Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71061 

of living adjustment is applied to the total 

benefit. In Variation 2, the federal cost of 

living adjustment is applied to the Federal 

Benefit Payment and the District cost of 

living adjustment is applied to the District 

benefit payment. A new federal percentage 

equal to the ratio of the Federal Benefit 

Payment to the total benefit is established 

after the adjustments. 

EXAMPLE 14H—TEACHERS COLA 

[Pre-96 hire] 

Benefit Computation (at retirement) 

Total Annuity Computation 

Birth date: 11/04/48 

Hire date: 03/01/86 

Separation date: 02/28/2013 

Department service: 27/00/00 

Other service paid in 1995: 06/07/28 

Excess LWOP in 1990: 00/03/18 

.015 service: 5 

.0175 service: 5 

.02 service: 23.333333 

Average salary: $53,121.00 

Total: $33,421.96 

Total/month: $2,785.00 

Benefit Computation (at retirement) 

Federal Benefit Payment Computation 

Birth date: 11/04/48 

Hire date: 03/01/86 

Freeze date: 06/30/1997 

Department service: 11/04/00 

Other service paid in 1995: 06/07/28 

Excess LWOP in 1990: 00/03/18 

.015 service: 5 

.0175 service: 5 

.02 service: 7.666667 

Average salary: $53,121.00 

Total: $16,777.38 

Total/month: $1,398.00 

Federal percentage: 0.501975 

COLA Computation Variations 

Variation 1 

District COLA rate 5% applied to total benefit: 

Total COLA: $139.00 

New total benefit/month: $2,924.00 

Federal COLA rate 4% 

Federal COLA: $56.00 

New federal benefit/month: $1,454.00 

New federal percentage: 0.497264 

Variation 2 

District COLA rate 5% applied to District benefit: 

Old District benefit/month: $1,387.00 

District COLA: $69.00 

New District benefit/month: $1,456.00 

Federal COLA rate 4%: 

Federal COLA: $56.00 

New federal benefit/month: $1,454.00 

New total benefit/month: $2,910.00 

New federal percentage: 0.499656 

Retroactive Payment of Accrued Annuity 

Example 

Example 15: Accrual of Federal Benefit 

Payment 

The Federal Benefit Payment begins to 

accrue on the annuity commencing date, 

regardless of whether the employee is added 

to the annuity roll in time for the regular 

payment cycle. If the employee is due a 

retroactive payment of accrued annuity, the 

portion of the retroactive payment that would 

have been a Federal Benefit Payment (if it 

were made in the regular payment cycle) is 

still a Federal Benefit Payment. In this 

example, a teacher retired effective 

September 11, 1998. She was added to the 

retirement rolls on the pay date November 1, 

1998 (October 1 to October 31 accrual cycle). 

Her Federal Benefit Payment is $3000 per 

month and her total benefit payment is $3120 

per month. Her initial check is $5200 because 

it includes a prorated payment for 20 days 

(September 11 to September 30). The Federal 

Benefit Payment is $5000 of the initial check 

($3000 for the October cycle and $2000 for 

the September cycle). 

EXAMPLE 15—TEACHERS ACCRUED

BENEFIT

[Pre-96 hire] 

Total Annuity Computation 

Birth date: 11/01/42 

Hire date: 09/01/66 

Separation date: 09/10/98 

Department service: 32/00/10 

.015 service: 5 

.0175 service: 5 

.02 service: 22 

Average salary: $62,150.00 

Total: $37,445.38 

Total/month: $3,120.00 

Sept 11–30: $2,080.00 

Oct 1–31: $3,120.00 

Nov 1–30: $3,120.00 

Federal Benefit Payment Computation 

Birth date: 11/01/42 

Hire date: 09/01/66 

Freeze date: 06/30/97 

Department service: 30/10/00 

.15 service: 5 

.0175 service: 5 

.02 service: 20.833333 

Average salary: $62,150.00 

Total: $35,995.21 

Total/month: $3,000.00 

Sept 11–30: $2,000.00 

Oct 1–31: $3,000.00 

Nov 1–30: $3,000.00 

Dated: November 4, 2010. 

Nancy Ostrowski, 

Director, Office of DC Pensions. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29152 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4825–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0972] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Bayou Liberty, Mile 2.0, St. Tammany 

Parish, Slidell, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, has issued a notice 

of proposed rulemaking to change the 

regulation governing the operation of 

the S433 bridge over Bayou Liberty, 

mile 2.0, St. Tammany Parish, Slidell, 

LA. It will allow the bridge to remain 

unmanned during most of the day by 

requiring a two-hour notice for an 

opening of the draw. This proposed rule 

change will be in conjunction with a 

temporary deviation to test the rule 

change and allow for public comment. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0972 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Jim Wetherington; 

Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, telephone 504– 

671–2128, e-mail 

james.r.wetherington@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
71062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–0972), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http:// 

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

0972,’’ click ‘‘Search,’’ and then click on 

the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you submit your comments 

by mail or hand delivery, submit them 

in an unbound format, no larger than 

81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying 

and electronic filing. If you submit them 

by mail and would like to know that 

they reached the Facility, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

0972’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why one would be beneficial. If 

we determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact Jim 

Wetherington at the telephone number 

or e-mail address indicated under the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

Basis and Purpose 

Due to a lack of required openings 

requested by mariners, the bridge owner 

requested a modification of the 

regulation governing the operation of 

the S433 bridge over Bayou Liberty, 

mile 2.0, St. Tammany Parish, Slidell, 

LA. This change would allow for the 

bridge owner to open the bridge for the 

passage of vessels while minimizing his 

requirements to staff and maintain the 

bridge. The bridge has a vertical 

clearance of 7.59 feet (2.31m) above the 

2% flowline, elevation 2.5 feet (0.76m) 

NAVD 1988 in the closed-to-navigation 

position and unlimited in the open-tonavigation position. In accordance with 

33 CFR 469, the draw of the S433 

Bridge, mile 2.0, at Slidell, shall open 

on signal, except that between 7 p.m. 

and 7 a.m., the draw shall open on 

signal if at least two hours notice is 

given. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The owner is requesting a new 

regulation to open with two hours 

notice because this will reduce the time 

that the owner is required to maintain 

a bridge tender. After the study of the 

bridge logs, it was shown that there was 

an average of less than one opening per 

month which is a marked decrease from 

an average of 70 per month the previous 

year. This is because the bridge for 

which the regulation was in place (a 

pontoon bridge) no longer exists. With 

the completion of the new bridge (a 

swing bridge), there is enough vertical 

clearance to require very few bridge 

openings. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

The public would need to notify the 

bridge owner of a required opening two 

hours in advance rather than on signal. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71063 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels needing to transit 

the bridge with less than 14-days 

advance notice. There have been no 

requests for bridge openings in several 

years so this proposed rule would not 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities. Vessels that can safely transit 

under the bridge may do so at any time. 

Before the effective period, we will 

issue maritime advisories widely 

available to users of the river. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or e-mail Jim 

Wetherington; Bridge Administration 

Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District, 

telephone 504–671–2128, e-mail 

james.r.wetherington@uscg.mil. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this proposed rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
71064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2. § 117.469 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.469 Liberty Bayou. 

The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0, 

at Slidell, shall open on signal with a 

two hour notice. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Mary E. Landry, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29300 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423 

[CMS–4144–CN] 

RIN 0938–AQ00 

Medicare Program; Proposed Changes 

to the Medicare Advantage and the 

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit 

Programs for Contract Year 2012 and 

Other Proposed Changes; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

technical error that appeared in the 

proposed rule entitled ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Proposed Changes to the 

Medicare Advantage and the Medicare 

Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for 

Contract Year 2012 and Other Proposed 

Changes’’ which was filed for public 

inspection on November 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786–7499. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2010–28774 filed 

November 10, 2010, there was a 

technical error that is identified and 

corrected in the Correction of Errors 

section below. 

II. Summary of Errors 

In the DATES section, we inadvertently 

requested that the Office of the Federal 

Register base the comment period 

closing date on the date the proposed 

rule will appear in the Federal Register 

instead of the date of filing for public 

inspection. Therefore, in section III. of 

this correction notice, we correct this 

error by inserting the date that the 

comment period closes, which is 

January 11, 2011. 

III. Waiver of 60-Day Comment Period 

We ordinarily permit a 60-day 

comment period on notices of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, as 

provided in section 1871(b)(1) of the 

Act. The change made by this correction 

notice does not constitute agency 

rulemaking, and therefore the 60-day 

comment period does not apply. This 

correction notice merely corrects a 

technical error in the proposed rule and 

does not make substantive changes to 

the proposed rule that would require 

additional time on which to comment. 

Instead, this correction notice is 

intended to ensure the accuracy of the 

proposed rule. 

IV. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 2010–28774 filed 

November 10, 2010, make the following 

correction: 

1. In the DATES section, the phrase 

‘‘[OFR—insert date 60 days after date of 

publication in the Federal Register]’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘January 11, 2011.’’ 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program) 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Barbara J. Holland, 

Deputy Executive Secretary to the 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28997 Filed 11–12–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 97–95; FCC 10–186] 

Allocation and Designation of 

Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services 

in the 37.5–38.5 GHz, 40.5–41.5 GHz 

and 48.2–50.2 GHz Frequency Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) seeks comment on 

technical rules for the Fixed-Satellite 

Service in the 37.5–42.5 GHz band. The 

purpose of this proceeding is to ensure 

that satellite operators in this band can 

share the band with terrestrial fixed 

microwave services without causing 

harmful interference. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 6, 2011 and reply comments are 

due on or before February 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment, 

identified by WT Docket No. 07–293 

and IB Docket No. 95–91, by any of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov, 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean O’More (202) 418–2453, or 

Howard Griboff, (202) 418–0657, Policy 

Division, International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third 

Notice) in IB Docket No. 97–95, adopted 

October 29, 2010 and released on 

November 1, 2010. The full text of the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

This document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile 

(202) 488–5563, or via e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

The Third Notice contains proposed 

new or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. The Commission invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collections contained in the 

Third Notice, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due at the same time as 

other comments on the Third Notice; 

OMB comments are due on January 6, 

2011. Comments should address: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS