Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22491 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), 12100 Park S. Circle, Austin TX 

78753–3087, (512) 239–6079. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier; please 

follow the detailed instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section of the immediate 

final rule which is located in the Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

immediate final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’section of this 

Federal Register. 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–11189 Filed 5–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 95 

[ET Docket No. 09–36, RM–11404; FCC 09– 

20] 

Additional Spectrum for the Medical 

Device Radiocommunication Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

feasibility of allowing up to 24 

megahertz of spectrum in the 413–457 

MHz band to be used on a secondary 

basis under the umbrella of the existing 

Medical Device Radiocommunication 

Service. This action reflects the 

Commission’s ongoing effort to foster 

the development and deployment of 

advanced medical devices using 

wireless technologies that benefit the 

health and well-being of the American 

public. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before August 11, 2009 and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

September 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Thayer, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2290, e-mail: 

Gary.Thayer@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 09–36, 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: [Optional: Include the Email address only if you plan to accept 

comments from the public]. Include the 

docket number(s) in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

submissions needed/requested by your 

Bureau or Office. Do not include the 

Office of the Secretary’s mailing address 

here.] 

• 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 

09–36, FCC 09–20, adopted March 17, 

2009, and released March 20, 2009. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

(Room CY–A257), Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

document also may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room, CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 

488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563 or 

via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov. 

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. 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 website 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 email 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 messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial 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. 

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). 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In this Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making, the Commission seeks 

comment on the feasibility of allowing 

up to 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 

22492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

413–457 MHz band to be used on a 

secondary basis under the existing 

Medical Device Radiocommunication 

Service (MedRadio Service) framework 

in part 95 of the Commission’s rules. 

This action is taken in response to a 

petition for rulemaking filed by Alfred 

Mann Foundation (Alfred Mann or 

AMF). Numerous commenters also 

support the general concept espoused 

by Alfred Mann of providing spectrum 

for use by advanced microstimulator 

devices that might service as artificial 

nervous systems for those suffering from 

a wide array of debilitating disorders or 

injuries. 

2. This Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making also reflects the Commission’s 

ongoing effort to foster the development 

and deployment of advanced medical 

devices using wireless technologies that 

benefit the health and well-being of the 

American public. For example, large 

numbers of Americans, including U.S. 

service men and women returning each 

year from military service, suffer from 

spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain 

injuries, strokes, and various 

neuromusculoskeletal disorders. For 

these persons, the prospect of 

recovering some degree of sensation, 

mobility, and other functions for 

paralyzed limbs and organs offers new 

hope for improved quality of life. 

Furthermore, these individuals could be 

provided with safer, less-invasive, and 

more effective treatment options as 

compared with existing wired 

therapeutic approaches. 

3. In light of these potential health 

benefits, the Commission proposes in 

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making to 

provide access to spectrum for wireless 

micro-power networks that would be 

comprised of multiple networked 

implanted devices that employ 

wideband functional electrical 

stimulation techniques. 

Frequency Allocation 

4. The Commission concludes that the 

record supports its consideration of 

additional spectrum in the 413–457 

MHz band for the MedRadio Service 

under part 95 of our rules. Accordingly, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

suitability of four segments of the 413– 

457 MHz band (413–419 MHz, 426–432 

MHz, 438–444 MHz, and 451–457 MHz) 

that Alfred Mann requested be made 

available for use by medical micropower networks (MMN) or other similar 

bandwidth intensive medical implant 

networks that require a high degree of 

operational reliability. 

5. In its petition for rulemaking, 

Alfred Mann argues that WMTS 

spectrum is unsuitable for wideband 

MMN devices because frequencies 

above 470 MHz are outside the preferred 

range of spectrum for propagation of 

radiofrequency (‘‘RF’’) signals within 

the human body. To explore this 

assertion more fully, the Commission 

invites commenters to address the 

validity of Alfred Mann’s arguments 

above in support of permitting MMN 

operations in the specified segments of 

the 413–457 MHz band rather than in 

the other frequency bands, which Alfred 

Mann asserts are either unavailable or 

undesirable. 

6. The Commission further notes that 

the 413–450 MHz band is presently 

used by federal agencies for land mobile 

radio and radar operations. The 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) has 

made available information that has 

been incorporated into ET Docket No. 

09–36 which provides greater detail 

concerning federal operations in the 

band, as well as a discussion of 

technical issues related to 

electromagnetic compatibility between 

medical devices and federal systems in 

this band. The Commission observes 

that use of this band for non-Federal 

operations would require agreement 

with NTIA. To lay the groundwork for 

considering the ramifications of such a 

prospective agreement, the Commission 

proposes to allow MMNs to operate in 

this band on a secondary basis at 413– 

419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, and 438–444 

MHz, subject to the further condition 

that harmful interference should not be 

caused to Federal operations in the 

band. The Commission further proposes 

to provide for such use by including a 

U.S. footnote to the Table of Allocations 

in part 2 of the rules for the specific 

band segments. It seeks comment on 

this approach. The Commission also 

seeks comment on allowing MMNs to 

operate in the 451–457 MHz band on a 

secondary basis by including a U.S. 

footnote to the Table of Allocations. 

7. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether permitting MMNs 

to operate in these bands would cause 

interference to incumbent users, as well 

as whether transmissions from 

incumbent stations could adversely 

affect the operation of such medical 

devices, possibly resulting in adverse 

effects to patients using the medical 

devices. Given the low transmitter 

power and duty cycle limits that would 

typically be used by either the 

implanted MMN device or the external 

MCU, the Commission states that it 

expects that the risk of interference from 

MMNs to incumbent operations in these 

frequency bands would be negligibly 

small. Because MMNs typically would 

be operating at much lower power than 

an incumbent station, the latter should 

be able to overcome any interference 

received from any MMN device. The 

risk of interference to incumbent 

operations also would likely be 

mitigated by other factors such as 

separation distances from a MMN to an 

incumbent station, and only a small 

amount of energy from a wideband 

MMN would be received by a 

narrowband land mobile station. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

observations as well as other factors that 

should be considered in assessing 

potential interference from MMNs to the 

incumbent systems. For example, given 

the potentially large number of 

implanted devices that a MMN might 

use, is there a potential for interference 

to incumbent systems from the 

simultaneous operation of multiple 

implanted devices? 

8. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether allowing use of 

the 413–419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, 438– 

444 MHz, and 451–457 MHz frequency 

bands on a secondary basis for new 

MMN devices would be consistent with 

international spectrum allocations and 

operations. In this regard, the 

Commission observes that the 413–419 

MHz, 426–432 MHz, 438–444 MHz, and 

451–457 MHz bands are allocated to 

‘‘mobile, except aeronautical mobile,’’ 

services on a primary basis in all or 

substantial portions of the three 

International Telecommunication Union 

regions. 

Service and Technical Rules 

9. The Commission states that the 

central focus in this Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is on MMNs that would be 

used to provide FES therapeutic 

treatment and the kinds of devices that 

would be part of these networks as 

described by Alfred Mann. Thus, the 

Commission invites comment on other 

types of functional electric stimulation 

(FES) applications that would be 

consistent with MMN operations and 

that would similarly require the wider 

emission bandwidth that might be 

accommodated in this spectrum, and 

which is not available in other spectrum 

currently identified for wireless medical 

devices. The Commission also notes that 

the AMF petition includes an appendix 

that sets forth one possible framework 

for the service and technical rules as a 

separate subpart of part 95 and invites 

comment on the suggestions in Alfred 

Mann’s petition. 

10. Licensing. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the operation of 

MMN devices in the 413–457 MHz band 

should be authorized in the same 

manner as other medical devices in the 

MedRadio Service—namely, under part 

95 of the rules, and thus providing for 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22493 

license-by-rule operation pursuant to 

Section 307(e) of the Communications 

Act (Act). 

11. The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether this license-byrule framework would provide the most 

beneficial approach for MMN devices, 

but also asks whether other approaches 

would be preferable. If so, how would 

those alternative approaches be 

structured, and why? What would be 

the relative benefits and disadvantages 

compared with the license-by-rule 

approach? 

12. Definitions. The Commission 

seeks comment on what definitions 

should be included in its rules for MMN 

medical devices operating in the 413– 

457 MHz band. In addition, the Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making proposes the 

following definitions: 

• Medical Micro-power Network 

(MMN): An ultra-low power radio 

service for the transmission of non-voice 

data to and from medical implant 

devices for the purpose of facilitating 

functional electric stimulation and 

sensing, a technique using electric 

currents to activate and monitor nerves 

and muscles. A MMN is comprised of 

multiple medical implant devices under 

the control of a MMN control 

transmitter. 

• MMN control transmitter: A MMN 

transmitter that operates or is designed 

to operate outside of a human body for 

the purpose of communicating with a 

receiver connected to a MMN implant 

device or to another MMN transmitter 

associated with a MMN implant device, 

and is sometimes referred to as a Master 

Control Unit (MCU). 

• MMN implant transmitter: A MMN 

transmitter that operates or is designed 

to operate within a human body for the 

purpose of facilitating communication 

from a medical implant device. 

• MMN transmitter: A transmitter 

authorized to operate as part of a MMN. 

13. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether these definitions are 

suitable. Are they too broad or too 

narrow? Should alternative definitions 

be used? For example, should other 

components of wireless MMN networks 

also be identified and defined? would 

any current definitions included in the 

MedRadio Service rules need to be 

modified to accommodate wireless 

medical devices operating at 413–457 

MHz? 

14. Permissible Communications and 

Operator Eligibility. The Commission 

seeks comment on adopting 

requirements for permissible MMN 

communications and MMN operator 

eligibility that are generally the same as 

those in place for the MedRadio Service. 

For example, the existing MedRadio 

rules provide that a medical implant 

device may be used by persons for 

diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, 

but only to the extent that such devices 

have been provided to a human patient 

under the direction of a duly authorized 

health care professional. Furthermore, 

transmissions are limited to non-voice 

data signals. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, the Commission states its 

belief that applying these same 

requirements would be central to 

maintaining the intended use of this 

spectrum primarily for devices that 

could serve as artificial nervous systems 

or components thereof. The Commission 

thus seeks comment on whether these 

same requirements would be 

appropriate for MMNs. 

15. The Commission also notes that 

the present MedRadio Service rules do 

not allow medical implant programmer/ 

control transmitters to relay information 

to a receiver that is not included with 

a medical implant device. However, it 

observes that the MedRadio Service 

rules do allow medical implant 

programmer/control transmitters to be 

interconnected with other 

telecommunications systems including 

the public switched telephone network. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether, and why, similar requirements 

should also apply to the proposed MMN 

operations. 

16. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether implant-to-implant 

communication should be allowed, and 

whether there should be a requirement 

that each external master control unit 

(or MCU) must always control the 

transmitters implanted within a single 

patient. The Commission also asks 

several related questions. Should all 

implants in a single patient be 

controlled by a single MCU, thus 

comprising a single network, even if the 

implants control different functions 

within the patient? Or should implants 

that perform different functions within 

the patient be organized into separate 

networks, each controlled by its own 

MCU? Could one MCU control multiple 

implants in more than one patient? 

What would be the impact if multiple 

MCUs were to be used for a single 

patient? 

Technical Rules 

17. Emission Bandwidth. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

maximum emission bandwidth that 

should be permitted for MMN devices. 

The Commission notes that each of the 

four segments of the 413–457 MHz band 

under consideration in this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making for use by MMN 

devices occupies six megahertz of 

spectrum. Thus, it tentatively concludes 

that specifying a maximum emission 

bandwidth of six megahertz would 

appear to be a reasonable option 

because it would be to allow each MMN 

device to fully utilize the available 

spectrum in each band segment. By 

comparison, however, Alfred Mann 

suggests limiting the maximum 

emission bandwidth of MMNs to 

approximately five megahertz. The 

Commission notes that a six megahertz 

maximum emission bandwidth would 

afford some degree of flexibility for 

manufacturers in identifying the center 

frequency of MMN transmissions but it 

also could have an adverse impact on 

spectrum use efficiency. Thus, in the 

alternative, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether an even smaller 

maximum emission bandwidth (e.g., 

three megahertz) would be sufficient for 

MMN purposes and might serve to 

further improve spectrum use 

efficiency. In this regard, the 

Commission asks commenters to 

address these questions in the context of 

the following expected operational 

needs of MMN devices: (1) To transmit 

large amounts of data necessary to 

perform complex biomedical functions; 

(2) to transmit heavily coded messages 

necessary to permit detection and 

correction of errors; and (3) to conserve 

battery power while minimizing the size 

of the battery and thus the size of the 

implantable microstimulator. 

Commenters are also invited to address 

the potential impact of any particular 

emission bandwidth with respect to the 

potential for increased or decreased 

compatibility with incumbent users. 

18. Channelization. The Commission 

proposes to adopt rules that do not 

specify any particular channeling plan 

for MMN device operation, thereby 

following the approach used with the 

MedRadio Service. Under this approach, 

a ‘‘channel’’ would be loosely defined as 

the maximum bandwidth occupied by 

the transmissions from a MMN device 

in the course of a MMN 

communications session. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the potential benefit of more efficient 

spectrum use under this approach 

would be outweighed by an increased 

risk of adverse mutual interactions 

between MMN devices using differing 

center frequencies and bandwidths. The 

Commission seeks comment on what 

other factors should be considered 

under this option, and whether other 

more specific channeling plans might be 

considered. 

19. Contention protocol requirement. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether a contention protocol should be 

applied to MMN transmitting devices, 

and if so, how such a protocol might be 

22494 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

developed. In particular, it seeks 

comment on whether a contention 

protocol should be applied to MMN 

transmitting devices, and if so, how 

such a protocol might be developed. 

The Commission also invites comment 

on whether it should rely upon the 

general definition of contention-based 

protocol recently adopted by the 

Commission in another rulemaking 

proceeding for the operation of wireless 

devices under part 90 of the rules in the 

3650 MHz band Thus, the proposed 

definition would reads as follows. 

‘‘Contention-based protocol. A protocol 

that allows multiple users to share the same 

spectrum by defining the events that must 

occur when two or more transmitters attempt 

to simultaneously access the same channel 

and establishing rules by which a transmitter 

provides reasonable opportunities for other 

transmitters to operate. Such a protocol may 

consist of procedures for initiating new 

transmissions, procedures for determining 

the state of the channel (available or 

unavailable), and procedures for managing 

retransmissions in the event of a busy 

channel.’’ 

20. The Commission observes that, 

depending upon such factors as the 

transmit/receive reliability, or quality of 

service requirements of a particular use, 

a practical contention protocol could 

take a variety of forms, such as listenbefore-talk (LBT) frequency monitoring, 

time slot synchronization, or frequency 

hopping among others. The system 

described by Alfred Mann in its 

petition, for example, appears to depend 

upon time slot sharing to avoid 

interference with individual 

microstimulator devices and associated 

device networks. The Commission seeks 

comment on the advantages and 

disadvantages of such an approach. 

Would a time slot synchronization 

protocol of this nature present 

compatibility issues with respect to 

other protocols that might be used by 

alternative MMN devices? Another 

option would be to follow the existing 

approach of the MedRadio service 

whereby the medical transmitting 

device must incorporate a LBT 

frequency monitoring mechanism to 

monitor the channel or channels that 

the medical device transmitters intend 

to occupy. The Commission notes that 

one potential benefit of this latter 

approach would be that the LBT 

protocol of the MedRadio Service is 

already clearly defined in the rules and 

appears to be successful in allowing a 

number of uncoordinated devices to 

share the same spectrum. 

21. In this regard, The Commission 

encourages commenters to discuss what 

kinds of contention protocols should or 

should not be utilized, and seeks 

detailed responses to the following 

questions. If implemented, how should 

such protocols be defined? Would the 

protocol be open-source or proprietary? 

Would more than one protocol be 

permitted? Should the same protocol be 

required for all devices, and how would 

this be accomplished? How should such 

protocols be established—by rule, by 

industry standard setting procedures, or 

other approaches? Would any of these 

protocols be expected to interact either 

favorably or adversely with incumbent 

users? 

22. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the technical parameters 

associated with frequency monitoring 

protocols that can be used to facilitate 

sharing with the incumbent federal 

users. How should the frequency 

monitoring threshold power level be 

established? How should the minimum 

time for monitoring a channel for an 

incumbent signal be established? What 

effect will the different types of 

incumbent signals have on frequency 

monitoring capabilities? Once a channel 

is determined to be occupied by an 

incumbent should a minimum time be 

established before the channel can be 

monitored? Can a single frequency 

monitoring capability be implemented 

that can detect both pulsed radar signals 

and non-pulsed analog and digital land 

mobile radio signals? 

23. Transmitter power and duty cycle. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what measurement methods would be 

appropriate for establishing compliance 

with maximum EIRP limits for MMN 

devices. With respect to the potential for 

interference to federal operations, the 

Commission seeks specific comments 

on several issues: What, if any, duty 

cycle limits should be imposed; or 

would the inherent duty cycle 

characteristics of MMN devices be 

sufficient to minimize the potential for 

interference to those incumbent 

systems? In assessing the potential 

impact on incumbent systems, what 

other operational factors should be 

considered? Should there be an upper 

limit on the number of devices that 

might comprise a single MMN network, 

or should the individual EIRP of a 

significant number of devices be 

aggregated in some manner? Are there 

any other interference mitigation factors 

that should be considered in this 

regard? 

24. With respect to the potential for 

interference to MMN devices from 

federal government operations, the 

Commission seeks specific comment on 

what interference mitigation techniques 

could be employed with a sufficiently 

high degree of confidence by systems 

using FES or other similar techniques. 

The Commission states that it is 

particularly interested in comments 

relating to error detection and correction 

coding, dynamic channel switching, and 

spectral notching that could be used by 

MMN devices and whether any of these, 

or other such techniques, would be 

effective, either alone or in combination. 

25. Unwanted emissions. The 

Commission observes that the existing 

MedRadio rules under part 95 set forth 

limits on unwanted emissions 

(including limits on both in-band and 

out-of-band radiation) from medical 

transmitting devices operating in the 

401–406 MHz band. Following this 

framework, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether such limits should 

be applied to MMN devices operating in 

the 413–457 MHz band. 

26. Under this approach, emissions 

500 kHz or less above or below any 

particular authorized bandwidth must 

be attenuated by at least 20 dB below 

the transmitter output power. In 

addition, emissions more than 500 kHz 

outside of the authorized bandwidth 

must attenuated to a level no greater 

than the following signal strengths at 3 

m: (a) Between 30–88 MHz, 100 μV/m, 

(b) between 88–216 MHz, 150 μV/m, (c) 

between 216–960 MHz, 200 μV/m, and 

(d) 960 MHz and above, 500 μV/m. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

suitability of these proposed limits on 

out-of-band and spurious emissions and 

whether they would be adequate to 

protect incumbent operations, while 

fostering efficient spectrum use by 

MMN devices. 

27. Frequency stability. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

each MMN transmitter should be 

required to maintain a frequency 

stability of +/¥ 100 ppm of the 

operating frequency over the range: (1) 

25 °C to 45 °C in the case of MMNS 

implant transmitters; and (2) 0 °C to 

55 °C in the case of MMNS control 

transmitters. 

28. Antenna locations. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to require that no antenna for a MMN 

control transmitter may be configured 

for permanent outdoor use. Under such 

a provision, any MMN control 

transmitter used outdoors would not be 

allowed to be affixed to any structure for 

which the height to the tip of the 

antenna will exceed three (3) meters (9.8 

feet) above ground. This would replicate 

the same requirement that applies to the 

MedRadio Service. 

29. RF safety. In this proceeding, the 

Commission only seeks comment on 

whether MMN implant and control 

transmitters should be deemed as 

portable devices subject to Sections 

2.1093 and 1.1307 of the existing rules. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22495 

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA). Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). 

2See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

3 See ‘‘Amendment of Parts 2 and 95 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Establish the Medical 

Micropower Network Service in the 413–457 MHz 

band’’, Petition for Rulemaking, filed September 5, 

2007, by Alfred Mann Foundation, placed on Public 

Notice for comment October 3, 2007, (Report No. 

2835; RM–11404) (AMF Petition). See also 

‘‘Investigation of the Spectrum Requirements for 

Advanced Medical Technologies, ET Docket No. 

06–135; Amendment of Parts 2 and 95 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Establish the Medical Device 

Radiocommunication Service at 401–402 and 405– 

406 MHz, RM–11271; DexCom, Inc., Request for 

Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring Requirements 

of the Medical Implant Communications Service 

Rules, ET Docket No. 05–213; Biotronik, Inc., 

Request for Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring 

Requirements of the Medical Implant 

Communications Service Rules, ET Docket No. 03– 

92, Report and Order, adopted March 19, 2009, 

released March 20, 2009, FCC 09–23. (setting forth 

rules for the MedRadio Service). 

The Commission notes that portable 

devices are subject to Section 2.1093 of 

the rules, pursuant to which an 

environmental assessment must be 

prepared under Section 1.1307. These 

rule sections also govern existing 

MedRadio devices. Devices covered by 

these rules are subject to routine 

environmental evaluation for RF 

exposure prior to equipment 

authorization of use. 

Miscellaneous Provisions 

30. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on various provisions 

regarding equipment certification, 

authorized locations, station 

identification, station inspection, 

disclosure policy, labeling requirements 

and marketing limitations that mirror 

the existing MedRadio rules. 

31. Equipment Certification. First, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should require that each MMN 

transmitter authorized to operate in the 

413–457 MHz band must be certificated 

except for such transmitters that are not 

marketed for use in the United States, 

but which otherwise comply with the 

applicable technical requirements and 

are operated in the United States by 

individuals who have traveled to the 

United States from abroad. 

32. Authorized Locations, Station 

Identification, and Inspections. For 

authorized locations, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

require that operation would be 

authorized anywhere CB station 

operation is authorized under § 95.405. 

With respect to station identification, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

providing that a MMN station would not 

be required to transmit a station 

identification announcement. It also 

seeks comment on whether to provide 

that all non-implanted MMN transmitter 

apparatus be made available for 

inspection upon request by an 

authorized FCC representative. Under 

such a provision, persons operating 

implanted MNN transmitters would be 

required to cooperate reasonably with 

duly authorized FCC representatives in 

the resolution of interference. The 

Commission seeks comment on all of 

these options. 

33. Disclosure Statement. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to require that manufacturers of MMN 

transmitters include with each 

transmitting device the following 

disclosure statement: ‘‘This transmitter 

is authorized by rule under the 

MedRadio Service (47 CFR Part 95). 

This transmitter must not cause harmful 

interference to stations authorized to 

operate on a primary basis in the 413– 

419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, 438–444 MHz, 

and 451–457 MHz bands, and must 

accept interference that may be caused 

by such stations, including interference 

that may cause undesired operation. 

This transmitter shall be used only in 

accordance with the FCC Rules 

governing the MedRadio Service. 

Analog and digital voice 

communications are prohibited. 

Although this transmitter has been 

approved by the Federal 

Communications Commission, there is 

no guarantee that it will not receive 

interference or that any particular 

transmission from this transmitter will 

be free from interference.’’ The 

Commission notes that this language 

tracks the existing MedRadio disclosure 

requirement. 

34. Labeling. The Commission further 

seeks comment on whether to require 

that MMN control transmitters be 

labeled and shall bear the following 

statement in a conspicuous location on 

the device: ‘‘This device may not 

interfere with stations authorized to 

operate on a primary basis in the 413– 

419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, 438–444 MHz, 

and 451–457 MHz bands, and must 

accept any interference received, 

including interference that may cause 

undesired operation.’’ Where a MMN 

control transmitter is constructed in two 

or more sections connected by wire and 

marketed together, the statement 

specified in this section would be 

required to be affixed only to the main 

control unit. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to require that 

MMN implant transmitters be identified 

with a serial number. Under that plan, 

the Commission would allow the FCC 

ID number associated with the 

transmitter and the information required 

by § 2.925 of the FCC rules to be placed 

in the instruction manual for the 

transmitter in lieu of being placed 

directly on the transmitter. 

35. Marketing Limitations. Finally, 

with respect to marketing limitations, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

requiring that MMN transmitters 

intended for operation in any portions 

of the 413–419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, 

438–444 MHz, and 451–457 MHz bands 

may be marketed and sold only for those 

permissible uses. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

36. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (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 provided 

in paragraph 60 of this NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA).2

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

37. The Commission seeks comment 

on the feasibility of allowing up to 24 

megahertz of spectrum in the 413–457 

MHz band to be used on a secondary 

basis under the Medical Device 

Radiocommunication Service 

(MedRadio Service) in Part 95 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

takes this action in response to a 

petition for rulemaking filed by Alfred 

Mann Foundation (Alfred Mann or 

AMF) and numerous supportive 

comments concerning groundbreaking 

advances in implantable neuromuscular 

microstimulation devices using wireless 

technologies.3 As described by Alfred 

Mann, a number of these implanted 

devices could be surgically injected in 

a patient and configured along with an 

external control unit to function as a 

wideband medical micro-power 

network—or MMN. MMNs using 

functional electric stimulation (or FES) 

techniques could serve as an artificial 

nervous system to restore sensation, 

mobility, and function to paralyzed 

limbs and organs. 

B. Legal Basis 

38. The proposed action is authorized 

under Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 

303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

22496 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

5 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

6 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15 U.S.C. 

632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition 

of a small business applies ‘‘unless an agency, after 

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration and after 

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or 

more definitions of such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the agency and 

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 

Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

7Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). 

8See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet 

No. CO–0028, at page 40 (July 2002). 

9 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 

10 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit 

Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 

11 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 

12U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 

13We assume that the villages, school districts, 

and special districts are small, and total 48,558. See 

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. 

For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total 

number of county, municipal, and township 

governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 

35,819 were small. Id. 

14 47 CFR Part 90. 

15NAICS code 334220. 

16NAICS code 11210. 

17 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211. 

18 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 

19U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, 

Subject Series: ‘‘Information,’’ Table 5, Employment 

Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS 

code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005). 

20 Id. The census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with ‘‘1000 

employees or more.’’ 

21U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, 

Subject Series: ‘‘Information,’’ Table 5, Employment 

Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS 

code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005). 

22 Id. The census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with ‘‘1000 

employees or more.’’ 

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 

302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

39. 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.4 The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 5 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.6 A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA.7

40. Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data.8 A 

‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ 9

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations.10 The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’ 11 Census Bureau data for 

2002 indicate that there were 87,525 

local governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States.12 We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 13 Thus, 

we estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

41. Personal Radio Services. The 

Medical Device Radio Communications 

Services are being placed within part 95 

of our rules (‘‘Personal Radio Services’’). 

Personal radio services provide shortrange, low power radio for personal 

communications, radio signaling, and 

business communications not provided 

for in other services. The Personal Radio 

Services include spectrum licensed 

under part 95 of our rules and covers a 

broad range of uses.14 Many of the 

licensees in these services are 

individuals, and thus are not small 

entities. In addition, due to the fact that 

licensing of operation under part 95 is 

accomplished by rule (rather than by 

issuance of individual license), and due 

to the shared nature of the spectrum 

utilized by some of these services, the 

Commission lacks direct information 

other than the census data above, upon 

which to base an estimation of the 

number of small entities under an SBA 

definition that might be directly affected 

by the proposed rules. 

42. The Commission does note, 

however, that the designation for the 

two megahertz of spectrum for the 

Medical Device Radio Communications 

Service would be limited to use by 

medical implant and body-worn 

medical devices and, thus, would not be 

shared with other non-Federal 

Governmental uses. To date, there are 

only a small number of manufacturers 

(i.e., less than ten—maybe five or so) 

that produce these devices, and FDA 

approval must be secured before such 

devices are brought to market. Due to 

the stringent FDA approval 

requirements, the small number of 

existing medical device manufacturers 

tends to focus very narrowly on this 

highly specialized market niche. 

43. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturers. The Census 

Bureau does not have a category specific 

to medical device radiocommunication 

manufacturing. The appropriate 

category is that for wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturers. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: All such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees.15

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,041 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,010 had employment of under 

500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small.16

44. Wireless Service Providers. The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for wireless firms within 

the two broad economic census 

categories of ‘‘Paging’’ 17 and ‘‘Cellular 

and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications.’’ 18 Under both 

categories, the SBA deems a wireless 

business to be small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. For the census 

category of Paging, Census Bureau data 

for 2002 show that there were 807 firms 

in this category that operated for the 

entire year.19 Of this total, 804 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees, 

and three firms had employment of 

1,000 employees or more.20 Thus, under 

this category and associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. For the 

census category of Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications, Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were 1,397 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year.21 Of this 

total, 1,378 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more.22 Thus, under this second 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22497 

23With the exception of the special emergency 

service, these services are governed by Subpart B 

of part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 

90.15–90.27. The police service includes 

approximately 27,000 licensees that serve state, 

county, and municipal enforcement through 

telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype 

and facsimile (printed material). The fire radio 

service includes approximately 23,000 licensees 

comprised of private volunteer or professional fire 

companies as well as units under governmental 

control. The local government service that is 

presently comprised of approximately 41,000 

licensees that are state, county, or municipal 

entities that use the radio for official purposes not 

covered by other public safety services. There are 

approximately 7,000 licensees within the forestry 

service which is comprised of licensees from state 

departments of conservation and private forest 

organizations who set up communications networks 

among fire lookout towers and ground crews. The 

approximately 9,000 state and local governments 

are licensed to highway maintenance service 

provide emergency and routine communications to 

aid other public safety services to keep main roads 

safe for vehicular traffic. The approximately 1,000 

licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service 

(EMRS) use the 39 channels allocated to this service 

for emergency medical service communications 

related to the delivery of emergency medical 

treatment. 47 CFR 90.15–90.27. The approximately 

20,000 licensees in the special emergency service 

include medical services, rescue organizations, 

veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief 

organizations, school buses, beach patrols, 

establishments in isolated areas, communications 

standby facilities, and emergency repair of public 

communications facilities. 47 CFR 90.33–90.55. 

24 47 CFR 1.1162. 

25 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 

26See 47 CFR 95.401(d). 

27Under Section 307(e) of the Act, the 

Commission may authorize the operation of radio 

stations by rule without individual licenses in 

certain specified radio services when the 

Commission determines that such authorization 

serves the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity. The services set forth in this provision for 

which the Commission may authorize operation by 

rule include: (1) The Citizens Band Radio Service, 

(2) the Radio Control Service, (3) the Aviation Radio 

Service, and (4) the Maritime Radio Service. See 47 

USC Section 307(e)(1). 28See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

category and size standard, the majority 

of firms can, again, be considered small. 

45. Public Safety Radio Services. 

Public Safety radio services include 

police, fire, local government, forestry 

conservation, highway maintenance, 

and emergency medical services.23 For 

small businesses in this category, the 

above small business size standard 

applies to 1500 or fewer employees. 

There are a total of approximately 

127,540 licensees in these services. 

Governmental entities 24 as well as 

private businesses comprise the 

licensees for these services. All 

governmental entities with populations 

of less than 50,000 fall within the 

definition of a small entity.25

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

46. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether medical device operations 

in the 413–457 MHz band should be 

authorized, like other medical devices 

in the MedRadio Service under part 95 

of its rules, thus providing for licenseby-rule operation 26 pursuant to Section 

307(e) of the Communications Act 

(Act).27 Under this approach, medical 

devices would operate in the band on a 

shared, non-exclusive basis with respect 

to each other. As the Commission 

determined when it adopted the 

MedRadio Service rules, it continues to 

believe that this approach minimizes 

regulatory burdens and facilitates the 

expeditious deployment of new 

generations of beneficial wireless 

medical devices that can improve the 

quality of life for countless Americans, 

thus serving the public interest, 

convenience and necessity. 

47. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether this license-byrule framework would provide the most 

beneficial approach for MMN devices. 

Would other approaches be preferable? 

If so, how would those alternative 

approaches be structured, and why? 

What would be the relative benefits and 

disadvantages compared with the 

license-by-rule approach? 

48. The Commission also seeks 

comment on various provisions 

regarding equipment certification, 

authorized locations, station 

identification, station inspection, 

disclosure policy, labeling requirements 

and marketing limitations that mirror 

the existing MedRadio rules. 

49. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to require that 

manufacturers of MMN transmitters 

include with each transmitting device 

the following disclosure statement: 

‘‘This transmitter is authorized by rule 

under the MedRadio Service (47 CFR 

part 95). This transmitter must not cause 

harmful interference to stations 

authorized to operate on a primary basis 

in the 413–419 MHz, 426–432 MHz, 

438–444 MHz, and 451–457 MHz bands, 

and must accept interference that may 

be caused by such stations, including 

interference that may cause undesired 

operation. This transmitter shall be used 

only in accordance with the FCC Rules 

governing the MedRadio Service. 

Analog and digital voice 

communications are prohibited. 

Although this transmitter has been 

approved by the Federal 

Communications Commission, there is 

no guarantee that it will not receive 

interference or that any particular 

transmission from this transmitter will 

be free from interference.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

language, which mirrors the existing 

MedRadio requirement. 

50. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to require that 

MMN control transmitters be labeled 

and shall bear the following statement 

in a conspicuous location on the device: 

‘‘This device may not interfere with 

stations authorized to operate on a 

primary basis in the 413–419 MHz, 426– 

432 MHz, 438–444 MHz, and 451–457 

MHz bands, and must accept any 

interference received, including 

interference that may cause undesired 

operation.’’ Where a MMN control 

transmitter is constructed in two or 

more sections connected by wire and 

marketed together, the statement 

specified in this section would be 

required to be affixed only to the main 

control unit. It also seeks comment on 

whether to require that MMN implant 

transmitters be identified with a serial 

number. Under that plan, we would 

allow the FCC ID number associated 

with the transmitter and the information 

required by § 2.925 of the FCC Rules to 

be placed in the instruction manual for 

the transmitter in lieu of being placed 

directly on the transmitter. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

51. 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 or 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 any part thereof, 

for small entities.28

52. In this proceeding, the 

Commission notes that the ‘‘license by 

rule’’ approach of the MedRadio service 

(and the related equipment certification, 

disclosure, and labeling requirements 

discussed above) that it proposes here 

for MMN operation already afford the 

benefit of minimal regulatory and 

economic impact on prospective users, 

including small entities. Nevertheless, 

in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

the Commission seeks further comment 

on whether the existing MedRadio 

regulatory framework should be 

retained, or whether any other 

approaches should be considered. 

22498 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

53. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

54. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making is adopted. 

55. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–11066 Filed 5–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 

[MB Docket No. 09–52; FCC 09–30] 

Policies To Promote Rural Radio 

Service and To Streamline Allotment 

and Assignment Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopted a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), seeking 

comment on a number of procedures 

designed to streamline the process of 

allocating new FM channels and AM 

frequency assignments, with an 

emphasis on encouraging policies that 

foster new and modified channel 

assignments favoring smaller 

communities, rural areas, and Native 

American and Alaska Native tribal 

areas. The Commission proposes a 

number of rule and procedural changes 

addressing channel assignment and 

allotment priorities under Section 

307(b) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, including proposing 

a new priority for Native American and 

Alaska Native tribes and their members 

seeking to provide new radio service to 

tribal lands. The Commission also 

proposes a number of smaller but 

significant procedural changes designed 

to make the allotment and assignment of 

radio channels more efficient. 

DATES: Comments may be filed no later 

than July 13, 2009 and reply comments 

may be filed no later than August 11, 

2009. Written comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

other interested parties on or before July 

13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 09–52, 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. Include the 

docket number in the subject line of the 

message. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for detailed information on how to 

submit comments by e-mail. 

• Mail: 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: 

Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau, 

Audio Division, (202) 418–2700; 

Thomas Nessinger, Attorney-Advisor, 

Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 

418–2700. 

For additional information concerning 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Cathy Williams at 202–418–2918, or via 

the Internet at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 09– 

30, adopted April 7, 2009, and released 

April 20, 2009. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This NPRM contains proposed 

information collection requirements. It 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat 163 

(1995). The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

OMB to comment on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

contained in this NPRM, as required by 

the PRA. Public and agency comments 

on the PRA proposed information 

collection requirements are due July 13, 

2009. Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, 116 Stat 729 (2002), see 

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.’’ 

The following existing information 

collection requirements would be 

modified if the proposed rules 

contained in the NPRM are adopted. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0996. 

Title: AM Auction Section 307(b) 

Submissions. 

Form Number: Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; not-for-profit institutions; 

State, local or Tribal government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents 

and Responses: 153 respondents; 153 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 

hours to 3 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 354 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs: 

$43,050.00. 

Obligation To Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in Sections 154(i), 307(b) 

and 309 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: Applicants in AM 

broadcast filing windows whose