to increase conservation. Those 

goals are revealed in multiple 

provisions, such as those that set 

compliance dates several years after 

publication of amended standards. 

If the Department made an error in the 

regulatory text of a rule, and that error 

had the effect of increasing a standard 

beyond what the Department had 

concluded—after reasoned 

deliberations—was appropriate, the 

error-correction process set forth in this 

document would permit the Department 

to correct it. For section 325(o) to 

prohibit that result would undermine 

the multiple goals of EPCA. Were an 

erroneous standard to remain in place, 

its economic costs might be higher than 

what DOE had concluded could be 

justified, at that time, by the resulting 

energy savings or the standard might be 

technologically infeasible. That outcome 

would be inconsistent with EPCA’s 

requirement to ensure that a standard be 

one that the Secretary determines is 

‘‘economically justified,’’ and it could 

itself lead to uncertainty (e.g., legal 

challenge to the standard), which would 

be likely to generate further economic 

costs. And, contrary to the purposes of 

EPCA identified above, the outcome 

might include the invalidation of the 

standard—or the entire final rule—by a 

court, thereby leaving the Nation with 

no new standard that would have 

provided the increased energy savings 

DOE had intended to provide until 

completion of a replacement rulemaking 

by DOE, which could take considerable 

time. In contrast, the error-correction 

process set forth in this rule allows DOE 

to align the text of its regulations with 

the assessment it has already made of 

what standard would be appropriate— 

and ultimately achieve the significant 

energy savings that the Secretary 

determines are economically justified 

and technologically feasible as 

mandated by the Act. Accordingly, in 

DOE’s view, section 325(o) permits the 

Department to correct an error in the 

text of a rule in the manner prescribed 

in this rule. 

§ 430.5(h): Judicial Review 

This section clarifies the timing 

related to a potential petition for review 

that a person may file pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6306. The section states that a 

rule is prescribed on the date of its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Accordingly, for purposes of filing a 

legal challenge regarding an energy 

conservation standard rule, the date of 

publication in the Federal Register must 

be used when determining whether a 

given petition for review is timely in 

accordance with the statute. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

This rule of agency procedure and 

practice is not subject the requirement 

to provide prior notice and an 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A). The Administrative 

Procedure Act’s exception to the noticeand-comment rulemaking requirement 

for rules of agency procedure and 

practice reflects Congress’s judgment 

that such rules typically do not 

significantly benefit from notice-andcomment procedures, and that judgment 

is particularly applicable here, where 

the agency perceives no specific need 

for notice and comment. In addition, 

DOE has concluded that seeking 

comment on this rule would 

inappropriately divert valuable agency 

resources from other rulemakings that 

Congress has directed DOE to complete 

according to certain statutory timelines. 

This rule is also not a substantive rule 

subject to a 30-day delay in effective 

date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

This regulatory action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). DOE 

has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(January 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

As a result, EO 13563 also does not 

apply to this rule. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Because this rule is not subject to the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

an opportunity for public comment, it is 

not subject to the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain a collection 

of information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has determined that this rule 

falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule is strictly 

procedural and is covered by the 

Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 

1021, subpart D, paragraph A6. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
27004 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that are the subject of this final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

H. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined this final rule according 

to UMRA and its statement of policy 

and determined that the rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate, 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule will not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(Mar. 18, 1988),that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

K. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

this final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

This final rule is not a significant 

energy action because the ability to 

correct regulations will not, in itself, 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 27005 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Household appliances. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Commercial and industrial 

equipment. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 9, 

2016. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 430 and 

431 of Chapter II of title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.5 is added to subpart A 

to read as follows: 

§ 430.5 Error correction procedures for 

energy conservation standards rules. 

(a) Scope and purpose. The 

regulations in this section describe 

procedures through which the 

Department of Energy accepts and 

considers submissions regarding 

possible Errors in its rules under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317). This 

section applies to rules establishing or 

amending energy conservation 

standards under the Act, except that this 

section does not apply to direct final 

rules issued pursuant to section 

325(p)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)). 

(b) Definitions. 

As used in this section: 

Act means the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6317). 

Error means an aspect of the 

regulatory text of a rule that is 

inconsistent with what the Secretary 

intended regarding the rule at the time 

of posting. Examples of possible 

mistakes that might give rise to Errors 

include: 

(1) A typographical mistake that 

causes the regulatory text to differ from 

how the preamble to the rule describes 

the rule; 

(2) A calculation mistake that causes 

the numerical value of an energy 

conservation standard to differ from 

what technical support documents 

would justify; or 

(3) A numbering mistake that causes 

a cross-reference to lead to the wrong 

text. 

Party means any person who has 

provided input during the proceeding 

that led to a rule by submitting timely 

comments (including ex parte 

communications properly made within 

the relevant comment period) in 

response to a notice seeking comment or 

by providing substantive input at a 

public meeting regarding the 

rulemaking. For purposes of this 

definition, notices seeking comment 

include notices of proposed rulemaking, 

supplemental notices of proposed 

rulemaking, requests for information, 

and notices of data availability. 

Rule means a rule establishing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard under the Act. 

Secretary means the Secretary of 

Energy or an official with delegated 

authority to perform a function of the 

Secretary of Energy under this section. 

(c) Posting of rules. (1) The Secretary 

will cause a rule under the Act to be 

posted on a publicly-accessible Web 

site. 

(2) The Secretary will not cause a rule 

to be published in the Federal Register 

during 30 calendar days after posting of 

the rule pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) Each rule posted pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall 

bear the following disclaimer: 

NOTICE: The text of this rule is 

subject to correction based on the 

identification of errors pursuant to 10 

CFR 430.5 before publication in the 

Federal Register. Readers are requested 

to notify the United States Department 

of Energy, by email at XXX@ee.doe.gov, 

of any typographical or other errors, as 

described in such regulations, by no 

later than midnight on [INSERT DATE 

30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

POSTING OF THE DOCUMENT ON 

THE DEPARTMENT’S WEB SITE], in 

order that DOE may consider whether 

corrections should be made before the 

document is submitted to the Office of 

the Federal Register for publication. 

(d) Request for correction. (1) A party 

identifying an Error in a rule subject to 

this section may request that the 

Secretary correct the Error. Such a 

request must be submitted within 30 

calendar days of the posting of the rule 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2)(i) A request under this section 

must identify an Error with 

particularity. The request must state 

what text is claimed to be erroneous and 

provide text that the requester argues 

would be a correct substitute. The 

request must also substantiate the 

claimed Error by citing evidence from 

the existing record of the rulemaking 

that the text of the rule as issued is 

inconsistent with what the Secretary 

intended the text to be. 

(ii) A party’s disagreement with a 

policy choice that the Secretary has 

made will not, on its own, constitute a 

valid basis for a request under this 

section. 

(3) The evidence to substantiate a 

request (or evidence of the Error itself) 

must be in the record of the rulemaking 

at the time of the rule’s issuance, which 

may include the preamble 

accompanying the rule. The Secretary 

will not consider new evidence 

submitted in connection with a request. 

(4) A request must also demonstrate 

that the requester is a party by 

identifying one or more timely 

comment(s) or other substantive input 

that the requester previously provided 

in the proceeding leading to the rule. 

(5) A request under this section must 

be filed in electronic format by email to 

the address that the rule designates for 

correction requests. Should filing by 

email not be feasible, the requester 

should contact the program point of 

contact designated in the rule regarding 

an appropriate alternative means of 

filing a request. 

(6) A request that does not comply 

with the requirements of this section 

will not be considered. 

(e) Correction of rules. The Secretary 

may respond to a request for correction 

under paragraph (d) of this section or 

address an Error discovered on the 

Secretary’s own initiative by submitting 

to the Office of the Federal Register 

either a corrected rule or the rule as 

previously posted. 

(f) Publication in the Federal 

Register. (1) If, after receiving one or 

more properly filed requests for 

correction, the Secretary decides not to 

undertake any corrections, the Secretary 

will submit the rule for publication to 

the Office of the Federal Register as it 

was posted. If the Secretary submits a 

rule to be so published without altering 

the rule in the respects requested, the 

requests are deemed rejected. The 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
27006 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Secretary will ordinarily provide no 

written response to a rejected request. 

(2) If the Secretary receives no 

properly filed requests after the posting 

of a rule and identifies no errors on the 

Secretary’s own initiative, the Secretary 

will in due course submit the rule as it 

was posted to be Office of the Federal 

Register for publication. This will occur 

after the 30-day period prescribed by 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section has 

elapsed. 

(3) If the Secretary receives a properly 

filed request after issuance of a rule and 

determines that a correction is 

necessary, the Secretary will absent 

extenuating circumstances, submit a 

corrected rule for publication in the 

Federal Register within 30 days after 

the 30-day period prescribed by 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section has 

elapsed. 

(4) Consistent with the Act, 

compliance with an energy conservation 

standard will be required upon the 

specified compliance date as published 

in the relevant rule in the Federal 

Register. 

(5) Consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and other applicable 

law, the Secretary will ordinarily 

designate an effective date for a rule 

under this section that is no less than 30 

days after the publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. 

(g) Alteration of standards. Until an 

energy conservation standard has been 

published in the Federal Register, the 

Secretary may correct such standard, 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

(h) Judicial review. For determining 

the prematurity, timeliness, or lateness 

of a petition for judicial review pursuant 

to section 336(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

6306), a rule is considered ‘‘prescribed’’ 

on the date when the rule is published 

in the Federal Register. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 431.3 is added to subpart A 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.3 Error correction procedure for 

energy conservation standards rules. 

Requests for error-corrections 

pertaining to an energy conservation 

standard rule for commercial or 

industrial equipment shall follow those 

procedures and provisions detailed in 

10 CFR 430.5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03190 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 151005920–6371–02] 

RIN 0648–BF39 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan; Trawl 

Rationalization Program; Flow Scale 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises scale 

requirements for processing vessels that 

are required to weigh fish at sea, i.e., 

mothership and catcher/processor 

vessels, and Shorebased Individual 

Fishery Quota Program (IFQ) first 

receivers. For motherships and catcher/ 

processors that weigh fish at sea, the 

action requires the use of updated scale 

technology, requires enhanced daily 

scale testing for flow scales (also known 

as belt scales), and requires the use of 

video to monitor the flow scale and the 

area around the flow scale. For 

Shorebased IFQ first receivers, the 

action adds criteria for inseason flow 

scale tests. In addition, the action 

includes housekeeping changes that are 

intended to better align the regulations 

with defined terms, and to provide 

clarity and consistency between 

paragraphs. Action is needed to provide 

precise and accurate catch estimates and 

to reduce the likelihood that vessels will 

under report harvests. 

DATES: Effective June 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this rule to: William W. 

Stelle Jr., Regional Administrator, West 

Coast Region NMFS, 7600 Sand Point 

Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miako Ushio, (206) 526–4644. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This final rule is accessible via the 

Internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register Web site at https://

www.federalregister.gov. Background 

information and documents are 

available at the NMFS West Coast 

Region Web site at http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/

fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at 

the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council’s Web site at http://

www.pcouncil.org/. 

Motherships and Catcher/Processors 

An at-sea scale program was 

developed for the Alaska groundfish 

fishery in 1998 to provide catch 

accounting that was more precise and 

verifiable at the individual haul level 

and less dependent on estimates 

generated by at-sea observers (February 

4, 1998; 63 FR 5836). The at-sea scale 

program supported implementation of a 

large-scale quota share program that 

required verifiable and defensible 

estimates of harvest. Since 

implemenation of those weighing 

requirements in 1998, at-sea scales have 

been used to provide reliable, precise 

and accurate estimates of catch in the 

Alaskan groundfish fisheries. At the 

same time, scale technology has evolved 

and NMFS has developed greater 

expertise in monitoring processing 

activity. 

Recent fraud on some vessels was 

found to have resulted in systematic 

underestimates of scale weights used for 

catch accounting. As a result, at-sea 

flow scale regulations for the Alaska 

Region at 50 CFR 679.28 were revised 

on December 18, 2014 (November 18, 

2014; 79 FR 68610) to improve scale 

accuracy and reduce bias. Revisions to 

the Alaska regulations included a suite 

of modifications to the at-sea scales 

program that included the use of flow 

scales capable of logging and printing 

the frequency and magnitude of scale 

calibrations relative to previous 

calibrations as well as the time and date 

of each scale fault (or error) and scale 

startup time; revised daily scale test 

methods; and new requirements for 

video monitoring. 

In 2011, a trawl rationalization 

program was implemented for the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery which 

included scale requirements specified in 

regulation at § 660.15(b) (December 15, 

2010; 75 FR 78344). These regulations 

require mothership and catcher/

processor vessels to use scales certified 

for the Alaska groundfish fisheries. This 

action modifies the Pacific Coast 

groundfish fishery regulations to be 

consistent with the Alaska Region’s 

2014 regulation updates, thereby 

bringing them up to date with current 

technology, reducing the potential for 

scale tampering, and improving catch 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES