13468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

experiences in using or designing 

accessible machines and the benefits 

and costs associated with the proposed 

requirements. 

Impact on Small Entities 

The Board is interested in receiving 

comments on the potential impact of 

this rule on small entities pursuant to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In 

particular, the Board is seeking input on 

the numbers of small entities that may 

be impacted by this rulemaking, and the 

potential compliance costs to these 

small entities. Section 601 of the RFA 

defines small entities as small 

businesses (defined by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration), small not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions with a 

population of less than 50,000. The 

Board is also seeking comment on any 

significant alternatives that can 

minimize the economic impact of this 

rulemaking on small entities while 

accomplishing the Board’s objectives. 

Question 31: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities of the provisions implementing 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for 

technology procured, developed, 

maintained, or used by or on behalf of 

Federal agencies. The phrase ‘‘or on 

behalf of agencies’’ covers technologies 

used by contractors under a contract 

with a Federal agency. How many 

contractors and subcontractors would be 

considered small entities under the SBA 

small business size standards? What 

types of compliance costs will these 

contractors and subcontractors face in 

developing the technologies covered by 

section 508? For example, will small 

contractors and subcontractors face 

capital costs for equipment, or hiring 

professional expertise or extra staff to 

comply with the requirements? Will the 

cost of implementation create a 

competitive disadvantage for small 

contractors versus large contractors? 

(i.e., will a small contractor become less 

likely to win a Federal contract based on 

price?) Should the Board establish 

different compliance or reporting 

requirements for small contractors and 

subcontractors? Does the Board need to 

clarify or simplify the compliance 

requirements for small contractors or 

exempt certain small contractors from 

these requirements? 

Question 32: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities (manufacturers of 

telecommunications products) of the 

provisions implementing section 255 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

How many manufacturers of 

telecommunications products would be 

considered small entities, particularly 

with the application of this rule to 

interconnected VoIP products? What 

types of compliance costs will small 

manufacturers face? The Board is 

interested in small business estimates 

for services required by this rule such as 

providing access to information, 

documentation, and training of 

customers (for example through help 

desks and support services). Will this 

section require extra technology, 

professional expertise or extra staff? Are 

there alternative ways that small 

manufacturers can provide information 

and training at lower costs? Should the 

Board establish different compliance or 

reporting requirements for small 

manufacturers? 

Question 33: The Board is interested 

in comment on the impact on small 

entities (places of public 

accommodations and state and local 

government entities) of the provisions 

for self-service machines under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act. How 

many and what types of small entities 

utilize self-service machines, and what 

types of machines do they use? How 

many small manufacturers make these 

types of machines? How many of the 

small entities that use or manufacture 

self-service machines have machines 

that are accessible? How much will it 

cost to develop and produce the 

technology that would meet the 

proposed provisions? Should the Board 

establish different compliance 

requirements for small entities to have 

accessible machines? Does the Board 

need to clarify or simplify the 

requirements for small entities or 

exempt certain types of machines from 

these requirements? 

The Board will hold a public hearing 

to provide an opportunity for comment. 

The hearing will take place on March 

25, 2010 from 9 a.m. to Noon in 

conjunction with the 25th Annual 

International Technology & Persons 

with Disabilities Conference. It will be 

held at the Manchester Grand Hyatt 

Hotel, Elizabeth Ballroom, One Market 

Place, San Diego, CA 92101. The 

hearing location is accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. Sign 

language interpreters and real-time 

captioning will be provided. For the 

comfort of other participants, persons 

attending the hearing are requested to 

refrain from using perfume, cologne, 

and other fragrances. To pre-register to 

testify please contact Kathy Johnson at 

(202) 272–0041 or Johnson@accessboard.gov. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6245 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0080; FRL–9128–7] 

Disapproval of California State 

Implementation Plan Revisions, 

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to the Monterey 

Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (MBAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision concerns opacity 

standards related to multiple pollutants, 

including particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from several different types of 

sources, ranging from fugitive dust to 

gas turbine generators. We are proposing 

action on a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

April 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0080, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13469 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed in the index, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, 

(415)947–4115, 

steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule proposed for 

disapproval with the date that it was 

adopted and submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

MBUAPCD ............................... 400 Visible Emissions ...................................................................... 12/15/04 03/07/08 

On April 17, 2008, EPA found this 

rule submittal met the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. 

These criteria must be met before formal 

EPA review. 

B. Are There Other Versions of This 

Rule? 

On August 11, 2005, EPA approved a 

previous version of Rule 400 into the 

SIP. Please see 70 FR 46770. CARB has 

not submitted a subsequent version of 

the rule for our consideration besides 

the March 2008 version. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revision? 

Particulate matter (PM) contributes to 

effects that are harmful to human health 

and the environment, including 

premature mortality, aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease, 

decreased lung function, visibility 

impairment, and damage to vegetation 

and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the 

CAA requires States to submit 

regulations that control PM and other 

emissions. 

MBUAPCD Rule 400 is designed to 

limit the emissions of particulate matter 

or other pollutants such as oxides of 

nitrogen from a variety of activities and 

sources using a 20% opacity standard. 

These sources may include construction 

sites, unpaved roads, disturbed soil in 

open areas, and power plants. 

MBUAPCD has amended Rule 400 to 

allow for a 40% opacity standard in lieu 

of the rule’s existing 20% opacity 

standard during facility start-up 

operations. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this submitted rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). In addition, SIP rules must 

implement Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM), including 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), in moderate PM 

nonattainment areas, and Best Available 

Control Measures (BACM), including 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT), in serious PM nonattainment 

areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 

189(b)(1)). The MBUAPCD, however, 

attains the PM standards and is not 

required to implement RACM or BACM 

per section 189. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

other regulatory requirements include 

the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of 

November 24, 1987 Federal Register 

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of 

availability published in the May 25, 

1988 Federal Register. 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for 

Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, 

and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 

452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

6. ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’, 

USEPA Memorandum, September 20, 

1999. 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

Rule 400 is largely enforceable, but 

has one provision which does not meet 

the evaluation criteria. This deficiency 

is summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What Is the Rule Deficiency? 

New section 3.2.3 places no time 

limitation on opacity between 20% and 

40% for gas turbines except as defined 

in the District permit pursuant to new 

section 2.5. This is inconsistent with 

long-standing national policy on excess 

emissions, which explains that SIP rules 

must ensure that emissions during 

startup conditions are minimized. We 

believe this could be addressed by 

adding rule text establishing appropriate 

time limitations on gas turbine startup, 

requiring sources to minimize time and 

emissions during startup, and 

demonstrating in the staff report that the 

rule minimizes emissions during 

startup. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes an additional rule 

revision that we recommend for the next 

time the local agency modifies the rule, 

but that is not currently the basis for 

disapproval of the rule. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, we are proposing a disapproval 

of the submitted MBUAPCD Rule 400. If 

finalized, this action would retain the 

version of Rule 400 approved in 2005 in 

the SIP. Sanctions will not be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act, because 

revision of Rule 400 is not a required 

submittal under the CAA and the 

Monterey Bay area continues to meet 

the NAAQS for multiple pollutants, 

including ozone and PM. A final 

disapproval would similarly not trigger 

the Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or 

will flow from this disapproval does not 

mean that EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this action. Therefore, this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or Tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on Tribal governments or 

preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13471 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 23, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6103 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 64 and 68 

[CG Docket No. 02–278; FCC 10–18] 

Telephone Consumer Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission invites comment on 

proposed revisions to its rules under the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(TCPA) that would harmonize those 

rules with the Federal Trade 

Commission’s (FTC’s) recently amended 

Telemarketing Sales Rule. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

these proposed revisions would benefit 

consumers and industry by creating 

greater symmetry between the two 

agencies’ regulations, and by extending 

the FTC’s standards to regulated entities 

that are not currently subject to the 

FTC’s rules. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

May 21, 2010. Reply comments are due 

on or before June 21, 2010. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted by the general public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties to Cathy 

Williams, Federal Communications 

Commission, via e-mail to Cathy 

Williams@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167 on or before May 

21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by CG Docket No. 02–278 

and/or FCC Number 10–18, 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:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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 

or 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: Lisa 

Boehley, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, Policy Division, at 

(202) 418–7395 (voice), or e-mail 

Lisa.Boehley@fcc.gov. 

For additional information concerning 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission, at (202) 

418–2918, or e-mail 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3, 

2003, the Commission released the 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

TCPA of 1991, Report and Order (2003 

TCPA Order), CG Docket No. 02–278, 

FCC 03–153, published at 68 FR 44144, 

July 25, 2003, revising the TCPA rules, 

and adopted new rules to provide 

consumers with several options for 

avoiding unwanted telephone 

solicitations, including the 

establishment of a national do-not-call 

registry. This is a summary of the 

Commission’s document Rules and 

Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 

1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

CG Docket No. 02–278, FCC 10–18, 

adopted January 20, 2010, and released 

January 22, 2010, seeking comment on 

proposed revisions to the Commission’s 

rules under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA) that would 

harmonize those rules with the Federal 

Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) recently 

amended Telemarketing Sales Rule. 

Document FCC 10–18 contains 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the PRA of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, it 

contains a new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS