        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 071004577-7578-01]
        RIN 0648-AW13
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Total Allowable Catches for Eastern Georges Bank Cod, Eastern Georges Bank Haddock, and Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area for Fishing Year 2008

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2008 fishing year (FY) Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area, as recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). These TACs may be adjusted during FY 2008, if NMFS determines that the harvest of these stocks in FY 2007 exceeded the TACs specified for FY 2007. NMFS is also considering for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, postponing the FY 2008 opening until August 1, 2008, allowing longline gear vessels during the May through July period, and setting a cap on the cod caught by such vessels during this period at 5 percent of the cod TAC. The intent of this action is to provide for the conservation and management of those three stocks of fish.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by February 4, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW13, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the U.S./Canada TACs.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135.

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.
          Copies of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee's 2007 Guidance Document and copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 2008 TACs (including the Regulatory Impact Review and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from NMFS at the mailing address specified above; telephone (978) 281-9315. NMFS prepared a summary of the IRFA, which is contained in the Classification section of this proposed rule.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9347, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail Thomas.Warren@NOAA.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies a procedure for setting annual hard TAC levels (i.e., the fishery or area closes when a TAC is reached) for Eastern GB cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area. The regulations governing the annual development of TACs (§ 648.85(a)(2)) were implemented by Amendment 13 to the FMP (69 FR 22906; April 27, 2004) in order to be consistent with the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding (Understanding), which is an informal (i.e. non-binding) understanding between the United States and Canada that outlines a process for the management of the shared GB groundfish resources. The Understanding specifies an allocation of TAC for these three stocks for each country, based on a formula that considers historical catch percentages and current resource distribution.

        Annual TACs are determined through a process involving the Council, the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC), and the U.S./Canada Transboundary Resources Steering Committee (§ 648.85(a)(2)(i)). In September 2007, the TMGC approved the 2007 Guidance Document for Eastern GB cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder, which included recommended U.S. TACs for these stocks. The recommended 2008 TACs were based upon the most recent stock assessments (Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) Status Reports for 2007), and the fishing mortality strategy shared by both the United States and Canada. The strategy is to maintain a low to neutral (less than 50 percent) risk of exceeding the fishing mortality limit reference (Fref = 0.18, 0.26, and 0.25, for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, respectively). When stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality rates (F) should be further reduced to promote rebuilding.

        For Eastern GB cod, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined Canada/USA TAC for Eastern Georges Bank cod for the 2008 fishing year is 2,300 mt. This corresponds to a low risk (less than 25%) of exceeding the Fref of 0.18 in 2008 and that stock biomass will not increase from 2008 to 2009, though that increase is estimated to be nominal. The annual allocation shares between countries for 2008 are based on a combination of historical catches (20% weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (80% weighting). Combining these factors entitles the USA to 29% and Canada to 71%, resulting in a national quota of 667 mt for the USA and 1,633 mt for Canada.

        For Eastern GB haddock, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined Canada/USA TAC for Eastern Georges Bank haddock for the 2008 fishing year is 23,000 mt. This represents a low risk (less than 25%) of exceeding the Fref of 0.26. Adult biomass is projected to peak at 159,000 mt in 2008, reflecting the recruitment and growth of the exceptional 2003 year class, and then decline to 146,000 mt in 2009. The annual allocation shares between countries for 2008 are based on a combination of historical catches (20% weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (80% weighting). Combining these factors entitles the USA to 35% and Canada to 65%, resulting in a national quota of 8,050 mt for the USA and 14,950 mt for Canada.
        For GB yellowtail flounder, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined Canada/USA TAC for the 2008 fishing year is 2,500 mt. This corresponds to an F of 0.17, lower than the Fref of 0.25. With a catch of 2,500 mt in 2008, the age 3+ biomass is expected to increase by 22%. The annual allocation shares between countries for 2008 are based on a combination of historical catches (20% weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (80% weighting). Combining these factors entitles the USA to 78% and Canada to 22%, resulting in a national quota of 1,950 mt for the USA and 550 mt for Canada.
        On September 18, 2007, the Council approved, consistent with the 2007 Guidance Document, the following U.S. TACs recommended by the TMGC: 667 mt of Eastern GB cod, 8,050 mt of Eastern GB haddock, and 1,950 mt of GB yellowtail flounder. The Council, in a letter dated September 27, 2007, requested that NMFS implement these TACs. The proposed 2008 Fishing Year TACs represent an increase for all three stocks from the 2007 TAC levels (Tables 1 and 2).

          Table 1: 2008 U.S./Canada TACs (mt) and percentage shares (in parentheses)

            GB Cod
            GB Haddock
            GB Yellowtail flounder

            Total Shared TAC
            2,300
            23,000
            2,500

            U.S. TAC
            667 (29)
            8,050 (35)
            1,950 (78)

            Canada TAC
            1,633 (71)
            14,950 (65)
            550 (22)

          Table 2: 2007 U.S./Canada TACs (mt) and percentage shares (in parentheses)

            GB Cod
            GB Haddock
            GB Yellowtail flounder

            Total Shared TAC
            1,900
            19,000
            1,250

            U.S. TAC
            494 (26)
            6,270 (33)
            900 (72)

            Canada TAC
            1,406 (74)
            12,730 (67)
            350 (28)

        The 2008 TACs are based upon stock assessments conducted in June 2007 by the TRAC. The proposed TACs are consistent with the results of the TRAC and the TMGC's harvest strategy and, therefore, NMFS proposes that they be implemented through this action.
        The regulations for the U.S./Canada Management Understanding, implemented by Amendment 13, at § 648.85(a)(2)(ii), state the following: “Any overages of the GB cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder TACs that occur in a given fishing year will be subtracted from the respective TAC in the following fishing year.”

        Therefore, should an analysis of the catch of the shared stocks by U.S. vessels indicate that an overage occurred during FY 2007, the pertinent TAC will be adjusted downward in order to be consistent with the FMP and the Understanding. Although it is very unlikely, it is possible that a very large overage could result in an adjusted TAC of zero. If an adjustment to one of the 2008 TACs for cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder is necessary, the public will be notified through publication in the Federal Register and through a letter to permit holders.
        NMFS is also notifying the public that it is considering adjusting the rules governing the Eastern U.S./Canada Area (Area) for FY 2008. The current regulations under 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) provide the Regional Administrator authority to implement in-season adjustments to various management measures in order to prevent over-harvesting or facilitate achieving the TAC. On November 7, 2007, the Council voted to postpone the FY 2008 opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area for vessels fishing with trawl gear (from May 1, 2008) until August 1, 2008, in order to reduce cod bycatch, while allowing vessels fishing with more selective longline gear access during the May through July period. Such vessels would be limited to a cod catch of five percent of the cod TAC, or 33.35 mt of cod. The Regional Administrator is considering implementing these measures based upon the Council's recommendation and pertinent information.

        The objective of the in-season action is to prevent trawl fishing in the Area during the time period when cod bycatch is likely to be very high. The goal of the measure is to prolong access to the Area in order to maximize the catch of available cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. During FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Regional Administrator restricted management measures and access to the Area in June or July when a substantial percentage of the cod TAC had been harvested by trawl gear. When the Area closes vessels lose access not only to cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, but also to other valuable groundfish and non-groundfish species. When the Regional Administrator implements restrictions to slow the catch of cod, the profitability of trips may decline and there is reduced incentive to fish in the Area. Delaying access to the Area until August for trawl vessels would reduce the catch of cod because the availability of cod is high in the Area during the time period May through July, and historically, the cod catch has been almost all by trawl vessels. By limiting access to the Area to vessels fishing with hook gear only during the period May through July, it is likely that once the Area opens to trawl vessels on August 1, the length of time the Area will be open or unrestricted will be prolonged, and the catch of haddock and yellowtail flounder, as well as other species will be maximized.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        The specification of hard TACs is necessary in order to ensure that the agreed upon U.S./Canada fishing mortality levels for these shared stocks of fish are achieved in the U.S./Canada Management Area (the geographic area on GB defined to facilitate management of stocks of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder that are shared with Canada). A description of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed TACs is contained in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule.
        Under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for small fishing entities ($3.5 million), all permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery are considered to be small entities and, therefore, there are no differential impacts between large and small entities. Gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold. The maximum number of small entities that could be affected by the proposed TACs are approximately 1,000 vessels, i.e., those with limited access NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) permits that have an allocation of Category A or B DAS. Realistically, however, the number of vessels that choose to fish in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and that therefore would be subject to the associated restrictions, including hard TACs, would be substantially less.
        During fishing years 2004 through 2006, the number of vessels fishing in the U.S./Canada Area ranged from 161 to 184. Because the regulatory regime in FY 2008 will be similar to that in place in the past, and based on data from FY 2007, it is likely that the number of vessels that choose to fish in the U.S./Canada Area during FY 2008 will be similar to the past.
        The economic impacts of the proposed TACs are difficult to predict due to numerous factors that affect the amount of catch, as well as the price of the fish. In general, the rate at which cod is caught in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, and the rate at which yellowtail flounder is caught in the Eastern and Western U.S./Canada Area will determine the length of time the Eastern U.S./Canada Area will remain open. The length of time the Eastern U.S./Canada Area is open will determine the amount of haddock that is caught. During the 2004, 2005, and 2006 fishing years, the TACs were not fully utilized, and inseason changes to the regulations impacted the fishery.
        The amount of GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder landed and sold will not be equal to the sum of the TACs, but will be reduced as a result of discards (discards are counted against the hard TAC), and may be further reduced by limitations on access to stocks that may result from the associated rules. Reductions to the value of the fish may result from fishing derby behavior and the potential impact on markets. The overall economic impact of the proposed 2008 U.S./Canada TACs will likely be more positive than the economic impacts of the 2007 TACs due to increased TACs for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, that will likely result in increased revenue. For example, based on the estimates in the EA revenues from cod caught in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area may increase by approximately $ 786,000 and haddock revenue may increase by $ 1,069,000.
        It should be noted that the revenue associated with the cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder represented about 2 %, 4 %, and 10%, respectively of the total revenue from trips to the U.S./Canada Area in FY 2006. Examples of other valuable species caught are winter flounder, witch flounder, and monkfish. If the proposed larger GB cod TAC and delayed opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to trawl vessels result in a longer period of time that the Eastern U.S./Canada Area is open and maximizes the catch of the available TACs, it may result in additional revenue from all species.
        Although unlikely, a downward adjustment to the TACs specified for FY 2008 could occur after the start of the fishing year, if it is determined that the U.S. catch of one or more of the shared stocks during the 2007 fishing year exceeded the relevant TACs specified for FY 2007. The economic effects of this downward adjustment would likely result in a short term loss of revenue proportional to the magnitude of the adjustment.
        Three alternatives were considered for FY 2008: The proposed TACs, the status quo TACs, and the no action alternative. No additional set of TACs are proposed because the process involving the TMGC and the Council yields only one proposed set of TACs. Accordingly, NMFS chooses to either accept or reject the recommendation of the Council. The proposed TACs would have a more positive economic impact as the status quo TACs. Adoption of the status quo TACs would not be consistent with the FMP because the status quo TACs do not represent the best available scientific information incorporated from the most recent TRAC. Although the no action alternative (no TACs) would not constrain catch in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and therefore would likely provide some additional fishing opportunity, the no action alternative is not a reasonable alternative because it is inconsistent with the FMP in both the short and long term. The FMP requires specification of hard TACs in order to limit catch of shared stocks to the appropriate level (i.e., consistent with the Understanding and the FMP). As such, the no action alternative would likely provide less economic benefits to the industry in the long term than the proposed alternative.
        The proposed TACs do not modify any collection of information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The proposed TACs do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: December 27, 2007
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-25580 Filed 1-2-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476; FRL- 9767-9]
        Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Notice of Actions Denying Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay Requests

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of actions denying petitions for reconsideration and stay requests.

          SUMMARY:

          The EPA is providing notice that it has responded to petitions for reconsideration of rules published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2012, and June 11, 2012, that together promulgated the initial air quality designations for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards for all areas in the United States. The rules are titled, “Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and “Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Several Counties in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; Corrections to Inadvertent Errors in Prior Designations.” Subsequent to publishing the rules, during the time period from June through October 2012, the EPA received numerous petitions requesting that the EPA reconsider its designation decisions for certain areas. The EPA carefully considered the petitions and supporting information, along with information contained in the rulemaking docket, in reaching decisions on the petitions. The EPA denied all the petitions for reconsideration in separate letters to the petitioners dated December 14, 2012. The letters explain the EPA's reasons for the denials. Four petitioners also requested that the EPA stay the effectiveness of the designation rule as it applies for a particular area, pending reconsideration. Because the EPA denied the reconsideration requests, the EPA also denied the stay requests.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Carla Oldham, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, phone number (919) 541-3347 or by email at: oldham.carla@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Where can I get copies of this document and other related information?
        This Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, and the response letters to the petitioners are available in the docket that the EPA established for the rulemakings to promulgate the air quality designations for the 2008 ozone standards under Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. The table below identifies the Petitioners, the dates the EPA received the Petitions, the document identification number of the Petitions, the date of the EPA's responses, and the document identification number for the EPA's responses.

            Petitioners
            Dates of petitions to the EPA
            Petition:Document No. in docket

            Date of the EPA response
            The EPAresponse:
              Document No. in docket

              Atlanta, GA Nonattainment Area

            Georgia Environmental Protection Division
            July 20, 2012
            0695
            December 14, 2012
            0726

              Charlotte, NC-SC Nonattainment Area

            South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
            July 20, 2012
            0698
            December 14, 2012
            0727

            US Senators Graham and DeMint and US Congressman Mulvaney from SC
            July 19, 2012
            0699
            December 14, 2012
            0722

            York County, SC
            July 24, 2012
            0700
            December 14, 2012
            0721

              Knoxville, TN Nonattainment Area

            Anderson, Blount, and Knox Counties, TN
            July 20, 2012 and October 16, 2012
            0696
            December 14, 2012
            0717

              Memphis, TN-MS-AR Nonattainment Area

            DeSoto County, MS
            July 17, 2012
            0697
            December 14, 2012
            0723

            Shelby County, TN
            July 20, 2012 and September 18, 2012
            0702
            December 14, 2012
            0718

            State of Mississippi
            July 17, 2012
            0701
            December 14, 2012
            0756

            State of Tennessee
            July 19, 2012
            0703
            December 14, 2012
            0719

              Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Nonattainment Area

            Indiana Department of Environmental Management
            August 10, 2012
            0724
            December 14, 2012
            0728

              Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Nonattainment Area

            Bridgeport Area Chamber of Commerce, TX
            July 17, 2012
            0730
            December 14, 2012
            0742

            Chico City Council, TX
            July 18, 2012
            0706
            December 14, 2012
            0732

            City of Bridgeport, TX
            July 20, 2012
            0735
            December 14, 2012
            0745

            City of Boyd, TX
            August 7, 2012
            0707
            December 14, 2012
            0731

            City of Runaway Bay, TX
            July 17, 2012
            0708
            December 14, 2012
            0746

            Corporation for Economic Development for the City of Bridgeport
            July 17, 2012
            0754
            December 14, 2012
            0743

            Devon Energy Corporation
            July 20, 2012 and October 30, 2012
            0714
            December 14, 2012
            0736

            Gas Processors Association and Texas Pipeline Association
            July 20, 2012 and October 30, 2012
            0709
            December 14, 2012
            0738

            Look Local Wise County Task Force, TX
            July 18, 2012
            0720
            December 14, 2012
            0747

            Martin Marietta Materials
            July 20, 2012
            0752
            December 14, 2012
            0739

            Mauldin Pharmacy, Inc. dba Valu-Rite Pharmacy
            July 17, 2012
            0704
            December 14, 2012
            0737

            Newark City Council, TX
            July 19, 2012
            0744
            December 14, 2012
            0750

            Runaway Bay Economic Development Corporation
            July 12, 2012
            0729
            December 14, 2012
            0733

            Targa Resources Corporation
            July 20, 2012
            0715
            December 14, 2012
            0748

            Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
            July 18, 2012
            0713
            December 14, 2012
            0753

            TXI Operations, LP
            July 19, 2012
            0710
            December 14, 2012
            0740

            U.S. Ply
            July 17, 2012
            0749
            December 14, 2012
            0734

            Wayne Smith, Texas House of Representatives
            July 12, 2012
            0705
            December 14, 2012
            0755

            Wise County, TX
            June 15, 2012
            0725
            December 14, 2012
            0741

              Uinta Basin, UT Unclassifiable Area

            WildEarth Guardians, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
            July 19, 2012
            0711
            December 14, 2012
            0751

              Multiple Unclassifiable/Attainment Areas

            Sierra Club
            July 20, 2012
            0712
            December 14, 2012
            0716

          Note: All document numbers listed in the table are in the form of “EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-xxxx.”

        All documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in the docket or in hard copy at the 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 Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

        In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for the ozone designations rulemakings at: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. This Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, and the response letters to the petitions are also available on this Web site along with other information relevant to the designation process.

        II. Judicial Review

        Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” In the rules establishing air quality designations for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards, the EPA determined that the actions are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). (See 77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012 and 77 FR 34221; June 11, 2012.)
        The EPA has determined that its actions denying the petitions for reconsideration also are of nationwide scope and effect because these actions directly relate to the ozone designations rulemakings that the EPA previously determined are of nationwide scope and effect. Thus, any petitions for review of the final letters denying the petitions for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before March 8, 2013.

          Dated: December 27, 2012.
          Gina McCarthy,
          Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. 2013-00053 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0065]
        Public Hearing on Proposed Rule for Heavy Vehicle Electronic Stability Control Systems

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Announcement of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          On May 23, 2012, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require the installation of electronic stability control (ESC) systems on truck tractors and large buses. NHTSA is announcing a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to present oral testimony regarding the proposal. The oral testimony provided at the public hearing will be transcribed and placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

          DATES:

          NHTSA will hold a public hearing on July 24, 2012, at the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters building in Washington, DC. The hearing will start at 10 a.m. and continue until 1 p.m., local time. If necessary to accommodate a large number of presenters, the hearing may continue beyond 2 p.m. as determined by the presiding official at the hearing. If you would like to present oral testimony at the public hearing, or attend the public hearing as an observer, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Depending on the available space, registration for persons attending the public hearing as observers may be accepted after that date.

          ADDRESSES:
          The July 24, 2012 public hearing will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Media Center—Room W11-130, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.1

            The hearing site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

              1 For electronic mapping and navigation, use the local area zip code of 20003.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you would like to present oral testimony at the public hearing, please contact Christopher Morris, Office of Rulemaking, by email at christopher.morris@dot.gov, telephone at (202) 493-2218, or fax at (202) 366-5930. Please contact Mr. Morris at least ten days before the hearing date of July 24, 2012. Please provide the following information: Name, affiliation, address, email address and telephone number; indicate whether you are a U.S. citizen; and indicate if you require accommodations such as a sign language interpreter or translator. For technical issues regarding the agency's NPRM, you may contact Jeffrey Woods, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366-6206, or fax at (202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may learn more about the NPRM by searching the public docket (NHTSA-2012-0065) at www.regulations.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On May 23, 2012, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a new standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 136, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles (77 FR 30766). The standard would require truck tractors, and certain large buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds), to be equipped with an electronic stability control (ESC) system that meets the equipment and performance requirements of the proposed standard. Heavy vehicle ESC systems use engine torque control and computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle in situations in which the vehicle is becoming roll unstable (such as excessive speed in a curve) or is experiencing a loss of control (the vehicle deviates from the driver's intended path due to oversteer or understeer).
        The five major topics that are discussed in the NPRM include:
        • The size of the safety problem related to truck tractor and large bus ESC systems
        • How electronic stability control systems work to prevent rollover and loss of control
        • The research and testing that were separately conducted by NHTSA and the industry to evaluate the potential safety benefits of ESC and to develop dynamic vehicle test maneuvers to evaluate ESC performance
        • The specifics of the agency's proposal, including ESC equipment and performance criteria, vehicle compliance testing requirements, and the implementation schedule
        • The benefits and costs of the proposal, as described in the NPRM and in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis that is included in the docket.

          Public Hearing Procedures. The public hearing provides a forum for the public to present oral testimony regarding the agency's proposal for heavy vehicle ESC. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large number of people wishing to make presentations. Once we learn how many people have registered to speak at the hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation.

        We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other material to the hearing for the NHTSA panel. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers who are using audio-visual aids or computer slideshows either provide those materials in advance of the meeting or make other arrangements to facilitate set-up, by notifying the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        NHTSA will conduct the hearing informally. Thus, technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing, and you may make arrangements to receive a copy of the transcript directly from the court reporter at the hearing. Presenters wishing to provide supplementary information should submit it to the address given above for written comments by the August 21, 2012 deadline for those comments. There will be a panel of agency officials who may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but the panel will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
        For security purposes, government-issued photo identification is required to enter the Department of Transportation building. Non-U.S. citizens will be required to show passports. To allow sufficient time to clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that hearing participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the event.

          Written Comments: As announced in the NPRM, to be assured of consideration your written comments on the proposal must be received by August 21, 2012. You may submit comments on the agency's proposal to Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0065, by any of the following methods:
        • Federal eRulemaking 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., Docket Operations M-30, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
        • Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Docket Operations M-30, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
        • Fax: 202-493-2251.
        Note that all comments will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please ensure that your comments include the docket number in the subject line or heading.

          Issued: June 26, 2012.
          Christopher J. Bonanti,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2012-16174 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 11
        [EB Docket No. 04-296; DA 14-336]
        Comment Requested To Refresh the Record in EB Docket No. 04-296, on Petition Filed By the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council Proposing Changes to Emergency Alert System Rules To Support Multilingual Alerting and Emergency Information

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document the Federal Communication Commission's (Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), under authority delegated by the Commission, seeks to refresh the record in EB Docket No. 04-296 on issues raised in a Petition for Immediate Interim Relief (Petition) filed by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (hereinafter collectively or individually referred to as “MMTC”), regarding the ability of non-English speakers to access emergency information and similar multilingual issues. The Commission initially sought comment on the petition in the Commission's First EAS Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First R&O and FNPRM in EB Docket 04-296, and subsequently sought comment on the petition in the Commission's Second EAS Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second R&O and FNPRM), in that docket. MMTC also has expanded upon the petition in subsequent ex parte filings before the Commission.

          DATES:
          The notices of proposed rulemaking published November 25, 2005 (70 FR 71072), and November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62195), are reopened. Comments are due on or before April 28, 2014 and reply comments are due on or before May 12, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 04-296 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.
          • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: 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.
          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.
          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 email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-7452 or by email: lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov; Gregory M. Cooke, Associate Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-2351 or by email: gregory.cooke@fcc.gov; or David Munson, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-2921 or by email: david.munson@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Federal Communication Commission's document in EB Docket No. 04-296, DA 14-336, released on March 11, 2014. This document is available to the public at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0311/DA-14-336A1.pdf.
        Synopsis of This Document

        1. In this document, PSHSB seeks to refresh the record in EB Docket No. 04-296 on various proposals and issues first raised in the MMTC Petition and expanded upon in subsequent ex parte filings, regarding the ability of non-English speakers to access emergency information and similar multilingual issues, both within and outside of the EAS context. As explained below, the Commission has sought comment on the Petition in this Docket originally in 2005 and subsequently in 2007.
        I. Background

        2. MMTC filed its Petition on September 22, 2005, in response to its perceived deficiencies in distributing multilingual emergency information in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In its Petition, MMTC proposed that the Commission revise its EAS rules, 47 CFR 11.1, et seq. to: (i) “provide that Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations air all Presidential level messages in both English and in Spanish”; ” include a [`]Local Primary Spanish' (`LP-S') designation and provide that state and local EAS plans would designate an LP-S station in each of the local areas in which an LP-1 has been designated”; “include a Local Primary Multilingual (`LP-M') designation in local areas where a substantial proportion of the population has its primary fluency in a language other than English or Spanish”; “provide that at least one broadcast station in every market would monitor and rebroadcast emergency information carried by local LP-S and LP-M stations”; and “specify that if during an emergency a local LP-S or LP-M station loses its transmission capability, stations remaining on the air should broadcast emergency information in affected languages (at least as part of their broadcasts) until the affected LP-S or LP-M station is restored to the air.”

        3. In November of 2005, the Commission released its EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First EAS R& O and FNPRM) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 70 FR 71072, November 25, 2005, in which the Commission sought petition and incorporated it into the docket. Subsequently, in 2007, the Commission released its Second EAS Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in EB Docket No. 04-296, 72 FR 62195, November 2, 2007, in which it sought further comment on the petition.
        4. In various ex parte filings, MMTC has further expanded upon the Petition, most recently in a December 12, 2013 filing, in MMTC stated that the Commission should require “broadcasters to work together, and with state and market counterparts, to develop a plan that communicates each party's responsibility based on likely contingencies.” Specifically, MMTC stated, “Such a plan could be modeled after the current EAS structure that could include a “designated hitter” approach to identify which stations would step in to broadcast multilingual information if the original non-English speaking station was knocked off air in the wake of a disaster.” MMTC added, “One market plan might spell out the procedures by which non-English broadcasters can get physical access to another station's facilities to alert the non-English speaking community—e.g. where to pick up the key to the station, who has access to the microphones, how often multilingual information will be aired, and what constitutes best efforts to contact the non-English broadcasters during and after an emergency if personnel are unable to travel to the designated hitter station.” To ensure accountability, MMTC proposed that broadcasters should be required to certify, on their license renewal application, their understanding of their role in the plan.
        II. Discussion
        A. MMTC's Proposals

        5. The Commission seeks comment on MMTC's proposal, particularly as related to its December 12, 2013, ex parte filing, in which it suggested that broadcast stations within any given market be required to enter into emergency communications plans to support each other in the case of an emergency. MMTC believes that such a requirement would ensure that non-English speaking populations receive timely access to both EAS alerts and non-EAS emergency information. Is that correct? Are there other benefits? Drawbacks? How would such a requirement be implemented? For example, should it be prescriptive or should the requirement specify minimum standards to be included in emergency communications plans? What would be the costs of such a requirement?
        6. If the Commission adopts MMTC's proposal, what would be the appropriate scope of such a requirement? For example, should such a requirement only apply in states or markets where there is at least one licensed broadcast station that serves non-English speaking populations? Alternatively, should it apply in any state that has sizeable populations that do not speak English as a primary language, irrespective of whether there is a broadcast station offering programming in those populations' primary languages? If so, what population size should trigger the requirement? In addition, should this requirement only apply in states that are more susceptible to certain types of events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes? Are there other limitations or applications of this requirement that the Commission should consider?
        7. The Commission also seeks data and information on the extent to which emergency communications plans similar to that proposed by MMTC are already in existence. Are there any markets where such plans currently exist? If so, how are these plans implemented? Do such plans involve only broadcasters or do they involve other types of communications service providers as well? Are state and/or local governments included? To what extent do these plans involve markets served by at least one broadcast station that broadcasts in languages other than English? In such cases, do these agreements address how the EAS and emergency information needs of populations who do not speak English are served if the station(s) that serve them are knocked off the air during an emergency? If so, how? What has been the experience, including the costs associated, with such plans?
        8. In its Petition and various ex parte filings, MMTC has advocated for what it calls a “designated hitter” approach in which designated stations in a given market would agree to air EAS alerts and non-EAS emergency information in the language of a non-English station if the latter station is rendered inoperable during an emergency. Is there any market where broadcast stations have implemented this approach? If so, have any stations actually performed the “designated hitter” function? The Commission seeks information and comment on the experiences of both broadcast stations in that scenario. The Commission also seeks comment on the consumer experience. For example, how are non-English speaking populations in the market informed to turn to the designated hitter station in such circumstances?
        9. In the past, broadcast stakeholders have raised concerns that MMTC's designated hitter proposal would require broadcasters to retain personnel who could translate emergency information in the language of the downed station. MMTC has responded to these concerns by arguing that designated hitter stations could simply allow access to the employees of the downed non-English station. The Commission seeks updated comment on this view as well as specific cost information on the designated hitter proposal.
        10. Finally, the Commission seeks updated comment and information on MMTC's other proposed changes to the EAS rules, as set forth in its Petition, particularly given the EAS's transition to CAP. For example, the Commission seeks updated comment on the feasibility of requiring that PEP stations deliver Presidential alerts in both English and Spanish. Have there been technical or other developments that would affect the feasibility for FEMA or the PEPs to provide a simultaneous translation of an EAS Presidential alert? Could any other entity provide translations of the Presidential audio while the EAN was in effect? Could automatic translation software or devices be used to provide non-English translation of a Presidential alert?

        11. What about for non-Presidential EAS alerts? In previous comments, the National Association of Broadcasters and the Association For Maximum Service Television, Inc., asked how on-air stations would obtain non-English EAS content from non-English speaking LP-S or LP-M stations. Have there been any technical developments that would affect who would be responsible for the initial translation of the alert? Broadcast and cable industry representatives and EAS equipment manufacturers previously have maintained that responsibility for issuing multilingual alerts must rest with alert message originators, and that it would be impractical for EAS Participants to effect timely and accurate alert translations at their facilities. Is this still the case?
        12. In addition, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has pointed out that under the EAS architecture a non-Presidential alert is limited to two minutes and that EAS equipment is programmed to reject duplicative alerts. According to NCTA, if MMTC's proposal were to be adopted, and alert originators sent out multiple non-English two-minute alerts, EAS Participants' equipment would reject all but the original alert as a duplicate. Thus, according to NCTA, under the current EAS architecture, a translation of a given alert, along with the English language version, would both have to fit within one two-minute timeframe, a result that would greatly reduce the amount of the substantive information that the alert could convey and thus diminish the effectiveness of the EAS overall. Is this the case?
        13. On a more general basis, would implementing MMTC's proposals be compatible with the EAS architecture contemplated by the Commission's Fifth Report and Order in EB Docket No. 04-296, 77 FR 16688, March 22, 2012, wherein the broadcast-based EAS and the CAP-based EAS are both integrated into FEMA's IPAWS? Are there other changes to the Commission's EAS rules, beyond those proposed in MMTC's Petition that would be required to implement MMTC's original proposals? What would be the costs and benefits of such rule changes?
        B. Alternative Approaches for Multilingual Alerting
        14. In the EAS First Report and Order, the Commission sought “comment on any other proposals regarding how to best alert non-English speakers.” The Commission now seeks to refresh the record on potential avenues different from the one proposed by MMTC that would accomplish the same objective. Is one potential approach for the Commission to require that this issue be addressed as part of state EAS plans? As noted above, MMTC's proposal is intended, in part, to ensure that non-English speaking populations have access to timely and accurate alerts and other emergency communications before, during, and after a disaster. Would incorporating its latest proposal into the Commission's existing state EAS plan rules meet this objective? Under this approach, broadcasters and other EAS Participants would not be subject to a separate planning requirement. In addition, incorporating this requirement into the state EAS plan rules would ensure that this issue is addressed in a manner consistent with other parts of a state's overall EAS planning. The Commission seeks comment on this view and the perception that this approach is a reasonable path forward. Are there any drawbacks to this approach? Commenters arguing in favor or against the reasonableness of this approach should provide substantive and compelling information regarding burdens or the effectiveness of a requirement to include minority broadcast alert contingency planning within state plans.
        15. If the Commission requires that multilingual alerting be addressed in state EAS plans, should the Commission continue to use the current standard for accountability? MMTC recommends that the Commission require broadcasters to certify in their license renewal applications that they understand their role under these communications plans. The Commission seek comment on this proposal.
        C. Other Issues Raised by the MMTC Petition
        16. In addition to refreshing the record on MMTC's proposal and other potential avenues to address, the Commission seeks to refresh the record on the current state of multilingual EAS alerts, and other possible solutions by which the Commission could facilitate multilingual EAS alerts. For example, the Commission seeks information on the extent to which EAS alerts are aired in languages other than English. The Commission understands that Florida regularly issues Spanish language alerts in parallel with English language alerts and has designated three Spanish Local Primary stations in its EAS plan. The Commission seeks more detailed information on how this works. What other jurisdictions have engaged in similar approaches? To what extent are EAS Participants able to translate English EAS alerts into other languages?
        17. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which CAP-based alerting systems have been deployed, particularly at the state level, since the Commission first required EAS Participants to have the capability to receive CAP-based EAS alerts in 2007, and the multilingual alerting capabilities of these systems. For example, to what extent have states with CAP-based alerting systems issued EAS alerts in more than one language? In what languages, other than English, have CAP-based EAS alerts been issued? Is there a translation tool optimized for CAP-based alerting systems? What are the costs and benefits to jurisdictions that have implemented these CAP-based alerting systems? What about state, tribal, local and territorial governments that do not have CAP-based alerting systems?
        18. The Commission seeks data and information on the advancement of possible technical solutions for multilingual alerting since 2007. For example, to what extent can text-to-speech technologies be used to provide multilingual EAS alerts? What examples, if any, exist of text-to-speech capabilities being used to provide EAS alerts in multiple languages? What is the status of other translation technologies? Do these technologies produce accurate versions of the original? Are they clear and understandable? What are the costs and benefits for use of this technology?
        19. Finally, are there other technologies that are currently being developed that could be used to transmit EAS alerts in multiple languages? The Commission seeks data on these technologies, including their functionality and accuracy rate as well as their costs and benefits.
        IV. Procedural Matters
        A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        20. The EAS First R&O and FNPRM and Second R&O and FNPRM both included Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposals. The Commission invites parties to file comments on the IRFAs in light of this additional document.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

        21. This document seeks comment on a potential new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

        C. Ex Parte Presentations

        22. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200, et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        D. Comment Filing Procedures

        23. Pursuant to sections 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. All comments and reply comments should reference this document and EB Docket No. 04-296. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

        24. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
        25. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy 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.
        26. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        27. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        28. 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.
        29. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        30. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (tty).

        31. Copies of the Petition and any subsequently filed documents in EB Docket No. 04-296 are available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, email fcc@bcpiweb.com.

        32. For further information regarding this proceeding, please contact Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-7452 or by email: lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov; Gregory M. Cooke, Associate Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-2351 or by email: gregory.cooke@fcc.gov; or David Munson, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-2921 or by email: david.munson@fcc.gov.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          David G. Simpson,
          Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.), Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2014-06444 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P