Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, 16822-16826 [E8-6494]
Download as PDF
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
16822
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
10. If training were required would it
be accomplished during off-season
times?
11. How would additional training
impact one’s ability to fish?
12. If stability standards for vessels
between 50 feet and 79 feet in length are
considered, what standards should
apply, and to which vessels should the
standards apply?
13. How does a crew become
experienced in safety procedures?
14. Should entry level crewmembers
be expected to have a minimum level of
familiarity with safety procedures?
15. How and when is stability
guidance used? If stability guidance is
available but not used, please explain
why.
16. How are operating personnel
made aware of stability and watertight
integrity guidance?
17. How often should stability
guidance be reviewed, updated, or
validated?
18. How are modifications to a vessel
or its gear accounted for relative to the
vessel’s maximum load, watertight
integrity, and other stability
considerations?
19. How adequate are current
requirements for personal protection
and survival equipment?
20. How do crew members become
familiar with vessel safety and survival
equipment?
21. How are safety risks aboard your
vessel(s) identified and minimized?
22. If you are a small business, what
economic impact on you, your business,
or your organization would the rules we
are considering have? In your comments
please explain why, how, and to what
degree such rules would have an
economic impact.
23. Have you experienced—or are you
aware of—any situations where any of
the measures under consideration saved
lives, or prevented/reduced harm/
damage to vessels?
24. Are there areas not addressed that
would benefit safety within the
commercial fishing industry?
25. What are the costs of each
requirement we are considering? Are
there comparable alternative solutions
to each requirement under
consideration that may be more cost
effective?
26. What are the direct and indirect
costs of each requirement we are
considering? For example, labor costs,
training costs, and hourly wages of
fishermen (or alternative measures of
valuing their time if they are not
salaried)? The costs of vessel losses,
including equipment, lost catches, and
any other opportunity costs?
27. Can any of the requirements we
are considering be completed off-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
season? If so, which ones? For those that
cannot, how much time would be taken
away from productive fishing time to
complete the requirement? How would
this affect revenue, i.e., fish catches?
28. What would be the impact on the
domestic fishing industry, if any, of
each requirement we are considering?
Would there be a differential impact by
size of vessel or region?
29. What would be the economic
impact of each requirement we are
considering on States, local, and tribal
governments?
30. What other requirements, if any,
should the Coast Guard be considering?
Dated: March 21, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and
Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8–6477 Filed 3–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 25 and 74
[WT Docket No. 02–55; ET Docket Nos. 00–
258 and 95–18; FCC 08–73]
Improving Public Safety
Communications in the 800 MHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to
eliminate, as of January 1, 2009, the
requirement that Broadcast Auxiliary
Service (BAS) licensees in the thirty
largest markets and fixed BAS links in
all markets be transitioned before the
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators
can begin offering service. The
Commission also seeks comment on
how to mitigate interference between
new MSS entrants and incumbent BAS
licensees who have not completed
relocation before the MSS entrants begin
offering service. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on
allowing MSS operators to begin
providing service in those markets
where BAS incumbents have been
transitioned.
Comments must be filed on or
before April 30, 2008, and reply
comments must be filed on or before
May 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [WT Docket No. 02–55, ET
Docket No. 00–258 and ET Docket No.
95–18], by any of the following
methods:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: [Optional: Include the Email address only if you plan to accept
comments from the general public].
Include the docket number(s) in the
subject line of the message.
• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing
address for paper, disk or CD-ROM
submissions needed/requested by your
Bureau or Office. Do not include the
Office of the Secretary’s mailing address
here.]
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418–0636, email: Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov, TTY (202)
418–2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT
Docket No. 02–55, ET Docket No. 00–
258, ET Docket No. 95–18, FCC 08–73,
adopted March 5, 2008, and released
March 5, 2008. The full text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. The full text
may also be downloaded at: https://
www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://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 should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Summary of Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
1. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, tentatively concludes to
eliminate, starting on January 1, 2009,
the rule that 2 GHz Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) systems may not begin
operation until the relocation of the
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) in
the thirty largest markets and fixed BAS
links in all markets is complete (top 30
market rule). In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the
potential for interference that may occur
if the 2 GHz MSS entrants begin
operations prior to relocation of the BAS
incumbents as well as means that
interference may be avoided or
corrected. The Commission also seeks
comment on allowing MSS operators to
begin providing service in those markets
where BAS incumbents have been
relocated, even if the top 30 market rule
is not eliminated.
2. The 2 GHz BAS licensees are being
relocated from 1990–2110 MHz to 2025–
2110 MHz so as to provide spectrum for
new services such as MSS. MSS
operations in the 2 GHz MSS band will
consist of both satellite uplink and
ancillary terrestrial component (ATC)
operations. Because these MSS facilities
are licensed in the same spectrum as
existing BAS operations, the
Commission has had to adopt policies,
such as the top 30 market rule, that take
into account the likelihood of MSS and
BAS interference. If MSS begins
operation before BAS operations are
relocated, MSS ‘‘would have to accept
interference from the remaining BAS
users until they are relocated.’’ Such
interference could be caused by BAS
transmitters to both ATC base stations
and satellite receivers. MSS operations
also would have to avoid causing
interference from MSS handset
transmitters (satellite and ATC) to BAS
receivers that are not yet relocated.
Under the current rules, BAS licensees
maintain primary status in the 1990–
2025 MHz band until they are relocated
by a new entrant; they decline
relocation by a new entrant; or the BAS
relocation rules sunset on December 13,
2013.
3. The Commission has tentatively
concluded to eliminate the top 30
market rule as of January 1, 2009. This
change would allow the 2 GHz MSS
operators to begin offering nationwide
service, both satellite and ATC, once the
Commission has determined that they
have met their operational milestones
and even if the BAS relocation is not
completed. Even in the absence of the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16823
top 30 market rule, MSS would be
primary in those TV markets where BAS
relocation is completed but secondary
in those TV markets where BAS is not
yet relocated. However, if the
Commission were to retain the top 30
market rule and BAS relocation were to
follow the plan submitted by Sprint
Nextel et al., on December 6, 2007, the
2 GHz MSS operators would not be able
to offer service until September 2009,
well beyond the dates by which MSS
operators ICO and TerreStar are
required as a condition of their licenses
to have operational satellite systems.
The Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion to eliminate the top
30 market rule. It also seeks comment
on whether it should modify other
requirements to facilitate MSS entry
into the 2 GHz MSS band.
4. In addition to the top 30 market
rule, MSS operations cannot begin until
all fixed BAS links in all markets are
relocated. Fixed BAS links, unlike
mobile BAS operations that can often be
switched to other available BAS
channels, can’t easily change
frequencies which may make it more
challenging to avoid interference.
Because MSS operations, including
ATC, could begin nationwide before the
BAS relocation has been completed in
many markets, interference between the
services could occur. Because only
those fixed links in the MSS band
(2000–2020 MHz) could potentially
receive co-channel interference, the
Commission seeks comment on
requiring only fixed BAS links in the
MSS band in all markets to be relocated
before MSS can begin operations. If the
Commission decides not to adopt this
modified requirement for relocating
fixed BAS links prior to MSS beginning
operations in the MSS band, it seeks
comment on maintaining the current
interference requirement in order to
minimize service disruptions, i.e.,
require that MSS not cause interference
to BAS in markets where BAS has not
yet relocated, and MSS would have to
accept interference caused by BAS in
markets where BAS has not yet
relocated.
5. Even if the Commission were to
eliminate the top 30 market rule by Jan.
1, 2009, it does not propose to alter the
current rule that BAS licensees maintain
primary status in the 1990–2025 MHz
band until they are relocated by a new
entrant; they decline relocation by a
new entrant; or the BAS relocation rules
sunset on December 13, 2013. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should maintain this requirement or
alter it in some way.
6. The MSS operators may be able to
share spectrum with BAS licensees that
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
16824
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
are not relocated if the 2 GHz MSS
operators were to begin offering
nationwide service by January 1, 2009.
Sharing may be possible through
coordination between the MSS
operators and BAS licensees or BAS
may be able to operate with reduced
bandwidth using digital equipment
where possible. The Commission seeks
comment on the likelihood and extent
of interference between MSS and BAS.
It also seeks comment on how, if MSS
was secondary to BAS in a market, MSS
could avoid or correct interference that
might occur.
7. In order to develop a complete
record on approaches other than the top
30 market rule that would allow 2 GHz
MSS operators to begin operations in
the MSS band by January 1, 2009, the
Commission also seeks comment on a
market-by-market approach for MSS
entry. Under a market-by-market
approach, MSS could begin providing
service, both satellite and ATC, in a
market once all BAS operations,
including fixed BAS links there have
been relocated, rather than wait until
BAS in the top 30 markets and all fixed
BAS links in all markets are relocated.
MSS deployment would be incremental
and tied to BAS relocation, rather than
a nationwide cut-over at a specific date.
This approach may be feasible because
ICO’s and TerreStar’s satellites are
designed with multiple spot beams that
can operate independently of each
other. Each spot beam can concentrate
the signals from the satellite to an area
on the ground with a radius of several
hundred miles. Although the footprint
of a spot beam may not exactly match
a TV market, many of the BAS
operations are being relocated in market
clusters according to the Sprint Nextel
et al., plan. The result is that BAS
relocation will be occurring in large
regional areas of the country, which
should allow the satellites’ spot beams
to provide service in many places while
effectively avoiding BAS operations that
are not yet relocated. The market-bymarket approach also would facilitate
the MSS operators’ ability to conduct
market trials of their satellite and ATC
networks in different areas of the
country as BAS operations are relocated
but before the top 30 markets are
relocated. Although a market-by-market
approach would reduce the likelihood
of interference between MSS and BAS,
interference between the two services
would not be completely avoided.
Because ATC stations could not be
operational in a market until BAS there
was relocated, co-channel interference
from BAS transmitters to ATC base
station receivers and from MSS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
handsets (operating with ATC base
stations) to BAS receivers will be
avoided. However, because the spot
beam footprint may not match exactly
the BAS market areas, co-channel
interference from BAS transmitters to
satellite receivers and from MSS
handsets (transmitting to MSS satellites)
to BAS receivers still may occur,
although it is unlikely. The Commission
seeks comment on the likelihood and
extent of interference between MSS and
BAS if it were to adopt a market-bymarket approach.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
9. 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 in this
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(FNPRM). 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 in the FNPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).2 In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
10. In the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Commission seeks
comment on a tentative conclusion to
modify the requirement that BAS
licensees in the thirty largest markets be
transitioned before the two 2 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) operators
(ICO and TerreStar) can begin offering
service. Because the transition of the 2
GHz BAS licensees may be completed
beyond the dates by which the 2 GHz
MSS systems are expected to be
operational, the Commission explores
alternative ways of balancing the needs
of incumbent Broadcast Auxiliary
Services (BAS) licensees to provide
service without suffering harmful
interference and the introduction of new
MSS operations in a timely manner.
11. In the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Commission request
comments on a tentative conclusion to
eliminate, as of January 1, 2009, the rule
requiring that BAS in the top 30 markets
by population and all fixed BAS links
be transitioned before 2 GHz MSS
operators may begin offering service. In
addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether and how to
modify the requirement that fixed BAS
links in all markets be relocated before
MSS operations can commence. It also
seeks comment on whether it should
maintain the requirement that BAS
licensees maintain primary status in the
1990–2025 MHz band until they are
relocated; they decline relocation by a
new entrant; or the BAS relocation rules
sunset on December 13, 2013.
Furthermore, the Commission seeks
comment on what would be the extent
and likelihood of interference between
MSS and BAS, if MSS operators enter
the band before the completion of the
BAS transition. The Commission seeks
comment on how, if MSS was secondary
to BAS in a market, MSS could avoid or
correct any interference that might
occur. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on using a market-by-market
approach for MSS entry to the band as
an alternative to modifying the top 30
market rule. Under a market-by-market
approach, MSS could begin providing
service, both satellite and ATC, in a
market once all BAS operations have
been relocated, rather than wait until
the top 30 market rule is satisfied.
B. Legal Basis
12. The proposed action is taken
pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 CFR 154(i) and (j), and
Section 1.3 of the Commission’s Rules.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
13. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The
RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ 5 In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act.6 A small
45
U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
U.S.C. 601(6).
6 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition
of a small business applies ‘‘unless an agency, after
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or
55
1 See
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 No. 104–121, Title II, 110
Stat. 847 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
3 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.7
14. The proposed rule modifications
may affect the interest of BAS, LTTS,
and CARS licensees (which we have
been referring to throughout this
document generically as ‘‘BAS’’). BAS
services involve a variety of
transmitters, generally used to relay
broadcast programming to the public
(through translator and booster stations)
or within the program distribution chain
(from a remote news gathering unit to
the studio). The CARS service includes
transmitters generally used to relay
cable programming within cable
television system distribution systems.
The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to
Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Local
Television Transmission Service or
Cable Television Relay Service.
Therefore, the applicable definition of
small entity is the definition under the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
rules applicable to radiotelephone
companies.
15. BAS. This service uses a variety of
transmitters to relay broadcast
programming to the public (through
translator and booster stations) or
within the program distribution chain
(from a remote news gathering unit back
to the stations). There are approximately
712 TV BAS licensees in the 1990–2110
MHz band, and these licensees will
ultimately be required to use only the
2020–2110 MHz portion of that band. It
is unclear how many of these will be
affected by our new rules.
16. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities
specific to BAS licensees. The U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA)
has developed small business size
standards, as follows: For TV BAS, we
use the size standard for Television
Broadcasting, which consists of all such
companies having annual receipts of no
more than $12.0 million.8 According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
906 Television Broadcasting firms, total
that operated for the entire year.9 Of this
total, 734 firms had annual receipts of
$9,999,999.00 or less and an additional
71 had receipts of $10 million to
more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
7 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
8 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census,
Subject Series: Information, ‘‘Receipts Size of Firms
Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997,’’ Table 4,
NAICS code 515120 (issued Oct. 2000).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
$24,999,999.00.10 Thus, under this
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
17. CARS. There are nine CARS
mobile licensees in the 1990–2110 MHz
band, and these licensees will
ultimately be required to use only the
2020–2110 MHz portion of that band. It
is unclear how many of these will be
affected by our new rules. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Cable and other Program
Distribution, which consists of all such
companies having annual receipts of no
more than $12.5 million.11 According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
1,311 firms within the industry category
Cable and Other Program Distribution,
total, that operated for the entire year.12
Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual
receipts of $9,999,999.00 or less, and an
additional 52 firms had receipts of $10
million to $24,999,999.00.13 Thus,
under this standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
18. LTTS. There are 34 LTTS
licensees in the 1990–2110 MHz band,
and these licensees will ultimately be
required to use only the 2020–2110
MHz portion of that band. It is unclear
how many of these will be affected by
our new rules. The Commission has not
yet defined a small business with
respect to local television transmission
services. For purposes of this IRFA, we
will use the SBA’s definition applicable
to Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications—i.e., an entity
with no more than 1,500 persons.14
According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were 977 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the
entire year.15 Of this total, 965 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and an additional 12 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more.16 Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
19. MSS. The appropriate SBA size
standard for mobile satellite service is
for the category of ‘‘Other
Telecommunications.’’ This category
‘‘comprises establishments primarily
10 Id. The census data do not provide a more
precise estimate.
11 Id. at NAICS code 515120.
12 Id.
13 Id. The census data do not provide a more
precise estimate.
14 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
15 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census,
Subject Series: Information, ‘‘Employment Size of
Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997,’’ Table
5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Oct. 2000).
16 Id. The census data do not provide a more
precise estimate of the number of firms that have
employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the
largest category provided is ‘‘Firms with 1,000
employees or more.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16825
engaged in (1) providing specialized
telecommunications applications, such
as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operations;
or (2) providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities
operationally connected with one or
more terrestrial communications
systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to or receiving
telecommunications from satellite
systems.’’ 17 Under this category, such a
business is small if it has $13.5 million
or less in average annual receipts.18 For
this category, Census Bureau data for
2002 show that there were a total of 332
firms that operated for the entire year.19
Of this total, 303 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 15
firms had annual receipts of $10 million
to $24,999,999.20 Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of Other
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our
action. The proposed rule changes
would affect two 2 GHz MSS operators.
While the Commission does not believe
these two MSS operators to be small due
to the high costs associated with
launching their service, it has
nonetheless included them in this
analysis.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
20. The interest of BAS licensees
would be affected by the proposed rule
changes by either subjecting them to the
threat of increased interference from
MSS or by making their licenses
secondary to MSS in a portion of the
spectrum. The potential harm to BAS
will depend on the particular changes
made to the rule. If MSS is allowed to
enter the band on a market-by-market
basis only where BAS has been
transitioned, BAS would likely suffer
little or no interference. If MSS is
allowed to enter the band before BAS
has been transitioned, but is required to
cause no interference to BAS, then BAS
would also likely suffer little or no
interference. However, if BAS licensees
are made secondary when MSS enters
the band, those BAS licensees who have
not been relocated could suffer
interference. If such interference does
occur, the BAS licensee may be able to
17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions,
‘‘517910 Other Telecommunications’’; https://
www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
18 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517410.
19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census,
Subject Series: Information, ‘‘Establishment and
Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),’’
Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).
20 Id. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts
of $25 million or more.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
16826
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
avoid the interference by operating on
another BAS channel. Moreover, this
interference would be temporary
because all the BAS licensees are
scheduled to relocate by September 7,
2009 to spectrum that does not conflict
with MSS.
21. The proposed rule changes would
also affect the interest of the two 2 GHz
MSS operators, TerreStar and ICO.
Under the current rules TerreStar and
ICO cannot begin operations in this
band until after the top 30 markets have
been relocated. Consequently,
modifying the top 30 market rule to
allow them to enter the band sooner will
provide the 2 GHz MSS operators with
a benefit and not a burden.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
22. Our primary concern in this
proceeding continues to be balancing
the needs of incumbent BAS licensees
to provide service without suffering
harmful interference and the
introduction of new MSS in a timely
manner. If the Sprint Nextel et al., plan
for BAS relocation is successfully
implemented, ICO’s and TerreStar’s
ability to begin operation in the 2 GHz
MSS band could be delayed until
September 2009 under the current rules.
On the other hand, if BAS relocation of
the top 30 markets and fixed BAS links
in all markets is completed earlier than
is now anticipated but before all BAS
markets are relocated, interference
between MSS, including ATC, and BAS
is likely to occur in those markets not
yet relocated. In the latter case, MSS
would have to accept interference from
the remaining BAS users until they are
relocated. It seeks comment on whether
to maintain this non-interference
requirement. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether it should
modify other requirements for MSS
entry into the 2 GHz MSS band.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
23. None.
Ordering Clauses
24. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is adopted. This authority
is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 CFR 154(i) and (j), and
Section 1.3 of the Commission’s Rules.
25. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–6494 Filed 3–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
Notification and Reporting of Aircraft
Accidents or Incidents and Overdue
Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft
Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records
National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NTSB is proposing to
amend its regulations concerning
notification and reporting requirements
with regard to aircraft accidents or
incidents. The existing version of the
definitions section does not address
unmanned aircraft accidents; therefore,
the NTSB proposes to update the
definitions section in order to define
‘‘unmanned aircraft accident.’’
DATES: Submit comments on or before
June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send written
comments using any of the following
methods:
1. Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
2. Mail: Mail comments concerning
this proposed rule to Dana Schulze, AS–
lO, National Transportation Safety
Board, 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20594–2000.
3. Fax: (202) 314–6319, Attention:
Dana Schulze.
4. Hand Delivery: 6th Floor, 490
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Schulze, Office of Aviation Safety,
(202) 314–6323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory and Regulatory Evaluation
This rule proposes to add a definition
of ‘‘unmanned aircraft accident’’
alongside the existing definition of
‘‘aircraft accident,’’ to include a
requirement to report unmanned aircraft
accidents under the notification
requirements of 49 CFR 830.5(a), which
requires immediate notification of any
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
aircraft accident, as defined at 49 CFR
830.2. The NTSB also seeks to add a
reference to this new definition in the
existing definition of ‘‘aircraft
accident.’’ These additions will enhance
aviation safety by providing the NTSB
with notification of events in which
persons are injured or the aircraft
sustains substantial damage. Such
reports will enable the NTSB to conduct
investigations, influence corrective
actions, and propose safety
recommendations with regard to
unmanned aircraft in a timely manner.
In addition, these reports will assist the
NTSB with safety studies and analysis
of any trends in aviation transportation
that could affect aviation safety.
The NTSB has considered whether
this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and has determined that this
rule does not meet the definition of
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ In
particular, the rule will not: have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect the
economy; create a serious inconsistency
or interfere with an action that another
agency has taken or plans to take;
materially alter the budgetary impact of
any grants, entitlements, or the like; or
raise novel legal or policy issues. As
such, Executive Order 12866 does not
require the NTSB to complete an
assessment of the potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501–1571. The
NTSB acknowledges that this proposed
reporting requirement may affect state,
local, and tribal entities because those
entities may utilize unmanned aircraft
for a variety of purposes. However, the
NTSB maintains that requiring such
entities to report to the NTSB
transportation accidents arising from the
operation of unmanned aircraft will not
result in any expenditure by any private
sector organization or entity that would
exceed $100 million. As such, the NTSB
asserts that the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act does not prevent the NTSB’s
enactment of this proposed regulation.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this
proposed rule as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, 42
U.S.C. 4321–4347, and has determined
that this proposed regulation does not
necessitate further analysis under the
provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
In addition, the NTSB has considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 62 (Monday, March 31, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16822-16826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6494]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 25 and 74
[WT Docket No. 02-55; ET Docket Nos. 00-258 and 95-18; FCC 08-73]
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to eliminate, as of January 1, 2009,
the requirement that Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees in the
thirty largest markets and fixed BAS links in all markets be
transitioned before the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators can
begin offering service. The Commission also seeks comment on how to
mitigate interference between new MSS entrants and incumbent BAS
licensees who have not completed relocation before the MSS entrants
begin offering service. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
allowing MSS operators to begin providing service in those markets
where BAS incumbents have been transitioned.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 30, 2008, and reply
comments must be filed on or before May 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [WT Docket No. 02-55,
ET Docket No. 00-258 and ET Docket No. 95-18], by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office.
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-0636, e-mail: Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov, TTY
(202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket
No. 00-258, ET Docket No. 95-18, FCC 08-73, adopted March 5, 2008, and
released March 5, 2008. The full text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may
also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by
[[Page 16823]]
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://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 e-mail 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
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, tentatively concludes
to eliminate, starting on January 1, 2009, the rule that 2 GHz Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) systems may not begin operation until the
relocation of the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) in the thirty
largest markets and fixed BAS links in all markets is complete (top 30
market rule). In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the
potential for interference that may occur if the 2 GHz MSS entrants
begin operations prior to relocation of the BAS incumbents as well as
means that interference may be avoided or corrected. The Commission
also seeks comment on allowing MSS operators to begin providing service
in those markets where BAS incumbents have been relocated, even if the
top 30 market rule is not eliminated.
2. The 2 GHz BAS licensees are being relocated from 1990-2110 MHz
to 2025-2110 MHz so as to provide spectrum for new services such as
MSS. MSS operations in the 2 GHz MSS band will consist of both
satellite uplink and ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) operations.
Because these MSS facilities are licensed in the same spectrum as
existing BAS operations, the Commission has had to adopt policies, such
as the top 30 market rule, that take into account the likelihood of MSS
and BAS interference. If MSS begins operation before BAS operations are
relocated, MSS ``would have to accept interference from the remaining
BAS users until they are relocated.'' Such interference could be caused
by BAS transmitters to both ATC base stations and satellite receivers.
MSS operations also would have to avoid causing interference from MSS
handset transmitters (satellite and ATC) to BAS receivers that are not
yet relocated. Under the current rules, BAS licensees maintain primary
status in the 1990-2025 MHz band until they are relocated by a new
entrant; they decline relocation by a new entrant; or the BAS
relocation rules sunset on December 13, 2013.
3. The Commission has tentatively concluded to eliminate the top 30
market rule as of January 1, 2009. This change would allow the 2 GHz
MSS operators to begin offering nationwide service, both satellite and
ATC, once the Commission has determined that they have met their
operational milestones and even if the BAS relocation is not completed.
Even in the absence of the top 30 market rule, MSS would be primary in
those TV markets where BAS relocation is completed but secondary in
those TV markets where BAS is not yet relocated. However, if the
Commission were to retain the top 30 market rule and BAS relocation
were to follow the plan submitted by Sprint Nextel et al., on December
6, 2007, the 2 GHz MSS operators would not be able to offer service
until September 2009, well beyond the dates by which MSS operators ICO
and TerreStar are required as a condition of their licenses to have
operational satellite systems. The Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion to eliminate the top 30 market rule. It also seeks
comment on whether it should modify other requirements to facilitate
MSS entry into the 2 GHz MSS band.
4. In addition to the top 30 market rule, MSS operations cannot
begin until all fixed BAS links in all markets are relocated. Fixed BAS
links, unlike mobile BAS operations that can often be switched to other
available BAS channels, can't easily change frequencies which may make
it more challenging to avoid interference. Because MSS operations,
including ATC, could begin nationwide before the BAS relocation has
been completed in many markets, interference between the services could
occur. Because only those fixed links in the MSS band (2000-2020 MHz)
could potentially receive co-channel interference, the Commission seeks
comment on requiring only fixed BAS links in the MSS band in all
markets to be relocated before MSS can begin operations. If the
Commission decides not to adopt this modified requirement for
relocating fixed BAS links prior to MSS beginning operations in the MSS
band, it seeks comment on maintaining the current interference
requirement in order to minimize service disruptions, i.e., require
that MSS not cause interference to BAS in markets where BAS has not yet
relocated, and MSS would have to accept interference caused by BAS in
markets where BAS has not yet relocated.
5. Even if the Commission were to eliminate the top 30 market rule
by Jan. 1, 2009, it does not propose to alter the current rule that BAS
licensees maintain primary status in the 1990-2025 MHz band until they
are relocated by a new entrant; they decline relocation by a new
entrant; or the BAS relocation rules sunset on December 13, 2013. The
Commission seeks comment on whether it should maintain this requirement
or alter it in some way.
6. The MSS operators may be able to share spectrum with BAS
licensees that
[[Page 16824]]
are not relocated if the 2 GHz MSS operators were to begin offering
nationwide service by January 1, 2009. Sharing may be possible through
coordination between the MSS operators and BAS licensees or BAS may be
able to operate with reduced bandwidth using digital equipment where
possible. The Commission seeks comment on the likelihood and extent of
interference between MSS and BAS. It also seeks comment on how, if MSS
was secondary to BAS in a market, MSS could avoid or correct
interference that might occur.
7. In order to develop a complete record on approaches other than
the top 30 market rule that would allow 2 GHz MSS operators to begin
operations in the MSS band by January 1, 2009, the Commission also
seeks comment on a market-by-market approach for MSS entry. Under a
market-by-market approach, MSS could begin providing service, both
satellite and ATC, in a market once all BAS operations, including fixed
BAS links there have been relocated, rather than wait until BAS in the
top 30 markets and all fixed BAS links in all markets are relocated.
MSS deployment would be incremental and tied to BAS relocation, rather
than a nationwide cut-over at a specific date. This approach may be
feasible because ICO's and TerreStar's satellites are designed with
multiple spot beams that can operate independently of each other. Each
spot beam can concentrate the signals from the satellite to an area on
the ground with a radius of several hundred miles. Although the
footprint of a spot beam may not exactly match a TV market, many of the
BAS operations are being relocated in market clusters according to the
Sprint Nextel et al., plan. The result is that BAS relocation will be
occurring in large regional areas of the country, which should allow
the satellites' spot beams to provide service in many places while
effectively avoiding BAS operations that are not yet relocated. The
market-by-market approach also would facilitate the MSS operators'
ability to conduct market trials of their satellite and ATC networks in
different areas of the country as BAS operations are relocated but
before the top 30 markets are relocated. Although a market-by-market
approach would reduce the likelihood of interference between MSS and
BAS, interference between the two services would not be completely
avoided. Because ATC stations could not be operational in a market
until BAS there was relocated, co-channel interference from BAS
transmitters to ATC base station receivers and from MSS handsets
(operating with ATC base stations) to BAS receivers will be avoided.
However, because the spot beam footprint may not match exactly the BAS
market areas, co-channel interference from BAS transmitters to
satellite receivers and from MSS handsets (transmitting to MSS
satellites) to BAS receivers still may occur, although it is unlikely.
The Commission seeks comment on the likelihood and extent of
interference between MSS and BAS if it were to adopt a market-by-market
approach.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
9. 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 in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (FNPRM). 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 in the FNPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\2\ In addition,
the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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 No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847
(1996).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
10. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to modify the requirement that
BAS licensees in the thirty largest markets be transitioned before the
two 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) operators (ICO and TerreStar)
can begin offering service. Because the transition of the 2 GHz BAS
licensees may be completed beyond the dates by which the 2 GHz MSS
systems are expected to be operational, the Commission explores
alternative ways of balancing the needs of incumbent Broadcast
Auxiliary Services (BAS) licensees to provide service without suffering
harmful interference and the introduction of new MSS operations in a
timely manner.
11. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
request comments on a tentative conclusion to eliminate, as of January
1, 2009, the rule requiring that BAS in the top 30 markets by
population and all fixed BAS links be transitioned before 2 GHz MSS
operators may begin offering service. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether and how to modify the requirement that fixed BAS
links in all markets be relocated before MSS operations can commence.
It also seeks comment on whether it should maintain the requirement
that BAS licensees maintain primary status in the 1990-2025 MHz band
until they are relocated; they decline relocation by a new entrant; or
the BAS relocation rules sunset on December 13, 2013. Furthermore, the
Commission seeks comment on what would be the extent and likelihood of
interference between MSS and BAS, if MSS operators enter the band
before the completion of the BAS transition. The Commission seeks
comment on how, if MSS was secondary to BAS in a market, MSS could
avoid or correct any interference that might occur. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on using a market-by-market approach for MSS
entry to the band as an alternative to modifying the top 30 market
rule. Under a market-by-market approach, MSS could begin providing
service, both satellite and ATC, in a market once all BAS operations
have been relocated, rather than wait until the top 30 market rule is
satisfied.
B. Legal Basis
12. The proposed action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 CFR 154(i) and (j),
and Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
13. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\4\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\6\ A small
[[Page 16825]]
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The proposed rule modifications may affect the interest of BAS,
LTTS, and CARS licensees (which we have been referring to throughout
this document generically as ``BAS''). BAS services involve a variety
of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the
public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program
distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit to the studio).
The CARS service includes transmitters generally used to relay cable
programming within cable television system distribution systems. The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable
to Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Local Television Transmission Service
or Cable Television Relay Service. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radiotelephone companies.
15. BAS. This service uses a variety of transmitters to relay
broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster
stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news
gathering unit back to the stations). There are approximately 712 TV
BAS licensees in the 1990-2110 MHz band, and these licensees will
ultimately be required to use only the 2020-2110 MHz portion of that
band. It is unclear how many of these will be affected by our new
rules.
16. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specific to BAS licensees. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
has developed small business size standards, as follows: For TV BAS, we
use the size standard for Television Broadcasting, which consists of
all such companies having annual receipts of no more than $12.0
million.\8\ According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 906
Television Broadcasting firms, total that operated for the entire
year.\9\ Of this total, 734 firms had annual receipts of $9,999,999.00
or less and an additional 71 had receipts of $10 million to
$24,999,999.00.\10\ Thus, under this standard, the majority of firms
can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120.
\9\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, ``Receipts Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
1997,'' Table 4, NAICS code 515120 (issued Oct. 2000).
\10\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. CARS. There are nine CARS mobile licensees in the 1990-2110 MHz
band, and these licensees will ultimately be required to use only the
2020-2110 MHz portion of that band. It is unclear how many of these
will be affected by our new rules. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Cable and other Program Distribution, which
consists of all such companies having annual receipts of no more than
$12.5 million.\11\ According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
1,311 firms within the industry category Cable and Other Program
Distribution, total, that operated for the entire year.\12\ Of this
total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of $9,999,999.00 or less, and an
additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.00.\13\
Thus, under this standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at NAICS code 515120.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. LTTS. There are 34 LTTS licensees in the 1990-2110 MHz band,
and these licensees will ultimately be required to use only the 2020-
2110 MHz portion of that band. It is unclear how many of these will be
affected by our new rules. The Commission has not yet defined a small
business with respect to local television transmission services. For
purposes of this IRFA, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications--i.e., an entity with no
more than 1,500 persons.\14\ According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the
entire year.\15\ Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.\16\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
\15\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, ``Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
Tax: 1997,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Oct. 2000).
\16\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
employees; the largest category provided is ``Firms with 1,000
employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. MSS. The appropriate SBA size standard for mobile satellite
service is for the category of ``Other Telecommunications.'' This
category ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing
specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite
tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
(2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' \17\ Under this category,
such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average
annual receipts.\18\ For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002
show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire
year.\19\ Of this total, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to
$24,999,999.\20\ Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
our action. The proposed rule changes would affect two 2 GHz MSS
operators. While the Commission does not believe these two MSS
operators to be small due to the high costs associated with launching
their service, it has nonetheless included them in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, ``517910 Other
Telecommunications''; https://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/
NDEF517.HTM.
\18\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517410.
\19\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
Organization),'' Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).
\20\ Id. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of $25
million or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
20. The interest of BAS licensees would be affected by the proposed
rule changes by either subjecting them to the threat of increased
interference from MSS or by making their licenses secondary to MSS in a
portion of the spectrum. The potential harm to BAS will depend on the
particular changes made to the rule. If MSS is allowed to enter the
band on a market-by-market basis only where BAS has been transitioned,
BAS would likely suffer little or no interference. If MSS is allowed to
enter the band before BAS has been transitioned, but is required to
cause no interference to BAS, then BAS would also likely suffer little
or no interference. However, if BAS licensees are made secondary when
MSS enters the band, those BAS licensees who have not been relocated
could suffer interference. If such interference does occur, the BAS
licensee may be able to
[[Page 16826]]
avoid the interference by operating on another BAS channel. Moreover,
this interference would be temporary because all the BAS licensees are
scheduled to relocate by September 7, 2009 to spectrum that does not
conflict with MSS.
21. The proposed rule changes would also affect the interest of the
two 2 GHz MSS operators, TerreStar and ICO. Under the current rules
TerreStar and ICO cannot begin operations in this band until after the
top 30 markets have been relocated. Consequently, modifying the top 30
market rule to allow them to enter the band sooner will provide the 2
GHz MSS operators with a benefit and not a burden.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
22. Our primary concern in this proceeding continues to be
balancing the needs of incumbent BAS licensees to provide service
without suffering harmful interference and the introduction of new MSS
in a timely manner. If the Sprint Nextel et al., plan for BAS
relocation is successfully implemented, ICO's and TerreStar's ability
to begin operation in the 2 GHz MSS band could be delayed until
September 2009 under the current rules. On the other hand, if BAS
relocation of the top 30 markets and fixed BAS links in all markets is
completed earlier than is now anticipated but before all BAS markets
are relocated, interference between MSS, including ATC, and BAS is
likely to occur in those markets not yet relocated. In the latter case,
MSS would have to accept interference from the remaining BAS users
until they are relocated. It seeks comment on whether to maintain this
non-interference requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether it should modify other requirements for MSS entry into the 2
GHz MSS band.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
23. None.
Ordering Clauses
24. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted. This
authority is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 CFR 154(i) and (j), and
Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules.
25. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6494 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P