Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62195 

Flooding Source(s) Location on Referenced Elevation** 

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

#Depth in feet above 

ground Communities Affected 

Effective Modified 

Hartford County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions) 

Connecticut River ... At confluence with 

Dividend Brook.

+28 +26 Town of East Hartford, Town of East Windsor, Town of Enfield, 

Town of Glastonbury, City of Hartford, Town of Rocky Hill, Town of 

South Windsor, Town of Suffield, Town of Wethersfield, Town of 

Windsor, Town of Windsor Locks. 

At Connecticut/Massachusetts state 

boundary.

+56 +57 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

Town of East Hartford 

Maps are available for inspection at 740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108. 

Town of East Windsor 

Maps are available for inspection at East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT 06016. 

Town of Enfield 

Maps are available for inspection at Enfield Town Engineer’s Office, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT 06082. 

Town of Glastonbury 

Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033. 

City of Hartford 

Maps are available for inspection at Department of Public Works, 525 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103. 

Town of Rocky Hill 

Maps are available for inspection at 761 Old Main Street, Rocky Hill, CT 06067. 

Town of South Windsor 

Maps are available for inspection at South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT 06074. 

Town of Suffield 

Maps are available for inspection at Town Clerk’s Office, 83 Mountain Road, Suffield, CT 06078. 

Town of Wethersfield 

Maps are available for inspection at 505 Dean Silas Highway, Wethersfield, CT 06109. 

Town of Windsor 

Maps are available for inspection at Windsor Town Hall, 275 Broad Street, Windsor, CT 06095. 

Town of Windsor Locks 

Maps are available for inspection at Windsor Locks Town Hall, 50 Church Street, Windsor Locks, CT 06096. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: October 29, 2007. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Federal Insurance Administrator of the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E7–21607 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[EB Docket No. 04–296, FCC 07–109] 

Review of the Emergency Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document the 

Commission seeks comment on several 

issues relating to the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS), in order to ensure that 

EAS rules better protect the life and 

property of all Americans. Recognizing 

the need of all Americans to be alerted 

in the event of an emergency, the 

Commission seeks comment on those 

whose primary language is not English, 

and persons with disabilities, to 

determine how these communities 

might best be served by EAS. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether emergency alerts transmitted 

by local authorities should be 

transmitted, and various ways that 

performance of EAS operation may be 

assessed. 

DATES: Written comments are due on or 

before December 3, 2007 and reply 

comments are due on or before 

December 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by EB Docket No. 04–296, by 

any of the identified methods: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
62196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• 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. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• 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: 

Thomas Beers, Policy Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

(202) 418–1170, or TTY (202) 418–7233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in EB Docket No. 04–296, FCC 

07–108, adopted on May 31, 2007, and 

released on July 12, 2007. 

Non-English Speakers 

1. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on how non-English 

speakers may best be served by national, 

state and local EAS. In particular, we 

invite comment on how localities with 

non-English speakers should be 

identified. In which markets should 

special emergency alert rules apply? 

Should state and local EAS plans 

designate a ‘‘Local Primary 

Multilingual’’ station to transmit 

emergency information the relevant 

foreign language in local areas where a 

substantial proportion of the population 

has a fluency in a language other than 

English? How should we quantify the 

‘‘substantial proportion’’? Should at 

least one broadcast station in every 

market, or some subset of markets, be 

required to monitor and rebroadcast 

emergency information carried by a 

‘‘Local Primary Multilingual’’ station. 

And, should stations that remain on the 

air during an emergency be required to 

broadcast emergency information in the 

relevant foreign language to the extent 

that the ‘‘Local Primary Multilingual’’

station loses transmission capability. 

What criteria should the originator of an 

EAS message use in determining which 

languages to require EAS Participants to 

transmit? Should more than two 

languages be transmitted in certain 

areas? We seek comments on the 

technical, economic, practical, and legal 

issues, including the Commission’s 

authority, involved in making 

emergency information accessible to 

persons whose primary language is not 

English. We would especially welcome 

comments on state-level or other efforts 

designed to address these issues. We 

note, for example, that Florida has 

implemented a program to promote the 

provision of emergency information to 

non-English speakers in that state, and 

that California and Texas have 

addressed the issue in their EAS plans 

filed with this Commission. We direct 

the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau to convene a meeting—

or series of meetings—as soon as 

possible concerning EAS as it relates to 

the needs of non-English speakers. The 

Bureau should thereafter submit into the 

record a progress report on these 

discussions within 30 days of the 

Order’s release. 

Persons with Disabilities 

2. In the FNPRM we reexamine the 

best way to make EAS and other 

emergency information accessible to 

persons with disabilities. We request 

comments on this subject, including, 

but not necessarily limited to the 

following key issues: (i) Presentation of 

the audio feed in text format, and viceversa; (ii) making emergency 

information available to various devices 

commonly used by persons with 

disabilities; and (iii) providing 

emergency messages in multiple formats 

to meet the needs of persons with 

disabilities. We also seek comment on 

the interaction between our part 11 

rules and section 79.2 of our rules. We 

welcome comments on the technical, 

economic, practical, and legal issues, 

including the Commission’s authority, 

involved in making emergency 

information accessible to persons with 

disabilities. 

Other Local Official Alerts 

3. Our action enables state governors 

(or their designees) to initiate state-level 

and geo-targeted alerts for mandatory 

transmission by EAS Participants. Since 

EAS activations to date have been 

overwhelmingly related to weather and 

state and local alerts, we seek comment 

on whether EAS Participants should be 

required to receive and transmit alerts 

initiated by government entities other 

than a state governor. Should local, 

county, tribal, or other state 

governmental entities be allowed to 

initiate mandatory state and local alerts? 

How should the Commission decide 

which public officials should be 

permitted to activate the alert? Should 

the expansion of mandatory state and 

local alerts be limited to certain types of 

alerts? We seek comment on whether 

the Commission should specify the 

types of emergency alerts that these 

local officials should be permitted to 

activate? Should only certain classes of 

EAS Participants be required to transmit 

such alerts by entities other than the 

governor? Does CAP allow for proper 

delivery of such alerts, or should such 

alerts be mandatory only in the context 

of Next Generation EAS? What other 

considerations should govern the 

appropriate use of a mandatory alerting 

process by entities other than a 

governor? We seek comment generally 

on how this type of requirement should 

be implemented. 

Assessing EAS Operation 

4. We seek comment on several 

options for ensuring that EAS operates 

as designed in an emergency, including 

whether we should require: (i) 

Additional testing of the EAS, and 

specifically CAP; (ii) station 

certification of compliance; and (iii) 

assessments of EAS performance after 

an alert has been triggered. We will 

revisit the issue of performance 

standards if it appears that they are 

warranted. In particular, we seek 

comments on the technical, economic, 

practical, and legal issues involved. 

I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

A. Ex-Parte Rules—Permit-but-Disclose 

Proceeding 

5. This proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commision’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written presentations are set forth 

in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

B. Comment Dates 

6. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using (1) the FCC’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 


ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62197 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 

(1998). 

7. Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the website for submitting 

comments. 

8. For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

9. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

10. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

11. The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

12. Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

13. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

14. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

15. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any 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, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

II. INITIAL REGULATORY 

FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 

16. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

FNPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the first page of the 

FNPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the FNPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and 

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

17. In the FNPRM, we seek comment 

on four areas where the EAS rules might 

be amended. Recognizing the need of all 

Americans to be alerted in the event of 

an emergency, the Commission invites 

comments first on non-English speakers 

and second on persons with disabilities 

to determine how these communities 

might best be served by EAS. Third, the 

Commission invites comment on 

whether emergency alerts transmitted 

by local authorities should be 

transmitted. Fourth, the Commission 

invites comment on various ways that 

the performance of EAS operations may 

be assessed. 

Legal Basis 

18. Authority for the actions proposed 

in this FNPRM may be found in sections 

1, 4(i), 4(o), 303(r), 403, 624(g) and 706 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, (Act) 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

154(j), 154(o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities To Which Rules Will 

Apply 

19. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted herein. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

20. There are potential reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements proposed in 

the FNPRM. For example, the 

Commission is considering whether to 

adopt performance standards and 

reporting obligations for EAS 

participants. The proposals set forth in 

the FNPRM are intended to advance our 

public safety mission and enhance the 

performance of the EAS while reducing 

regulatory burdens wherever possible. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

21. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’

22. The FNPRM seeks comment on 

how the Commission may better protect 

the lives and property of Americans. In 

commenting on this goal, commenters 

are invited to propose steps that the 

Commission may take to minimize any 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. When considering proposals 

made by other parties, commenters are 


ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS
62198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

invited to propose significant 

alternatives that serve the goals of these 

proposals. We expect that the record 

will develop to demonstrate significant 

alternatives. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

23. None. 

III. ORDERING CLAUSES 

24. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–5331 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 579 

[Docket No. NHTSA–07–29294] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Small Business Impacts of 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks comments on 

the economic impact of its regulations 

on small entities. As required by Section 

610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we 

are attempting to identify rules that may 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We also request comments on ways to 

make these regulations easier to read 

and understand. The focus of this notice 

is rules that specifically relate to 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, 

incomplete vehicles, motorcycles, and 

motor vehicle equipment. 

DATES: You should submit comments 

early enough to ensure that Docket 

Management receives them not later 

than January 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

[identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

NHTSA–07–29294] by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information see the Comments heading 

of the Supplementary Information 

section of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all 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 DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juanita Kavalauskas, Office of 

Regulatory Analysis, Office of 

Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–366–2584, fax 202–366–

3189). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

A. Background and Purpose 

Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), requires 

agencies to conduct periodic reviews of 

final rules that have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. The 

purpose of the reviews is to determine 

whether such rules should be continued 

without change, or should be amended 

or rescinded, consistent with the 

objectives of applicable statutes, to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the rules on a substantial 

number of such small entities. 

B. Review Schedule 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) published its Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda on November 22, 

1999, listing in Appendix D (64 FR 

64684) those regulations that each 

operating administration will review 

under section 610 during the next 12 

months. Appendix D also contains 

DOT’s 10-year review plan for all of its 

existing regulations. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA, ‘‘we’’) has 

divided its rules into 10 groups by 

subject area. Each group will be 

reviewed once every 10 years, 

undergoing a two-stage process—an 

Analysis Year and a Review Year. For 

purposes of these reviews, a year will 

coincide with the fall-to-fall publication 

schedule of the Semiannual Regulatory 

Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (1998) began in 

the fall of 1998 and ended in the fall of 

1999; Year 2 (1999) began in the fall of 

1999 and ended in the fall of 2000; and 

so on. 

During the Analysis Year, we will 

request public comment on and analyze 

each of the rules in a given year’s group 

to determine whether any rule has a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities and, thus, 

requires review in accordance with 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. In each fall’s Regulatory Agenda, 

we will publish the results of the 

analyses we completed during the 

previous year. For rules that have 

subparts, or other discrete sections of 

rules that do have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, we will announce that we will 

be conducting a formal section 610 

review during the following 12 months. 

The section 610 review will 

determine whether a specific rule 

should be revised or revoked to lessen 

its impact on small entities. We will 

consider: (1) The continued need for the 

rule; (2) the nature of complaints or 

comments received from the public; (3) 

the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent 

to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, 

or conflicts with other federal rules or 

with State or local government rules; 

and (5) the length of time since the rule 

has been evaluated or the degree to 

which technology, economic conditions, 

or other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the rule. At the end of the 

Review Year, we will publish the results 

of our review. The following table 

shows the 10-year analysis and review 

schedule: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS