52470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 25, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 11, 2010. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 2. Section 52.920(e), is amended by 

adding a new entry for the ‘‘Paducah 8- 

Hour Ozone Attainment/1–Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan Section 110(a)(1)’’ at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Paducah 8-Hour Ozone Attainment/1-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan Section 110(a)(1).

Marshall and Livingston 

Counties.

May 27, 2008 ............... August 26, 2010 [insert 

citation of publication].

[FR Doc. 2010–21107 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0113–200709(c); 

FRL–9193–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans Georgia: State 

Implementation Plan Revision; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2010, EPA 

published a direct final rule approving 

revisions to the Georgia State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division on September 26, 2006, with a 

clarifying revision submitted on 

November 6, 2006. This action corrects 

a typographical error in the regulatory 

text in Table (c) of the aforementioned 

Federal Register notice. 

DATES: This action is effective August 

26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

documentation used in the action being 

corrected are available for inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

following location: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Benjamin can be reached at 404–562– 

9040, or via electronic mail at 

benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action corrects a typographical error in 

the regulatory language for an entry that 

appears in Table (c) of Georgia’s 

Identification of Plan section at 40 CFR 

52.570. The direct final action which 

approved the addition of new rule 

391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr), ‘‘NOX Emissions 

from Small Fuel-Burning Equipment,’’ 

was approved by EPA on February 9, 

2010 (75 FR 6309). However, EPA 

inadvertently listed new rule (rrr) as 

being revised, rather than added as a 

new entry, in Table (c). Therefore, EPA 

is correcting this typographical error by 

clarifying that rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr) 

is being added as a new entry to Table 

(c)—EPA Approved Georgia 

Regulations. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ 

authorizes agencies to dispense with 

public participation where public notice 

and comment procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Public notice and 

comment for this action are unnecessary 

because today’s action to clarify the 

addition of new rule 

391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr), in Table (c) of the 

rulemaking, has no substantive impact 

on EPA’s February 9, 2010, approval of 

this regulation. In addition, EPA can 

identify no particular reason why the 

public would be interested in being 

notified of the correction of this table 

entry, or in having the opportunity to 

comment on the correction prior to this 

action being finalized, since this 

correction action does not change the 

meaning of EPA’s analysis or action to 

approve the addition of rule 

391–3–1–.–2(2)(rrr) to the Georgia SIP. 

EPA also finds that there is good 

cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for 

this correction to become effective on 

the date of publication of this action. 

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by 

the agency for good cause found and 

published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day 

waiting period prescribed in APA 

section 553(d)(3) is to give affected 

parties a reasonable time to adjust their 

behavior and prepare before the final 

rule takes effect. Today’s rule, however, 

does not create any new regulatory 

requirements such that affected parties 

would need time to prepare before the 

rule takes effect. Rather, today’s rule 

merely corrects a typographical error in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 52471 

Table (c) of a prior rule by clarifying the 

addition, rather than the revision, of 

rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr), which EPA 

approved on February 9, 2010. For these 

reasons, EPA finds good cause under 

APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction 

to become effective on the date of 

publication of this action. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely corrects a 

typographical error in Table (c) of a 

prior rule by identifying the addition of 

new rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr), in a 

regulation which EPA approved on 

February 9, 2010, and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule merely corrects an inadvertent error 

in Table (c) of a prior rule, and does not 

impose any additional enforceable duty 

beyond that required by state law, it 

does not contain any unfunded mandate 

or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

rule also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule merely 

corrects a typographical error in Table 

(c) of a prior rule by identifying the 

addition of new rule 391–3–1– 

.02(2)(rrr), in a regulation which EPA 

approved on February 9, 2010, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. In addition, this rule does 

not involve technical standards, thus 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule also 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 25, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 16, 2010. 

J. Scott Gordon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. Section 52.570(c) is amended by 

adding an entry for 

‘‘391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED GEORGIA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr) ................. NOX Emissions from Small 

Fuel-Burning Equipment.

3/27/06 8/26/10 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

52472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–21114 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 95 

[ET Docket No. 06–135; FCC 10–128] 

Spectrum Requirements for Advanced 

Medical Technologies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses a 

petition for reconsideration (petition) 

filed by Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic) 

regarding rules for the Medical Device 

Radiocommunication (MedRadio) 

service. The Commission grants 

reconsideration to the extent of 

amending the MedRadio rules to permit 

the submission of average power 

transmitter measurements, and making 

editorial corrections or clarifications to 

several provisions concerning the 

frequency monitoring criteria and 

permissible communications for ‘‘listenbefore-talk’’ (LBT) and non-LBT devices. 

The Commission denies reconsideration 

in all other respects and otherwise 

affirms certain provisions of the 

MedRadio rules questioned by 

Medtronic. 

DATES: Effective September 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Settle, (202) 418–1569 or Gary 

Thayer, Policy and Rules Division, 

Office of Engineering and Technology, 

(202) 418–2290, Mark.Settle@fcc.gov or 

Gary.Thayer@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 

Docket No. 06–135, adopted July 15, 

2010, and released July 26, 2010. The 

full text of this document is available on 

the Commission’s Internet site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available 

for inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text of this document 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplication contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th St., SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 

488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion 

and Order 

1. The Commission addresses a 

petition for reconsideration (petition) 

filed by Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic) 

regarding rules for the Medical Device 

Radio-communication (MedRadio) 

service. The Commission granted 

reconsideration to the extent of 

amending the MedRadio rules to permit 

the submission of average power 

transmitter measurements, and making 

editorial corrections or clarifications to 

several provisions concerning the 

frequency monitoring criteria and 

permissible communications for ‘‘listenbefore-talk’’ (LBT) and non-LBT devices. 

The Commission denied reconsideration 

in all other respects and otherwise 

affirmed certain provisions of the 

MedRadio rules questioned by 

Medtronic. 

2. The Commission established the 

MedRadio service under part 95 of the 

rules by Report and Order (MedRadio 

Order), see 74 FR 22696, May 14, 2009. 

Altogether, the MedRadio service 

provides a total of five megahertz of 

contiguous spectrum for advanced 

wireless medical radiocommunication 

devices serving a diverse range of 

diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in 

humans. In the MedRadio Order, the 

Commission also adopted service and 

technical rules governing the operation 

of medical radiocommunication devices 

used in the MedRadio service. Building 

upon the former Medical Implant 

Communications Service (MICS)— 

which limited operation to implanted 

medical devices—the more flexible 

MedRadio rules accommodate bodyworn as well as implanted medical 

devices, including those using either 

LBT or non-LBT spectrum access 

methods. The MedRadio service 

incorporates the MICS ‘‘core’’ band at 

402–405 MHz—which continues to be 

limited to implanted devices—and also 

includes two megahertz of newly 

designated spectrum in the adjacent 

‘‘wing’’ bands at 401–402 MHz and 405– 

406 MHz—in which both body-worn 

and implanted devices are permitted. 

The MedRadio service continues to 

incorporate many of the licensing and 

technical requirements that applied to 

the legacy MICS. 

3. Medtronic requests that the new 

MedRadio rules be amended to permit 

transmitter power measurements to be 

made using average power 

instrumentation techniques that were 

formerly allowed under the MICS rules. 

The former MICS rules stated that 

compliance with the maximum 

transmitter power limits shall be based 

upon measurements using a peak 

detector function or, alternatively, the 

instrumentation techniques set forth in 

a particular American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) standard 

referenced in the rule. That standard has 

been modified by ANSI since adoption 

of the MICS rules in 1999 and no longer 

includes the specific average power 

instrumentation techniques cited by 

Medtronic. As adopted in the MedRadio 

Order, the new rules set forth a 

compliance requirement in terms of a 

‘‘Commission-approved peak power 

technique.’’ Medtronic argues that the 

Commission did not propose to delete 

these provisions of the MICS rules in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(MedRadio NPRM) that preceded the 

adoption of the MedRadio rules, see 71 

FR 43682, August 2, 2006. Medtronic 

further asserts that the peak power 

requirement as set forth in the rule 

adopted in the MedRadio Order would, 

in effect, prohibit the use of average 

power instrumentation techniques that 

were acceptable within the scope of the 

former MICS rule. It contends that the 

inability to rely upon these average 

power techniques for compliance would 

require MedRadio devices to reduce 

power, and that this, in turn, would be 

detrimental to the reliable operation of 

existing equipment and adversely affect 

the development of new generation 

devices. To remedy this concern, 

Medtronic recommends that the 

Commission reinstate the former MICS 

rule provision or, in the alternative, 

restore the intent of the prior rule by 

substituting text that would permit the 

use of average power measurement 

techniques. St. Jude Medical agrees with 

Medtronic, stating that the effect of the 

peak power measurement rule will be to 

sharply reduce the range available to 

some systems. Biotronik opposes 

Medtronic’s request, stating that the 

peak power approach adopted in the 

MedRadio Order is a more appropriate 

technique for MedRadio transmitters 

because average power measurements 

would allow higher power devices in 

the band and, thus, increase the 

potential for interference in the band. 

4. As a threshold matter, the 

Commission addresses Medtronic’s 

suggestion that it failed to provide 

sufficient notice for modifying the 

power measurement provisions. While 

the Commission acknowledges that the 

MedRadio NPRM did not explicitly 

request comment on whether the power 

measurement provisions should be 

modified, changes to these measurement 

provisions are a logical outgrowth of 

issues in the MedRadio NPRM that we 

did present for comment. More 

specifically, the Commission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES