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

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 ............................................................. 11 7 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 .......................................................... 304229,533 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


### 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