Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 92 / Thursday, May 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22693 

1 John Walke, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0064–0116.1. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: May 1, 2009. 

T.H. Farris, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–11306 Filed 5–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0064; FRL–8904–5] 

RIN 2060–AP49 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Aggregation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

a rule that amends and delays the 

effective date for the rule addressing 

‘‘aggregation’’ under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and the 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(nonattainment NSR) programs 

(collectively, ‘‘NSR’’). The ‘‘NSR 

Aggregation Amendments’’ were 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 15, 2009, and described when a 

source must combine nominallyseparate physical changes and changes 

in the method of operation for the 

purpose of determining whether they 

are a single change resulting in a 

significant emissions increase. 

On January 30, 2009, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

submitted a petition for reconsideration 

(the ‘‘NRDC Petition’’) of the NSR 

Aggregation Amendments. In response 

to the NRDC Petition, EPA announced 

on February 13, 2009, that it would 

convene a reconsideration proceeding 

for the NSR Aggregation Amendments 

and would delay the effective date of 

the rule from February 17, 2009 until 

May 18, 2009. On March 18, 2009, EPA 

proposed an additional delay of the 

effective date and solicited comment on 

the duration of the additional delay. 

By this rule, EPA is delaying the 

effective date of the NSR Aggregation 

Amendments for an additional 12 

months, which will allow for sufficient 

time to conduct the reconsideration 

proceeding. The new effective date of 

the rule is May 18, 2010. 

DATES: The effective date of FR Doc. E9– 

815, published in the Federal Register 

on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2376), and 

delayed on February 13, 2009 (74 FR 

7284), is further delayed to May 18, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: The final rule, the 

petition for reconsideration, comments 

on the March 18, 2009 proposal, and all 

other documents in the record for the 

NSR Aggregation rulemaking are in 

Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0064. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David J. Svendsgaard, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–03), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–2380, fax number 

(919) 541–5509, e-mail address: 

svendsgaard.dave@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include sources in all industry 

groups and state, local, and tribal 

governments. 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Public Comments Received 

IV. Additional Twelve Month Delay of 

Effectiveness 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12899: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

VI. Statutory Authority 

II. Background 

On January 15, 2009, the EPA (we) 

issued a final rule amending our PSD 

and nonattainment NSR regulations 

implementing the definition of 

‘‘modification’’ in the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) 111(a)(4). The amendments 

addressed when a source must combine 

(aggregate) nominally-separate physical 

changes and changes in the method of 

operation (known as ‘‘activities’’) for the 

purpose of determining whether they 

are a single change resulting in a 

significant emission increase. The 

amendments retained the rule language 

for aggregation but interpreted that rule 

text to mean that sources and permitting 

authorities should combine emissions 

when activities are ‘‘substantially 

related.’’ The rule also adopted a 

rebuttable presumption that activities at 

a plant can be presumed not to be 

substantially related if they occur three 

or more years apart. Collectively, this 

rulemaking is known as the ‘‘NSR 

Aggregation Amendments.’’ For further 

information on the NSR Aggregation 

Amendments, please see 74 FR 2376 

(January 15, 2009). 

On January 30, 2009, NRDC submitted 

a petition for reconsideration of the NSR 

Aggregation Amendments as provided 

for in CAA 307(d)(7)(B).1 Under that 

CAA provision, the Administrator may 

commence a reconsideration proceeding 

if the petitioner raises an objection to a 

rule that was impracticable to raise 

during the comment period or if the 

grounds for the objection arose after the 

comment period. In either case, the 

objection must be of central relevance to 

the outcome of the rule. The 

Administrator may stay the 

effectiveness of the rule for up to three 

months during such reconsideration. 

On February 13, 2009, we issued 

notices announcing the convening of a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
22694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 92 / Thursday, May 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2OMB Memorandum M–09–08, ‘‘Implementation 

of Memorandum Concerning Regulatory Review’’ 

(January 21, 2009). See http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/assets/ 

agencyinformation_memoranda_2009_pdf/m09- 

08.pdf. 

reconsideration proceeding in response 

to the NRDC petition and an 

administrative stay of the NSR 

Aggregation Amendments, which 

delayed the effective date of the NSR 

Aggregation Rule for 90 days from 

February 17, 2009 until May 18, 2009. 

See 74 FR 7193 and 74 FR 7284 

(February 13, 2009). 

As noted above, our authority to delay 

the effective date of a rule solely under 

the Administrator’s discretion is limited 

to three months. On occasion, however, 

we have found three months to be 

insufficient to complete the necessary 

steps in the reconsideration process. 

Therefore, when we have issued similar 

administrative stays in the past, it has 

often been our practice to also propose 

an additional extension of the stay of 

effectiveness through a rulemaking 

process. An additional extension 

enables us to take comment on issues 

that are in question and complete any 

revisions of the rule that become 

necessary as a result of the 

reconsideration process. 

Since we expect to take comment on 

a broad range of legal and policy issues 

as part of the NSR Aggregation 

Amendments reconsideration, on March 

18, 2009 (74 FR 11509), we proposed to 

further delay the effective date of the 

NSR Aggregation Amendments until 

November 18, 2009. We also solicited 

comment on longer periods for a delay 

of effectiveness: (1) Until February 18, 

2010, and (2) May 18, 2010. 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

Received 

We received five comments from 

interested parties on our March 18, 2009 

proposal to delay the effective date of 

the NSR Aggregation Amendments. 

Most of the commenters requested that 

we not further delay the effective date 

of the rule after May 18, 2009. These 

commenters expressed concerns that 

sources need more clarity and certainty 

on the issue of aggregation, and leaving 

the NSR Aggregation Amendments in 

place during the reconsideration 

proceeding would provide greater 

clarity to sources even if we ultimately 

decide to change the rule. 

While it is understandable that 

commenters may perceive a need for 

more clarity in the program, we are 

concerned that making effective a rule 

that may later change may actually 

result in more confusion for both 

sources and permitting authorities. We 

also are concerned that portions of the 

legal basis for the final rule did not 

undergo comment solicitation, so we 

would be remiss to let the rule become 

effective prior to letting the public 

comment fully on the basic authority for 

the rule. Furthermore, a few of the 

issues raised in the NRDC Petition 

demonstrate that there are aspects of the 

final rule that still cause confusion, 

such as whether states must adopt the 

new rule and whether SIPs must be 

amended. These issues were not 

adequately addressed in the final rule. 

An additional delay of effectiveness that 

allows us to address these defects is 

necessary and prudent. 

One commenter claimed it would be 

inappropriate for EPA to use section 705 

of the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA) to further postpone the effective 

date of the rule. However, because we 

do not rely on that statutory provision 

for this extension notice, the question is 

not relevant to this rule. 

This commenter also suggested that 

the January 21, 2009 memorandum from 

the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) created 

an outside limit of 60 days for 

reconsideration of rules published prior 

to January 20, 2009.2 However, nothing 

in the OMB memorandum supersedes 

the procedural and substantive 

requirements of the CAA. For example, 

section 307(d) provides the public the 

procedural right to present oral 

testimony and a minimum period for 

parties to comment on the testimony. 

The time frame allowed by the statute 

would be difficult to reconcile with the 

period in the memorandum. 

Another commenter stated we lack 

authority to extend the effective date 

more than 90 days under the specific 

provisions of CAA section 307(d). The 

commenter argues that we can only 

amend the effective date in a new 

‘‘substantive’’ rulemaking. We disagree 

with the commenter’s analysis of the 

statute. 

First, the provision allowing for a 

three month stay of effectiveness of the 

rule is an authority that either a court 

or EPA may use at its discretion without 

notice or an opportunity for comment. 

While CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) 

provides that this type of a stay may not 

‘‘exceed three months,’’ this limitation 

is best understood as applying to the 

plenary authority to grant a stay without 

notice and comment. There is nothing 

in this CAA provision indicating that it 

strips EPA of the authority to amend 

any provision it establishes through 

notice and comment rulemaking by a 

subsequent notice and comment 

rulemaking. See National Cable & 

Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet 

Servs., 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2700 (2005). 

That is the procedure we have 

undertaken in this action. 

Second, the commenter recognizes 

that a new ‘‘substantive’’ rule following 

the rulemaking procedures of CAA 

section 307(d) could shift an effective 

date. We find no distinction in CAA 

section 307(d) between what the 

commenter terms a ‘‘substantive’’ 

amendment and an amendment 

modifying when the rule becomes 

effective, especially when such a 

rulemaking is completed before the 

original rule becomes effective. The 

commenter’s interpretation of the 

statute would require as a matter of law 

the irrational result that EPA would 

have to allow a defective rule to 

nevertheless go into effect even if it 

could complete a rulemaking revising 

the effective date in time, or if it could 

not complete a potentially more 

complicated rulemaking amendment to 

address the rule’s shortcomings in the 

same amount of time. However, EPA 

need not even have to find that a rule 

is defective before it can undertake 

notice and comment to revise any part 

of the rule, as long as the basis for the 

revisions is reasonable. Thus, like any 

other provision of a CAA section 307(d) 

rule, we are authorized to change the 

effective date of the final rule through 

rulemaking. 

While most commenters were 

opposed to a further extension of the 

effective date of the NSR Aggregation 

Amendments, we note that one 

commenter concurred entirely with the 

objections raised in the NRDC petition 

and specifically pointed out a lack of 

tribal outreach in the development of 

the rule. The commenter requested a 

delay of three months to allow for tribal 

outreach, and a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking before a final action on 

aggregation takes effect. Since the issue 

of state, local, and tribal involvement 

under Executive Order 12866 will be 

addressed as part of our reconsideration 

proceeding, we will fully respond to 

this commenter’s concern through our 

reconsideration. 

IV. Additional Twelve Month Delay of 

Effectiveness 

As noted above, we solicited 

comment on three potential periods of 

delay for the effective date of the NSR 

Aggregation Amendments. We now 

believe that allowing 12 additional 

months is more appropriate than a delay 

of six months, which was the preferred 

option at proposal, or nine months. This 

schedule allows for drafting and 

publishing a notice that focuses 

comment on specific issues to be 

reconsidered, provides a sufficient 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 92 / Thursday, May 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22695 

opportunity for public comment on the 

reconsideration in accordance with the 

requirements of CAA section 307(d), 

and gives us an opportunity to evaluate 

and respond to such comments. 

We note that, over the recent past, 

reconsideration of NSR rulemakings like 

the Equipment Replacement Provision 

required nearly a year between the 

notice opening the comment period for 

reconsideration and the final action on 

reconsideration. See 69 FR 40278 (July 

1, 2004) (opening of comments) and 70 

FR 33838 (June 10, 2005) (final action). 

Given the degree of complexity with the 

issues under review here, the likelihood 

of significant public interest in this 

reconsideration, and our experience 

from recent NSR reconsiderations, we 

believe the delay we are adopting today 

is consistent with a realistic and 

achievable schedule for the 

reconsideration. While it is possible that 

we may require less time to complete 

the reconsideration, we believe 

extending the effective date by a full 12 

months is reasonable and prudent. 

Section 553(d) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

Chapter 5, generally provides that rules 

may not take effect earlier than 30 days 

after they are published in the Federal 

Register. EPA is issuing this final rule 

under section 307(d)(1) of the CAA, 

which states: ‘‘The provisions of section 

553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall 

not, except as expressly provided in this 

section, apply to actions to which this 

subsection applies.’’ Thus, section 

553(d) of the APA does not apply to this 

rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 

consistently with the policies 

underlying APA section 553(d) in 

making this rule effective on May 14, 

2009. APA section 553(d) provides an 

exception when the agency finds good 

cause exists for a period less than 30 

days before effectiveness. We find good 

cause exists to make this rule effective 

upon publication because doing so 

alleviates any potential confusion and 

implementation difficulties that could 

arise were the NSR Aggregation 

Amendments to go into effect for a 30 

day period and then be stayed during 

reconsideration or modified as a result 

of the reconsideration process. 

The effective date of the NSR 

Aggregation Amendments, FR Doc. E9– 

815, published in the Federal Register 

on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2376), is 

hereby delayed to May 18, 2010. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This final action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final action does not impose any 

new information collection. However, 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing NSR 

regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0003. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

APA or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final action on small entities, a 

‘‘small entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this final action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

final action will not increase the burden 

imposed upon reviewing authorities. 

Therefore, this final action is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

This final action is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As 

described above, this final action does 

not impose any new requirements on 

small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This final action does not have 

federalism implications. It will 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. This action 

simply stays the effective date of the 

January 15, 2009 rule for an additional 

12 months, pending a reconsideration 

proceeding. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this final 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This final action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action simply stays the 

effective date of the January 15, 2009 

rule for an additional 12 months, 

pending a reconsideration proceeding. 

Thus, tribal governments should not 

experience added burden from this final 

action, nor should their laws be affected 

with respect to implementation of this 

final action. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this final 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This final action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not establish an 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
22696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 92 / Thursday, May 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (for 

example, materials specifications, test 

methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This final action does not involve 

technical standards; therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. Therefore, Executive 

Order 12898 does not apply to this final 

action. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 submitted 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 final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, 

this final action will be effective on May 

14, 2009. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit on or before July 13, 

2009. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 

only those objections to the final rule 

that were raised with specificity during 

the period of public comment may be 

raised during judicial review. Moreover, 

under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

VI. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 307(d)(7)(B), 

101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 

7416, and 7601). This notice is also 

subject to section 307(d) of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7407(d)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Baseline 

emissions, Intergovernmental relations, 

Aggregation, Major modifications, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Baseline 

emissions, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Aggregation, Major modifications, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 8, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–11271 Filed 5–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2 and 95 

[ET Docket Nos. 06–135, 05–213 and 03– 

92, RM–11271; FCC 09–23] 

Spectrum Requirements for Advanced 

Medical Technologies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document establishes a 

new Medical Device 

Radiocommunication Service 

(MedRadio Service) of the Commission’s 

rules. This new service incorporates the 

existing Medical Implant 

Communications Service (MICS) ‘‘core’’ 

band at 402–405 MHz, and also includes 

two megahertz of newly designated 

spectrum in the adjacent ‘‘wing’’ bands 

at 401–402 MHz and 405–406 MHz. The 

MedRadio Service will accommodate 

the operation of body-worn as well as 

implanted medical devices, including 

those using either listen-before-talk 

(‘‘LBT’’) frequency monitoring or nonLBT spectrum access methods, in 

designated portions of the 401–406 MHz 

band. 

DATES: Effective August 12, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Thayer, (202) 418–2290, e-mail 

Gary.Thayer@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, ET Docket Nos. 06–135, 05– 

213, and 03–92, RM–11271, FCC 09–23, 

adopted March 19, 2009, and released 

March 20, 2009. 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 St., 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES