Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27985 

Columbus area, the State submitted a 

2002 base year emissions inventory. 

This inventory is discussed above and 

summarized in Table 3. EPA is 

proposing to approve this 2002 base 

year inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Columbus area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan SIP revision for the 

Columbus area. EPA’s proposed 

approval of the maintenance plan is 

based on Ohio’s demonstration that the 

plan meets the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA, as described more 

fully above. After evaluating Ohio’s 

redesignation request, EPA believes that 

it meets the redesignation criteria set 

forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the redesignation of the Columbus area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final 

approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation 

for the Columbus area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the Columbus area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the State’s 2012 and 2020 

MVEBs for the section 172(c)(3) area. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: June 4, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–13855 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 99–325; DA 09–1127] 

FM Digital Power Increase and 

Associated Technical Studies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission seeks 

comment on four issues, discussed 

below in the Synopsis, that are related 

to a request by certain private parties, 

identified below, that the technical 

specifications for FM digital audio 

broadcasting (‘‘DAB’’) set forth in the 

Commission’s rules be amended to 

increase the maximum permissible 

operating power from the current level 

of 1 percent of a station’s authorized 

analog power (¥20 dB) up to a 

maximum of 10 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power (¥10 dB). This 

document establishes a period for 

public comment on these issues and on 

two related technical studies. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before July 6, 2009. Reply 

comments are due on or before July 17, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MM Docket No. 99–325, 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. 

• Mail: 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

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

CY–B402, 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 H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, 

Media Bureau, at (202) 418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of a Public Notice released by 

27986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Media Bureau on May 22, 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 §§ 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 Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an 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 must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (Voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Summary of Public Notice 

On October 23, 2008, the Media 

Bureau released the ‘‘October 23, 2008, 

Public Notice’’ soliciting comment on 

both a request filed June 10, 2008, 

asking the Commission to modify the 

technical specifications for FM digital 

audio broadcasting (DAB), and on two 

related technical studies. Comment 

Sought on Joint Parties Request for FM 

Digital Power Increase and Associated 

Technical Studies, MM Docket No. 99– 

325, Public Notice, DA 08–2340 (MB rel. 

Oct. 23, 2008). The request was filed by 

a group consisting of 18 broadcasters 

that operate over 1200 commercial and 

noncommercial educational (‘‘NCE’’) 

FM radio stations throughout the United 

States and the 4 largest manufacturers of 

broadcast transmission equipment, 

collectively identifying themselves as 

the ‘‘Joint Parties.’’ The Joint Parties 

requested that the Commission increase 

the maximum permissible digital 

operating power of FM stations from the 

current level of 1 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power (¥20 dB) to a 

maximum of 10 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power (¥10 dB) (the 

‘‘Joint Parties’ Request’’). 

The October 23, 2008, Public Notice 

also sought comment on two related 

technical studies. Filed concurrently 

with and in support of the Joint Parties’ 

Request was a technical report prepared 

by iBiquity Digital Corporation 

(‘‘iBiquity’’). In addition, National 

Public Radio (‘‘NPR’’) submitted on July 

18, 2008, its Corporation for Public 

Broadcasting (‘‘CPB’’)-supported 

research on digital radio coverage and 

interference. The October 23, 2008, 

Public Notice sought comment on the 

Joint Parties’ Request and these related 

technical studies. 

Developments since the release of the 

October 23, 2008, Public Notice prompt 

the solicitation of further public 

comment. Specifically, in response to 

the October 23, 2008, Public Notice, the 

Media Bureau has received comments 

and reply comments both supporting 

and opposing the Joint Parties’ Request. 

The Joint Parties have urged the 

Commission to move expeditiously on 

its request to ameliorate the coverage 

shortfalls and reception difficulties that 

result from digital transmissions at 

currently authorized power levels. NPR 

has announced the commencement of 

additional CPB-supported testing of FM 

DAB. NPR, NPR Labs Launches CPB– 

Funded Study on Power Increase for HD 

Radio (press release), http:// 

www.npr.org/about/press/2009/ 

040209.CPBLabs.html, Apr. 2, 2009. See 

also NPR ex parte filings, MM Docket 

No. 99–325. NPR states that its 

additional testing will result in a 

recommendation of the amount of 

power increase needed to improve 

digital radio coverage while also 

protecting analog FM signals, including 

subcarrier transmissions, from 

interference. The study also proposes to 

consider the minimum spacing 

distances needed to protect analog 

signals from higher powered digital 

operations. NPR states that the findings 

of its study will be presented in 

September 2009. Letter from Gregory A. 

Lewis, Counsel for NPR, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Attach. (Mar. 

30, 2009). In response to the record 

before the Commission, as well as NPR’s 

plans for additional testing of FM DAB, 

the Media Bureau solicits further 

comment on the previously submitted 

iBiquity and NPR technical studies and 

on the following issues: (1) Whether the 

Bureau should defer consideration of 

the Joint Parties’ requested power 

increase until the completion of and 

comment on the further NPR studies; (2) 

whether the record in this proceeding, 

the real world experience gained from 

over 1,400 FM stations operating for 

several years in the hybrid mode and 

the record of experimental 

authorizations at higher digital power 

levels warrant an increase in maximum 

digital operating power as proposed by 

the Joint Parties or support a provisional 

power increase of some lesser extent 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27987 

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). 

3See id. 

4See Letter from Gregory A. Lewis, Counsel for 

NPR, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Mar. 30, 

2009). 

than that requested by the Joint Parties; 

(3) if the Commission does adopt a 

power increase, whether it should also 

establish standards to ensure the lack of 

interference to the analog signals of 

stations operating on first adjacent 

channels; and whether such standards 

should apply to, i.e., require the 

protection of, LPFM stations operating 

on first adjacent channels; and (4) if the 

Commission does adopt a power 

increase, whether it should also 

establish more explicit procedures to 

resolve digital-into-analog interference 

complaints. 

The Joint Parties’ Request and the 

iBiquity and NPR technical studies are 

available electronically at http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov//prod/ecfs/ 

comsrch_v2.cgi under MM Docket No. 

99–325, or from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (‘‘BCPI’’), 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, 1–800–378–3160. The Media 

Bureau seeks comment on the issues 

identified above. The Bureau also seeks 

comment on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis below. This action 

is taken under delegated authority 

pursuant to §§ 0.61 and 0.283 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, 

and the Second Report and Order, 22 

FCC Rcd at 10383, ¶ 99. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposal under consideration 

may result in a new or revised 

information collection requirement 

being adopted by the Commission when 

the final rules are adopted. If the 

Commission adopts any new or revised 

information collection requirement, the 

Commission will publish a separate 

notice in the Federal Register inviting 

the public to comment on the 

requirement, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission will seek 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Ex Parte Restrictions 

This proceeding has been designated 

‘‘permit but disclose’’ for purposes of 

the Commission’s ex parte rules, 47 CFR 

1.1200–1.1216. Ex parte presentations 

will be governed by the procedures set 

forth in 47 CFR 1.1206 applicable to 

non-restricted proceedings. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA),1 the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed. Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

proposed rule as provided in the 

‘‘Dates’’ paragraph of the item. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

proposed rule, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).2

In addition, the proposed rule and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register.3

A. Need for and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rules 

2. This document seeks comment on 

issues, discussed infra in paragraph 4, 

concerning the Joint Parties’ proposed 

increase in maximum permissible 

digital operating power for FM stations 

utilizing DAB from the current level of 

1 percent of a station’s authorized 

analog power (¥20 dB) up to a 

maximum of 10 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power (¥10 dB). The 

proposed voluntary increase by FM 

stations to any digital power level up to 

10% of a station’s authorized analog 

power would serve to facilitate the 

ability of FM stations to achieve digital 

replication of their analog signals and to 

overcome in-building digital reception 

problems. 

3. This document seeks comment on 

relevant technical studies submitted by 

iBiquity and NPR. The iBiquity study, 

filed in support of the Joint Parties’ 

Request, examined the benefits to digital 

broadcasting, the compatibility with 

analog broadcasting, and the potential 

interference effects resulting from the 

proposed increase in maximum 

permissible FM digital operating power. 

The iBiquity study concluded that an 

increase in authorized FM digital power 

levels to 10 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power would 

significantly improve digital coverage 

while avoiding, in the majority of 

instances, increased interference to 

reception of analog signals of FM 

stations operating on first adjacent 

channels. The NPR study concluded 

that, although such an increase in 

authorized FM digital power levels 

would improve digital coverage in most 

instances, it could also result in 

substantial interference to reception of 

the analog signals of FM stations 

operating on first and second adjacent 

channels, and that further testing would 

be necessary to determine if increased 

digital operating power should be 

permitted for FM stations. 

4. In response to the record before the 

Commission in MM Docket 99–325, as 

well as NPR’s announced plans for 

additional testing of FM DAB,4 the 

Media Bureau also solicits comment on 

the following issues: (1) Whether the 

Bureau should defer consideration of 

the Joint Parties’ requested power 

increase until the completion of and 

comment on the further NPR studies; (2) 

whether the record in this proceeding, 

the real world experience gained from 

over 1,400 FM stations operating for 

several years in the hybrid mode and 

the record of experimental 

authorizations at higher digital power 

levels warrant an increase in maximum 

digital operating power as proposed by 

the Joint Parties or support a provisional 

power increase of some lesser extent 

than that requested by the Joint Parties; 

(3) if the Commission does adopt a 

power increase, whether it should also 

establish standards to ensure the lack of 

interference to the analog signals of 

stations operating on first adjacent 

channels, and whether such standards 

should apply to, i.e., require the 

protection of, LPFM stations operating 

on first adjacent channels; and (4) if the 

Commission does adopt a power 

increase, whether it should also 

establish more explicit procedures to 

resolve digital-into-analog interference 

complaints. 

B. Legal Basis 

5. The authority for this notice is 

contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i) and (j), 

301, 302, 303, 307, 308, and 309 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and 

(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, and 309. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

6. The RFA directs the Commission to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

27988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

7 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), 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.’’ 

8 15 U.S.C. 632. 

9See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 

(changed from 513112 in October 2002). 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 14 5 U.S.C. 603(b). 

proposed rules.5 The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

encompassing the terms ‘‘small 

business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental entity.’’ 6 In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act.7 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 Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’).8 The proposed 

rules and policies potentially will apply 

to all FM radio broadcasting licensees 

and potential licensees. 

7. The SBA defines a radio 

broadcasting station that has $7 million 

or less in annual receipts as a small 

business.9 A radio broadcasting station 

is an establishment primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public.10 Included in this industry 

are commercial, religious, educational, 

and other radio stations.11 Radio 

broadcasting stations which primarily 

are engaged in radio broadcasting and 

which produce radio program materials 

are similarly included.12 However, radio 

stations that are separate establishments 

and are primarily engaged in producing 

radio program material are classified 

under a separate NAICS number.13

According to Commission staff review 

of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. 

Media Access Radio Analyzer Database 

as of February 19, 2009, about 10,600 

(96 percent) of 11,050 commercial radio 

stations in the United States have 

revenues of $7 million or less. We note 

that many radio stations are affiliated 

with much larger corporations having 

much higher revenue. Our estimate, 

therefore, likely overstates the number 

of small entities that might be affected 

by our action. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

8. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission declined to establish a 

deadline for radio stations to convert to 

digital broadcasting, 22 FCC Rcd at 

10351. Presently, radio stations may 

choose to commence DAB operation 

pursuant to Section 73.404 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.404, 

which requires in part that licensees 

provide notification to the Commission 

within 10 days of commencing DAB 

operation. The proposed rule change 

may impose additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on FM 

radio stations choosing to upgrade DAB 

operating power above the current 

limitation of 1 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power. For example, 

licensees choosing to increase DAB 

operating power above 1 percent of 

authorized analog power could be 

required to notify the Commission of the 

increase in power. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

9. 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.14 This document has 

proposed for commenter evaluation the 

issue of taking steps to minimize 

significant impact on small entities, 

focusing on the four issues, enumerated 

supra in paragraph 6, relevant to the 

Joint Parties’ Request, as well as on any 

issues raised by the technical studies 

previously submitted by iBiquity and 

NPR. To assist in the analysis, 

commenters are requested to provide 

information, studies, and/or opinions 

regarding how small entities would be 

affected if the Commission were to 

adopt an increase in maximum digital 

operating power as proposed by the 

Joint Parties or a provisional power 

increase of some lesser extent than that 

requested by the Joint Parties, and 

whether such adoption could result in 

the disparate treatment of small entities 

with limited financial and/or technical 

resources. Commenters should also 

provide information, studies, and/or 

opinions on alternative approaches to 

alleviate any potential burdens on small 

entities. 

F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals 

10. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Robert H. Ratcliffe, 

Acting Chief, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–13865 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 226 

[Docket No. 0809161218–9950–02] 

RIN 0648–AX23 

Endangered and Threatened Species: 

12–Month Finding for a Petition to 

Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian 

Monk Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month finding. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2008, we (NMFS) 

received a petition dated July 2, 2008, 

requesting that we revise the present 

critical habitat designation for the 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi) under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) by expanding the 

current critical habitat in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and by 

designating additional critical habitat in 

the main Hawaiian Islands. We have 

reviewed, and here provide a summary 

of the best available information 

regarding Hawaiian monk seal biology 

and habitat use. Based on our review, 

we intend to revise the monk seal’s 

critical habitat, and we are providing 

our initial thoughts on the habitat 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of this species and 

describing how we intend to proceed 

with the requested critical habitat 

revision. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this 

determination should be addressed to 

the Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Honolulu, HI 

96814.