27678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Notices 

contained in OSD Administrative 

Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may 

be obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Individual, industrial facilities 

cleared by the Personnel Security 

Management Office for Industry 

(PSMO–I), and DoD Component 

fingerprint capture devices. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED BY THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11606 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Extension of Public Comment Period 

for the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement for Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint 

Military Training 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On April 03, 2015, the 

Department of Navy (DoN) published a 

Notice of Availability and Notice of 

Public Meetings for the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement for Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military 

Training (80 FR 18385, April 03, 2015). 

The purpose of this notice is to 

announce an extension of the 60-day 

public comment period. The public 

comment period will be extended by 60 

days to end on August 3, 2015 Eastern 

Daylight Time (E.D.T.) [August 4, 2015, 

Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)]. 

DATES: The extended 120-day public 

comment period for the Draft EIS began 

on April 3, 2015, EDT [April 04, 2015, 

ChST] with the publication of the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and with this 

extension, will end on August 3, 2015, 

EDT [August 4, 2015, ChST]. Mailed 

comments should be postmarked no 

later than August 3, 2015, EDT [August 

4, 2015, ChST] to ensure they are 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: The public may provide 

comments through the project Web site 

at www.CNMIJointMilitaryTrainingEIS.

com, or by mail at: Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Pacific, Attn: 

09PA, Public Affairs Office, 258 

Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, JBPHH, HI 

96860–3134. 

The Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to 

federal and local agencies, elected 

officials, and other interested 

individuals and organizations. The Draft 

EIS/OEIS is available for public review 

at www.CNMIJointMilitaryTraining

EIS.com, and at the following libraries: 

(1) Joeten Kiyu Public Library, Saipan; 

(2) Northern Marianas College Olympio 

T. Borja Memorial Library, Saipan; (3) 

Tinian Public Library, Tinian; (4) 

Antonio C. Atalig Memorial Rota Public 

Library, Rota; (5) University of Guam 

Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library, 

Guam; (6) Nieves M. Flores Memorial 

Library, Guam. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DoN’s 

proposed action is to establish live-fire 

Range Training Areas (RTAs) within the 

CNMI to address the U.S. Pacific 

Command Service Components’ unfilled 

unit level and combined level training 

requirements in the Western Pacific. 

The DoN recognizes that public 

comments are an essential part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process. Accordingly, the DoN 

established a 60-day public comment 

period in lieu of the minimum 45-day 

period required by NEPA implementing 

regulations. In response to requests by 

CNMI officials, Federal resource 

agencies, and the public, the DoN has 

extended the Draft EIS 60-day public 

comment period by a heretofore 

additional 60 days to August 3, 2015, 

EDT [August 4, 2015, ChST]. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS 

Project Manager by email via the project 

Web site (www.CNMIJointMilitary

TrainingEIS.com). 

Dated: May 11, 2015. 

N.A. Hagerty-Ford 

Commander, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, 

U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11674 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Strengthening U.S. Academic 

Programs in Accelerator Science 

AGENCY: Office of High Energy Physics, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The Office of High Energy 

Physics (HEP), as the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE or Department) lead 

office for long-term accelerator research 

and development (R&D), invites 

interested parties to provide comments 

on proposed policies, practices and 

mechanisms which DOE–HEP may 

implement to foster robust academic 

R&D and workforce development in this 

vitally important high technology area. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

June 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments only by email. 

Comments must be addressed to 

AcademicAcceleratorScienceRFI@

science.doe.gov, with the subject line 

‘‘Academic Accelerator Science RFI 

Comments’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Bruce P. Strauss, (301) 903–3705, 

AcademicAcceleratorScienceRFI@

science.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Challenge 

Accelerators play a key role in the 

discovery sciences, including High 

Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, and 

Basic Energy Sciences. Modern 

discovery science accelerators are high 

technology instruments of remarkable 

complexity, having advanced over eight 

orders of magnitude in energy since 

their invention. Aggressive reinvention 

of the underlying technology has driven 

improvements in this science, and has 

required sustained investment in 

accelerator science R&D that advances 

the methods, materials, and 

understanding of accelerator science. 

Accelerator Science is an 

interdisciplinary field that encompasses 

the design and improvement of particle 

accelerators, the development of new 

methods of charged particle production 

and manipulation, and the development 

of unique supporting technologies 

needed for accelerators. Significant 

career specialization has evolved as the 

demand for ever greater performance 

has required reaching deep into 

mathematics, computation, materials 

science, plasma science, radio frequency 

technology, superconducting materials, 

laser engineering, and a variety of other 

disciplines. The accelerator science 

workforce must be capable of spanning 

both the breadth and depth of the 

subject matter needed to build discovery 

science accelerators. It must also 

possess the range of skills and 

proficiency levels needed to support 

operating accelerators for science, 

medicine, industry, security, defense, 

and energy & environmental 

applications. 

National laboratories, academia, and 

industry each play vital, mutually 

reinforcing roles in the success of the 

accelerator-based discovery sciences, 

and in providing the scientific and 

technological advances necessary to 

sustain U.S. leadership in this area. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Notices 27679 

1 ‘‘Accelerators for America’s Future’’, workshop 

report, http://science.energy.gov/∼/media/hep/pdf/

accelerator-rd-stewardship/Report.pdf, (2009). 

2 ‘‘OHEP Workforce Development’’, Report 

presented to HEPAP May 22, 2014, http://

science.energy.gov/∼/media/hep/hepap/pdf/

May%202014/Patterson_HEPAP_DOEWorkforce_

v1-1.pdf . 

3 ‘‘HEP Workforce Development Needs’’, report of 

the HEPAP subcommittee, June 30, 2014, http://

science.energy.gov/∼/media/hep/hepap/pdf/

Reports/OHEP_Workforce_Letter_Report.pdf . 

With an estimated 30,000 particle 

accelerators operating worldwide, there 

is a significant—and growing—need 1

for a technically competent workforce 

that can design, install, operate, 

upgrade, and repair accelerators. 

A High Energy Physics Advisory 

Panel subcommittee, in 2014, identified 

the present deficit in the accelerator 

science workforce as an area of special 

concern, both for its impact on the 

Office of Science mission, and for its 

broader consequences.2 3 Approximately 

10–12 accelerator science Ph.D.s 

graduate each year in the U.S., nearly an 

order of magnitude less than Europe. 

This is traceable to the small number of 

U.S. universities that have accelerator 

faculty and offer instruction in 

accelerator science. 

The Response 

The Department, acting through the 

Office of High Energy Physics in the 

Office of Science, is considering funding 

practices and mechanisms which DOE– 

HEP could implement to help ensure 

continued world-class accelerator R&D 

and the training of a world-class 

accelerator workforce. 

Request for information: The objective 

of this RFI is to gather information about 

the current state of academic practice 

and policy surrounding accelerator 

science (as defined above), and to 

elucidate potential mechanisms to 

strengthen academic programs in 

accelerator science at U.S. institutions 

of higher education. Please note that 

this is not a request for information 

about specific scientific research topics. 

Submissions arguing the merits of 

specific lines of scientific research will 

be disregarded as unresponsive. 

The questions below are intended to 

assist in the formulation of comments, 

and should not be considered as a 

limitation on either the number or the 

issues that may be addressed in such 

comments. The Department will make 

all comments available to the general 

public. 

The DOE Office of High Energy 

Physics is specifically interested in 

receiving comments pertaining to any of 

the following questions: 

Increasing the Recognition of 

Accelerator Science in Academia 

1. Does your institution regard 

accelerator science as an academic 

discipline? Why or why not? 

2. If your institution offers graduate 

training in accelerator science: 

a. What is the core curriculum shared 

by all accelerator students, regardless of 

specialization? (e.g. What is the 

common coursework taken by all 

accelerator students?) 

b. How often do students change 

fields to study accelerator science? From 

which fields do these students typically 

come? 

c. Is your accelerator science program 

primarily located in the physics, 

applied physics, or engineering 

department, or in a combination of two 

or more of those departments? 

d. What incentives would increase the 

likelihood that your institution would 

hire additional accelerator science 

faculty? 

e. Is there an on-campus particle 

accelerator that is dedicated to 

accelerator science R&D? If not, do you 

make use of accelerator test facilities at 

U.S. national laboratories? 

f. How often do collaborations occur 

between accelerator science and other 

programs at the university? 

g. Does your institution actively seek 

out corporate sponsorship for an 

accelerator science program? Do private 

companies actively recruit students 

from your accelerator science program? 

3. If your institution no longer offers 

graduate training in accelerator science, 

why was the program terminated? 

4. What funding sources for 

accelerator science are you aware of? 

Integrating the Roles of the Universities 

and the U.S. National Laboratories 

5. How can the national laboratory 

system be best utilized by the university 

accelerator science community? 

6. What are the current barriers (e.g. 

technical, operational, and economic) 

that prevent closer collaboration 

between universities and the national 

laboratories? 

7. Does your university accept 

accelerator course credits from other 

institutions? 

8. Do accelerator science students at 

your institution routinely take courses 

and training elsewhere? 

9. What could be done to strengthen 

the participation of academia in the 

operation and improvement of existing 

national laboratory accelerators? 

10. Considering disciplines, other 

than Accelerator Science, what 

mechanisms are in place at your 

university for collaboration with 

national laboratories? Could these 

mechanisms be extended to accelerator 

science? 

Contemporary Models of University 

Accelerator Science 

11. What examples exist of thriving 

academic accelerator science programs? 

a. Are there policies at your university 

specific to the accelerator science 

program that are essential to its success? 

b. Are there scholarships, endowed 

chairs, or other awards and positions 

that give special recognition to 

accelerator science? 

c. Are there barriers to having 

accelerator scientists serve as PI or CoI on proposals? 

d. Is conversion from research faculty 

to full faculty in accelerator science 

possible? How many faculty members 

have attempted the transition, and how 

many have succeeded? 

e. Are there specific attributes of the 

institution’s culture that contribute to 

the success of the accelerator science 

program? 

f. Are there joint appointments with a 

nearby national laboratory or a private 

company engaged in accelerator R&D? 

How many? 

12. Are there successful examples of 

academic programs from other 

technologically-oriented disciplines that 

you believe are relevant to 

establishment or improvement of an 

accelerator science program? What key 

attributes make the program successful? 

(See 11(a)–(f) above). 

13. Are there successful examples of 

academic accelerator science programs 

from other countries that you believe are 

relevant to the U.S. system? What key 

attributes make the programs 

successful? (See 11(a)–(f) above). 

Possible Mechanisms To Encourage 

Academic Accelerator Science 

14. What specific, cost-effective 

actions could be taken to: 

a. Raise the academic status of 

accelerator science? Examples in this 

category might include: Funding named 

accelerator science faculty positions or 

named scholarships. 

b. Improve the business case for 

accelerator science in a university 

setting? Examples in this category might 

include grants and practices designed to 

increase interactions with private 

industry. 

c. Encourage students to choose a 

career in accelerator science and 

technology? Examples in this category 

might include a grant for young faculty 

to conduct R&D in accelerator science, 

a tuition stipend for a co-terminal 

master’s degree, or grants to develop 

instructional materials. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Notices 

d. Increase the enrollment in 

education opportunities at the 

baccalaureate and master’s level? 

e. Increase the availability of handson training opportunities in accelerator 

technology? 

Other Factors 

15. Other than the actual award of 

funding, is there any specific funding 

agency behavior that impacts positively 

or negatively on the success of an 

accelerator science program? 

16. Are there other factors, not 

addressed by the questions above, 

which contribute to the strength or 

weakness of U.S. academic accelerator 

science? 

This RFI is issued to gather 

information that may be used to help 

formulate DOE–HEP funding practices 

and grant mechanisms to strengthen 

academic accelerator science. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2015. 

James Siegrist, 

Associate Director, Office of High Energy 

Physics. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11664 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency & 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number EERE–2015–BT–BC–0001] 

Request for Information: Updating and 

Improving the DOE Methodology for 

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of 

Building Energy Codes 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

extension of the time period for 

submitting comments on the request for 

information on the DOE Methodology 

for Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of 

Building Energy Codes, which was 

originally published in the Federal 

Register on April 14, 2015 (80 FR 

19974). The comment period is 

extended to June 3, 2015. 

DATES: Comments on the RFI must be 

received no later than June 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Instructions: Comments 

must identify the docket number EERE– 

2015–BT–BC–0001 and may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC0001. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

BCMethodology2015BC0001@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2015–BT–BC–0001 in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards; 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Further instructions, including the use 

of topic identifiers, are provided in the 

Public Participation section of the 

original notice. Comments submitted in 

response to the notice will become a 

matter of public records and will be 

made publicly available. 

Public Docket: The docket, which 

includes notices published in the 

Federal Register and public comments 

received, is available for review at 

Regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the Regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed 

in the index, such as those containing 

information exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. A link to the docket Web page 

can be found under Public Participation 

at: http://www.energycodes.gov/events. 

This Web page will also contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on 

Regulations.gov. The Regulations.gov 

site will contain instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review comments 

received, or otherwise participate in the 

public comment process, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586– 

2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

287–1941, Email: jeremiah.williams@

ee.doe.gov. 

For legal matters, contact: Kavita 

Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC–33, 

1000 Independence Ave SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

586–0669, Email: kavita.vaidyanathan@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

14, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE or the Department) published a 

request for information (RFI) in the 

Federal Register (80 FR 19974) to 

request information on how the 

Department may update and improve 

the methodology it intends to use for 

assessing cost effectiveness (which 

includes an energy savings assessment) 

of building energy codes. The RFI 

provided for the submission of 

comments by May 14, 2015. One 

commenter requested an extension of 

the comment period in order to 

sufficiently study and understand the 

proposed changes and their impacts. It 

was also noted that many interested 

stakeholders might also be participating 

in code development hearings held by 

the International Code Council (ICC) 

through April 30th. DOE has concluded 

that an extension of the comment period 

is warranted based on the timing of the 

ICC code development hearings, and is 

hereby extending the public comment 

period through June 3, 2015. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2015. 

Roland Risser, 

Director, Building Technologies Office, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11662 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP15–272–000] 

Regency Field Services, LLC; Notice of 

Application 

Take notice that on April 27, 2015, 

Regency Field Services, LLC (RFS), 2001 

Bryan St., Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas 

75201, filed with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

an application pursuant to section 7(c) 

of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 

157 of the Commission’s regulations 

requesting: (i) A certificate of public 

convenience and necessity authorizing 

RFS to own, operate and maintain its 8 

mile 20-inch diameter Coyanosa 

Residue Line, located in Pecos County, 

Texas, for the purpose of transporting its 

own natural gas; (ii) a blanket 

certificate, pursuant to Part 157, Subpart 

F, of the Commission’s regulations; (iii) 

waivers of certain regulatory 

requirements; and (iv) confirmation that 

the Commission’s assertion of 

jurisdiction over the Coyanosa Residue 

Line will not jeopardize the nonjurisdictional status of RFS’s otherwise 

non-jurisdictional gathering and 

processing facilities and operations, all 

as more fully set forth in the application 

which is on file with the Commission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES