Advanced Wireless Service, 29811-29818 [06-4655]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29811-29818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4655]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 87

[ET Docket No. 00-258, WT Docket No. 02-8; FCC 06-43]


Advanced Wireless Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies Petitions for Reconsideration and affirms 
the Commission's decision that the Broadcast Auxiliary Service and 
other incumbent services will share the 2025-2110 MHz band with 
relocated Department of Defense facilities.

DATES: Effective June 23, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Ryder, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2803, e-mail: 
Ted.Ryder@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 00-258, and WT Docket No. 
02-8, FCC 06-43, adopted April 5, 2006, and released April 11, 2006. 
The full text of this document is available on the Commission's 
Internet site at https://www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; 
telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.

Summary of the Report and Order

    1. The Commission considered two petitions for reconsideration 
(``Petitions'') of the Seventh Report and Order, 69 FR 77938, December 
29, 2004, in this proceeding, one filed by the Association for Maximum 
Service Television and National Association of Broadcasters (together, 
``MSTV/NAB'') and the other by the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. 
(``SBE''). In the Seventh Report and Order (``AWS Seventh Report and 
Order'') in this proceeding, the Commission, among other things, 
allowed primary access to the band 2025-2110 MHz for Department of 
Defense (``DOD'') uplink earth stations at 11 sites to support military 
space operations (also known as tracking, telemetry, and commanding or 
``TT&C'') on a co-equal basis with stations in the incumbent Television 
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (``BAS''), Cable Television Relay Service 
(``CARS''), and Local Television Transmission Service (``LTTS''). For 
simplicity, in the remainder of this document the BAS, LTTS, and CARS 
services collectively will be referred to as BAS. The actions taken in 
the AWS Seventh Report and Order were specifically designed to 
facilitate the introduction of new advanced wireless services (``AWS'') 
in the band 1710-1755 MHz by providing replacement spectrum for 
clearing that band of incumbent Federal Government operations that 
would otherwise impede the development of new nationwide AWS services. 
These actions were consistent with proposals made in the AWS Fourth 
NPRM, 68 FR 52156, September 2, 2003, and previous actions in this 
proceeding and with the United States Department of Commerce, National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (``NTIA'') 2002 
Viability Assessment, which adderssed relocation and reaccommodation 
options for Federal Government operations in the band 1710-1755 MHz.
    2. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission denied both 
the MSTV/NAB and the SBE petitions. In this regard, the Commission 
found that the Petitioners have not raised any new arguments or 
concerns that were not already considered by the Commission in its 
adoption of the AWS Seventh Report and Order and that the Commission's 
decision properly addressed the relevant facts in order to reach its 
conclusion that BAS and Federal Government operations will be able to 
co-exist in the band. The Commission, however, provided additional 
clarification on a matter raised in the SBE petition.
    3. In the AWS Seventh Report and Order, the Commission undertook 
the specific task of reaccommodating Federal users in order to make the 
band 1710-1755 MHz available for AWS use. This decision was part of a 
larger and substantially more complex proceeding designed to make 
spectrum available for a variety of new and innovative wireless 
services and involving a variety of bodies, including this Commission, 
Federal stakeholders as represented through NTIA, and Congress.
    4. In the AWS Seventh Report and Order decision, the Commission 
recognized the concerns of the broadcasting community that sharing of 
the band 2025-2110 MHz (``the 2 GHz band'') by TV BAS stations and DOD 
TT&C uplink earth stations would be challenging in some instances, 
given the high power and close proximity of some of these earth 
stations to nearby cities served by BAS. However, it affirmed its 
confidence that such sharing is feasible and will promote the public 
interest, particularly in the ultimate provision of AWS to the public. 
To maintain its longstanding policy that first-licensed facilities have 
the right of protection from later-licensed facilities operating in the 
same band, and to facilitate compatible operations, the Commission 
required each DOD earth station to coordinate with all potentially 
affected BAS stations prior to earth station authorization. 
Additionally, for the rare situation where no reasonable coordination 
can be negotiated, the Commission stated that the issue may be

[[Page 29812]]

raised to the FCC and NTIA to jointly arbitrate resolution.

Petitions

    5. MSTV/NAB Petition for Reconsideration. In their petition for 
reconsideration, MSTV/NAB claim that the Commission improperly 
established a framework for BAS-Federal Government coordination in the 
band because it did not require NTIA to disclose the complete technical 
parameters for all of the 11 DOD TT&C uplink earth stations to be 
relocated to the 2 GHz band. MSTV/NAB argue that without this 
information, it is impossible to assess the impact of the earth 
stations on incumbent BAS operations and therefore the Commission's 
confidence that spectrum sharing is feasible is unsupportable.
    6. MSTV/NAB also assert that the Commission fatally failed to 
properly consider two studies provided in MSTV/NAB's comments in 
response to the AWS Fourth NPRM, which MSTV/NAB contend show that 
relocation of the DOD TT&C uplink earth stations would require 
extraordinary coordination and would result in extensive interference 
to incumbent BAS operations. One of these studies identified all BAS 
facilities within the coordination zone of each DOD earth station, 
showing that a large number of BAS licensees would need to coordinate 
with each earth station, some with multiple earth stations, and a 
significant number on an ongoing, proactive basis, to prevent 
interference from the earth stations. The study concluded that a 
significant impact on BAS licensees in large, congested markets would 
result. The second study purported to demonstrate that the high powers 
of DOD earth stations would cause interference, and in some cases cause 
complete overload, to nearby BAS receive sites, such as those at 
Goffstown, New Hampshire, any time the earth station operates and 
concluded that the DOD earth stations would cause harmful interference 
to nearby BAS systems much of the time. These studies, MSTV/NAB argue, 
contain evidence that the DOD earth stations would cause unavoidable 
interference to BAS facilities. As such, they conclude that the 
Commission's decision mandating sharing was both unsupported by the 
evidence in the record and inconsistent with the Commission's goals.
    7. Finally, MSTV/NAB argue that the Commission erred in not 
demonstrating, by specific evidence, that the spectrum sharing 
techniques that can permit sharing will be effective in situations 
where BAS and DOD facilities will share the band 2025-2110 MHz. As an 
example, MSTV/NAB note that one of the techniques, time-sharing, would 
present broadcasters with the choice of covering a breaking news story 
with a corrupted news feed, or not covering the story at all.
    8. In light of the deficiencies that they allege, MSTV/NAB contend 
that sharing of the 2025-2110 MHz BAS band with DOD operations should 
not be allowed until the record shows that measures to protect 
incumbent BAS operations would be feasible and productive. MSTV/NAB 
also assert that we should facilitate prospective coordination efforts 
by establishing a formal process through which the Commission, NTIA, 
and DOD would investigate, with input from affected parties, the 
feasibility of coordination and would define the precise technical 
parameters to be used for coordinating each of the 11 DOD TT&C earth 
stations.
    9. SBE Petition for Reconsideration. SBE indicates that, in its 
comments responding to the AWS Fourth NPRM, it stated that allowing up 
to 11 DOD TT&C earth stations to share the 2 GHz band with BAS 
incumbents would only be feasible if the BAS operations were converted 
to digital and the earth station antenna side-lobe suppression were 
improved by 30 dB by the addition of a ``pie plate'' shroud around the 
periphery of the antenna. SBE claims that these steps would result in 
up to a 60 dB improvement in the desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal 
ratio at fixed receive-only (RO) antennas associated with electronic 
newsgathering (``ENG'') operations, which it asserts could change the 
BAS-DOD relationship from frequency sharing to frequency re-use. 
Accordingly, in its petition for reconsideration, SBE asks us to 
require that all DOD TT&C earth stations have their sidelobe 
suppression upgraded to at least 90 dB. Similarly, SBE faults our 
conclusion that the use of shielding berms around an earth station 
would be one means of enabling sharing of the band. SBE claims that 
such berms would need to be impracticably high--100 to 200 feet above 
ground level--to protect ENG RO antennas typically located on tall 
buildings, towers, or mountain tops, and thus would severely restrict 
the earth station's low elevation look angles to a degree unacceptable 
to DOD. SBE also claims that the Commission inaccurately characterized 
SBE's position as to whether the 11 DOD TT&C earth stations could 
successfully share the 2 GHz band with BAS operations converted to 
digital by omitting SBE's contention that both digital operations and 
earth station side-lobe suppression measures must be required.
    10. SBE asks that we confirm that a DOD TT&C uplink earth station 
at 2 GHz must demonstrate protection not only to fixed TV BAS links, 
such as studio-transmitter links (``STLs'') and TV relays (also known 
as inter-city relays (``ICR''), but also to fixed RO antennas 
associated with ENG mobile TV pickups (``TVPUs''), which are more 
difficult to protect, because no allowance can be made for antenna 
directivity, as such antennas are either omnidirectional or remotely 
steerable. SBE also seeks clarification of the statement in paragraph 
27 of the AWS Seventh Report and Order, that ``[f]or those rare 
situations where no reasonable coordination can be negotiated, the 
issue may be raised to the FCC and NTIA to jointly arbitrate 
resolution.'' Specifically, SBE expresses concern that in cases where 
DOD cannot demonstrate protection to ENG RO sites, joint FCC/NTIA 
arbitration may over-rule the protection requirements and authorize the 
DOD earth station over BAS objections.

Decision

    11. The record of this proceeding provided sufficient basis for the 
Commission to determine that, as a general proposition, incumbent BAS 
facilities will be able to share the band 2025-2110 MHz with relocated 
DOD TT&C uplink earth stations, and doing so serves the public interest 
by promoting spectrum efficiency and allowing for the rapid 
introduction of new and innovative AWS services. In the AWS Seventh 
Report and Order, the Commission adopted an approach that paired the 
application of a variety of interference mitigation techniques with a 
requirement of coordination (and further FCC/NTIA arbitration and 
resolution, if necessary) to allow for shared, co-primary use of the 
band. Neither MSTV/NAB nor SBE has raised any new arguments or concerns 
that were not already considered or would otherwise warrant 
reconsideration of that decision and we are therefore denying their 
petitions.
    12. In the AWS Seventh Report and Order, the Commission determined 
that sharing techniques currently exist that can be deployed to enable 
the 11 DOD earth stations to be engineered into 2 GHz without harming 
existing BAS operations. Although the petitions question whether 
particular interference mitigation techniques would be practical in 
particular situations, they do not refute the Commission's 
determination that such techniques are established and accepted means 
of allowing for co-channel operations and can collectively resolve a 
variety of

[[Page 29813]]

sharing situations. Moreover, to ensure successful coordination in 
individual situations, the Commission required that coordination be 
accomplished with BAS licensees of stations within the coordination 
contour of the earth station, consistent with Appendix 7 of the 
International Telecommunication Union (``ITU'') Radio Regulations, and 
engage the local BAS frequency coordinator(s), where available, in 
support of achieving such coordination. For the rare situation where no 
reasonable coordination can be negotiated, the Commission stated that 
the issue may be raised to the FCC and NTIA to jointly arbitrate 
resolution, and that the Commission will not concur with authorizing 
operation of any 2 GHz DOD TT&C uplink earth station in the absence of 
successful coordination between DOD and the affected BAS incumbents. 
Finally, to ensure that future BAS licensees have a means for 
coordinating their proposed operations with the DOD TT&C uplink earth 
station, DOD earth stations are required to maintain a point of contact 
for coordination. We conclude that the use of proven interference 
mitigation techniques and these coordination safeguards will ensure 
successful shared DOD-BAS use of the band.
    13. We disagree with the contention by MSTV/NAB that we could not 
reach this conclusion without additional detailed and specific 
information about the 11 DOD TT&C uplink earth stations to be relocated 
in the 2 GHz band. In analyzing situations where BAS incumbents would 
be operating in proximity to the 11 DOD TT&C earth station sites, the 
Commission acknowledged that location data supplied by SBE indicate a 
significant potential for interference from DOD TT&C earth stations at 
the 11 sites into fixed receive-only receivers used in connection with 
BAS ENG TVPUs, and made its determination with this in mind. Site-
specific analysis, however, is more appropriate to the point of 
coordination, well before construction and operation, as is normally 
the case for any satellite earth station or terrestrial station 
anticipating operation in spectrum in which coordination is required. 
At that time, DOD will be able to take timely advantage of the latest 
technological capabilities, as well as any changes to BAS equipment or 
use, and select the sharing and mitigation techniques most appropriate 
to each particular situation, to achieve the most effective sharing 
with BAS. Because the most effective techniques for sharing will be 
different at each site, the Commission purposely declined to mandate 
sharing techniques to be used in each situation. Doing so would have 
been impractical and was not necessary to the determination that 
sharing in the band is feasible. Moreover, the Commission also observed 
that while enabling relocation of earth station operations from the 
band 1755-1850 MHz to the 2 GHz band will over time allow DOD the 
flexibility to accommodate additional systems in the lower band, DOD 
may eventually choose not to use the 2 GHz band for some of its 11 
sites, due to coordination difficulties with incumbent operations. 
Given the breadth of options available in each particular situation, we 
do not share MSTV/NAB's belief that more concrete and reliable 
scientific and technical evidence, or more investigation and analysis 
is necessary before we can require sharing in the band.
    14. In acknowledging that sharing at some of the sites will be 
difficult, the Commission examined the particularly challenging 
situation in Denver. It determined that the Buckley AFB (``Buckley'') 
site exhibited numerous and significant interference potentials into 
ENG receive antennas located on tall buildings and towers in nearby 
downtown Denver, generally to the west of Buckley, and into mountain 
site antennas further west, which may tend to point back toward Denver 
for coverage, and thus toward Buckley. The Commission noted that 
existing sharing techniques--such as limiting power, pointing 
direction, or vertical elevation of the DOD earth station antenna; 
adjusting satellite orbital coverage; constructing berms, installing RF 
shielding, or increasing earth station antenna sidelobe suppression; 
operation on adjacent ENG channels; taking advantage of ENG receive 
antenna sidelobe suppression; arranging time-sharing agreements; or 
using specific criteria which fully consider ENG power, modulation, and 
performance--could address those interference potentials. It concluded 
that because these sharing techniques, together with coordination, can 
facilitate implementation of the DOD TT&C earth stations at the 11 
sites, there are no insurmountable technical obstacles that would 
prevent a primary, co-equal allocation for such earth stations at 2 
GHz. The situations MSTV/NAB describe in the studies referenced in 
their petition for reconsideration are no more challenging than those 
at Buckley, and therefore, we conclude that the Commission fully 
considered the interference concerns of the nature raised by MSTV/NAB.
    15. To the extent that MSTV/NAB are concerned that the number of 
BAS licensees with which a DOD earth station will need to coordinate is 
too large to be practical, we note that earth stations typically are 
subject to large coordination distances, varying up to 500 km, and 
consequently, in spectrum shared with terrestrial microwave systems, 
large numbers of licensees with which to coordinate. Earth station 
coordination in the 2 GHz band would be no exception in this regard. 
The effective engagement of local BAS frequency coordinators, where 
available in addition to BAS licensees, should be able to facilitate 
the accomplishment of coordination. Moreover, the establishment of a 
single BAS coordinator for large areas, for which the BAS coordinator 
for the Los Angeles/Southern California area may be a model, would be 
particularly advantageous. With respect to MSTV/NAB's concern for real-
time coordination for on-going BAS TVPU ENG deployment, we observe that 
the need for, and extent of, such coordination can be determined at the 
time of the initial coordination of the earth station. At that time, 
the flexibility of both DOD earth station and on-going BAS ENG 
operations and antenna pointing may be considered, especially where the 
earth station site is close to a major TV market, as both services will 
at times need to operate in a manner not anticipated that could result 
in interference to BAS operations. It will therefore be in the 
interests of both to reach a mutually agreeable solution concerning 
coordination of on-going operations. In this connection, NTIA has 
agreed that the DOD earth station point of contact for coordination, as 
required by the AWS Seventh Report and Order for the coordination of 
future BAS stations, would also be available for the coordination of 
on-going BAS TVPU ENG operations, should such a requirement be 
determined by DOD, in concert with the local BAS coordinator(s) and 
licensees. Engagement of the earth station's point of contact for 
coordination, particularly in concert with the local BAS frequency 
coordinator(s), where available, will address MSTV/NAB's concern that 
some BAS TVPU ENG operations may face uncertainty regarding protection 
from DOD earth station transmissions. In view of the above, we disagree 
with MSTV/NAB's contention that the Commission acted in an arbitrary 
and capricious manner with respect to its evaluation of the studies 
MSTV/NAB reference in their petition.

[[Page 29814]]

    16. We also deny SBE's request that we adopt specific sidelobe 
suppression criteria that would require the use of ``pie plate'' 
shrouds on all DOD TT&C earth station antennas. In the AWS Seventh 
Report and Order, the Commission declined a request by Gannett to 
impose certain conditions that would restrict DOD's options at the 
Buckley site, such as relocation of the DOD earth station away from 
Denver, limiting power or vertical elevation of its antenna, or 
increasing its antenna sidelobe suppression through the use of a ``pie 
plate'' shroud. The Commission found that maintaining flexibility on 
specific mitigation requirements, while requiring coordination to 
protect incumbent BAS operations, will allow the spectrum sharing 
situation to be customized for each site to meet the requirements when 
DOD needs to use the 2 GHz band. In this connection, we expect that the 
relationship between each DOD earth station and incumbent BAS stations 
need not be one of strict frequency re-use, as suggested by SBE. 
Rather, it should be one of frequency sharing, incorporating 
coordination of on-going operations where appropriate to accommodate 
the varying needs of both earth station and local ENG RO operations and 
antenna pointing, so that both services can operate at the same time in 
the same area, whether on the same or adjacent frequencies, to the 
maximum extent practicable.
    17. Although MSTV/NAB are concerned that the coordination efforts 
we describe could be wasteful of BAS or DOD resources, we believe the 
alternative approach--establishing rigid sharing criteria and imposing 
particular mitigation measures that must be employed in every 
situation--would be more likely to waste valuable resources. By setting 
forth a plan to allow for sharing in this band, we take a significant 
and substantial step to allow for the development of AWS spectrum in 
the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands, which furthers one of the 
primary goals of this proceeding and, in turn, promotes the public 
interest. Although MSTV/NAB claim that our approach ``threatens to 
divert time and effort from spectrum allocation strategies that could 
more effectively accomplish the Commission's goals in this 
proceeding,'' it is unclear what these alternate strategies are, and 
the primary solution offered by the Petitioners--additional studies of 
BAS-DOD sharing--would likely hinder the quick and efficient deployment 
of AWS in the reallocated bands. However, as discussed, we have ample 
record to provide for shared use of the band; while the specifics of 
how DOD facilities will accomplish such sharing in individual cases can 
and should be determined closer to the time such facilities are 
deployed, we would interject considerable uncertainty into the ability 
of AWS to enter the 1710-1755 MHz band if we eliminated the provisions 
the Commission made in the AWS Seventh Report and Order for DOD to move 
its facilities into the spectrum at 2025-2110 MHz. Similarly, MSTV/
NAB's concerns that difficulties associated with coordination could 
prove wasteful of BAS or DOD resources or deprive consumers of new or 
enhanced services that would be facilitated by BAS are, at best, 
speculative and do not outweigh the expected new and enhanced services 
and consumer benefits that the rapid deployment of the AWS spectrum is 
widely anticipated to provide. Finally we note that, as a practical 
matter, only the party initiating coordination (i.e., DOD) would be in 
a position to make the unlikely determination that further coordination 
of a particular DOD earth station may not be productive--or wasteful as 
suggested by MSTV/NAB--and only at the time of coordination, when 
specific BAS-earth station sharing parameters can be established.
    18. We agree with MSTV/NAB's assessment that the successful 
coordination of a DOD TT&C earth station could inhibit the operation of 
some new BAS stations in an area. As the Commission observed in the AWS 
Seventh Report and Order, once a DOD TT&C uplink earth station has 
begun coordination, new BAS stations for which coordination begins 
later must accept interference from the DOD earth station, as is 
normally the case for new stations sharing spectrum on a co-primary 
basis. However, given the existing proliferation of BAS facilities, 
particularly TVPU stations, in the 2 GHz band, we believe it likely 
that many new BAS stations would in effect be protected indirectly 
through the earth station's protection of existing incumbents.
    19. While we are denying the Petitions and affirming our decision 
that the BAS and other incumbent services will share the 2025-2110 MHz 
band with relocated DOD facilities, several matters the parties have 
raised warrant additional clarification. We confirm, as requested by 
SBE, that in coordinating a DOD earth station, DOD must demonstrate 
protection not only to fixed BAS point-to-point facilities such as STL 
stations, TV relay stations, and TV translator relay stations, but also 
to fixed RO antennas used in conjunction with BAS TVPU ENG operations. 
We believe that DOD can protect the point-to-point and fixed RO 
facilities through coordination with licensees or with the assistance 
of a local BAS frequency coordinator. Further, we recognize, as we did 
in the AWS Seventh Report and Order, and as noted by SBE, that 
protecting these ENG RO antennas will be challenging, as they must be 
able to receive, and thus point, in all directions--and in the case of 
omni-directional antennas, without any sidelobe suppression to reduce 
interference--to maximize coverage. We also clarify, at SBE's request, 
for those rare situations where no reasonable coordination can be 
negotiated, and the parties raise the issue with the Commission or NTIA 
for their joint arbitration, that the Commission will act expeditiously 
in concert with NTIA to consider the needs of both incumbent BAS 
stations and the DOD earth station. In such situations, the protection 
of BAS TVPU ENG RO sites, as well as fixed BAS sites, must be 
demonstrated. However, joint arbitration, if needed, must necessarily 
consider the flexibilities inherent to both earth station and local ENG 
RO operations and antenna pointing, and any arbitration will be binding 
on both parties. In this connection, we expect that both DOD and BAS 
interests will act in good faith to exercise flexibility, where 
feasible, in negotiating a reasonable accommodation and coordination, 
and thus obviate the need for arbitration.

Other Matters

    20. As requested by NTIA in a letter of September 22, 2005, we are 
also adopting minor editorial changes and corrections to footnotes 
G122, G123, and US276 to the United States Table of Frequency 
Allocations in Section 2.106--Table of Frequency Allocations. 
Specifically, we merge footnotes G122 and G123 into a single footnote 
G122, deleting the historical cite to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993 (``OBRA-93'') in G123 and slightly modifying the language 
regarding Federal operations. We also modified the last sentence of 
footnote US276 to replace language describing other mobile telemetering 
uses as ``secondary to the above uses''--which may lead to confusion as 
to those uses' underlying primary allocation status--with language 
stating that such uses ``shall not cause interference to, or claim 
protection from, the above uses.''
    21. We also adopt minor editorial changes to Sec.  87.303(d)(1) to 
align the language of that section with footnotes US78 and US276.

[[Page 29815]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    22. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification: The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) \1\ requires that a 
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ The 
RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as 
the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \3\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\4\ 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).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the 
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 
110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 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.''
    \5\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order makes only minor 
editorial changes and corrections to the Rules adopted by the Seventh 
Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-258. We find that these changes 
are insignificant.\6\ We thus conclude that these changes will have 
only a minor effect on the incumbent Television Broadcast Auxiliary 
Service (``BAS'') under part 74, Cable Television Relay Service 
(``CARS''), under part 78, and Local Television Transmission Service 
(``LTTS'') under part 101, in the band 2025-2110 MHz, and on the 
Aviation Services under part 87 and Amateur Radio Service under part 
97, in the band 2360-2400 MHz, and hence a minimal economic impact on 
licensees.\7\ Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this 
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, this 
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order and this certification will be sent 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, 
and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ] 22 (clarifications) and ] 23 (minor editorial 
changes), in the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order.
    \7\ See 47 CFR part 74, Subpart F--Television Broadcast 
Auxiliary Stations; 47 CFR part 78--Cable Television Relay Service; 
47 CFR part 101, Subpart J--Local Television Transmission Service; 
47 CFR part 87--Aviation Services, and 47 CFR part 97--Amateur Radio 
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Review Act

    24. The Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Memorandum 
Opinion and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    25. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 302, 303(f), 303(g), and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 157(a), 302a, 303(f), 303(g), and 405, and Section 1.429 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429, this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
order is adopted.
    26. Parts 1, 2 and 87 of the Commission's Rules are amended as 
specified in rule changes, effective 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 
7(a), 302, 303(f), and 303(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157(a), 302a, 303(f), and 303(g).
    27. The petition for reconsideration of the AWS Seventh Report and 
Order in this proceeding filed by the Association for Maximum Service 
Television and National Association of Broadcasters (together, ``MSTV/
NAB'') is denied, and the petition for reconsideration filed by the 
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (``SBE''), is granted in part and 
denied in part. These actions are taken pursuant to Section 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and Section 
1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429.
    28. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of the Fourth 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 
02-8, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

47 CFR Parts 2 and 87

    Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rules Changes

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 87 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309, 
and 325(e) unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  1.9005  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1.9005, remove and reserve paragraph (p).

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.


0
4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as 
follows:
0
a. Revise pages 35 and 36.
0
b. In the list of United States (US) footnotes, revise footnote US276.
0
c. In the list of Federal Government (G) footnotes, revise footnote 
G122 and remove footnote G123.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 29816]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24MY06.000


[[Page 29817]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24MY06.001


[[Page 29818]]


* * * * *
United States (US) Footnotes
* * * * *
    US276 Except as otherwise provided for herein, use of the band 
2360-2395 MHz by the mobile service is limited to aeronautical 
telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing 
of aircraft, missiles or major components thereof. The following three 
frequencies are shared on a co-equal basis by Federal and non-Federal 
stations for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of 
expendable and reusable launch vehicles, whether or not such operations 
involve flight testing: 2364.5 MHz, 2370.5 MHz, and 2382.5 MHz. All 
other mobile telemetering uses shall not cause harmful interference to, 
or claim protection from interference from, the above uses.
* * * * *
Federal Government (G) Footnotes
* * * * *
    G122 In the bands 2300-2310 MHz, 2395-2400 MHz, 2400-2417 MHz, and 
4940-4990 MHz, Federal operations may be authorized on a non-
interference basis to authorized non-Federal operations, and shall not 
constrain the implementation of any non-Federal operations.
* * * * *

PART 87--AVIATION SERVICES

0
5. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 
307(e) unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-
1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-156, 301-609.


0
6. Section 87.303 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  87.303  Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Frequencies in the bands 1435-1525 MHz and 2360-2395 MHz are 
assigned in the mobile service primarily for aeronautical telemetry and 
associated telecommand operations for flight testing of aircraft and 
missiles, or their major components. The bands 2310-2320 MHz and 2345-
2360 MHz are also available for these purposes on a secondary basis. 
Permissible uses of these bands include telemetry and associated 
telecommand operations associated with the launching and reentry into 
the Earth's atmosphere, as well as any incidental orbiting prior to 
reentry, of objects undergoing flight tests. In the band 1435-1525 MHz, 
the following frequencies are shared with flight telemetry mobile 
stations: 1444.5, 1453.5, 1501.5, 1515.5, and 1524.5 MHz. In the band 
2360-2395 MHz, the following frequencies may be assigned for telemetry 
and associated telecommand operations of expendable and re-usable 
launch vehicles, whether or not such operations involve flight testing: 
2364.5, 2370.5 and 2382.5 MHz. In the band 2360-2395 MHz, all other 
mobile telemetry uses shall not cause harmful interference to, or claim 
protection from interference from, the above uses.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-4655 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C