This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

22658 

Vol. 80, No. 78 

Thursday, April 23, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0055] 

RIN 1905–AD50 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Pumps 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2015– 

06945 beginning on page 17585 in the 

issue of Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 

make the following correction: 

On page 17637, in the first column, 

beginning with the third paragraph 

under the section heading ‘‘E. Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ and 

continuing through to the third column, 

on page 17639 up to the heading 

entitled ‘‘VI. Approval of the Office of 

the Secretary’’, revise the existing text to 

read as follows: 

(2) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘pump,’’ ‘‘bare 

pump,’’ ‘‘mechanical equipment,’’ 

‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘control.’’ 

(3) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘continuous 

control’’ and ‘‘non-continuous control.’’ 

(4) DOE also requests comment and 

information regarding how often pumps 

with continuous or non-continuous 

controls are packaged and distributed in 

commerce, by manufacturers, with 

integrated sensors and feedback logic 

that would allow such pumps to 

automatically actuate. 

(5) DOE also requests comment on the 

likelihood of pumps with continuous 

and non-continuous controls being 

distributed in commerce, but never 

paired with any sensor or feedback 

mechanisms that would enable energy 

savings. 

(6) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘basic model’’ 

as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE 

is interested in comments on DOE’s 

proposal to allow manufacturers the 

option of rating pumps with trimmed 

impellers as a single basic model or 

separate basic models, provided the 

rating for each pump model is based on 

the maximum impeller diameter for that 

model. 

(7) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘full impeller.’’ 

(8) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require that all pump 

models be rated in a full impeller 

configuration only. 

(9) DOE requests comment on any 

other characteristics of pumps that are 

unique from other commercial and 

industrial equipment and may require 

modifications to the definition of ‘‘basic 

model,’’ as proposed. 

(10) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed applicability of the test 

procedure to the five pump equipment 

classes noted above, namely ESCC, 

ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for end suction 

pump, end suction frame mounted 

pump, end suction close-coupled pump, 

in-line pump, radially split multi-stage 

vertical in-line casing diffuser pump, 

rotodynamic pump, single axis flow 

pump, and vertical turbine submersible 

pump. 

(12) DOE requests comment on 

whether the references to ANSI/HI 

nomenclature are necessary as part of 

the equipment definitions in the 

regulatory text, are likely to cause 

confusion due to inconsistencies, and 

whether discussing the ANSI/HI 

nomenclature in this preamble would 

provide sufficient reference material for 

manufacturers when determining the 

appropriate equipment class for their 

pump models. 

(13) DOE requests comment on 

whether it needs to clarify the flow 

direction to distinguish RSV pumps 

from other similar pumps when 

determining test procedure and 

standards applicability. 

(14) DOE requests comment on 

whether any additional language is 

necessary in the proposed RSV 

definition to make the exclusion of 

immersible pumps clearer. 

(15) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to exclude circulators and pool 

pumps from the scope of this test 

procedure rulemaking. 

(16) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for circulators and 

dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 

(17) DOE requests comment on the 

extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and 

RSV pumps require attachment to a 

rigid foundation to function as 

designed. 

Specifically, DOE is interested to 

know if any pumps commonly referred 

to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not 

require attachment to a rigid foundation. 

(18) DOE requests comment on its 

initial determination that axial/mixed 

flow and PD pumps are implicitly 

excluded from this rulemaking based on 

the proposed definitions and scope 

parameters. In cases where commenters 

suggest a more explicit exclusion be 

used, DOE requests comment on the 

appropriate changes to the proposed 

definitions or criteria that would be 

needed to appropriately differentiate 

axial/mixed flow and/or PD pumps from 

the specific rotodynamic pumps 

equipment classes proposed for 

coverage in this NOPR. 

(19) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘clean water 

pump.’’ 

(20) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference the 

definition for ‘‘clear water’’ in HI 40.6– 

2014 to describe the testing fluid to be 

used when testing pumps in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure. 

(21) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘fire pump,’’ 

‘‘selfpriming pump,’’ ‘‘prime-assisted 

pump,’’ and ‘‘sealless pump.’’ 

(22) Regarding the proposed 

definition of a self-priming pump, DOE 

notes that such pumps typically include 

a liquid reservoir above or in front of the 

impeller to allow recirculating water 

within the pump during the priming 

cycle. DOE requests comment on any 

other specific design features that 

enable the pump to operate without 

manual re-priming, and whether such 

specificity is needed in the definition 

for clarity. 

(23) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed specifications and criteria to 

determine if a pump is designed to meet 

a specific Military Specification and if 

Military Specifications other than MIL– 

P–17639F should be referenced. 

(24) DOE requests comment on 

excluding the following pumps from the 

test procedure: fire pumps, self-priming 

pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless 

pumps, pumps designed to be used in 

a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 

50—Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities, and pumps 

meeting the design and construction 

requirements set forth in Military 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22659 

Specification MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps, 

Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, 

Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as amended). 

(25) DOE requests comment on the 

listed design characteristics (power, 

flow, head, design temperature, design 

speed, and bowl diameter) as limitations 

on the scope of pumps to which the 

proposed test procedure would apply. 

(26) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘bowl diameter’’ 

as it would apply to VTS pumps. 

(27) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test pumps sold with nonelectric drivers as bare pumps. 

(28) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that any pump distributed in 

commerce with a single-phase induction 

motor be tested and rated in the bare 

pump configuration, using the 

calculation method. 

(29) DOE requests comment from 

interested party on any categories of 

electric motors, except submersible 

motors, that: (1) Are used with pumps 

considered in this rulemaking and (2) 

typically have efficiencies lower than 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA 

Design B, or IEC Design N motors. . . . 

(30) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed load points and weighting for 

PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold 

with motors and PEIVL for pumps 

inclusive of motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls. 

(31) DOE requests comments on the 

proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric 

architecture. 

(32) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to base the default motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump on that of the pump being 

evaluated. That is, the motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump would be based on the calculated 

pump shaft input power of the pump 

when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP 

flow for bare pumps and the horsepower 

of the motor with which that pump is 

sold for pumps sold with motors and 

controls (with or without continuous or 

non-continuous controls). 

(33) DOE requests comment on using 

HI 40.6–2014 as the basis of the DOE 

test procedure for pumps. 

(34) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to not incorporate by reference 

section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and 

appendix B of HI 40.6–2014 as part of 

the DOE test procedure. 

(35) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that data be 

collected at least every 5 seconds for all 

measured quantities. 

(36) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow dampening devices, as 

described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with 

the proviso noted above (i.e., permitted 

to integrate up to the data collection 

interval, or 5 seconds). 

(37) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require data collected at the 

pump speed measured during testing to 

be normalized to the nominal speeds of 

1,800 and 3,600. 

(38) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the requirements in 

HI 40.6–2014 regarding the deviation of 

tested speed from nominal speed and 

the variation of speed during the test. 

Specifically, DOE is interested if 

maintaining tested speed within ±1 

percent of the nominal speed is feasible 

and whether this approach would 

produce more accurate and repeatable 

test results. 

(39) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 

unbalance, total harmonic distortion, 

and impedance requirements that are 

required when performing a wire-towater pump test or when testing a bare 

pump with a calibrated motor. 

Specifically, DOE requests comments on 

whether these tolerances can be 

achieved in typical pump test labs, or 

whether specialized power supplies or 

power conditioning equipment would 

be required. 

(40) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in 

their 3- and 9-stage versions, 

respectively, or the next closest number 

of stages if the pump model is not 

distributed in commerce with that 

particular number of stages. 

(41) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to use a linear regression of the 

pump shaft input power with respect to 

flow rate at all the tested flow points 

greater than or equal to 60 percent of 

expected BEP flow to determine the 

pump shaft input power at the specific 

load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent 

of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pump models for 

which such an approach would yield 

inaccurate measurements. 

(42) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that for pumps with BEP at 

run-out, the BEP would be determined 

at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent 

of expected BEP flow instead of the 

seven data points described in section 

40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2014 and that the 

constant load points for pumps with 

BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 

percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, 

and 75 percent of BEP flow. 

(43) DOE requests comment on the 

type and accuracy of required 

measurement equipment, especially the 

equipment required for electrical power 

measurements for pumps sold with 

motors having continuous or 

noncontinuous controls. 

(44) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to conduct all calculations and 

corrections to nominal speed using raw 

measured values and that the PERCL 

and PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL, as 

applicable, be reported to the nearest 

0.01. 

(45) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the default motor 

horsepower for rating bare pumps based 

on the pump shaft input power at 120 

percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pumps for which the 

120 percent of BEP flow load point 

would not be an appropriate basis to 

determine the default motor horsepower 

(e.g., pumps for which the 120 percent 

of BEP flow load point is a significantly 

lower horsepower than the BEP flow 

load point). 

(46) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that would specify the default, 

minimally compliant nominal full load 

motor efficiency based on the applicable 

minimally allowed nominal full load 

motor efficiency specified in DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and 

IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 

for all pumps except pumps sold with 

submersible motors. 

(47) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed default minimum full load 

motor efficiency values for submersible 

motors. 

(48) DOE requests comment on 

defining the proposed default minimum 

motor full load efficiency values for 

submersible motors relative to the most 

current minimum efficiency standards 

levels for regulated electric motors, 

through the use of ‘‘bands’’ as presented 

in Table III.6. 

(49) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow the use of the default 

minimum submersible motor full load 

efficiency values presented in Table III.6 

to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps 

sold with submersible motors, and (3) 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

and continuous or noncontinuous 

controls as an option instead of wire-towater testing. 

(50) DOE requests comment on the 

development and use of the motor part 

load loss factor curves to describe part 

load performance of covered motors and 

submersible motors including the 

default motor specified in section III.D.1 

for bare pumps and calculation of 

PERSTD. 

(51) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the part load 

losses of motors covered by DOE’s 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow based on the nominal full load 

efficiency of the motor, as determined in 

accordance with DOE’s electric motor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

test procedure, and the same default 

motor part load loss curve applied to the 

default motor in test method A.1 for the 

bare pump. 

(52) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the PERCL of 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

using the proposed default minimum 

efficiency values for submersible motors 

and applying the same default motor 

part load loss curve to the default motor 

in test method A.1 for the bare pump. 

(53) DOE also requests comment on 

its proposal that pumps sold with 

motors that are not addressed by DOE’s 

electric motors test procedure (except 

submersible motors) would be rated 

based on a wire-to-water, testing-based 

approach. 

(54) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed system curve shape to use, as 

well as whether the curve should go 

through the origin instead of the 

statically loaded offset. 

(55) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed calculation approach for 

determining pump shaft input power for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls when rated using the 

calculation-based method. 

(56) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to adopt four part load loss 

factor equations expressed as a function 

of the load on the motor (i.e., motor 

brake horsepower) to calculate the 

losses of a combined motor and 

continuous controls, where the four 

curves would correspond to different 

horsepower ratings of the continuous 

control. 

(57) DOE also requests comment on 

the accuracy of the proposed equation 

compared to one that accounts for 

multiple performance variables (speed 

and torque). 

(58) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed 5 percent scaling factor that 

was applied to the measured VSD 

efficiency data to generate the proposed 

coefficients of the four part load loss 

curves. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on whether another scaling 

factor or no scaling factor would be 

more appropriate in this context. 

(59) DOE requests comment on the 

variability of control horsepower ratings 

that might be distributed in commerce 

with a given pump and motor 

horsepower. 

(60) DOE requests comment and data 

from interested parties regarding the 

extent to which the assumed default 

part load loss curve would represent 

minimum efficiency motor and 

continuous control combinations. 

(61) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require testing of each 

individual bare pump as the basis for a 

certified PEICL or PEIVL rating for one 

or more pump basic models. 

(62) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to limit the use of calculations 

and algorithms in the determination of 

pump performance to the calculationbased methods proposed in this NOPR. 

(63) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine BEP for pumps 

rated with a testing-based method by 

using the ratio of input power to the 

driver or continuous control, if any, 

over pump hydraulic output. DOE also 

seeks input on the degree to which this 

method may yield significantly different 

BEP points from the case where BEP is 

determined based on pump efficiency. 

(64) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls. 

(65) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

determining the input power to the 

pump for pumps sold with motors and 

non-continuous controls. 

(66) DOE requests comment on any 

other type of non-continuous control 

that may be sold with a pump and for 

which the proposed test procedure 

would not apply. 

(67) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to establish calculation-based 

test methods as the required test method 

for bare pumps and testing-based 

methods as the required test method for 

pumps sold with motors that are not 

regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

energy conservation standards, except 

for submersible motors, or for pumps 

sold with any motors and with 

noncontinuous controls. 

(68) DOE also requests comment on 

the proposal to allow either testingbased methods or calculation-based 

methods to be used to rate pumps sold 

with continuous control-equipped 

motors that are either (1) regulated by 

DOE’s electric motor standards or (2) 

submersible motors. 

(69) DOE requests comment on the 

level of burden to include with any 

certification requirements the reporting 

of the test method used by a 

manufacturer to certify a given pump 

basic model as compliant with any 

energy conservation standards DOE may 

set. 

(70) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed sampling plan for certification 

of commercial and industrial pump 

models. 

(71) DOE requests comment regarding 

the size of pump manufacturing entities 

and the number of manufacturing 

businesses represented by this market. 

(72) DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that, for most pump models, 

only physical testing of the underlying 

bare pump model is required, and 

subsequent ratings for that bare pump 

sold with a motor or motor and 

continuous control can be based on 

calculations only. 

(73) DOE requests information on the 

percentage of pump models for which 

the rating of the bare pump, pump sold 

with a motor, and pump sold with a 

motor and controls cannot be based on 

the same fundamental physical test of 

the bare pump. For example, DOE is 

interested in the number of pump 

models sold with motors that are not 

covered by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors or the 

number of pump models sold with 

controls that would not meet DOE’s 

definition of continuous control. 

(74) DOE requests comment on the 

testing currently conducted by pump 

manufacturers and the magnitude of 

incremental changes necessary to 

transform current test facilities to 

conduct the DOE test procedure as 

described in this NOPR. 

(75) DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that using a non-calibrated 

test motor and VFD would be the most 

common and least costly approach for 

testing bare pumps in accordance with 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

(76) DOE requests comment on the 

estimates of materials and costs to build 

a pump testing facility as presented. 

(77) DOE requests comment on the 

test facility description and 

measurement equipment assumed in 

DOE’s estimate of burden. 

(78) DOE requests comment and 

information regarding the burden 

associated with achieving the power 

quality requirements proposed in the 

NOPR. 

(79) DOE requests comment on the 

number of pump models per 

manufacturer that would be required to 

use the wire-to-water test method to 

certify pump performance. 

(80) DOE requests comment on the 

estimation of the portion of pumps that 

would need to be newly certified or 

recertified annually. 

(81) DOE requests comment on the 

use of annual sales as the financial 

indicator for this analysis and whether 

another financial indicator would be 

more representative to assess the burden 

upon the pump manufacturing industry. 

(82) DOE requests comment on its 

conclusion that the proposed rule may 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

feedback on the assumptions and 

estimates made in the analysis of 

burden associated with implementing 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22661 

(83) DOE requests comment on the 

burden estimate to comply with the 

proposed recordkeeping requirements. 

[FR Doc. C1–2015–06945 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 361, 363, and 397 

[Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0001] 

State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported 

Employment Services Program; 

Limitations on Use of Subminimum 

Wage 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces 

plans to hold two public meetings to 

seek comments about the proposed 

regulatory changes contained in a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 16, 2015, which would 

implement statutory changes to the 

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

and the State Supported Employment 

Services programs, as well as provisions 

governing Limitations on the Use of 

Subminimum Wage that fall under the 

Secretary’s purview. The statutory 

changes made by the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA), which amended the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Rehabilitation Act), form the basis for 

this NPRM. In addition, the Secretary 

proposes to update, clarify, and improve 

the current regulations. 

DATES: The meetings will take place on 

April 30, 2015, and May 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: We will hold two public 

meetings about the NPRM: 

1. April 30, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 

p.m. EDT, Washington-Lyndon Baines 

Johnson (LBJ), U.S. Department of 

Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. 

SW., Barnard Auditorium, Washington, 

DC 20202. 

2. May 20, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 

p.m. PDT, Sacramento—California 

Department of Rehabilitation, 721 

Capitol Mall, Room 242, Sacramento, 

CA 95814. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet LaBreck, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5086, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7488 or by email: 

Janet.LaBreck@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: 

Background 

The Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113– 

128), signed into law on July 22, 2014, 

made significant changes to the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Rehabilitation Act). As a result, in the 

separate NPRM (80 FR 21059, April 16, 

2015), the Secretary proposes to amend 

parts 361 and 363 of title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). These 

parts, respectively, implement the: 

• State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

Services program; and 

• State Supported Employment 

Services program. 

In addition, WIOA added section 511 

to title V of the Act. Section 511 limits 

the payment of subminimum wages to 

individuals with disabilities by 

employers holding special wage 

certificates under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA). Although the 

Department of Labor administers the 

FLSA, some requirements of section 511 

fall under the purview of the 

Department of Education. Therefore, the 

Secretary proposes to add a new part 

397 to title 34 of the CFR to implement 

those particular provisions. 

The proposed changes are further 

described under the Summary of 

Proposed Changes and Significant 

Proposed Regulations sections of the 

separate NPRM related to 34 CFR parts 

361, 363, and 397. 

Announcement of Public Meetings: 

The Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services will hold two 

public meetings during April and May 

of 2015. The meetings will provide the 

public with the opportunity to present 

public comments on only the separate 

NPRM amending 34 CFR parts 361, 363, 

and 397, which is the NPRM associated 

with Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0001. 

It is likely that each participant will be 

limited to five minutes. Speakers may 

also submit written comments at the 

public meetings. In addition, the 

Department will accept written 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov, as explained in 

the separate NPRM. This notice 

provides specific information about 

dates, locations, and times of these 

meetings in the ADDRESSES section. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities may obtain this document in 

an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities at the Public Meetings: The 

meeting sites are accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, and sign 

language interpreters will be available. 

If you will need an accommodation or 

auxiliary aid other than a sign language 

interpreter in order to participate in the 

meeting (e.g., other interpreting service 

such as oral, cued speech, or tactile 

interpreter; assistive listening device; or 

materials in accessible format), please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 

two weeks before the scheduled meeting 

date. Although we will attempt to meet 

a request we receive after this date, we 

may not be able to make available the 

requested accommodation or auxiliary 

aid because of insufficient time to 

arrange it. 

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 this 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 of this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 13, 2015. 

Sue Swenson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09318 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 501 

Revisions to the Requirements for 

Authority To Manufacture and 

Distribute Postage Evidencing 

Systems 

AGENCY: Postal Service.TM

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

proposing to revise the rules concerning 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS