Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices 57371 

Contract No. 89-00-1501- Customer Capacity 

allocation 

Average 

energy 

Cost allocation 

factor 

1223 ........................................ Mecklenburg EMC .................................................................. 11,344 30,806,162 6.940303% 

1224 ........................................ Northern Neck EC .................................................................. 3,944 10,572,278 2.381823% 

1225 ........................................ Northern Virginia EC .............................................................. 3,268 8,875,341 1.999521% 

860 .......................................... Pee Dee EMC ........................................................................ 2,968 8,839,562 1.991460% 

861 .......................................... Piedmont EMC ....................................................................... 1,086 3,234,540 0.728708% 

862 .......................................... Pitt & Greene EMC ................................................................ 1,580 4,705,697 1.060144% 

1226 ........................................ Prince George EC .................................................................. 2,530 6,781,913 1.527893% 

863 .......................................... Randolph EMC ....................................................................... 3,608 10,745,666 2.420885% 

1227 ........................................ Rappahannock EC ................................................................. 22,427 60,450,624 13.618889% 

1233 ........................................ Roanoke EMC ........................................................................ 5,528 14,904,403 3.357805% 

1228 ........................................ Shenandoah Valley EMC ....................................................... 9,938 26,943,520 6.070091% 

864 .......................................... South River EMC ................................................................... 6,119 18,224,150 4.105709% 

1229 ........................................ Southside EC ......................................................................... 14,575 39,381,017 8.872128% 

865 .......................................... Tideland EMC ......................................................................... 680 2,025,236 0.456264% 

1234 ........................................ Tideland EMC ......................................................................... 2,418 6,554,050 1.476558% 

870 .......................................... Town of Apex ......................................................................... 145 109,482 0.024665% 

871 .......................................... Town of Ayden ....................................................................... 208 157,049 0.035381% 

893 .......................................... Town of Belhaven .................................................................. 182 137,418 0.030959% 

872 .......................................... Town of Benson ..................................................................... 120 90,605 0.020412% 

1212 ........................................ Town of Blackstone ................................................................ 389 292,568 0.065912% 

873 .......................................... Town of Clayton ..................................................................... 161 121,562 0.027387% 

1213 ........................................ Town of Culpepper ................................................................. 391 297,916 0.067117% 

894 .......................................... Town of Edenton .................................................................... 775 585,159 0.131830% 

1214 ........................................ Town of Elkton ....................................................................... 171 128,609 0.028974% 

1218 ........................................ Town of Enfield ...................................................................... 259 194,810 0.043889% 

874 .......................................... Town of Farmville ................................................................... 237 178,946 0.040315% 

876 .......................................... Town of Fremont .................................................................... 60 45,303 0.010206% 

896 .......................................... Town of Hamilton ................................................................... 40 30,202 0.006804% 

897 .......................................... Town of Hertford .................................................................... 203 153,274 0.034531% 

898 .......................................... Town of Hobgood ................................................................... 46 34,732 0.007825% 

877 .......................................... Town of Hookerton ................................................................. 30 22,651 0.005103% 

879 .......................................... Town of La Grange ................................................................ 93 70,219 0.015820% 

868 .......................................... Town of Louisburg .................................................................. 857 2,552,452 0.575041% 

883 .......................................... Town of Pikeville .................................................................... 40 30,202 0.006804% 

884 .......................................... Town of Red Springs ............................................................. 117 88,340 0.019902% 

1207 ........................................ Town of Richlands .................................................................. 500 377,569 0.085062% 

899 .......................................... Town of Robersonville ............................................................ 232 175,170 0.039464% 

900 .......................................... Town of Scotland Neck .......................................................... 304 229,533 0.051711% 

886 .......................................... Town of Selma ....................................................................... 183 138,173 0.031129% 

887 .......................................... Town of Smithfield .................................................................. 378 285,407 0.064299% 

901 .......................................... Town of Tarboro ..................................................................... 2,145 1,619,568 0.364872% 

888 .......................................... Town of Wake Forest ............................................................. 149 112,501 0.025345% 

1217 ........................................ Town of Wakefield .................................................................. 106 79,723 0.017961% 

1219 ........................................ Town of Windsor .................................................................... 331 248,946 0.056085% 

866 .......................................... Tri-County EMC ...................................................................... 3,096 9,220,782 2.077345% 

867 .......................................... Wake EMC ............................................................................. 2,164 6,445,017 1.451994% 

Total ................................. ................................................................................................. 196,500 443,873,428 ........................

Energy to be Furnished by the 

Government: 

The Government will sell to the 

Customer and the Customer will 

purchase from the Government energy 

each billing month equivalent to a 

percentage specified by contract of the 

energy made available to the Facilitator 

(less any losses required by the 

Facilitator). The customer’s contract 

demand and accompanying energy will 

be allocated proportionately to its 

individual delivery points served from 

the Facilitator’s system. 

Billing Month: 

The billing month for power sold 

under this schedule shall end at 12:00 

midnight on the last day of each 

calendar month. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24196 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9934–35–Region 10] 

Issuance of NPDES General Permit for 

Tribal Marine Net Pen Enhancement 

Facilities in Washington State (Permit 

Number WAG132000) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

NPDES General Permit. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Office of Water 

and Watersheds, EPA Region 10 is 

publishing notice of availability of the 

final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Tribal Marine Net Pen 

Enhancement Facilities in Washington 

State (General Permit). The General 

Permit authorizes discharges to Waters 

of the U.S. within the State of 

Washington. The General Permit 

contains effluent limitations, along with 

administrative reporting and monitoring 

requirements, as well as standard 

conditions, prohibitions, and 

management practices. 

DATES: The issuance date of the General 

Permit is September 23, 2015. The 

effective date of this General Permit will 

be November 1, 2015. Existing operators 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

57372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices 

must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

discharge no more than 30 days 

following the effective date of this 

general permit. New operators must 

submit NOIs at least 180 days prior to 

initiation of operations. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the General 

Permit and Response to Comments are 

available through written requests 

submitted to EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, OWW–191, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Electronic requests may be 

sent to: washington.audrey@epa.gov. 

For requests by phone, call Audrey 

Washington at (206) 553–0523. 

The General Permit, Fact Sheet, and 

Response to Comments may be found on 

the Region 10 Web site at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/

npdes+permits/general+npdes+ 

permits/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and 

Watersheds, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Mail Stop 

OWW–191, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101–3140, at (206) 553– 

0325 or gockel.catherine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531 

et al.]: EPA has analyzed the discharges 

proposed to be authorized by the 

General Permit, and their potential to 

adversely affect threatened or 

endangered species or their designated 

critical habitat areas in the vicinity of 

the discharges. Based on this analysis, 

EPA has determined that the issuance of 

this permit will have no effect to any 

threatened or endangered species in the 

vicinity of the discharge. Therefore, ESA 

consultation was not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et.seq.] and 

Other Federal Requirements: 

Regulations at 40 CFR 122.49 list the 

federal laws that may apply to the 

issuance of permits i.e., ESA, National 

Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal 

Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 

(CZARA), NEPA, and Executive Orders, 

among others. The NEPA compliance 

program requires analysis of 

information regarding potential impacts, 

development and analysis of options to 

avoid or minimize impacts, and 

development and analysis of measures 

to mitigate adverse impacts. EPA 

determined that no Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) or Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs) are required 

under NEPA. EPA also determined that 

CZARA does not apply. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management 

and Conservation Act requires EPA to 

consult with NOAA–NMFS when a 

proposed discharge has the potential to 

adversely affect a designated EFH. The 

EFH regulations define an adverse effect 

as ‘‘any impact which reduces quality 

and/or quantity of EFH... [and] may 

include direct (e.g. contamination or 

physical disruption), indirect (e.g. loss 

of prey, reduction in species’ fecundity), 

site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, 

including individual, cumulative, or 

synergistic consequences of actions.’’ 

NMFS may recommend measures for 

attachment to the federal action to 

protect EFH; however, such 

recommendations are advisory, and not 

prescriptive in nature. EPA has 

evaluated the General Permit and has 

made the determination that issuance of 

the General Permit will have no effect 

on EFH. 

Executive Order 12866: The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

exempts this action from the review 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

pursuant to Section 6 of that order. 

Economic Impact [Executive Order 

12291]: The EPA has reviewed the effect 

of Executive Order 12291 on this 

General Permit and has determined that 

it is not a major rule pursuant to that 

Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.]: The EPA has reviewed the 

requirements imposed on regulated 

facilities in the General Permit and finds 

them consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.]: The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) requires that EPA prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 

rules subject to the requirements of the 

Administrative Procedures Act [APA, 5 

U.S.C. 553] that have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, EPA has concluded 

that NPDES General Permits are not 

rulemakings under the APA, and thus 

not subject to APA rulemaking 

requirements or the RFA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, generally requires Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions (defined to be the 

same as rules subject to the RFA) on 

tribal, state, and local governments, and 

the private sector. However, General 

NPDES Permits are not rules subject to 

the requirements of the APA, and are, 

therefore, not subject to the UMRA. 

Appeal of Permit 

Any interested person may appeal the 

General Permit in the Federal Court of 

Appeals in accordance with section 

509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1369(b)(1). This appeal must be 

filed within 120 days of the General 

Permit issuance date. Affected persons 

may not challenge the conditions of the 

General Permit in further EPA 

proceedings (see 40 CFR 124.19). 

Instead, they may either challenge the 

General Permit in court or apply for an 

individual NPDES permit. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of Section 402 of the Clean Water 

Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1342. 

Dated: September 9, 2015. 

Daniel D. Opalski, 

Director, Office of Water & Watersheds, 

Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23477 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[DA 15–1002] 

Disability Advisory Committee; 

Announcement of Next Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

date of the next meeting of the 

Commission’s Disability Advisory 

Committee (Committee or DAC). The 

meeting is open to the public. During 

this meeting, members of the Committee 

will receive and discuss summaries of 

activities and recommendations from its 

subcommittees. 

DATES: The Committee’s next meeting 

will take place on Thursday, October 8, 

2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST). 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, in the 

Commission Meeting Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elaine Gardner, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau: 202–418– 

0581 (voice); email: DAC@fcc.gov; or 

Suzy Rosen Singleton, Alternate DAC 

Designated Federal Officer, Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau: 202– 

510–9446 (VP/voice), at the same email 

address: DAC@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee was established in December 

2014 to make recommendations to the 

Commission on a wide array of 

disability matters within the jurisdiction 

of the Commission, and to facilitate the 

participation of people with disabilities 

in proceedings before the Commission. 

The Committee is organized under, and 

operated in accordance with, the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES