### 21386 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Notices

validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on the following proposed collection of information: Request for Information, National 9–1–1 Program

Type of Request: New information collection requirement.

OMB Clearance Number: N/A. FORM Number: This collection of information uses no standard forms.

Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of approval.

Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA is proposing to issue annual RFIs seeking comments from all sources (public, private, governmental, academic, professional, public interest groups, and other interested parties) on operational priorities for the National Program.

The National 9–1–1 Program currently provides:

Program and policy coordination across Federal agencies. Support to Public Safety Answering Points and related State and local agencies for 9–1– 1 deployment and operations. NHTSA intends to use the National 9–1–1 Program to work cooperatively with public and private 9–1–1 stakeholders to establish a vision for the future of 9– 1–1 services in the Nation. The RFIs will solicit comments on the priorities and strategies of the National 9–1–1 Program to accomplish its functions, goals and vision. In addition, the RFIs will obtain expressions of interest in participating as partners and will request responses to specific questions, including critical 9–1–1 issues, benefits to stakeholders, available data and methods of collection, etc. These RFIs will NOT seek comment on the 9–1–1 grant program administered by the NHTSA. The RFIs will not include requests for proposals or invitations for bids.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information: The 9–1–1 constituency is a diverse group of entities, including:

Government Agencies: • Local, State and Federal policy, regulation, and funding agencies.

• Local and State emergency communications agencies.

• Local, State and Federal emergency response agencies.

Non-Governmental Organizations:

• Professional and industry associations.

• Standards Development Organizations.

• Citizen and special interest advocacy organizations.

• Private emergency response and recovery organizations.

• Research and academic organizations.

IT/Telecommunications Service Providers:

• ‘‘ Traditional ’’ telecommunication service providers.

• ‘‘Public Safety/emergency’’ service providers.

• ‘‘ Other’’ IT/telecommunication application service providers.

• IP-network access infrastructure/ service providers.

IT/Telecommunications Equipment Providers:

• Equipment and support service suppliers to ‘‘traditional ’’ telecommunication companies.

• Equipment and support service suppliers to IT network providers.

• ‘‘Public Safety/emergency services network’’ equipment providers.

• Personal communication device providers.

Third Party Emergency Call Centers:

• Third party service providers such as telematics, poison control, medical alert, central alarm monitoring, relay services, and N9–1–1 services.

In order to collect information needed to develop and implement effective strategies for the National 9–1–1 Program to provide leadership, coordination, guidance and direction to the enhancement of the Nation’s 9–1–1 services, NHTSA must utilize efficient and effective means of eliciting the input and opinions of its constituency groups. If approved, the proposed annual RFIs would assist the National 9–1–1 Program in addressing the myriad of issues posed by implementing new technologies in 9–1–1 services in a systematic, prioritized fashion, with active involvement of its constituency in this process. The results of the proposed annual RFIs would be used to:

(1) Identify areas to target programs and activities to achieve the greatest benefit;

(2) Develop programs and initiatives aimed at cooperative efforts to enhance 9–1–1 services nationwide; and

(3) to provide informational support to States, regions, and localities in their own efforts to enhance 9–1–1 services. Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information): Under this proposed effort, the National 9–1–1 Program would issue annual RFIs, seeking responses to specific questions and soliciting comments on the priorities and strategies used by the National 9–1–1 Program to accomplish its functions, goals and vision, and to obtain expressions of interest in participating as partners. The various entities included in the constituency of the National 9–1–1 Program would be notified of the issuance of each RFI. Likely respondents would include companies, agencies and organizations from all of the constituency groups listed above, particularly local and State emergency communications agencies, professional and industry associations,

‘‘traditional ’’ telecommunication service providers, ‘‘ public safety/emergency’’ service providers and special interest advocacy organizations. The total number of respondents is estimated at
30 to 40.

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting From the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that responses to the questions included in the proposed RFIs would require an average of one hour to complete, for a total of 40 to 50 hours. The respondents would not incur any reporting costs from the information collection. The respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping costs from the information collection.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 47 U.S.C. 942.

Issued on April 19, 2010. Jeffrey P. Michael, Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010–9379 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**Philadelphia International Airport, Capacity Enhancement Program,**  **Environmental Impact Statement, Announcement of a Preferred**  **Alternative**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

**ACTION :**  Announcement.

**SUMMARY :**  The FAA has identified Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative for the Philadelphia International Airport, Capacity


### 21387 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Notices

Enhancement Program, Environmental Impact Statement.

**DATES :**  Effective upon publication in the Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Susan L. McDonald, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Harrisburg, PA 17011.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP). The purpose of the CEP is to enhance airport capacity in order to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area during all weather conditions. The Draft EIS was published on September 26, 2008. The DEIS presented three alternatives; the No Action and two on-airport construction alternatives (Alternatives A and B), but did not identify a Preferred Alternative. FAA has now identified Alternative A as its Preferred Alternative.

Alternative A would extend Runway 8–26 to the east, extend Runway 9R–27Lto the east, and add a third parallel eastwest runway. Alternative A would also reconstruct and enlarge the terminal complex, increasing it from 120 to approximately 150 gates. Alternative A will accommodate all forecasted operations with annualized average delays of 5.2 minutes in 2020 and 8.4 minutes in 2025. Alternative A is estimated to cost $5.2 billion.

Alternative A is FAA Preferred Alternative for the following reasons:

1. Alternative A meets the Purpose and Need by adding capacity and significantly reducing delay in all weather conditions in the long term.

2. Alternative A allows for greater flexibility of construction phasing or scheduling.

3. Alternative A maintains a crosswind runway (Runway 17–35).

4. Alternative A minimizes disruption of local surface transportation, and does not result in construction impacts to Interstate 95.

5. On the average, Alternative A has less average annualized delays during the prolonged construction period.

6. With mitigation, significant environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized.

A Draft General Conformity Determination, based on FAA’s Preferred Alternative, is expected to be released for public comment April 27, 2010. The Final EIS is expected to be released late August 2010. The Final EIS will address all comments received on the Draft EIS and provides the rationale behind FAA’s selection of Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative. Further information on the project and the EIS process can be found at the project Web site: http://www.phl-cep-eis.com.

Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, April 16, 2010. Oscar D. Sanchez, Acting Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office. [FR Doc. 2010–9608 Filed 4–21–10; 4:15 pm]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**[Summary Notice No. PE–2010–20]**

**Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of petition for exemption received.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public’s awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA’s regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

**DATES :**  Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before May 13, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA– 2003–14563 using any of the following methods:

• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.

• Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590.

• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202–493–2251.

• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc. ). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78).

Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Laverne Brunache (202) 267–3133 or Tyneka Thomas (202) 267–7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20,
2010. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption

Docket No.: FAA–2003–14563. Petitioner: AirTran Airways, Inc. Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR
93.123

Description of Relief Sought: To permit AirTran Airways, Inc., the use of three slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) for service from DCA to Atlanta Hartford International Airport.

On July 10, 2009, the FAA renewed AirTran’s exemption until September 30, 2010. That grant of exemption stated the FAA would publish any future extension petitions for public comment.

[FR Doc. 2010–9477 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**[Summary Notice No. PE–2010–19]**

**Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.