63428 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(1) ‘‘Length’’ means a straight line 

measurement of the overall length from 

the foremost part of the vessel to the 

aftmost part of the vessel, measured 

parallel to the center line. The 

measurement must be from end to end 

over the deck, excluding sheer. Bow 

sprits, bumpkins, rudders, outboard 

motor brackets, handles, and other 

similar fittings, attachments, and 

extensions are not included in the 

measurement. 

(2) ‘‘Repair’’ means any repair of a 

vessel including installations, painting 

and maintenance work. Repair does not 

include alterations or conversions that 

render the vessel a non-recreational 

vessel under § 701.501. For example, a 

worker who installs equipment on a 

private yacht to convert it to a 

passenger-carrying whale-watching 

vessel is not employed to ‘‘repair’’ a 

recreational vessel. Repair also does not 

include alterations or conversions that 

render a non-recreational vessel 

recreational under § 701.501. 

(3) ‘‘Dismantle’’ means dismantling 

any part of a vessel to complete a repair 

but does not include dismantling any 

part of a vessel to complete alterations 

or conversions that render the vessel a 

non-recreational vessel under § 701.501, 

or render the vessel recreational under 

§ 701.501, or to scrap or dispose of the 

vessel at the end of the vessel’s life. 

(c) An individual who performs 

recreational-vessel work not excluded 

under paragraph (a) of this section or 

who engages in other qualifying 

maritime employment in addition to 

recreational-vessel work excluded under 

paragraph (a) of this section will not be 

excluded from the definition of 

‘‘employee.’’ (See § 701.303). 

7. Add § 701.503 to read as follows: 

§ 701.503 Did the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 Amend the 

Recreational Vessel Exclusion? 

Yes. The amended exclusion was 

effective February 17, 2009, the effective 

date of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

8. Add § 701.504 to read as follows: 

§ 701.504 When does the 2009 amended 

version of the recreational vessel exclusion 

apply? 

(a) Date of injury. Whether the 

amended version applies depends on 

the date of the injury for which 

compensation is claimed. The following 

rules apply to determining the date of 

injury: 

(1) Traumatic injury. If the individual 

claims compensation for a traumatic 

injury, the date of injury is the date the 

employee suffered harm. For example, if 

the individual injures an arm or leg in 

the course of his or her employment, the 

date of injury is the date on which the 

individual was hurt. 

(2) Occupational disease or infection. 

Occupational illnesses and infections 

are generally caused by exposure to a 

harmful substance or condition. If the 

individual claims compensation for an 

occupational illness or infection, the 

date of injury is the date the illness 

becomes ‘‘manifest’’ to the individual. 

The injury is ‘‘manifest’’ when the 

individual learns, or reasonably should 

have learned, that he or she is suffering 

from the illness, that the illness is 

related to his or her work with the 

responsible employer, and that he or she 

is disabled as a result of the illness. 

(3) Hearing loss. If the individual 

claims compensation for hearing loss, 

the date of injury is the date the 

individual receives an audiogram with 

an accompanying report which 

indicates the individual has suffered a 

loss of hearing that is related to 

employment. 

(4) Death-benefit claims. If the 

individual claims compensation for an 

employee’s death, the date of injury is 

the date of the employee’s death, even 

if his or her death was the result of an 

event or incident that happened on an 

earlier date. 

(b) If the date of injury is before 

February 17, 2009, the individual’s 

entitlement is governed by section 

2(3)(F) as it existed prior to the 2009 

amendment. 

(c) If the date of injury is on or after 

February 17, 2009, the employee’s 

eligibility is governed by the 2009 

amendment to section 2(3)(F). 

9. Add § 701.505 to read as follows: 

§ 701.505 May an employer stop paying 

benefits awarded prior to the effective date 

of the recreational vessel exclusion 

amendment if the employee would now fall 

within the exclusion? 

No. If an individual was awarded 

compensation for an injury occurring 

before February 17, 2009, the employer 

must still pay all benefits awarded, 

including disability compensation and 

medical benefits, even if the employee 

would be excluded from coverage under 

the amended exclusion. 

Shelby Hallmark, 

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25895 Filed 10–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 67 

RIN 1024–AD65 

Historic Preservation Certifications for 

Federal Income Tax Incentives 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS) proposes to amend its procedures 

for obtaining historic preservation 

certifications for rehabilitation of 

historic structures. Individuals and 

corporations must obtain these 

certifications to be eligible for tax 

credits from the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS). This rule: Incorporates 

references to the revised sections of the 

Internal Revenue Code containing the 

requirements for obtaining a tax credit; 

replaces references to NPS’s regional 

offices with references to its Washington 

Area Service Office (WASO); requires 

NPS to accept appeals for denial of 

certain certifications; and removes the 

certification fee schedule from the 

regulation. These latter two revisions 

provide an additional avenue for 

appeals and allow NPS to update fees by 

publishing a notice in the Federal 

Register as administrative costs change. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the number 1024–AD65, 

by any of the following methods: 

—Federal rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

—Mail: National Park Service, Attn. 

Michael J. Auer, 1849 C Street, NW. 

(org. code 2255), Washington, DC 

20240. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and the number 1024– 

AD65. We will post all comments 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

additional information, see ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Auer, National Park Service, 

1849 C Street, NW. (org. code 2255), 

Washington, DC 20240; 

Michael_Auer@nps.gov; fax: 202–371– 

1616. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 47 of Title 26 of the United 

States Code (the Internal Revenue 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63429 

Code), formerly Section 48(g), 

authorizes tax credits for qualified 

expenditures of funds for ‘‘certified 

rehabilitation’’ of ‘‘certified historic 

structures.’’ This section of the Internal 

Revenue Code designates the Secretary 

of the Interior as the authority for 

review of applications for certifications 

to verify: (a) That buildings undergoing 

rehabilitation are ‘‘certified historic 

structures,’’ and (b) that the 

rehabilitation preserves the overall 

historic character of the buildings, and 

therefore is a ‘‘certified rehabilitation.’’ 

These approvals take the form of 

notifications or ‘‘certifications’’ by the 

Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary 

of the Treasury. In addition, section 

170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 

allows a Federal income tax deduction 

for the donation of interests in qualified 

real property for conservation purposes. 

Section 170(h) also designates the 

Secretary of the Interior as the authority 

who receives applications and issues 

certifications verifying to the Secretary 

of the Treasury that the building or 

buildings contribute to the significance 

of a historic district. 

The proposed rule accomplishes four 

objectives. First, it removes outdated 

references to the Internal Revenue Code. 

Second, the proposed rule deletes 

references to the regional offices and 

substitutes the NPS Washington office 

in their place. In 1995, the review 

authority on applications for historic 

preservation certifications was moved 

from the NPS regional offices to the 

Washington office. Third, it lifts the 

prohibition on appeals from the denial 

of preliminary certification for 

rehabilitation of a property that is not a 

certified historic structure. Removing 

this prohibition from the language of 

§ 67.10(b) brings the proposed rule into 

conformity with longstanding agency 

practice, which has been to grant 

administrative review in such 

circumstances. 

Fourth, the proposed rule removes the 

certification fee schedule from the 

regulation. In 1984, NPS began charging 

fees for processing and reviewing tax 

incentives applications. This proposed 

rule removes the fee schedule from 

§ 67.11 and all other specific provisions 

regarding the charging of fees from the 

regulations, and incorporates an 

explanation of the method by which we 

will determine the kind and amount of 

review fees to be charged in the future. 

We will provide public notice of all fee 

changes. Until a revised means of 

determining fees is decided upon, 

approved, and published, the 1984 fee 

schedule will remain in effect. 

Compliance With Other Laws, 

Executive Orders, and Department 

Policies 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this document is 

not a significant rule. We have made the 

assessments required by E.O. 12866 and 

the results are available as a supporting 

document with the proposed rule at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(1) The results of the NPS cost/benefit 

analysis are that this rule will not have 

an effect of $100 million or more on the 

economy. It will not adversely affect in 

a material way the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. It is an agency-specific 

rule. No other Federal agency designates 

‘‘certified historic structures’’ or 

‘‘certified rehabilitations’’ for Federal 

income tax incentives. 

(3) This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. This 

rule updates statutory authority, deletes 

references to regional offices and 

substitutes the NPS Washington office 

in their place, authorizes additional 

administrative appeals, and removes 

from the text of the regulations the fee 

dollar amounts and specific instructions 

for charging fees. 

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this document will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The NPS threshold analysis as part of 

the NPS cost-benefit analysis concluded 

the proposed rule would generate 

positive benefits for all affected 

businesses with no negative impacts. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

(1) Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

The rule merely updates statutory 

authority, revises references to NPS 

offices, authorizes additional 

administrative appeals, and deletes 

specific dollar amount of application 

review fees—changes that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined are purely technical in 

nature. 

(2) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. The rule does not 

impose any new requirements on 

building owners undertaking building 

rehabilitations. 

(3) Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

OMB has determined that the changes 

proposed in the rule are purely 

technical. Moreover, the tax incentives 

program involves purely domestic 

buildings and entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Although State Historic Preservation 

Offices receive applications for the 

Federal tax incentives and forward them 

to the NPS, with a recommendation, 

State participation in this program is 

funded through the Historic 

Preservation Fund administered by the 

NPS. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. Application for the 

Federal historic preservation tax 

incentives program is on a voluntary 

basis by owners seeking a benefit in the 

form of Federal income tax incentives. 

A takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Under the criteria in Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism summary 

impact statement. The rule does not 

preempt or conflict with any State or 

local law. A Federalism impact 

statement is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of E.O. 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

63430 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Meets the criteria requiring that all 

regulations be reviewed to eliminate 

errors and ambiguity and be written to 

minimize litigation; and 

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

Consultation With Indian Tribes 

(Executive Order 13175) 

Under the criteria in Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated this rule and 

determined that it has no potential 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

tribes. The rule has no Tribal 

implications, and does not impose any 

costs on Indian Tribal governments. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements and a 

submission under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act is required. OMB has 

approved the information collection and 

has assigned approval number 1024– 

0009, expiring on 03/31/2013. A Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor and 

you are not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Part 1 of the application is used 

in requesting a certification of historic 

significance or non-significance and 

preliminary determinations. Part 2 of 

the application is used in requesting an 

evaluation of a proposed rehabilitation 

project or (in conjunction with a request 

for certification of completed work) a 

certification of a completed 

rehabilitation project. Information 

contained in the application is required 

to obtain a benefit. We estimate the 

burden associated with this information 

collection to be 4.6 hours per response 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, gathering and maintaining 

data, and completing and reviewing the 

form. Direct your comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any aspect of 

this form to the Manager, 

Administrative Program Center, 

National Park Service, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240 and to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reduction Project Number 

1024–0009, Washington, DC 20503. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

This rule is developed under the 

authority of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, particularly 16 U.S.C. 

470a(a)(1)(A), and 26 U.S.C. 47 (Internal 

Revenue Code), and does not constitute 

a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. A detailed statement 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 is not required 

because the rule is administrative and 

procedural in nature and therefore is 

covered by a categorical exclusion 

under 43 CFR 46.205(b) and 46.210(i). 

We have also determined that the rule 

does not involve any of the 

extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 

CFR 46.215 that would require further 

analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Information Quality Act (IQA) 

In developing this rule we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554). 

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive 

Order 13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in Executive 

Order 13211. A Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Drafting Information: The primary 

authors of this regulation are Michael J. 

Auer, Technical Preservation Services, 

Heritage Preservation Services, National 

Park Service; Philip A. Selleck, Chief, 

Regulations and Special Park Uses, 

National Park Service; A.J. North, 

Branch Chief, Regulations and Special 

Park Uses, Regulations, National Park 

Service and Maria Elena Lurie, Office of 

the Solicitor, Department of the Interior. 

Public Participation 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Docket: For access to the electronic 

docket to read the proposed rule, 

background documents or e-mail 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and enter 

‘‘1024–AD65’’ in the ‘‘Keyword or ID’’ 

search box. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Historic preservation, 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the NPS proposes to amend 

36 CFR part 67 as follows: 

PART 67—HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER THE 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 

1. The authority citation for part 67 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(1)(A); 26 

U.S.C. 47 and 170(h). 

2. In part 67, revise the heading to 

read as set forth above. 

3. In part 67, remove the words 

‘‘regional office’’ and ‘‘regional offices’’ 

wherever they occur and add in their 

place ‘‘WASO.’’ 

4. In part 67, remove the words and 

numbers ‘‘Sec. 48(g)’’ wherever they 

occur and add in their place the words 

and numbers ‘‘Sec. 47.’’ 

5. In part 67, remove the words and 

numbers ‘‘section 48(g)’’ wherever they 

occur and add in their place the words 

and numbers ‘‘section 47.’’ 

6. In § 67.1, 

A. Revise the section heading 

B. Revise paragraph (a) and the first 

sentence of paragraph (b) 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 67.1 Program authority and function. 

(a) Section 47 of the Internal Revenue 

Code designates the Secretary as the 

authority for the issuance of 

certifications of historic district statutes 

and of State and local historic districts, 

certifications of significance, and 

certifications of rehabilitation in 

connection with certain tax incentives 

involving historic preservation. These 

certification responsibilities have been 

delegated to the National Park Service 

(NPS); the following office issues those 

certifications: National Park Service, 

Washington Area Service Office, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63431 

Technical Preservation Services, 

Heritage Preservation Services, (WASO), 

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20240. 

(b) NPS WASO establishes program 

direction and considers appeals of 

certification denials. * * * 

* * * * * 

7. In § 67.4, revise paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 67.4 Certifications of historic 

significance. 

* * * * * 

(g) For purposes of the other 

rehabilitation tax credits under sec. 47 

of the Internal Revenue Code, properties 

within registered historic districts are 

presumed to contribute to the 

significance of such districts unless 

certified as nonsignificant by the 

Secretary. Owners of non-historic 

properties within registered historic 

districts, therefore, must obtain a 

certification of nonsignificance in order 

to qualify for those investment tax 

credits. If an owner begins or completes 

a substantial rehabilitation (as defined 

by the Internal Revenue Service) of a 

property in a registered historic district 

without knowledge of requirements for 

certification of nonsignificance, he or 

she may request certification that the 

property was not of historic significance 

to the district prior to substantial 

rehabilitation in the same manner as 

stated in § 67.4(c). The owner should be 

aware, however, that the taxpayer must 

certify to the Secretary of the Treasury 

that, at the beginning of such substantial 

rehabilitation, he or she in good faith 

was not aware of the certification 

requirement by the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 67.5 revise the section heading 

to read as follows: 

§ 67.5 Standards for evaluating 

significance within registered historic 

districts. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 67.7 revise the section heading 

to read as follows: 

§ 67.7 Standards for rehabilitation. 

* * * * * 

10. In § 67.10, revise paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 67.10 Appeals. 

(a) The owner or a duly authorized 

representative may appeal any of the 

certifications or denials of certification 

made under this part or any decisions 

made under § 67.6(f). 

(1) Appeals must: 

(i) Be in writing; e.g. letter, fax, or email; 

(ii) Be addressed to the Chief Appeals 

Officer, Cultural Resources, National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240; 

(iii) Be received by NPS within 30 

days of receipt by the owner or a duly 

authorized representative of the 

decision which is the subject of the 

appeal; and 

(iv) Include all information the owner 

wishes the Chief Appeals Officer to 

consider in deciding the appeal. 

(2) The appellant may request a 

meeting to discuss the appeal. 

(3) NPS will notify the SHPO that an 

appeal is pending. 

(4) The Chief Appeals Officer will 

consider the record of the decision in 

question, any further written 

submissions by the owner, and other 

available information and will provide 

the appellant a written decision as 

promptly as circumstances permit. 

(5) Appeals under this section 

constitute an administrative review of 

the decision appealed from and are not 

conducted as an adjudicative 

proceeding. 

(b) The denial of a preliminary 

determination of significance for an 

individual property may not be 

appealed by the owner because the 

denial itself does not exhaust the 

administrative remedy that is available. 

The owner instead must seek recourse 

by undertaking the usual nomination 

process (36 CFR part 60). 

(c) * * * 

(3) Resubmit the matter to WASO for 

further consideration; or 

* * * * * 

11. Revise § 67.11 to read as follows: 

§ 67.11 Fees for processing certification 

requests. 

(a) Fees are charged for reviewing 

certification requests according to the 

schedule and instructions provided in 

public notices in the Federal Register 

by NPS. 

(b) No payment should be made until 

requested by the NPS. A certification 

decision will not be issued on an 

application until the appropriate 

remittance is received. 

(c) Fees are nonrefundable. 

Dated: October 5, 2010. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25853 Filed 10–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 10–1806; MB Docket No. 10–189; RM– 

11611] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Willow 

Creek, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments. The Commission requests 

comment on a petition filed by Miriam 

Media, Inc., proposing the allotment of 

FM Channel 258A at Willow Creek, 

California. Petitioner, the auction 

winner and permittee of Channel 253A, 

Willow Creek, has submitted an 

application to specify operation of the 

station on Channel 254C1 at Loleta, 

California. Petitioner proposes the 

allotment of Channel 258A at Willow 

Creek in order to maintain a first local 

service at that community. Petitioner 

concedes that the signal contour of 

proposed Channel 258A at Willow 

Creek would not provide 70 dBu citygrade coverage to the entire Census 

Designated Place of Willow Creek, but 

argues that it has demonstrated 

substantial compliance with section 

73.315(a) of the Commission’s rules, and 

that the proposed allotment would serve 

the public interest. Channel 258A can 

be allotted at Willow Creek in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

minimum distance separation 

requirements at 40–57–29 North 

Latitude and 123–42–23 West 

Longitude. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION infra. 

DATES: The deadline for filing comments 

is November 18, 2010. Reply comments 

must be filed on or before December 3, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve counsel 

for petitioner as follows: Evan Carb, 

Esq., Law Offices of Evan D. Carb, PLLC, 

1140 Nineteenth Street, NW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 

418–7072. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

10–189, adopted September 24, 2010, 

and released September 27, 2010. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS