28468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). The San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District regulates an 

ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 

part 81), so Rules 4603, 4604, and 4612 

must fulfill RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability and RACT requirements 

consistently include the following: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, 

September 2008. 

5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Large Appliance Coatings,’’ EPA–453/ 

R–07–004, September 2007. 

6. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R– 

07–005, September 2007. 

7. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions From Existing Stationary 

Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of 

Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, 

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,’’ 

EPA–450/2–77–008, May 1977. 

8. ‘‘Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Demonstration for 

Ozone State Implementation Plans 

(SIP)’’ SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009. 

9. ‘‘Suggested Control Measure for 

Automotive Coatings,’’ CARB, October 

2005. 

10. Portions of the proposed post1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy 

that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, 

November 24, 1987. 

11. ‘‘State Implementation Plans, 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Amendments of 1990’’ 57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992. 

12. ‘‘Preamble, Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ 70 FR 

71612; Nov. 29, 2005. 

13. Letter from William T. Hartnett to 

Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘RACT 

Qs & As—Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Questions and 

Answers,’’ May 18, 2006. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are generally 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs 

have more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rule 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that do not affect EPA’s 

current action but are recommended for 

the next time the local agency modifies 

the rule. 

D. Public comment and final action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• 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 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 2, 2009. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–14020 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 191 and 194 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0330; FRL–8916–5] 

Intent To Evaluate Whether the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant Continues To 

Comply With the Disposal Regulations 

and Compliance Criteria 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; official 

opening of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) intends to evaluate and 

recertify whether or not the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to 

comply with EPA’s environmental 

radiation protection standards for the 

disposal of radioactive waste. Pursuant 

to the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 

(LWA), as amended, the U.S. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28469 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or 

‘‘Department’’) must submit to EPA 

documentation of continued compliance 

with EPA’s standards for disposal and 

other statutory requirements every five 

years after the initial receipt of 

transuranic waste at WIPP. EPA initially 

certified that WIPP met applicable 

regulatory requirements on May 18, 

1998, and the first shipment of waste 

was received at WIPP on March 26, 

1999. The first Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA) was 

submitted by DOE to EPA on March 26, 

2004, and the Agency’s first 

recertification decision was issued on 

March 29, 2006. 

EPA will determine whether WIPP 

continues to comply with EPA’s 

standards for disposal based on the CRA 

submitted by the Secretary of Energy. 

DOE’s 2009 recertification application 

was received by the EPA on March 26, 

2009, and a copy may be found on 

EPA’s WIPP Web site and in the public 

dockets (see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION & FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT sections). The Director of the 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air will 

make a determination as to the 

completeness of the application in the 

near future (approximately six months) 

and will notify the Secretary, in writing, 

when the Agency deems the application 

‘‘complete.’’ EPA will evaluate the 

‘‘complete’’ application in determining 

whether the WIPP facility continues to 

comply with the radiation protection 

standards for disposal. The Agency 

requests public comment on all aspects 

of the DOE’s application. 

DATES: We are accepting comments in 

response to today’s document and on 

DOE’s 2009 recertification application. 

The ending date of the public comment 

period will be specified in a subsequent 

Federal Register document. 

Announcements will be published in 

the Federal Register to provide 

information on the Agency’s 

completeness determination and final 

recertification decision. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0330, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0330. The Agency’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

These documents are also available 

for review in electronic (CD/DVD) 

format at the Carlsbad Municipal 

Library, Hours: Monday–Thursday, 10 

a.m.–9 p.m., Friday–Saturday, 10 a.m.– 

6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.–5 p.m., 

phone number: 505–885–0731. As 

provided in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

Part 2, and in accordance with normal 

EPA docket procedures, if copies of any 

docket materials are requested, a 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Lee, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, 

Radiation Protection Division, Center 

for Radiation Information and Outreach, 

Mail Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–343–9463; fax 

number: 202–343–2305; e-mail address: 

lee.raymond@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI). In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1The 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was 

amended by the ‘‘Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act Amendments,’’ which were part of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1997. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) was authorized in 1980, under 

section 213 of the DOE National 

Security and Military Applications of 

Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 

1980 (Pub. L. 96–164, 93 Stat. 1259, 

1265), ‘‘for the express purpose of 

providing a research and development 

facility to demonstrate the safe disposal 

of radioactive wastes resulting from the 

defense activities and programs of the 

United States.’’ WIPP is a disposal 

system for transuranic (TRU) radioactive 

waste. Developed by DOE, the facility is 

located near Carlsbad in southeastern 

New Mexico. TRU waste is emplaced 

2,150 feet underground in an ancient 

layer of salt that will eventually ‘‘creep’’ 

and encapsulate the waste containers. 

WIPP has a total capacity of 6.2 million 

cubic feet of TRU waste. 

The 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 

(LWA; Pub. L. 102–579) 1 limits 

radioactive waste disposal in WIPP to 

TRU radioactive wastes generated by 

defense-related activities. TRU waste is 

defined as waste containing more than 

100 nano-curies per gram of alphaemitting radioactive isotopes, with halflives greater than twenty years and 

atomic numbers greater than 92. The 

Act further stipulates that radioactive 

waste shall not be TRU waste if such 

waste also meets the definition of highlevel radioactive waste, has been 

specifically exempted from regulation 

with the concurrence of the 

Administrator, or has been approved for 

an alternate method of disposal by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 

TRU radioactive waste proposed for 

disposal in WIPP consists of materials 

such as rags, equipment, tools, 

protective gear, and sludges that have 

become contaminated during atomic 

energy defense activities. The 

radioactive component of TRU waste 

consists of man-made elements created 

during the process of nuclear fission, 

chiefly isotopes of plutonium. Some 

TRU waste is contaminated with 

hazardous wastes regulated under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992k). The 

waste proposed for disposal at WIPP 

derives from Federal facilities across the 

United States, including locations in 

Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, 

Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Washington. 

WIPP must meet EPA’s generic 

disposal standards at 40 CFR Part 191, 

Subparts B and C, for high-level and 

TRU radioactive waste. These standards 

limit releases of radioactive materials 

from disposal systems for radioactive 

waste, and require implementation of 

measures to provide confidence for 

compliance with the radiation release 

limits. Additionally, the regulations 

limit radiation doses to members of the 

public, and protect ground water 

resources by establishing maximum 

concentrations for radionuclides in 

ground water. To determine whether the 

WIPP facility performs well enough to 

meet these disposal standards, EPA 

issued the WIPP Compliance Criteria 

(40 CFR Part 194) in 1997. The 

Compliance Criteria interpret and 

implement the disposal standards 

specifically for the WIPP site. They 

describe what information DOE must 

provide and how EPA evaluates WIPP’s 

performance and provides ongoing 

independent oversight. Thus, EPA 

implemented its environmental 

radiation protection standards, 40 CFR 

Part 191, by applying the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR Part 194, to 

the disposal of TRU radioactive waste at 

WIPP. For more information about 40 

CFR part 191, refer to Federal Register 

notices published in 1985 (50 FR 

38066–38089, Sep. 19, 1985) and 1993 

(58 FR 66398–66416, Dec. 20, 1993). For 

more information about 40 CFR part 

194, refer to Federal Register notices 

published in 1996 (61 FR 5224–5245, 

Feb. 9, 1996) and 1995 (60 FR 5766– 

5791, Jan. 30, 1995). 

Using the process outlined in the 

WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA 

determined on May 18, 1998 (63 FR 

27354), that DOE had demonstrated that 

WIPP complied with EPA’s radioactive 

waste disposal regulations at Subparts B 

and C of 40 CFR Part 191. EPA’s 

certification determination permitted 

WIPP to begin accepting TRU waste for 

disposal, provided that other applicable 

conditions and environmental 

regulations were met. 

Since the 1998 certification decision, 

EPA has conducted ongoing 

independent technical review and 

inspections of all WIPP activities related 

to compliance with the EPA’s disposal 

regulations. The initial certification 

decision identified the starting 

(baseline) conditions for the WIPP site 

and established the waste and facility 

characteristics necessary to ensure 

proper disposal in accordance with the 

regulations. At that time, EPA and DOE 

understood that future information and 

knowledge gained from the actual 

operations of WIPP would result in 

changes to the best practices and 

procedures for the facility. 

In recognition of this, section 8(f) of 

the amended WIPP LWA requires EPA 

to evaluate all changes in conditions or 

activities at WIPP every five years to 

determine if WIPP continues to comply 

with EPA’s disposal regulations for the 

facility. This determination is not 

subject to standard rulemaking 

procedures or judicial review, as stated 

in the aforementioned section of the 

WIPP LWA. 

The first recertification process began 

with DOE’s submittal of the initial 

Compliance Recertification Application 

(CRA), which was received by the 

Agency on March 26, 2004. EPA 

deemed the CRA–2004 to be complete 

on September 29, 2005, and published 

its first WIPP recertification decision on 

March 29, 2006 (71 FR 18010). 

EPA received DOE’s second CRA on 

March 24, 2009. The Agency will review 

DOE’s 2009 recertification application 

to ensure that all of the changes made 

at WIPP since the initial recertification 

process (which took place from 2004– 

2006) have been accurately reflected 

and that the facility will continue to 

safely contain TRU radioactive waste. If 

EPA approves the CRA–2009, it will set 

the parameters for how WIPP will be 

operated by DOE over the following five 

years. This approved application will 

then serve as the baseline for the next 

recertification that will occur starting in 

2014. 

Recertification is not a 

reconsideration of the decision to open 

WIPP, but a process to reaffirm that the 

facility meets all requirements of the 

disposal regulations. The recertification 

process will not be used to approve any 

new significant changes proposed by 

DOE; any such proposals will be 

addressed separately by EPA. 

Recertification will ensure that WIPP is 

operated using the most accurate and 

up-to-date information available and 

provides documentation requiring DOE 

to operate to these standards. 

With today’s notice, the Agency 

solicits public comment period on 

DOE’s documentation of whether the 

WIPP facility continues to comply with 

the disposal regulations. A copy of the 

application is available for inspection 

on EPA’s WIPP Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp) and in the 

public dockets described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

Other background information 

documents related to the Agency’s 

recertification activities also available in 

our public dockets and on our WIPP 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28471 

Web site. EPA will evaluate the 

complete application in determining 

whether WIPP continues to comply with 

the radiation protection standards for 

disposal. In addition, EPA will consider 

public comment and other information 

relevant to WIPP’s compliance. The 

Agency is most interested in public 

comment on any issues where changes 

have occurred that may potentially 

impact WIPP’s ability to remain in 

compliance with the requirements 

outlined in EPA’s disposal regulations, 

as well as any areas where the public 

believes that changes have occurred and 

have not been identified by DOE. 

The first step in the recertification 

process is a ‘‘completeness’’ 

determination. EPA will make this 

completeness determination in the near 

future as a preliminary step in its more 

extensive technical review of the 

application. This determination will be 

made using a number of the Agency’s 

WIPP-specific guidances; most notably, 

the ‘‘Compliance Application 

Guidance’’ (CAG; EPA Pub. 402–R–95– 

014) and ‘‘Guidance to the U.S. 

Department of Energy on Preparation for 

Recertification of the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant with 40 CFR Parts 191 and 

194’’ (Docket A–98–49, Item II–B3–14; 

December 12, 2000). Both guidance 

documents include guidelines 

regarding: (1) Content of certification/ 

recertification applications; (2) 

documentation and format 

requirements; (3) time frame and 

evaluation process; and (4) change 

reporting and modification. The Agency 

developed these guidance documents to 

assist DOE with the preparation of any 

compliance application for WIPP. They 

are also intended to assist in EPA’s 

review of any application for 

completeness and to enhance the 

readability and accessibility of the 

application for EPA and public scrutiny. 

It is EPA’s intent that these guidance 

documents give DOE and the public a 

general understanding of the 

information that is expected to be 

included in a complete application of 

compliance. The EPA may request 

additional information as necessary 

from DOE to ensure the completeness of 

the CRA. 

Once the 2009 recertification 

application is deemed complete, EPA 

will provide DOE with written 

notification of its completeness 

determination and publish a Federal 

Register notice announcing this 

determination as well. All 

correspondence between EPA and DOE 

regarding the completeness of the CRA– 

2009 will be placed in the public 

dockets. 

EPA will make a final decision 

recertifying whether the WIPP facility 

continues to meet the disposal 

regulations after each of the 

aforementioned steps (technical analysis 

of the application, issuing a notice of 

the CRA–2009’s completeness in the 

Federal Register, and analyzing public 

comment) have been completed. As 

required by the WIPP LWA, EPA will 

make a final recertification decision 

within six months of issuing its 

completeness determination. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 191 and 

194 

Environmental protection, Radiation 

protection, Transuranic radioactive 

waste, Waste treatment and disposal, 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Dated: June 3, 2009. 

Elizabeth Cotsworth, 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

[FR Doc. E9–14023 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket 03–123; DA 09–1255] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission via the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) 

extends the comment filing deadline for 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) published in the Federal 

Register May 21, 2009 (73 FR 23815). 

The Bureau finds that in this case an 

extension of the comment period is 

warranted to afford parties the necessary 

time to file comments that will result in 

a more complete record in this 

proceeding. 

DATES: Comments are due July 6, 2009. 

Reply Comments are due July 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments identified by CG 

Docket No. 03–123, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting electronic 

filings. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS): http:// 

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

instructions for submitting electronic 

filings. 

• By filing paper copies. 

For electronic filers through ECFS or 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, if 

multiple docket 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 CG Docket No. 03–123. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet e-mail. To get 

filing instructions, filers should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail 

address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. 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 the Commission 

continues 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. 

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. 

Commercial mail sent by 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. U.S. Postal 

Service first-class, Express, and Priority 

mail should be addressed to 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

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 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

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

(TTY). DA 09–1255 can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Chandler, Consumer and 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS