16778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general 

public and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed, 

revised, and continuing collections of 

information. This helps the Department 

assess the impact of its information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand the 

Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. ED is 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) that 

is described below. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: 2015–16 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:16) 16 Field Test Institutions 

and Enrollment Lists. 

OMB Control Number: 1850–0666. 

Type of Review: A revision of an 

existing information collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Individuals or households, Private 

Sector. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 794. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 724. 

Abstract: The National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS), a 

nationally representative study of how 

students and their families finance 

postsecondary education, was first 

implemented by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) in 1987 and 

has been fielded every 3 to 4 years 

since. The next major data collection 

will occur in 2016 with a field test 

collection in 2015. This submission is 

for the ninth cycle in the series, 

NPSAS:16, which will also serve as the 

base year study for the 2016 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal 

Study (B&B) which provides data on the 

various paths of recent college graduates 

into employment and additional 

education. The NPSAS:16 field test 

sample will include about 300 

institutions (full-scale sample about 

1,680) and about 4,500 students 

(120,000 full-scale). Institution 

contacting for the field test will begin in 

September 2014 and student data 

collection will be conducted January 

through May 2015 (full-scale institution 

contacting will begin in October 2015 

and student data will be collected 

January through June 2016). A separate 

package to request clearance for student 

data collection (interviews and 

institution record data) will be 

submitted in the fall 2014. This 

submission includes contacting 

materials and collection of enrollment 

lists from institutions selected to 

participate in the field test. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

Kate Mullan, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06662 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket No. ED–2013–OSERS–015] 

Request for Information on the Use of 

Results Data in Making Determinations 

Under Sections 616(d)(2) and 642 of 

the Individuals With Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department 

of Education. 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) is requesting 

stakeholder input on how best to use 

results data (e.g., performance on 

assessments, graduation rates, and early 

childhood outcomes) in its 

accountability system under the IDEA. 

We believe that the Department must 

provide greater support to States’ efforts 

to improve results for infants, toddlers, 

children and youth with disabilities 

(children with disabilities). We need to 

ensure that States focus not only on 

complying with provisions of the law, 

but also on improving results for 

children with disabilities. 

DATES: Responses must be received by 

April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or 

hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email or those 

submitted after the comment period. To 

ensure that we do not receive duplicate 

copies, please submit your comments 

only once. In addition, please include 

the Docket ID and the term ‘‘IDEA 

Determinations including Results’’ at 

the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to this site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to Larry 

Ringer, Attention: IDEA Determinations 

RFI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., room 4032, 

Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 

20202–2600. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

available for public viewing in their 

entirety on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be 

careful to include in their comments 

only information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

Submission of Proprietary 

Information: Given the subject matter, 

some comments may include 

proprietary information as it relates to 

confidential commercial information. 

The Freedom of Information Act defines 

‘‘confidential commercial information’’ 

as information the disclosure of which 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. You may 

wish to request that we not disclose 

what you regard as confidential 

commercial information. 

To assist us in making a 

determination on your request, we 

encourage you to identify any specific 

information in your comments that you 

consider confidential commercial 

information. Please list the information 

by page and paragraph numbers. 

This Request for Information (RFI) is 

issued solely for information and 

planning purposes and is not a request 

for proposals (RFP), a notice inviting 

applications (NIA), or a promise to issue 

an RFP or NIA. This RFI does not 

commit the Department to contract for 

any supply or service whatsoever. 

Further, the Department is not now 

seeking proposals and will not accept 

unsolicited proposals. The Department 

will not pay for any information or 

administrative costs that you may incur 

in responding to this RFI. 

If you do not respond to this RFI, you 

may still apply for future contracts and 

grants. The Department posts RFPs on 

the Federal Business Opportunities Web 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 16779 

1The SPPs/APRs for Part B and Part C include 

both compliance and results indicators. For Part B, 

the results indicators address graduation rates, 

drop-out rates, statewide assessment (percentage of 

districts meeting adequate yearly progress or annual 

measurable objectives for the disability subgroup, 

participation in assessments, and proficiency on 

assessments), significant discrepancy in 

suspension/expulsion rates, educational 

environments for school-aged and preschool, early 

childhood outcomes, parent participation, postschool outcomes, resolution sessions, and 

mediation. For Part C, the results indicators include 

service settings, early childhood outcomes, family 

outcomes, percentage of infants and toddlers 

receiving Part C services, resolution sessions, and 

mediation. 

site (www.fbo.gov). The Department 

announces grant competitions in the 

Federal Register (www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It 

is your responsibility to monitor these 

sites to determine whether the 

Department issues an RFP or NIA after 

considering the information received in 

response to this RFI. 

The documents and information 

submitted in response to this RFI 

become the property of the U.S. 

Government and will not be returned. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Ringer, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 4032, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7496. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In the 2004 reauthorization of the 

IDEA, Congress recognized the 

importance of focusing on positive 

educational and early intervention 

outcomes for children with disabilities. 

IDEA requires the primary focus of 

Federal and State monitoring to be on: 

(1) Improving educational results and 

functional outcomes for all children 

with disabilities covered under the 

IDEA; and (2) ensuring that States meet 

the program requirements. In particular, 

Congress placed an emphasis on those 

requirements that are most closely 

related to improving educational and 

early intervention results for eligible 

children with disabilities. 

To date, however, the Department’s 

primary focus of monitoring has been on 

States’ compliance with substantive and 

procedural requirements and whether 

States showed improvement in the 

compliance data reported in their State 

Performance Plan/Annual Performance 

Reports (SPP/APRs). Unfortunately, we 

have not seen significant improvement 

in results for children with disabilities, 

e.g., performance on assessment, 

graduation rate, and early childhood 

outcomes.1 In order to improve results 

for children with disabilities, we need 

to balance the focus of our 

accountability system on both ensuring 

compliance and improving results for 

children with disabilities, consistent 

with the IDEA mandates described 

above. 

To achieve this balance, the 

Department, through the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP), a 

component of the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS), is reconceptualizing its IDEA 

accountability system. This 

reconceptualized system, Results Driven 

Accountability (RDA), will support 

States in improving results for children 

with disabilities, while continuing to 

assist States in ensuring compliance 

with the IDEA’s requirements. 

In redesigning its accountability 

system, OSEP is using the following 

core principles: 

1. The RDA system is being developed 

in partnership with our stakeholders. 

2. The RDA system is transparent and 

understandable to States and the 

general public, especially individuals 

with disabilities and their families. 

3. The RDA system drives improved 

outcomes for all children and youth 

with disabilities regardless of their age, 

disability, race/ethnicity, language, 

gender, socioeconomic status, or 

location. 

4. The RDA system ensures the 

protection of the individual rights of 

each child or youth with a disability 

and their families, regardless of his/her 

age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, 

gender, socioeconomic status, or 

location. 

5. The RDA system includes 

differentiated incentives, supports, and 

interventions based on each State’s 

unique strengths, progress, challenges, 

and needs. 

6. The RDA system encourages States 

to direct their resources to where they 

can have the greatest positive impact on 

outcomes and the protection of 

individual rights for all children and 

youth with disabilities, while 

minimizing State burden and 

duplication of effort. 

7. The RDA system is responsive to 

the needs and expectations of the 

ultimate consumers (i.e., children and 

youth with disabilities and their 

families). 

OSEP will implement the RDA in 

accordance with the IDEA requirements. 

OSEP’s design for the RDA system 

includes three major components: (1) 

The State Performance Plan (SPP)/

Annual Performance Report (APR); (2) 

annual State determinations; and (3) 

differentiated monitoring and support. 

As part of the first component, each 

State has, since 2005, had in place an 

SPP for IDEA Part B and an SPP for 

IDEA Part C, establishing measurable 

and rigorous targets for indicators under 

statutory priority areas, and those 

indicators include both compliance 

indicators and results indicators. Each 

State submits annually to the Secretary 

an APR for IDEA Part B and an APR for 

IDEA Part C, reporting on the State’s 

progress in meeting those targets. On 

April 15, 2013, the Department 

published in the Federal Register two 

separate information collection notices 

proposing changes to the IDEA Part B 

and the IDEA Part C SPP/APR for the 

period of Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013 

through FFY 2018 (78 FR 22251 and 78 

FR 22253, available at: www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-15/pdf/2013- 

08703.pdf and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-2013-04-15/pdf/2013-08705.pdf, 

respectively. 

In those notices, the Department 

proposed eliminating unnecessary 

reporting requirements, including the 

requirement that States report on 

improvement activities for each 

indicator. Instead, the Department 

proposed to include a new qualitative 

indicator, the State Systemic 

Improvement Plan (SSIP) in each State’s 

SPP/APR for IDEA Part B and SPP/APR 

for IDEA Part C. This comprehensive 

improvement plan would include an 

analysis of relevant data and a plan, 

based on that data analysis, to focus on 

improving a State-selected educational 

or early intervention outcomes for 

children with disabilities in a way that 

is aligned with a State’s efforts to 

improve outcomes for all children. In 

working to finalize the IDEA Part B and 

Part C SPP/APR information collections, 

the Department has considered all of the 

comments received. 

The second component of RDA is the 

annual State determination process. The 

Secretary has, since 2007, made annual 

State determinations based on 

information provided by a State in its 

SPP/APR, information obtained through 

monitoring visits, and any other 

publicly available information. The 

Secretary will continue, as required by 

IDEA, to make annual determinations; 

however, the Department is, as part of 

RDA, in the process of changing how it 

makes determinations to provide a 

greater focus on results. As required by 

the IDEA, in making determinations, the 

Secretary finds that a State, for IDEA 

Part B and for IDEA Part C: 

1. Meets the requirements and 

purposes of the IDEA; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 

2These compliance indicators include, for IDEA 

Part B: Noncompliance related to suspension and 

expulsion, disproportionate representation of racial 

and ethnic groups in special education and related 

services, and in specific disability categories, that 

is the result of inappropriate identification, timely 

initial evaluations, timely transition from IDEA Part 

C to IDEA Part B, secondary transition 

requirements, and timely correction of 

noncompliance. For Part C, they include: Timely 

initiation of early intervention services, timely 

evaluation, assessment and individualized family 

service plan meetings, timely transitions from Part 

C, and timely correction of noncompliance. 

3The State must not report to the public or the 

Secretary any information on performance that 

would result in the disclosure of personally 

identifiable information about individual children. 

See IDEA section 616(b)(2)(C)(iii). Therefore, 

OSERS will not use personally identifiable data 

when making determinations. 

2. Needs assistance in implementing 

the requirements of the IDEA (‘‘needs 

assistance’’); 

3. Needs intervention in 

implementing the requirements of the 

IDEA (‘‘needs intervention’’); or 

4. Needs substantial intervention in 

implementing the requirements of the 

IDEA (‘‘needs substantial intervention’’). 

When a State is determined to be in 

‘‘needs assistance’’ for two or more 

consecutive years, ‘‘needs intervention’’ 

for three or more consecutive years, or 

‘‘needs substantial intervention’’, the 

Secretary takes enforcement action and 

has discretion to determine the specific 

type of enforcement action(s) to take. 

Consistent with our authority in 

sections 616(d)(2) and 642 of the IDEA, 

in 2013, OSEP began redesigning the 

annual determinations process. In 

calendar year 2007 (the first year that 

the Department made determinations 

under the IDEA) through calendar year 

2013, the Department primarily based 

its determinations on data provided in 

response to compliance indicators.2

In 2013, OSEP continued to make 

determinations based on compliance 

data, but for the first time used a 

Compliance Matrix that provided a 

better accounting of the totality of the 

State’s compliance data. The 

Compliance Matrix utilizes a score, 

ranging from zero to two points, for each 

of the compliance indicators and for 

several other factors related to 

compliance (see ‘‘How the Department 

Made Determinations’’ at http://

www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/

sppapr.html). Using the cumulative 

possible number of points as the 

denominator, and using the actual 

points the State received in the scoring 

under these factors as the numerator, 

the Compliance Matrix reflected a 

percentage score that the Department 

used to make each State’s 2013 

determination. OSEP made this revision 

to ensure that, unlike the 

determinations made in prior years, a 

State would not be determined to ‘‘need 

intervention’’ based solely on low 

performance under, or the lack of valid 

and reliable data for, a single IDEA 

indicator. As noted above, this approach 

took into account the totality of a State’s 

compliance and provided transparency 

about how we reached each State’s 

determination. We recognize, however, 

that while this matrix approach was an 

improvement in the determinations 

process, we also need to include results 

data as a significant part of the 

determinations process. 

For 2014, OSEP will, consistent with 

our authority in sections 616(d)(2) and 

642 of the IDEA, include a Results 

Matrix, similar, and in addition, to the 

Compliance Matrix, to focus on both 

compliance and results data in the 

annual determination process. Relevant 

data reported by States and other 

publicly available data will be reflected 

in the matrices, with each data element 

receiving a score between zero and two 

and then combining all of the points 

from both matrices. Using the 

cumulative possible number of points 

from both matrices as the denominator, 

and using the total number of actual 

points the State received in the scoring 

under the individual factors as the 

numerator, the State’s 2014 

determination will be based on the 

percentage score from both matrices. 

OSEP will take enforcement actions 

under Part B and Part C of the IDEA 

based on those underlying compliance 

data, results data, or a combination of 

the two. However, in the first two years 

of using results data in determinations, 

OSEP does not plan to take enforcement 

action based on results data under either 

IDEA Part B or C that would have fiscal 

consequences for a State. (While the 

Department must take one of the 

statutorily-specified enforcement 

actions with States that are ‘‘Needs 

Assistance’’ for two or more consecutive 

years, or ‘‘Needs Intervention’’ for three 

or more consecutive years, the 

Department has discretion in choosing 

among specified enforcement actions, 

which include actions that do not have 

fiscal consequences.) 

We are considering using the 

following results data 3 in making 

determinations, including examining a 

State’s progress over time: 

1. For Part B, data related to: 

a. Participation in and proficiency on 

assessments (reported publicly through 

either statewide assessments or the 

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress) in reading/language arts and 

math, 

b. Rates of students graduating with a 

regular diploma and/or 

c. Postschool outcomes. 

2. For Part C, data related to: 

a. Early childhood outcomes, and/or 

b. Family outcomes. 

The third component of RDA is 

differentiated monitoring and support. 

In implementing differentiated 

monitoring and support, OSEP will use 

results data and other information about 

a State to determine the appropriate 

intensity, focus, and nature of the 

oversight and support that each State 

will receive as part of RDA. In providing 

differentiated support, OSEP will 

consider each State’s need in relation to 

the development and implementation of 

its SSIP. 

Context for Responses and Information 

Requested 

Throughout the process of developing 

RDA, the Department has both provided 

information to the public, and sought 

input from interested stakeholders, 

consistent with the core principles 

outlined above. We have sought input 

from stakeholders in a variety of ways, 

including: 

1. Blog posts on the Department’s 

Web site inviting input from the public 

on a variety of topics including the Core 

Principles and one approach for using 

results data in determinations (http://

www.ed.gov/blog/2012/07/resultsdriven-accountability-effort/); 

2. Meetings and conference calls with 

stakeholders, including State personnel, 

child and family advocacy groups, 

professional organizations, researchers, 

and technical assistance providers to 

solicit input regarding the opportunities 

and barriers related to shifting to a more 

results focused monitoring; and 

3. Working with the National Center 

on Educational Outcomes and the 

Center on Early Childhood Outcomes to 

examine options for what results data to 

consider in making determinations, and 

how to use those data as part of the 

determinations process. 

The Assistant Secretary for OSERS 

invites States, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), early intervention 

service (EIS) programs and providers, 

parents, and other stakeholders to 

provide input on how the Department 

should use results data, in combination 

with compliance data, to make 

determinations under section 616(d)(2) 

and 642 of the IDEA in 2014 and 

subsequent years. We are particularly 

interested in feedback on the following: 

1. How should the Department use 

results data such as assessment data, 

graduation data and/or postschool 

outcomes data in making 

determinations under Part B of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 16781 

IDEA? For any suggestion, please 

explain why and how the Department 

could use the data in a valid, reliable, 

and equitable manner in making 

determinations. 

2. How should the Department use 

results data such as early childhood 

outcomes data and/or family outcomes 

data in making determinations under 

Part C of the IDEA? For any suggestion, 

please explain why and how the 

Department could use the data in a 

valid, reliable, and equitable manner in 

making determinations. 

3. Are there any additional or 

different types of results data, including 

data on assessments to measure 

proficiency in reading/language arts and 

math, or other results data that the 

Department should/could consider 

using in the IDEA Part B determinations 

process? For any suggestion, please 

explain why and how the Department 

could use the data in a valid, reliable, 

and equitable manner in making 

determinations. 

4. Are there any additional or 

different types of results data that the 

Department should/could consider 

using in the IDEA Part C determinations 

process? For any suggestion, please 

explain why and how the Department 

could use the data in a valid, reliable, 

and equitable manner in making 

determinations. 

To ensure better results for children 

with disabilities, the Department 

expects all components of the RDA 

system to be aligned with States’ efforts 

to improve outcomes for all children 

with and without disabilities. To meet 

this goal, we encourage stakeholders to 

provide suggestions for using results 

data in a manner that is equitable and 

transparent. You may provide 

comments in any convenient format 

(i.e., bullet points, charts, graphs, 

paragraphs, etc.) and may also provide 

relevant information that is not 

responsive to a particular question but 

may nevertheless be helpful. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) upon 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416 and 

1442. 

Dated: March 20, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06730 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[OE Docket No. EA–312–A] 

Application To Export Electric Energy; 

Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 2, 

Inc. 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary 

No. 2, Inc. (EE US No. 2) has applied to 

renew its authority to transmit electric 

energy from the United States to Canada 

pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal 

Power Act. 

DATES: Comments, protests, or motions 

to intervene must be submitted on or 

before April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or 

motions to intervene should be 

addressed to: Lamont Jackson, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because 

of delays in handling conventional mail, 

it is recommended that documents be 

transmitted by overnight mail, by 

electronic mail to Lamont.Jackson@

hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202–586– 

8008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lamont Jackson (Program Office) at 

202–586–0808, or by email to 

Lamont.Jackson@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of 

electricity from the United States to a 

foreign country are regulated by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to 

sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require 

authorization under section 202(e) of 

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

824a(e)). 

On May 17, 2006, DOE issued Order 

No. EA–312, which authorized EE US 

No. 2 to transmit electric energy from 

the United States to Canada for a fiveyear term using existing international 

transmission facilities. That authority 

has since expired on May 17, 2011. On 

February 25, 2014, EE US No. 2 filed an 

application with DOE for renewal of the 

export authority contained in Order No. 

EA–312 for an additional five-year term. 

In its application, EE US No. 2 states 

that it does not own any electric 

generating or transmission facilities, and 

it does not have a franchised service 

area. The electric energy that EE US No. 

2 proposes to export to Canada would 

be surplus energy purchased from 

electric utilities, Federal power 

marketing agencies, and other entities 

within the United States and/or Canada. 

The existing international transmission 

facilities to be utilized by EE US No. 2 

have previously been authorized by 

Presidential permits issued pursuant to 

Executive Order 10485, as amended, 

and are appropriate for open access 

transmission by third parties. 

Procedural Matters: Any person 

desiring to be heard in this proceeding 

should file a comment or protest to the 

application at the address provided 

above. Protests should be filed in 

accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) 

Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 

CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to 

become a party to these proceedings 

should file a motion to intervene at the 

above address in accordance with FERC 

Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies 

of such comments, protests, or motions 

to intervene should be sent to the 

address provided above on or before the 

date listed above. 

Comments on the EE US No. 2 

application to export electric energy to 

Canada should be clearly marked with 

OE Docket No. EA–312–A. An 

additional copy is to be provided 

directly to Will Szubielski, c/o Emera 

Energy Inc., 1223 Lower Water Street, 

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S8 and 

Bonnie A. Suchman, Troutman Sanders 

LLP, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004. A final decision 

will be made on this application after 

the environmental impacts have been 

evaluated pursuant to DOE’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after 

a determination is made by DOE that the 

proposed action will not have an 

adverse impact on the sufficiency of 

supply or reliability of the U.S. electric 

power supply system. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES