        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 36
        [CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 09-24]
        Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. In this document, the Commission seeks comment on extending until June 30, 2010 the current freeze of part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors used in jurisdictional separations, which freeze would otherwise expire on June 30, 2009. Extending the freeze would allow the Commission to provide stability for, and avoid imposing undue burdens on, carriers that must comply with the Commission's separations rules while the Commission considers issues relating to comprehensive reform of the jurisdictional separations process.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before April 17, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before April 24, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 80-286, 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://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          • E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Daniel Ball, Attorney Advisor, at 202-418-1577, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC Docket No. 80-286, FCC 09-24, released on March 27, 2009. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        Background
        1. Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent LECs apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. The NPRM proposes extending the current freeze of part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors used in jurisdictional separations, which freeze would otherwise expire on June 30, 2009, until June 30, 2010. Extending the freeze will allow the Commission to provide stability for, and avoid imposing undue burdens on, carriers that must comply with the Commission's separations rules while the Commission considers issues relating to comprehensive separations reform.
        2. The 2001 Separations Freeze Order, 66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001, froze all part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers and all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. Rate-of-return carriers had the option to freeze their category relationships at the outset of the freeze. The freeze was originally established July 1, 2001 for a period of five years, or until the Commission completed separations reform, whichever occurred first. The 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order, 71 FR 29843, May 24, 2006, extended the freeze for three years or until the Commission completed separations reform, whichever occurred first.
        3. In this NPRM the Commission seeks comment on extending the freeze for one year, until June 30, 2010. The proposed extension would allow the Commission to work with the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations to achieve comprehensive separations reform. Pending comprehensive reform, the Commission tentatively concludes that the existing freeze should be extended on an interim basis to avoid the imposition of undue administrative burdens on incumbent LECs. The Commission asks commenters to consider how costly and burdensome an extension of the freeze, or a reversion to the pre-freeze part 36 rules, would be for small incumbent LECs, and whether an extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers. Incumbent LECs have not been required to utilize the programs and expertise necessary to prepare separations information since the inception of the freeze almost eight years ago. If the Commission does not extend the separations freeze, and instead allows the earlier separations rules to return to force, incumbent LECs would be required to reinstitute their separations processes, and they may no longer have the necessary employees and systems in place to do so. Given the imminent expiration of the current separations freeze, it is unlikely that incumbent LECs would have sufficient time to reinstitute the separations processes necessary to comply with the earlier separations rules.
        4. The extended freeze would be implemented as described in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, price-cap carriers would use the same relationships between categories of investment and expenses within part 32 accounts and the same jurisdictional allocation factors that have been in place since the inception of the current freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return carriers would use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and would use the same frozen category relationships if they had opted previously to freeze those as well.
        Comment Filing Procedures

        Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal; or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        • For ECFS filers, 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 the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Ex Parte Requirements
        This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        In the 1997 Separations NPRM, the Commission noted that the network infrastructure by that time had become vastly different from the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing in the Commission's part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, and that the separations process codified in part 36 was developed during a time when common carrier regulation presumed that interstate and intrastate telecommunications service must be provided through a regulated monopoly. Thus, the Commission initiated a proceeding with the goal of reviewing comprehensively the Commission's part 36 procedures to ensure that they meet the objectives of the 1996 Act. The Commission sought comment on the extent to which legislative changes, technological changes, and market changes might warrant comprehensive reform of the separations process. Because over eleven years have elapsed since the closing of the comment cycle on the 1997 Separations NPRM, and over seven years have elapsed since the imposition of the freeze, and because the industry has experienced myriad changes during that time, we ask that commenters, in their comments on the present NPRM, comment on the impact of a further extension of the freeze.
        The purpose of proposed extension of the freeze is to ensure that the Commission's separations rules meet the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to allow the Commission additional time to consider changes that may need to be made to the separations process in light of changes in the law, technology, and market structure of the telecommunications industry.
        Legal Basis
        The legal basis for the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254 and 410, and 1.1200-1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411-1.429, 1.1200-1.1216.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May Apply
        The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard established by the SBA, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 121.201 of the SBA regulations defines a small wireline telecommunications business as one with 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, the SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. Because our proposals concerning the part 36 separations process will affect all incumbent LECs providing interstate services, some entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees may be affected by the proposals made in this NPRM. We therefore have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,311 incumbent LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 287 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        None.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

        The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities.

        As described above, seven years have elapsed since the imposition of the freeze, thus, we ask commenters, in their comments on the present NPRM, to address the impact of a further extension of the freeze. We seek comment on the effects our proposals would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we adopt should apply differently to small entities. We direct commenters to consider the costs and burdens of an extension on small incumbent LECs and whether the extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.
        Implementation of the proposed freeze extension would ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for LECs, including small incumbent LECs. The freeze has eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual studies formerly required by the Commission's rules. If an extension of the freeze can be said to have any effect under the RFA, it is to reduce a regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs, by abating the aforementioned separations studies and providing these carriers with greater regulatory certainty.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        None.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        The NPRM does not propose any new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new, modified, or proposed “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36
          Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, and Uniform System of Accounts.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          William F. Caton,
          Deputy Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 36 as follows:

          PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES
          1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read:

            Authority:
             47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 403, and 410.

          2. In 47 CFR part 36 remove the words “June 30, 2006” where ever they appear and add, in their place, the words “June 30, 2010” in the following places:
          a. Section 36.3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
          b. Section 36.123(a)(5), and (a)(6);
          c. Section 36.124(c), and (d);
          d. Section 36.125(h), (i), and (j);
          e. Section 36.126(b)(5), (c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2);
          f. Section 36.141(c);
          g. Section 36.142(c);
          h. Section 36.152(d);
          i. Section 36.154(g);
          j. Section 36.155(b);
          k. Section 36.156(c);
          l. Section 36.157(b);
          m. Section 36.191(d);
          n. Section 36.212(c);
          o. Section 36.214(a);
          p. Section 36.372;
          q. Section 36.374(b), and (d);
          r. Section 36.375(b)(4), and (b)(5);
          s. Section 36.377(a) introductory text, (a)(1)(ix), (a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), (a)(4)(vii), (a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii);
          t. Section 36.378(b)(1);
          u. Section 36.379(b)(1), and (b)(2);
          v. Section 36.380(d), and (e);
          w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and
          x. Section 36.382(a).

      [FR Doc. E9-7450 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 120919470-3182-01]
        RIN 0648-BC58
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 9

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 9 (Amendment 9) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the criteria and procedures by which a South Atlantic state may request a concurrent closure of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to the commercial harvest of penaeid shrimp (brown, pink, and white shrimp) when state waters close as a result of severe winter weather. Amendment 9 would also revise the overfished and overfishing status determination criteria for pink shrimp. The intent of this rule is to increase the flexibility and timeliness of the criteria and process for implementing a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ to maximize protection of overwintering white shrimp in the South Atlantic.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 19, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0227” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: All comments received are a 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 publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, click on “submit a comment”, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0227” in the keyword search and click on “search”. To view posted comments during the comment period, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0227” in the keyword search and click on “search”. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 9 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web Site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: kate.michie@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The penaeid shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background

        Under 50 CFR 622.35(d)(1), NMFS may close the EEZ adjacent to a South Atlantic state that has closed its waters to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp to protect the white shrimp spawning stock that has been severely depleted by cold weather. Based on information from standardized assessments, if a state has determined that unusually cold temperatures have resulted in at least an 80-percent reduction of the white shrimp population in its state waters, the state may request that the EEZ adjacent to its state waters concurrently close to the commercial harvest of penaeid shrimp. The specific criteria that a state must meet to request a concurrent closure of the adjacent EEZ waters is described in the FMP. Under the current procedures, once a state has determined that specific conditions have been met the state sends a request to close EEZ waters to penaeid shrimp harvest to the Council, and then the Council convenes its Shrimp Review Panel to review the state's request. If the Shrimp Review Panel's recommendation is affirmative, they forward their recommendation to the Council. The Council may then approve the state's request and send a letter to NMFS to request a harvest prohibition of penaeid shrimp in EEZ waters adjacent to the closed state waters. Once NMFS has determined that the recommended closure is in accordance with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS implements the closure through a notification in the Federal Register. The closure will generally remain effective until the ending date of the state's closure, but may be ended earlier based on a request from the state.
        During the closure, as specified in 50 CFR 622.35(d)(2), no person may: (1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white shrimp in the closed portion of the EEZ; (2) possess on board a fishing vessel brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from the closed portion of the EEZ, unless the vessel is in transit through the area and all nets with a mesh size of less than 4 inches (10.2 cm) are stowed below deck; or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25 nautical miles of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, use or have on board a trawl net with a mesh size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        The management measures contained in Amendment 9 and this proposed rule would not require any changes to the current regulatory text within § 622.35(d), “South Atlantic shrimp cold weather closure.” This is because the current regulations refer to the FMP for the specific criteria and procedures required to implement a concurrent closure of the EEZ for penaeid shrimp. This rule would revise those criteria and procedures within the FMP, however, the regulatory text would not change.
        Criteria Used To Trigger a State's Ability To Request a Concurrent Closure of the EEZ to Penaeid Shrimp Commercial Harvest
        This rule would revise the criteria that a state must meet to request from NMFS a closure of commercial penaeid shrimp harvest in Federal waters following severe winter weather and a closure of state waters. Currently, a state must demonstrate at least an 80-percent reduction in the population of overwintering white shrimp in order to justify a closure. This rule would require that a state must demonstrate either at least an 80-percent reduction in the population of overwintering white shrimp or that state water temperatures were 9 °C (48 °F) or less, for at least 7 consecutive days. Additional details regarding the sampling methods a state may use for these determinations may be found in Amendment 9 and the FMP and are referenced in the regulatory text at 50 CFR § 622.35(d). These revised criteria would provide increased flexibility for a state to protect the overwintering white shrimp in a state's adjacent EEZ waters.
        Process for a State To Request a Concurrent Closure of the EEZ to Penaeid Shrimp Commercial Harvest

        This rule would revise the procedures for a state to request a closure of the penaeid shrimp commercial sector in the EEZ concurrent with a closure of its state waters. Under the current procedures, a state may request a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ once a state has determined that specific conditions have been met. Following that determination, the state sends a request to the Council, then the Council convenes its Shrimp Review Panel to review the state's request. If the review panel's recommendation is affirmative, the panel forwards its recommendation to the Council. If the Council approves the state's request, they send a letter to NMFS to request a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ waters adjacent to the requesting state. Once NMFS has determined that the recommended closure is in accordance with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS implements the closure through a notification (temporary rule) in the Federal Register. This proposed rule would streamline these request procedures to reduce delays in closing the penaeid shrimp fishery, which may then yield biological benefits to the shrimp stock through a more timely closure. The revised procedures would allow a state, after determining that the revised concurrent closure criteria have been met, to submit a letter directly to the NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) with the request and supporting data for a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ adjacent to the closed state waters. After a review of the request and supporting information, if the RA determines the recommended closure is in accordance with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS would implement the closure through a notification in the Federal Register. These revised procedures would also reduce the administrative burden to the states and the Council through a more efficient process.
        Additional Management Measure Contained in Amendment 9

        Amendment 9 also revises the overfished and overfishing status determination criteria (biomass at the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)) for the pink shrimp stock. BMSY for pink shrimp was most recently revised in Amendment 6 to the Shrimp FMP (70 FR 73383, December 12, 2005). Amendment 6 established a (BMSY) proxy for pink shrimp based on two thresholds: (a) if the stock diminishes to 1/2 of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) abundance (1/2 BMSY) in 1 year, or (b) if the stock is diminished below MSY abundance (BMSY) for 2 consecutive years. A proxy for BMSY was established for pink shrimp using catch per unit effort (CPUE) information from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) survey program data as the lowest values in the period 1990-2003 that produced catches reaching MSY in the following year. In Amendment 9, the BMSY proxy is revised based on more recent SEAMAP harvest data for pink shrimp. Specifically, Amendment 9 revises the BMSY proxy for pink shrimp using the lowest CPUE value from SEAMAP during the period 1990-2011 (0.089 individuals per hectare). The Council and NMFS determined that the pink shrimp stock size that produced the relatively low CPUE value of 0.089 individuals per hectare does not compromise the long term capacity of the pink shrimp stock to achieve MSY because the low stock size has historically produced a biomass the following year that is capable of achieving MSY based on the best available science.
        Availability of Amendment 9

        Additional background and rationale for the measures previously discussed are contained in Amendment 9. The availability of Amendment 9 was announced in the Federal Register on March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14069). Written comments on Amendment 9 must be received by May 3, 2013. All comments received on Amendment 9 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble to the final rule.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.

        The purposes of the rule and Amendment 9 are to modify the criteria for a South Atlantic state to request a closure of Federal waters to commercial penaeid shrimp harvest, concurrent with closure of a state's waters to protect overwintering white shrimp, to streamline the process by which a state can request a concurrent closure, and to establish a BMSY proxy for pink shrimp, which is used in determining the overfished and overfishing status. The objectives of the rule and Amendment 9 are to establish a more timely and efficient process for a state to request a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in Federal waters adjacent to closed state waters to maximize protection of overwintering white shrimp during cold weather events, and to improve the accuracy of the biological parameters used for pink shrimp management. The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the legal basis for the rule.
        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The actions in this rule are administrative in nature and thus would only generate indirect economic effects on commercial operations in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery. Specifically, the actions in this rule would make it easier for states to request a concurrent closure of the penaeid shrimp fishery by allowing them to use an additional criterion when making such requests, reduce the time between when a cold weather event occurs and a closure of the EEZ is implemented, and reduce the probability the pink shrimp component of the fishery is closed due to an overfishing or overfished status determination. As such, this proposed rule is not expected to generate any direct economic effects on commercial operations in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery. Therefore, no small entities would be directly affected by this rule.
        As a result of the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant direct adverse economic effect on the profits of a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

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

          Dated: March 14, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-06410 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [MD001-1001b; FRL-7813-7]
        Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Maryland Equivalency by Permit Provisions; NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The EPA is proposing to approve a request from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for authority to implement and enforce State permit terms and conditions in place of those of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills, subpart MM, with respect to the operations of MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill, located in Luke, Maryland. Thus, the EPA is proposing to grant the MDE the authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements in the form of Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V permit terms and conditions after EPA has approved the State's alternative requirements. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by October 7, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by MD001-1001, by one of the following methods:
          A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          B. E-mail: Campbell.Dave@epa.gov

          C. Mail: David J. Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. MD001-1001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail 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.

          Copies of all comments should also be sent to the Maryland Department of the Environment. Copies of written comments should be sent to Thomas C. Snyder, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Copies of electronic comments should be sent to tsnyder@mde.state.md.us. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paresh R. Pandya, (215) 814-2167, or by e-mail at pandya.perry@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action approving the Maryland Department of the Environment's request for “up-front” approval of an Equivalency by Permit program under which the MDE may establish and enforce alternative State requirements for MeadWestvaco Company's Luke Mill in lieu of those of the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills, found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

          Dated: September 7, 2004.
          Donald S. Welsh,
          Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 04-20897 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D.  062303A]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 3-day Council meeting on July 15 through 17, 2003, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, July  15, 16, and 17, 2003. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday and 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone (207) 775-2311.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Tuesday, July 15, 2003
        Following introductions, the Council will receive a report from its Herring Committee.  It will be seeking approval of the goals and objectives developed for Amendment 1 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  The Council also will receive a report and recommendations from its Scientific and Statistical Committee on the results of the U.S. and Canadian herring stock assessments as they relate to plan development.  Finally, the Council staff will provide an update on the development of alternatives for analysis in the amendment.  Following the herring report there will be a brief presentation by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center on the status of NEFMC-managed species reviewed at the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop.  The species to be discussed include witch flounder, spiny dogfish and Atlantic hagfish.  The Mid-Atlantic Plans Committee will provide their recommendations for Amendment 9 to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish FMP for Council consideration and approval.  The Council staff will then present a process to coordinate the development of Framework Adjustment 39 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP with scallop management actions.  The framework adjustment would allow scallop vessel access, on a controlled basis, to the Georges Bank groundfish closed areas from 2004-2007.  Finally, the Enforcement Committee will present its analyses of alternatives now included in amendments to the multispecies, scallop, and monkfish amendments currently under development. There also will be a review of enforcement procedures regarding trips cut short because of weather, accident or unsafe conditions, as well as a discussion of horsepower regulations and inconsistencies among FMPs.
        Wednesday, July 16, 2003

        There will be reports on recent activities from the Council Chairman and Executive Director (to include a review of the Council's understanding of the vessel permit upgrade baseline during development of the Monkfish FMP), the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.  Following this agenda item the Council will provide a brief opportunity for comments from the public on issues that are not otherwise listed on the agenda, but are relevant to Council business.  The Council will then spend the remainder of the day on groundfish issues.  Specifically, they will review, consider and approve the Northeast Multispecies Amendment 13 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.  The report will include Groundfish Advisory Panel recommendations for the amendment and Groundfish Committee recommendations, including suggested changes to the Special Access Program alternative.
        Thursday, July 17, 2003
        Prior to continuing with the groundfish agenda items listed from the previous day, the Council will receive a presentation on pre-draft Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks for the purpose of obtaining comments from Council members and the public.  Any other outstanding business will be addressed before adjournment of the meeting.
        Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated:  June 24, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-16431 Filed 6-27-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 09-43; MB Docket No. 08-242; RM-11506]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Ten Sleep, WY

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b). The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Legend Communications of Wyoming, LLC. Petitioner proposes the allotment of Channel 267A at Ten Sleep, Wyoming, as a first local service. The purpose of the requested allotment is to maintain Ten Sleep's first potential local service, because petitioner has requested a change of community of license for unbuilt Station KYTS(FM), Channel 271C2, from Ten Sleep to Manderson, Wyoming. Channel 267A can be allotted at Ten Sleep in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 0.3 km (0.2 miles) northeast of Ten Sleep. The proposed coordinates for Channel 267A at Ten Sleep are 44-02-08 North Latitude and 107-26-50 West Longitude. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
            infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before March 9, 2009, and reply comments on or before March 24, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the designated petitioner's counsel as follows: Lee W. Shubert, Esq., Sciarrino & Shubert PLLC, 5425 Tree Line Drive, Centreville, Virginia 20120-1676.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-242, adopted January 14, 2009, and released January 16, 2009. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wyoming, is amended by adding Ten Sleep, Channel 267A.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-2399 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 1
        [WC Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket No. 09-51; DA 15-542]
        Parties Asked To Refresh Record Regarding Petition to Reconsideration Cost Allocators Used To Calculate the Telecom Rate for Pole Attachments

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks to refresh the record on a petition for reconsideration or clarification filed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), COMPTEL, and tw telecom inc. (Petitioners) in the above-referenced proceedings. Petitioners request that “the rules be clarified or amended by specifying [that] the cost allocator to be applied [will be] based on the number of attaching entities.”

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before June 4, 2015 and reply comments are due on or before June 15, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 07-245 and GN Docket No. 09-51, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by 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.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jonathan Reel, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-0637, or send an email to johnathan.reel@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document in WC Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket Nos. 09-51; DA 15-542 released on May 6, 2015. It is available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

        I. Public Notice
        1. By this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks to refresh the record on a petition for reconsideration or clarification filed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), COMPTEL, and tw telecom inc. (Petitioners) on June 8, 2011 in the above-referenced proceedings.

        2. With respect to the rule concerning the calculation of pole attachment rates charged to telecommunications providers pursuant to section 224(e) of the Communications Act, Petitioners request that “the rules be clarified or amended by specifying [that] the cost allocator to be applied [will be] based on the number of attaching entities.” In support of this request, Petitioners state that, in the 2011 Pole Attachment Order, “the new formula adjusts the cost basis to 66 percent in urban service areas and to 44 percent in rural service areas. When paired with the presumptions that there are five entities on urban poles and three entities on rural poles, the illustrative calculation almost exactly equals the cable rate.” Petitioners assert, however, that as written the rule may be read to address only the cases of the presumed three and five attaching entities. Therefore, Petitioners request that the Commission clarify or expand the telecom rate formula to “provide the corresponding cost adjustments scaled to other entity counts.” Petitioners request, alternatively, that “the Commission could adopt the proposal in the 2010 Pole Attachment FNPRM to establish the maximum just and reasonable rate as the higher of the cable rate . . . or the `lower bound' telecom rate obtained by excluding capital costs from the definition of `cost of providing space' in the existing telecom rate formula.”

        3. A Public Notice released on June 20, 2011 announced the comment cycle for the Petition. The Commission subsequently published that document A National Broadband Plan For Our Future; Petition for Reconsideration, 76 FR 44495, July 26, 2011. The Commission received comment both for and against the Petition.

        4. After the close of the comment cycle concerning the Petition, on February 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the 2011 Pole Attachment Order, including the Commission's rule for calculating the pole attachment rate for providers of telecommunications services. Among other things, the Court determined that the term “cost,” as used in section 224(e), is open to a wide range of reasonable interpretations; that the Commission's methodology for apportioning “cost” among pole attaches for purposes of the telecom rate is consistent with section 224(e); and that the Commission's justifications for its decision concerning the telecom rate were reasonable. In addition, the Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order discussed the concern raised in the Petition regarding consequences to the goals of the 2011 Pole Attachment Order if the cost allocation rule were interpreted to apply fully only in instances where there are three and five attaching entities. With regard to any possible adverse effect on investment incentives from such an interpretation, the Open Internet Order stated that the Commission would be “concerned by any potential undermining of the gains the Commission achieved by revising the pole attachment rates paid by telecommunications carriers” in 2011 and accordingly would be “monitoring marketplace developments . . . and can and will promptly take further action in that regard if warranted.” Given the time that has elapsed since the filing and original comment cycle on the NCTA Petition, as well as the subsequent events discussed above, we seek to ensure that the record reflects current viewpoints on the issues raised in the NCTA Petition.
        II. Procedural Matters
        A. Accessible Formats

        5. 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). Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CARTS, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        B. Filing Requirements
        6. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding continues to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 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.
        7. Comment and Reply Comment. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Because more than one docket number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by firstclass or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street 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.
        • 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (tty).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Randy Clarke,
          Division Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2015-11651 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P