Utilizing Rapidly Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture in Response to an Emergency, 35962-35964 [2012-14602]
Download as PDF
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Notices
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval for the following public
information collection(s) pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. sections 3501–3520). An agency
may not conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number,
and no person is required to respond to
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Boley-Herman, Office of
Managing Director, (202) 418–0214 or
email PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060–1122.
OMB Approval Date: May 17, 2012.
Expiration Date: May 31, 2015.
Title: Preparation of Annual Reports
to Congress for the Collection &
Expenditure of Fees or Charges for
Enhanced 911 (E911) Services Under
the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008.
Form No.: Not applicable.
Estimated Annual Burden: 56
responses; 50 hours per response; 2800
hours total per year.
Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality.
Needs and Uses: This information
collection enables the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) to fulfill its continuing
obligations under the New and
Emerging Technologies 911
Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law
110–283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) (NET
911 Act) to submit an annual ‘‘Fee
Accountability Report’’ to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of
the House of Representatives ‘‘detailing
the status in each State of the collection
and distribution [of] fees or charges’’ for
‘‘the support or implementation of 911
or enhanced 911 services,’’ including
‘‘findings on the amount of revenues
obligated or expended by each State or
political subdivision thereof for any
purpose other than the purpose for
which any such fees or charges are
specified.’’ (NET 911 Act, 122 Stat. at
2622) The statute directs the
Commission to submit annual reports.
The Commission is now revising this
information collection in order to
collect more detailed information
regarding how states, territories, and
other reporting jurisdictions collect and
expend 911/E911 fees. Given this
express Congressional concern with the
appropriate use of collected fees, the
Bureau believes that future reports to
Congress should contain more detailed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Jun 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
information about how states and other
reporting jurisdictions determine what
activities, programs, and organizations
qualify as being ‘‘in support of 9–1–1
and enhanced 9–1–1 services, or
enhancements of such services,’’ for
purposes of qualifying to receive
collected 911/E911 funds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–14601 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[PS Docket No. 11–15; FCC 12–53]
Utilizing Rapidly Deployable Aerial
Communications Architecture in
Response to an Emergency
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on the role
of deployable aerial communications
architecture (DACA) in facilitating
emergency response by rapidly restoring
communications capabilities in the
immediate aftermath of a catastrophic
event. The Notice of Inquiry explores
the technologies that are or will be
available, including innovative DACA
technologies that are still in
development. It also examines technical
and operational issues associated with
the use of DACA technologies,
including interference and coordination
issues, that must be addressed to enable
their use, in order to increase the
capabilities of emergency responders
and provide the public with
connectivity when it is needed the most.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 25, 2012 and reply comments are
due on or before August 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply
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.
Comments and reply comments may
be filed electronically using the Internet
by accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Parties who choose to file by paper
can submit filings by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight
courier, or by first-class or overnight
U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission’s
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. 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 firstclass, Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. Parties who
choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing.
Parties wishing to file materials with
a claim of confidentiality should follow
the procedures set forth in § 0.459 of the
Commission’s rules. Confidential
submissions may not be filed via ECFS
but rather should be filed with the
Secretary’s Office following the
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459.
Redacted versions of confidential
submissions may be filed via ECFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Manner, Federal
Communications Commission, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
at (202) 418–3619.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry (NOI or Notice) in PS Docket
No. 11–15, FCC 12–53, adopted and
released on May 24, 2012. The complete
text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 488–5300, facsimile
(202) 488–5563, or via email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com. It is also available on
the Commission’s Web site at https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
Daily_Business/2012/db0524/FCC-1253A1.pdf. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Notices
Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry
This Notice of Inquiry further
examines the potential for DACA
technologies to provide
communications when terrestrial
communications infrastructures are
disrupted or disabled due to a
catastrophic event. To that end we seek
comment on the role of DACA, the
communication service architecture and
various DACA platform technologies
that are currently available or in
development, and the scope of their use
in the aftermath of a catastrophic event,
as well as how to best coordinate
operations and spectrum availability
and authorization matters. We also seek
comment on system performance of
DACA technologies to include coverage,
capacity, interference, power
consumption, and the interoperability of
DACA technologies with existing
communications services and
infrastructure, among other issues.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. DACA Technologies
Several promising DACA technology
platforms that could be deployed
shortly after a disaster to support
communications without requiring
deployment of any special user devices
include unmanned aerial vehicles,
weather balloons, and suitcase based
systems. Additional DACA technologies
also can provide critical
communications as either a standalone
aerial platform or an add-on payload.
We seek comment on the ability of
various DACA technologies to deliver
critical communications immediately
after a catastrophic event. We also seek
comment on each DACA technology’s
ability to support existing
communication services and devices.
Are there other technological solutions
similar to DACA that are ground based
that would be equally adept at restoring
commercial and public safety
communications to an area?
We seek comment on DACA
technologies used within the U.S.
Armed Forces. For instance, what
DACA technologies are the United
States military currently using and in
what situations are they used? What
lessons can we learn from the military’s
use of these technologies? Are there
relevant differences between military
use and civilian use that should be
taken into account?
We seek comment on the availability
and cost of DACA technology platforms.
For instance, are these technologies
commercially available today? What are
the capital costs of DACA platforms,
either as standalone aerial systems, addon technologies, or alternative ground
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Jun 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
based solutions? What are the
operational costs of these platforms?
We seek comment on the capabilities
of each DACA technology to support
commercial and public safety
communications services. We note that
other participants in the DACA
workshop addressed the costeffectiveness of unmanned aerial
vehicles, weather balloons, and high
altitude platforms. How does the cost
compare for each system?
AT&T and AeroVironment have stated
that weight may be a limiting factor in
how many communications payloads
DACA technology can support at a time.
We seek comment on this observation.
We also seek comment on whether
DACA technologies are being used in
other countries. What has been the
experience with these technologies
abroad?
B. Scope of DACA Usage and
Coordination of Operations
We seek comment on the appropriate
emergency response coordination
necessary to successfully deploy DACA
solutions in the aftermath of a
catastrophic event to establish
emergency communications. For
instance, how can an Incident
Command System make use of DACA
solutions?
We also seek comment on real-time
coordination during emergency
response efforts when using DACA
solutions. For instance, should any
agency of the federal government, or a
combination of agencies, be responsible
for coordinating the deployment and
use of DACA technologies and solutions
during emergencies?
We next seek comment on ensuring
that DACA usage complies with the
regulations and operational constraints
of the U.S. national airspace system.
How should DACA system usage be
coordinated with other government
agencies that have a role with regard to
emergency response and air traffic
control, in particular the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)?
AT&T states that DACA technologies
should only be utilized as a last resort,
where other existing terrestrial options
for restoring service are inadequate to
address the circumstances, to avoid
impeding the restoration efforts that
carriers typically bring to bear in these
types of emergency situations. We seek
comment on this approach.
We seek comment on appropriate
protocols or procedures to coordinate
both civilian and military emergency
response activities involving the use of
DACA solutions. More specifically, we
request comment on how to resolve
critical issues that will straddle
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35963
jurisdictional lines, such as determining
priorities between military and
commercial use of DACA systems, and
deciding whether to establish guidelines
for the use of DACA technologies to
promote interoperability.
We seek comment on how the control
over and operation of DACA
transmitters would fit into the current
framework of the Communications Act
and our rules, and how the regulatory
authority of other agencies (e.g., NTIA)
will play into their operations.
We next seek more specific comment
on the range of authorization
mechanisms that may be appropriate for
various circumstances in which DACA
solutions may be deployed. To the
extent DACA operations are conducted
by FCC licensees, what type of
adjustments would need to be made in
our rules? To the extent that third
parties own and operate DACA
solutions that operate over spectrum
allocated for Non-Federal use, we seek
comment on how their operations
should be authorized.
C. System Performance
1. Coverage
We seek comment on how to
delineate the affected area for which a
DACA solution is deployed. We seek
comment on how to best achieve as
much coverage of an affected area as
possible. One possibility is to deploy
DACA platforms in stages, and at
multiple altitudes, to quickly serve and
restore communications. We seek
comment on this approach. We also
seek comment on the ability of DACA
technologies to provide geographic
coverage over all geographies and
terrains.
2. Frequency Planning and Minimizing
the Potential for Harmful Interference
We seek comment on the frequency
bands that are most suitable for DACA
use. On which frequency bands should
DACA technologies be permitted to
operate? Would use of DACA on certain
bands interfere with public safety or
other services? If so, in which bands and
what solutions are available to minimize
interference?
AT&T suggests that some of its
interference concerns can be minimized
if DACA technologies do not employ the
commercial frequency bands and
instead are limited to those bands used
for unlicensed operations and other
non-cellular-based technologies. We
seek comment on this observation.
We seek comment on whether the
Commission should authorize a third
party to develop and maintain
frequency assignments and or a
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
35964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
database(s) to manage the use of DACA
solutions to limit the interference
potential among and between DACA
and terrestrial uses. Comsearch suggests
that ‘‘a centralized database approach
offers several merits including:
standardized data structures and format,
efficiency in data provisioning, ease of
maintenance, high accuracy and
reliability, and streamlined interaction.’’
We seek comment on this ‘‘centralized
database’’ approach.
To ensure that frequency reuse does
not cause interference, wireless
providers must ensure that they
coordinate the transmitters in their
network and coordinate with providers
operating in adjacent markets on the
same frequencies. We seek comment on
whether similar procedures should be
adopted for DACA technologies and, if
so, what they should include.
Moreover, other than allocating
dedicated spectrum for the use of DACA
technologies, are there methods to
ensure that frequency reuse does not
cause interference or to minimize any
such interference?
Several comments raised the concern
that the use of DACA technologies
during emergencies could overlap with
the restoration of terrestrial services,
potentially creating interference. We
seek comment on ways to avoid this
problem.
We also seek comment on DACA
signal propagation.
We also seek comment on directional
antennas and any other products that
can help to mitigate or reduce
interference.
AT&T suggests that the use of tethered
aerostats, i.e., aerostats tethered to the
ground, would minimize interference
concerns and propagate a more
predictable signal, especially if
equipped with stabilizers to minimize
movement of the aerostat that
accompanies the use of DACA
technology. We seek comment on the
suitability of tethered platforms.
3. Interoperability
Interoperability is a central
requirement of emergency response
communications between multiple
disciplines and agencies. If DACA
technologies are used for emergency
communications, it is critical to ensure
that they preserve interoperability for
emergency responders. How can
existing public safety network services
be accessed using DACA solutions
while preserving interoperability?
C. Prioritization of Service and Access
DACA systems may have limitations
in terms of the aggregate volume of
traffic that can be supported by an aerial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Jun 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
platform, due to factors such as the size,
weight, and power of DACA
technologies. Such limitations may
create a need to examine priorities
among the various communications
services that DACA systems might help
restore. We seek comment on the issue
of prioritizing certain communications
services immediately following a
catastrophic event.
D. International Considerations
We recognize that radio
transmissions, including from DACA
transmitters, do not recognize political
boundaries. Could DACA technologies
operate in a way that would comply
with the signal strength limits set forth
in these agreements? If DACA
technologies are unable to comply with
technical criteria detailed in existing
agreements with Canada and Mexico,
we seek comment on what types of
agreement would need to be reached
with each country to permit DACA
operations along the border.
E. Conclusion
1. Ensuring that communications are
available immediately following a
catastrophic event is critical to
emergency response. DACA brings the
promise of a new tool that can be
rapidly deployed and utilized when
terrestrial infrastructure is not available,
potentially facilitating the use of day-today commercial and public safety
devices. This capability could save
lives. We intend for the record
generated by this proceeding to provide
the opportunity for a thorough
discussion of DACA technologies and
solutions that address system
performance, service prioritization, and
governance issues.
Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o),
7(b), 301, 316 and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i)–(j) & (o), 157(b), 301, 316
and 403, and § 1.430 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.430, this
Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–14602 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting
Pursuant to the provisions of the
‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5
U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that
at 11:17 a.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in
closed session to consider matters
related to the Corporation’s supervision,
corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board
determined, on motion of Director
Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the
Currency), seconded by Director
Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive),
concurred in by Director Richard
Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau), Director Thomas M.
Hoenig (Appointive), and Acting
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that
Corporation business required its
consideration of the matters which were
to be the subject of this meeting on less
than seven days’ notice to the public;
that no earlier notice of the meeting was
practicable; that the public interest did
not require consideration of the matters
in a meeting open to public observation;
and that the matters could be
considered in a closed meeting by
authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6),
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)
of the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine
Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board
Room of the FDIC Building located at
550-17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Dated: June 12, 2012.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–14702 Filed 6–13–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Update to Notice of Financial
Institutions for Which the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has
Been Appointed Either Receiver,
Liquidator, or Manager
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Update Listing of Financial
Institutions in Liquidation.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (Corporation) has been
appointed the sole receiver for the
following financial institutions effective
as of the Date Closed as indicated in the
listing. This list (as updated from time
to time in the Federal Register) may be
relied upon as ‘‘of record’’ notice that
the Corporation has been appointed
receiver for purposes of the statement of
policy published in the July 2, 1992
issue of the Federal Register (57 FR
29491). For further information
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35962-35964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14602]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[PS Docket No. 11-15; FCC 12-53]
Utilizing Rapidly Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture
in Response to an Emergency
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the role of
deployable aerial communications architecture (DACA) in facilitating
emergency response by rapidly restoring communications capabilities in
the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event. The Notice of Inquiry
explores the technologies that are or will be available, including
innovative DACA technologies that are still in development. It also
examines technical and operational issues associated with the use of
DACA technologies, including interference and coordination issues, that
must be addressed to enable their use, in order to increase the
capabilities of emergency responders and provide the public with
connectivity when it is needed the most.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 25, 2012 and reply comments
are due on or before August 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply 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.
Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Parties who choose to file by paper can submit filings by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC
Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC
20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing.
Parties wishing to file materials with a claim of confidentiality
should follow the procedures set forth in Sec. 0.459 of the
Commission's rules. Confidential submissions may not be filed via ECFS
but rather should be filed with the Secretary's Office following the
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. Redacted versions of confidential
submissions may be filed via ECFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Manner, Federal
Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
at (202) 418-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry (NOI or Notice) in PS Docket No. 11-15, FCC 12-53, adopted
and released on May 24, 2012. The complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-
5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the
Commission's Web site at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0524/FCC-12-53A1.pdf. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
[[Page 35963]]
Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry
This Notice of Inquiry further examines the potential for DACA
technologies to provide communications when terrestrial communications
infrastructures are disrupted or disabled due to a catastrophic event.
To that end we seek comment on the role of DACA, the communication
service architecture and various DACA platform technologies that are
currently available or in development, and the scope of their use in
the aftermath of a catastrophic event, as well as how to best
coordinate operations and spectrum availability and authorization
matters. We also seek comment on system performance of DACA
technologies to include coverage, capacity, interference, power
consumption, and the interoperability of DACA technologies with
existing communications services and infrastructure, among other
issues.
A. DACA Technologies
Several promising DACA technology platforms that could be deployed
shortly after a disaster to support communications without requiring
deployment of any special user devices include unmanned aerial
vehicles, weather balloons, and suitcase based systems. Additional DACA
technologies also can provide critical communications as either a
standalone aerial platform or an add-on payload. We seek comment on the
ability of various DACA technologies to deliver critical communications
immediately after a catastrophic event. We also seek comment on each
DACA technology's ability to support existing communication services
and devices. Are there other technological solutions similar to DACA
that are ground based that would be equally adept at restoring
commercial and public safety communications to an area?
We seek comment on DACA technologies used within the U.S. Armed
Forces. For instance, what DACA technologies are the United States
military currently using and in what situations are they used? What
lessons can we learn from the military's use of these technologies? Are
there relevant differences between military use and civilian use that
should be taken into account?
We seek comment on the availability and cost of DACA technology
platforms. For instance, are these technologies commercially available
today? What are the capital costs of DACA platforms, either as
standalone aerial systems, add-on technologies, or alternative ground
based solutions? What are the operational costs of these platforms?
We seek comment on the capabilities of each DACA technology to
support commercial and public safety communications services. We note
that other participants in the DACA workshop addressed the cost-
effectiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles, weather balloons, and high
altitude platforms. How does the cost compare for each system?
AT&T and AeroVironment have stated that weight may be a limiting
factor in how many communications payloads DACA technology can support
at a time. We seek comment on this observation.
We also seek comment on whether DACA technologies are being used in
other countries. What has been the experience with these technologies
abroad?
B. Scope of DACA Usage and Coordination of Operations
We seek comment on the appropriate emergency response coordination
necessary to successfully deploy DACA solutions in the aftermath of a
catastrophic event to establish emergency communications. For instance,
how can an Incident Command System make use of DACA solutions?
We also seek comment on real-time coordination during emergency
response efforts when using DACA solutions. For instance, should any
agency of the federal government, or a combination of agencies, be
responsible for coordinating the deployment and use of DACA
technologies and solutions during emergencies?
We next seek comment on ensuring that DACA usage complies with the
regulations and operational constraints of the U.S. national airspace
system. How should DACA system usage be coordinated with other
government agencies that have a role with regard to emergency response
and air traffic control, in particular the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)?
AT&T states that DACA technologies should only be utilized as a
last resort, where other existing terrestrial options for restoring
service are inadequate to address the circumstances, to avoid impeding
the restoration efforts that carriers typically bring to bear in these
types of emergency situations. We seek comment on this approach.
We seek comment on appropriate protocols or procedures to
coordinate both civilian and military emergency response activities
involving the use of DACA solutions. More specifically, we request
comment on how to resolve critical issues that will straddle
jurisdictional lines, such as determining priorities between military
and commercial use of DACA systems, and deciding whether to establish
guidelines for the use of DACA technologies to promote
interoperability.
We seek comment on how the control over and operation of DACA
transmitters would fit into the current framework of the Communications
Act and our rules, and how the regulatory authority of other agencies
(e.g., NTIA) will play into their operations.
We next seek more specific comment on the range of authorization
mechanisms that may be appropriate for various circumstances in which
DACA solutions may be deployed. To the extent DACA operations are
conducted by FCC licensees, what type of adjustments would need to be
made in our rules? To the extent that third parties own and operate
DACA solutions that operate over spectrum allocated for Non-Federal
use, we seek comment on how their operations should be authorized.
C. System Performance
1. Coverage
We seek comment on how to delineate the affected area for which a
DACA solution is deployed. We seek comment on how to best achieve as
much coverage of an affected area as possible. One possibility is to
deploy DACA platforms in stages, and at multiple altitudes, to quickly
serve and restore communications. We seek comment on this approach. We
also seek comment on the ability of DACA technologies to provide
geographic coverage over all geographies and terrains.
2. Frequency Planning and Minimizing the Potential for Harmful
Interference
We seek comment on the frequency bands that are most suitable for
DACA use. On which frequency bands should DACA technologies be
permitted to operate? Would use of DACA on certain bands interfere with
public safety or other services? If so, in which bands and what
solutions are available to minimize interference?
AT&T suggests that some of its interference concerns can be
minimized if DACA technologies do not employ the commercial frequency
bands and instead are limited to those bands used for unlicensed
operations and other non-cellular-based technologies. We seek comment
on this observation.
We seek comment on whether the Commission should authorize a third
party to develop and maintain frequency assignments and or a
[[Page 35964]]
database(s) to manage the use of DACA solutions to limit the
interference potential among and between DACA and terrestrial uses.
Comsearch suggests that ``a centralized database approach offers
several merits including: standardized data structures and format,
efficiency in data provisioning, ease of maintenance, high accuracy and
reliability, and streamlined interaction.'' We seek comment on this
``centralized database'' approach.
To ensure that frequency reuse does not cause interference,
wireless providers must ensure that they coordinate the transmitters in
their network and coordinate with providers operating in adjacent
markets on the same frequencies. We seek comment on whether similar
procedures should be adopted for DACA technologies and, if so, what
they should include.
Moreover, other than allocating dedicated spectrum for the use of
DACA technologies, are there methods to ensure that frequency reuse
does not cause interference or to minimize any such interference?
Several comments raised the concern that the use of DACA
technologies during emergencies could overlap with the restoration of
terrestrial services, potentially creating interference. We seek
comment on ways to avoid this problem.
We also seek comment on DACA signal propagation.
We also seek comment on directional antennas and any other products
that can help to mitigate or reduce interference.
AT&T suggests that the use of tethered aerostats, i.e., aerostats
tethered to the ground, would minimize interference concerns and
propagate a more predictable signal, especially if equipped with
stabilizers to minimize movement of the aerostat that accompanies the
use of DACA technology. We seek comment on the suitability of tethered
platforms.
3. Interoperability
Interoperability is a central requirement of emergency response
communications between multiple disciplines and agencies. If DACA
technologies are used for emergency communications, it is critical to
ensure that they preserve interoperability for emergency responders.
How can existing public safety network services be accessed using DACA
solutions while preserving interoperability?
C. Prioritization of Service and Access
DACA systems may have limitations in terms of the aggregate volume
of traffic that can be supported by an aerial platform, due to factors
such as the size, weight, and power of DACA technologies. Such
limitations may create a need to examine priorities among the various
communications services that DACA systems might help restore. We seek
comment on the issue of prioritizing certain communications services
immediately following a catastrophic event.
D. International Considerations
We recognize that radio transmissions, including from DACA
transmitters, do not recognize political boundaries. Could DACA
technologies operate in a way that would comply with the signal
strength limits set forth in these agreements? If DACA technologies are
unable to comply with technical criteria detailed in existing
agreements with Canada and Mexico, we seek comment on what types of
agreement would need to be reached with each country to permit DACA
operations along the border.
E. Conclusion
1. Ensuring that communications are available immediately following
a catastrophic event is critical to emergency response. DACA brings the
promise of a new tool that can be rapidly deployed and utilized when
terrestrial infrastructure is not available, potentially facilitating
the use of day-to-day commercial and public safety devices. This
capability could save lives. We intend for the record generated by this
proceeding to provide the opportunity for a thorough discussion of DACA
technologies and solutions that address system performance, service
prioritization, and governance issues.
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 4(o), 7(b), 301, 316 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 157(b), 301, 316 and 403, and Sec.
1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.430, this Notice of Inquiry
is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14602 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P