Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13803 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the EASA; or Airbus’s EASA DOA. If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(p) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2014–0012R1, dated 

January 24, 2014, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2015–0490. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email 

airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may 

view this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 2, 

2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05720 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

[Docket No.: ED–2015–OII–0006; (CFDA) 

Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up grants), 

84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C 

(Development grants)] 

RIN 1855–ZA10 

Proposed Priority—Investing in 

Innovation Fund; Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes a priority under 

the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use 

this priority for competitions in fiscal 

year (FY) 2015 and later years. The 

proposed priority would not repeal or 

replace currently established priorities 

for this program. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal 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 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 about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Allison 

Moss, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

4W319, Washington, DC 20202–5930. 

Privacy Note: The Department of 

Education’s (Department) policy is to make 

all comments received from members of the 

public 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Moss. Telephone: (202) 205– 

7726 or by email: Allison.moss@ed.gov. 

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: 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: In this 

document, the Department proposes a 

priority for the i3 program that would 

promote the implementation of 

comprehensive high school reform and 

redesign strategies. This proposed 

priority could be used in the 

Development, Validation, or Scale-up 

tier of the i3 program in future years, as 

appropriate. 

Costs and Benefits: The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary believes that the 

proposed priority would not impose 

significant costs on eligible applicants 

seeking assistance through the i3 

program. 

The proposed priority is designed to 

be used in conjunction with several 

priorities that have already been 

established under the i3 program, and 

no priority, whether it is used as an 

absolute or competitive preference 

priority, affects the overall amount of 

funding available to individual 

applicants in any given fiscal year. 

In addition, we note that participation 

in this program is voluntary. Potential 

applicants need to consider carefully 

the effort that will be required to 

prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement a project 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. We 

believe that the costs imposed on 

applicants by the proposed priority 

would be limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

that the benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. The costs of 

carrying out activities would be paid for 

with program funds and with matching 

funds provided by private-sector 

partners. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for any eligible applicants, including 

small entities. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in Room 

4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in 

order to schedule a time to inspect 

comments in person. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The i3 program 

addresses two related challenges. First, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13804 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., 

Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout 

Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc (see Recommendation 6); 

Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Smith, T. (2005). Making 

progress toward graduation: Evidence from the 

Talent Development High School model. New York: 

MDRC. IES Intervention Report Available at: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

interventionreport.aspx?sid=506; and Forbes, J. 

(2011). A model for success: CART’s Linked 

Learning program increases college enrollment. 

Clovis, CA: The Center for Advanced Research and 

Technology. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

Quick Review Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/

wwc/quickreviewsum.aspx?sid=171. 

2U.S. Department of Education, IES, WWC 

(March 2014). WWC review of the report: Early 

college, early success: Early College High School 

Initiative impact study. Retrieved from http://

whatworks.ed.gov; and An, B. P. (2012). The impact 

of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do 

low-SES students benefit? Educational Evaluation 

and Policy Analysis, 35, 57–75. WWC Single Study 

Review Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

singlestudyreview.aspx?sid=20004. 

3Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., Lehr, C.A., & 

Anderson, A.R. (2003). Facilitating student 

engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect 

longitudinal studies. The California School 

Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42. IES Intervention Report 

Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

interventionreport.aspx?sid=78. 

4 Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., 

Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout 

Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc (see 

Recommendation 5). 

5 Kemple, J. J., & Snipes, J. C. (2000). Career 

Academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and 

performance in high school. New York: MDRC 

(Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation). 

IES Intervention Report Available at: http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

interventionreport.aspx?sid=70. 

6National Research Council (2011). Successful K– 

12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective 

Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful 

Science Programs for K–12 Science Education. 

Board on Science Education and Board on Testing 

and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. Available at: http://

www.stemreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/

06/NRC_STEM_2.pdf. 

7Fryer, Roland G. (April 2014). Injecting Charter 

School Best Practices into Traditional Public 

Schools: Evidence from Field Experiments. 

Available at: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/

files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_

into_traditional_public_schools.pdf; Sinclair, M. F., 

Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. 

(2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons 

learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. 

The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42. IES 

Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78; and 

Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, 

T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the 

Talent Search program on secondary and 

postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and 

Texas: Final report from phase II of the national 

evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy 

Research for the U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. IES 

Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=508. 

8Bloom, D., Gardenhire-Crooks, A., & Mandsager, 

C. (2009). Reengaging high school dropouts: Early 

results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe 

Program evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC; Cave, 

G., Bos, H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993). 

JOBSTART: Final report on a program for school 

there are too few practices in education 

supported by rigorous evidence of 

effectiveness, despite national attention 

paid to finding practices that are 

effective in improving education 

outcomes in the decade since the 

establishment of the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences. Second, 

there are limited incentives to expand 

effective practices substantially and to 

use those practices to serve more 

students across schools, districts, and 

States. As a result, students do not 

always have access to high-quality 

programs. 

The i3 program addresses these two 

challenges through its multi-tier 

structure that links the amount of 

funding that an applicant may receive to 

the quality of the evidence supporting 

the efficacy of the proposed project. 

Applicants proposing practices 

supported by limited evidence can 

receive small grants to support the 

development and initial evaluation of 

promising practices and help to identify 

new solutions to pressing challenges; 

applicants proposing practices 

supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations, such as large randomized 

controlled trials, can receive 

substantially larger grants to support 

expansion across the Nation. This 

structure provides incentives for 

applicants to build evidence of 

effectiveness of their proposed projects 

and to address the barriers to serving 

more students across schools, districts, 

and States so that applicants can 

compete for more sizeable grants. 

As importantly, all i3 projects are 

required to generate additional evidence 

of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use 

part of their grant award to conduct 

independent evaluations of their 

projects. This ensures that projects 

funded under the i3 program contribute 

significantly to improving the 

information available to practitioners 

and policymakers about which practices 

work, for which types of students, and 

in which contexts. More information 

about the i3 program, including 

information about eligible applicants, 

can be found in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, published in the 

Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 

FR 18682). 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 

111–5. 

Proposed Priority: This notice 

contains one proposed priority. 

Proposed Priority—Implementing 

Comprehensive High School Reform 

and Redesign 

Background 

The Department has conducted five 

competitions under the i3 program and 

awarded 143 i3 grants since the program 

was established under ARRA. 

In FY 2015, Congress directed the 

Department, in making new awards 

with FY 2015 i3 funds, to establish a 

priority to support high school reform 

that will increase the number and 

percentage of students who graduate 

from high school and enroll in 

postsecondary education without the 

need for remediation and with the 

ability to think critically, solve complex 

problems, evaluate arguments on the 

basis of evidence, and communicate 

effectively. Congress further 

recommended that the Department use 

this priority to support schools where 

not less than 40 percent of students are 

from low-income families. 

There is a growing body of evidence 

about what works in comprehensive 

high school reform. Interventions 

supported by research include: 

Implementing a rigorous college- and 

career-ready curriculum that links 

student work and real-world 

experiences; 1 providing accelerated 

learning opportunities that allow 

students to earn credit toward a 

postsecondary degree, including dual 

enrollment programs and early college 

high schools; 2 implementing early 

warning indicator systems to identify 

and target supports for struggling 

students; 3 personalizing learning for 

students; 4 and strengthening 

relationships with business and postsecondary partners, linking student 

work to real-world expectations and 

experiences.5 There is a particular need 

to improve readiness for college and 

careers in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

fields, both because these are highgrowth fields and because too many of 

our high schools fall short in this area.6

There is also substantial evidence that 

demonstrates that comprehensive 

academic supports for high school 

students can improve student outcomes, 

increasing high school graduation and 

college preparation,7 including for atrisk students.8


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13805 

dropouts. New York, NY: MDRC. IES Intervention 

Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

interventionreport.aspx?sid=248; and Larson, K. A., 

& Rumberger, R. W. (1995). ALAS: Achievement for 

Latinos through Academic Success. In H. Thornton 

(Ed.), Staying in school. A technical report of three 

dropout prevention projects for junior high school 

students with learning and emotional disabilities. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 

Institute on Community Integration. IES 

Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=22. 

The Department expects that any high 

school reform strategy would, at a 

minimum, be designed to improve 

outcomes for all students in a school, 

and these strategies may be composed 

from a variety of activities and 

interventions, including, but not limited 

to, those outlined above. In addition, for 

this proposed priority, we are also 

interested in projects that are designed 

to prepare students with the skills 

necessary to succeed in postsecondary 

programs, such as critical thinking, 

persistence, solving complex and nonroutine problems, making arguments 

using evidence, and communicating 

effectively. 

To better ensure that projects 

addressing this proposed priority will 

improve outcomes for high-need 

students, and to ensure that this 

proposed priority serves the populations 

intended by Congress, we seek projects 

that will be implemented in high 

schools that are eligible to operate Title 

I schoolwide programs under Section 

1114 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

Through this proposed priority, we aim 

to expand the development, use, and 

evidence base of effective strategies for 

helping high-need students attain the 

skills they need to succeed in college, 

career, and life. 

Proposed Priority—Implementing 

Comprehensive High School Reform 

and Redesign 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to support comprehensive high 

school reform and redesign strategies in 

high schools eligible to operate Title I 

schoolwide programs under section 

1114 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

These strategies must be designed to 

increase the number and percentage of 

students who graduate from high school 

college- and career-ready and enroll in 

college, other postsecondary education, 

or other career and technical education. 

These strategies could include 

elements such as implementing a 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

curriculum; providing accelerated 

learning opportunities; supporting 

personalized learning; developing 

robust links between student work and 

real-world experiences to better prepare 

students for their future; improving the 

readiness of students for post-secondary 

education in STEM fields; or reducing 

the need for remediation, among others. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Note: In the i3 competition, each 

application must choose to address one of the 

absolute priorities and projects are grouped 

by that absolute priority for the purposes of 

peer review and funding determinations. In 

FY 2015, Congress directed the Department 

to establish the priority proposed in this 

document as an absolute priority. 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This proposed regulatory action, i.e., 

the addition of the proposed priority for 

implementing comprehensive high 

school reform and redesign, is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify their costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13806 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

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. 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05956 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 648 

[Docket No. 141125999–5195–01] 

RIN 0648–BE68 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

and Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 

Framework Adjustment 26; 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Sea Turtle Conservation 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

and implement through regulations 

measures included in Framework 

Adjustment 26 to the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery Management Plan, 

which the New England Fishery 

Management Council adopted and 

submitted to NMFS for approval. The 

purpose of Framework 26 is to prevent 

overfishing, improve yield-per-recruit, 

and improve the overall management of 

the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. The 

Framework 26 proposed measures 

would also: Close a portion of the 

Elephant Trunk Access Area and extend 

the boundaries of the Nantucket 

Lightship Access Area to protect small 

scallops; adjust the State Waters 

Exemption Program; allow for Vessel 

Monitoring System declaration changes 

for vessels to steam home with product 

on board; implement a proactive 

accountability measure to protect 

windowpane flounder and yellowtail 

flounder; align two gear measures 

designed to protect sea turtles; and 

implement other measures to improve 

the management of the scallop fishery. 

Aligning the gear designed to protect sea 

turtles involves modifying existing 

regulations implemented under the 

Endangered Species Act; therefore, this 

action would be implemented under 

joint authority of the Endangered 

Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Council developed an 

environmental assessment (EA) for this 

action that describes the proposed 

measures and other considered 

alternatives and provides a thorough 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

measures and alternatives. Copies of the 

Framework, the EA, and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

are available upon request from Thomas 

A. Nies, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 

01950. 

You may submit comments on this 

document, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0002, by either of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0002, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope, 

‘‘Comments on Scallop Framework 26 

Proposed Rule.’’ 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to the Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and 

by email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9315. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The scallop fishery’s management 

unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine 

through North Carolina to the outer 

boundary of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone. The Scallop Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP), established in 1982, 

includes a number of amendments and 

framework adjustments that have 

revised and refined the fishery’s 

management. The Council sets scallop 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS