Automatic Identification System Channels, 35700-35708 [2021-14362]
Download as PDF
35700
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax: 206–231–3220; email:
shahram.daneshmandi@faa.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–14494 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am]
Issued on June 30, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2021–14360 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
47 CFR Part 90
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[WT Docket No. 21–230; FCC 21–69; FR ID
35413]
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 90 and 95
Automatic Identification System
Channels
[ET Docket No 19–138; Report No. 3176;
FRS 34533]
AGENCY:
Petitions for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
ACTION:
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
Federal Communications
Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted
by the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) fulfils the
Commission’s statutory duty pursuant
to Section 8416 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021,
which directs the Commission to
initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June
30, 2021 to consider whether to
authorize devices used to mark fishing
equipment for use on Automatic
Identification System (AIS) channels.
This document seeks comment on the
extent to which the 1900–2000 kHz
band is used to support fishing
operations, the extent of unauthorized
deployment of devices used to mark
fishing equipment using AIS technology
on AIS channels, and whether to
authorize devices used to mark fishing
equipment for use on current AIS
channels. In addition, the NPRM
explores whether 160.900 MHz is a
viable alternative for devices used to
mark fishing equipment. In the event
the Commission were to authorize
devices used to mark fishing equipment
to use AIS channels or 160.900 MHz,
the NPRM seeks comment on whether
there are technical and operational
constraints that could be imposed to
maintain maritime safety and protect
incumbents. Finally, the NPRM seeks
comment on a consumer labeling
approach for authorized equipment to
provide consumers guidance on
whether the equipment being purchased
complies with both the Coast Guard’s
and the Commission’s rules.
SUMMARY:
Petitions for Reconsideration
(Petitions) have been filed in the
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding
by Sean T. Conway, on behalf of 5G
Automotive Association, Julian
Gehman, on behalf of The Amateur
Radio Emergency Data Network, and
Hilary Cain, on behalf of The Alliance
for Automotive Innovation.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions
must be filed on or before July 22, 2021.
Replies to an opposition must be filed
on or before August 2, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamie Coleman, Office of Engineering
and Technology, Policy and Rules
Division, (202) 418–2705 or
jamie.coleman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, Report No. 3176, released
June 16, 2021. The full text of the
Petitions can be accessed online via the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System at: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/. The Commission will not send a
Congressional Review Act (CRA)
submission to Congress or the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being
adopted by the Commission.
Subject: Use of the 5.850–5.925 GHz
Band, FCC 20–164, published at 86 FR
23281, May 3, 2021, ET Docket No. 19–
138. This document is being published
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47
CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Number of Petitions Filed: 3.
Interested parties may filed
comments on or before August 6, 2021;
and reply comments on or before
September 7, 2021.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may submit comments,
identified by WT Docket No. 21–230, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy 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 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.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities. 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 and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility
Division, at (202) 418–2925.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT
Docket No. 21–230, FCC 21–69 adopted
on June 15, 2021 and released on June
16, 2021. The full text of this document,
including all Appendices, is available
for public inspection on the
Commission’s website at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-69A1.pdf.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Congress directed the Commission to
‘‘consider whether imposing
requirements with respect to the manner
in which devices used to mark fishing
equipment are deployed and used
would enable them to be authorized to
operate in radio frequencies assigned for
[AIS] consistent with the core purpose
of the [AIS] to prevent maritime
accidents.’’ The Commission currently
authorizes radio buoy operations under
a ship station license for commercial
fishing operations on the open sea and
the Great Lakes in the 1900–2000 kHz
band.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation.
If the presentation consisted in whole
or in part of the presentation of data or
arguments already reflected in the
presenter’s written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in
his or her prior comments, memoranda,
or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or Federal numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or
given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte presentations and must be filed
consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the
Commission’s rules. In proceedings
governed by § 1.49(f) of the rules or for
which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. As required by Section 8416 of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021, we initiate this rulemaking
proceeding to explore whether to
authorize devices that can be used to
mark fishing equipment for use on
Automatic Identification System (AIS)
channels without undermining the core
purpose of AIS to prevent maritime
accidents. AIS is a maritime navigation
safety and domain awareness
communication system that has been
successfully relied upon both
domestically and internationally to
provide pertinent navigation safety
information among vessels, aircraft, and
maritime authorities. The Commission’s
existing rules limit the use of AIS
channels to devices needed for safety
and do not authorize the use on AIS
channels of devices used to mark fishing
equipment or the marketing of such
devices. This NPRM seeks comment on
both the issue raised in Section 8416 of
the NDAA21 and on the use of
alternative spectrum (other than AIS
channels) for these types of devices.
II. Background
2. Automatic Identification System.
Under Commission rules, AIS is defined
as a ‘‘maritime navigation safety
communications system . . . that
provides vessel information, including
the vessel’s identity, type, position,
course, speed, navigational status and
other safety-related information
automatically to appropriately equipped
shore stations, other ships, and aircraft;
receives automatically such information
from similarly fitted ships; monitors and
tracks ships; and exchanges data with
shore-based facilities.’’ The
Commission’s rules codify the
international standards for AIS to
ensure AIS devices meet the
requirements of the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), which
imposes obligations on vessels traveling
in international waters. The IMO
established those requirements to
‘‘improve the safety of navigation by
assisting in the efficient navigation of
ships, protection of the environment,
and operation of Vessel Traffic
Services.’’ An AIS device allows users
to receive data related to the locations
of other vessels in the area, additional
objects like navigational aids, and
maritime-related messages. The IMO
adopted a requirement for AIS to be
fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross
tonnage or more engaged on
international voyages, cargo ships of 500
gross tonnage or more not engaged on
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35701
international voyages, and all passenger
ships carrying more than 12 passengers.
The United States Coast Guard (Coast
Guard), acting pursuant to statutory
directive, expanded the AIS carriage
requirement to most commercial vessels
in U.S. navigable waters.
3. The Commission has incorporated
by reference, in part 80 of its rules, an
International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) international standard for AIS
equipment and several other
international standards for AIS, as the
basis for certifying compulsory and
voluntary AIS equipment. The only AIS
equipment types currently authorized
under part 80 of the Commission’s rules
are Class A and B shipborne equipment,
AIS Search and Rescue Transponders
(AIS–SARTs), and Maritime Survivor
Locating Devices (MSLDs). Class A AIS
devices are typically used by sea-going
vessels to comply with international
and Coast Guard carriage requirements,
and have a much greater transmit power
and provide more information than
Class B devices. Class B AIS devices
may be used for voluntary carriage by
recreational and other non-compulsory
vessels and a select segment of
mandatory AIS users in lieu of a Class
A device. AIS–SARTs are carried on
board survival craft for use during a
distress situation to assist search and
rescue personnel in locating those in
distress. An AIS–SART is used to locate
a survival craft or distressed vessel by
transmitting a unique identification
code and GPS coordinates to all AISenabled vessels in VHF range. MSLDs
are devices intended to aid in locating
persons in the water. The Commission
has also granted temporary waiver of its
rules to permit certification and use of
AIS Aid to Navigation (AtoN) stations.
4. In 2006, the Commission
implemented the international AIS
allocation domestically by designating
VHF maritime Channels 87B (161.975
MHz) and 88B (162.025 MHz) for AIS.
These channels are denominated AIS 1
and AIS 2, respectively, and are
authorized for use only by Class A and
B AIS devices, AIS–SARTs, AIS AtoNs,
and MSLDs. The Commission does not
authorize non-AIS use of the AIS
channels or certification of non-AIS
VHF radios that include the AIS
frequencies.
5. As more vessels become equipped
with authorized AIS equipment and
usage increases, AIS 1 and 2 have the
potential to become overloaded in areas
with high vessel traffic. A consequence
of overloading is an impact on mariner
situational awareness, including
reduction in the navigational range of
the AIS system, effectively limiting the
number of vessels that can be observed
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35702
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
within the system. As discussed below,
the ITU has sought to address this
problem by defining the types of
navigation safety AIS uses that are
permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by
recommending the use of 160.900 MHz
for non-navigation and non-safety AIS
operations on a non-interference basis.
6. Unauthorized Use of Devices on
AIS Channels. In 2018, the
Commission’s Enforcement Bureau
issued an advisory stating that it had
observed a ‘‘proliferation in the use and
marketing of noncompliant devices that
operate on radio frequencies assigned to
Automatic Identification Systems (AIS),
which are authorized exclusively for
marine navigation safety
communications.’’ One particular
unauthorized operation is the use of AIS
frequencies in the marking of fishing
equipment, which can ‘‘disrupt
important maritime communications,
increasing the risk of accidents by
creating confusion about whether an
AIS signal represents a vessel that must
be avoided.’’ Such noncompliant AIS
devices are often advertised as ‘‘AIS
Fishing Net Buoys,’’ and the devices can
transmit a vessel identification signal
without essential navigational safety
information. According to the
Enforcement Bureau, in addition to
being illegal, the use of devices to mark
fishing nets on AIS channels ‘‘can have
a serious detrimental effect on maritime
safety, hampering the situational
awareness of maritime operators and
endangering ships relying on AIS to
avoid collisions and allisions at sea.’’
The Enforcement Bureau warned that
violations of the Commission’s
marketing or operating rules would be
subject to substantial monetary
penalties. As the legal alternative, the
advisory pointed to compliant maritime
equipment intended for tracking fishing
nets that is authorized to operate in the
1900–2000 kHz band.
7. Statutory Mandate. Section 8416 of
the NDAA21 mandates that we initiate
a rulemaking proceeding by June 30,
2021 to consider whether to authorize
devices used to mark fishing equipment
in radio frequencies assigned for AIS.
Congress further instructed the
Commission to ‘‘consider whether
imposing requirements with respect to
the manner in which [AIS] devices are
deployed and used would enable the
authorization of [devices used to mark
fishing equipment] to operate in radio
frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations
consistent with the core purpose of the
[AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.’’
III. Discussion
8. Pursuant to Section 8416 of the
NDAA21, we seek comment on whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
to permit devices capable of marking
fishing equipment to operate on
channels currently assigned in the
United States and internationally for
AIS operation, specifically AIS 1 and 2,
and on related operational issues. As
stated, in the United States, AIS 1 and
2 currently are authorized only for
maritime navigation safety purposes,
and Congress directed the Commission
to ensure that any changes to permitted
operations in AIS spectrum are
consistent with the core purpose of AIS
to prevent maritime accidents.
9. We seek comment below on the
current types and usages of such
devices. We seek comment on whether
such devices could operate on AIS 1
and 2 consistent with the purpose of
AIS and, if so, under what conditions.
We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of permitting operation of these
devices on AIS 1 and 2, including the
risks to maritime safety. In addition, we
seek comment on the costs and benefits
of facilitating use of such devices on
alternative spectrum, specifically, by
encouraging more robust use of
frequencies in the 1900–2000 kHz band
(which is currently authorized for radio
buoy operations under certain ship
station licenses held by commercial
fishing vessels) and/or by permitting
such use on 160.900 MHz (consistent
with ITU recommendations). We further
seek comment on how best to categorize
devices used to mark fishing equipment
and protect incumbents through
technical and operational limitations.
Finally, we seek comment on a
consumer labeling approach to provide
consumers guidance on whether the
equipment being purchased complies
with the Coast Guard’s rules and the
Commission’s rules.
A. Current Environment for Devices
Used To Mark Fishing Equipment
10. We seek comment generally on the
current usage of spectrum to operate
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment. We consider two
general types of fishing equipment;
those attached to vessels during fishing
activities, such as long-lines, trawl nets
or drift nets, and those deployed for
later retrieval, such as fixed fishing nets,
pots, traps or other fishing equipment.
What is the volume of usage of any of
these devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment? How many mobile
and/or fixed devices are typically used
by an individual vessel or fleet? To what
extent does usage of these devices vary
based on the body of water where
deployed? Are there other types of
fishing nets that we should consider?
We recognize that fishing seasons are
time limited and vary by location, and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
we seek data to determine the most
trafficked locations during high fishing
season. Approximately how many
devices are typically used to mark
fishing equipment in a given area during
high season? Are the devices used yearround, or only during the fishing
season? If they are used year-round, are
the full complement of devices always
in use, or does the number of devices in
use vary based on the time of year? Over
how large an area are these devices
used? What types of technical
developments have occurred to facilitate
the use of these devices? Are these
devices also used to mark the location
of other types of marine equipment? We
seek extensive data input into our
record in this proceeding as part of our
consideration of whether to authorize
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2.
11. 1900–2000 kHz Operations. We
note that the Commission currently
authorizes radio buoy operations under
a ship station license for commercial
fishing operations on the open sea and
the Great Lakes in the 1900–2000 kHz
band. Under Commission rules, the
output power is limited to 8 watts and
the station antenna height is limited to
4.6 meters above sea level for a buoy
station, or 6 meters above the mast of
the ship for ship installations. We seek
comment on the extent to which this
band is used in support of fishing
operations. We ask that commenters
provide specific details regarding use
cases to provide a clearer understanding
of the scope of the use of the 1900–2000
kHz band in support of fishing
operations. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of using the 1900–2000
kHz band in support of such operations?
How many devices currently used to
mark fishing equipment employ this
band? What is the anticipated rate of
increase in the number of devices used
to mark fishing equipment in this band?
Is there sufficient equipment available
in this band for use in marking devices
for fishing operations? Would the
current technical limits hinder the use
of this band for devices that can be used
to mark fishing equipment, or fail to
incentivize equipment development?
Given the current power limits, what is
the estimated number of devices in a
given area that this band can support
without harmful interference? What
advantages or disadvantages are there to
using equipment in this band as
compared to AIS equipment,
specifically as related to any differences
in functionality, performance, and cost?
We also seek information, especially
quantitative estimates, on the economic
value of improved safety and more
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
efficient commercial fishing operations
from the use of these radio buoys in the
1900–2000 kHz band.
12. Unauthorized Use of AIS
Channels. We seek comment on
whether entities currently using AIS 1
and 2 for navigation safety and domain
awareness communication systems are
experiencing problems from
unauthorized use of AIS 1 and 2. If so,
how and to what extent does such
unauthorized use impact legitimate
operations on AIS 1 and 2? We seek
specific comment on the types and
quantity of devices used, or marketed
for use, to illegally operate on AIS 1 and
2 to mark fishing equipment. Since the
issuance of the 2018 Enforcement
Bureau Advisory, is there evidence of
the continued proliferation of the
unauthorized deployment of devices
used to mark fishing equipment using
AIS channels 1 and 2, and if so, at what
rate? Is any such proliferation largely
limited to certain bodies of water? How
are such unauthorized uses typically
deployed—i.e., at what power levels
and antenna heights—and are there
differences between fixed deployments
and mobile deployments (e.g., trawl use
cases)?
13. As noted above, there is a concern
that, in some areas, AIS 1 and 2 may
become compromised. The
Commission’s Enforcement Bureau
Advisory stated that non-certified
devices used to track or mark fishing
equipment ‘‘can have a serious
detrimental effect on maritime safety,
hampering the situational awareness of
maritime operators and endangering
ships relying on AIS to avoid collisions
and allisions at sea.’’ Further, an ITU
Radiocommunication Bureau
Recommendation indicates that, to
avoid confusion or an overload of
information on the bridge of a vessel,
devices that do not enhance the safety
of navigation should not be permitted to
use designated frequencies AIS 1 and 2.
Do commenters agree with the ITU
Recommendation? We seek specific
comment and data on the extent the use
of unauthorized devices is
compromising the use of AIS 1 and 2
and any resulting impact on the state of
maritime safety.
B. Exploring Additional Spectrum for
Devices That Could Be Used To Mark
Fishing Equipment
14. AIS Channels 1 and 2. Consistent
with the Congressional directive in
Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek
specific comment on whether
requirements could be imposed to
enable authorization of devices that are
designed to mark fishing equipment to
operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
the core purpose of AIS to prevent
maritime accidents. How would the
introduction of such devices impact the
availability and utility of the AIS 1 and
2 channels, especially in light of
concerns about potential overloading?
Would the authorization of devices used
to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and
2 result in substantial further channel
overloading? If low power/low-latency
requirements were utilized for operation
of devices used to mark fishing
equipment on AIS 1 and 2, would this
alleviate concerns regarding channel
overloading? Are modifications or
retrofits required for existing devices to
become compliant to the low-power/
low-latency requirements? If so, what is
the likely unit cost to make existing
devices compliant with the low-power/
low-latency requirements? How many
existing devices are estimated to be
affected by any new requirements? We
seek comment on the overall costs and
benefits of potentially allowing devices
that could be used to mark fishing
equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2,
including the risks to maritime safety.
15. We also seek comment on whether
we could authorize devices that could
be used to mark fishing equipment to
operate on AIS 1 and 2 without
diminishing navigation safety in
domestic and international waters and
impeding the efficiency of marine
transportation systems. If so, what is the
likely cost? If the Commission were to
permit such devices to operate on AIS
1 and AIS 2, to what extent would we
need to amend our current AIS
equipment authorization rules? If the
Commission were to permit devices
used to mark fishing equipment to
operate on AIS 1 and 2, what
coordination procedures would be
needed between the Commission, the
Coast Guard, and others to certify
equipment and ensure safe operation?
Are there restrictions or requirements
the Commission could impose to
mitigate against a negative impact on
existing uses? For example, should we
limit the types of devices used to mark
fishing equipment that would be
permitted to operate on AIS 1 and 2?
Should we authorize devices for
operation only in certain areas? If so, is
there any practical way to enforce such
limitations? Are there any technical
parameters or other limits the
Commission might impose to ensure
that any new uses do not undermine the
core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime
accidents? We note that, during the
pendency of this rulemaking, we will
continue to enforce our rules that limit
the use of AIS channels to devices
needed for safety and that do not
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35703
authorize use on AIS channels of
devices used to mark fishing equipment
or the marketing of such devices.
16. Particularly in the maritime
context, the Commission considers
international ramifications in
determining whether its actions are in
the public interest. We therefore note
that at WRC–19, the ITU updated its
Radio Regulations, to establish a new
class of AIS devices, Group A and
Group B autonomous maritime radio
devices (AMRD), and state that an
AMRD is a ‘‘mobile station operating at
sea and transmitting independently of a
ship station or a coast station.’’ The ITU
defined AMRD Group A as devices that
‘‘enhance the safety of navigation.’’ In
contrast, the ITU defined AMRD Group
B as ‘‘[devices] that do not enhance the
safety of navigation (AMRD which
deliver signals or information which do
not concern the navigation of the vessel
or do not complement vessel traffic
safety in waterways).’’ Should we
consider a similar categorization of AIS
devices? Would this type of
categorization be consistent with the
core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime
accidents? To the extent that the ITU
categories might inform our approach in
this proceeding, and recognizing that
the distinction between devices in
AMRD Groups A and B may be
somewhat unclear and can vary by use
case, we request comment on the types
of devices that should be categorized as
AMRD Group A verses Group B. Should
the two general categories of fishing nets
mentioned above (and their associated
devices used for marking) be separately
considered for AMRD Group A or B?
Are there other categories of fishing
nets/devices that should also be
considered? What are the appropriate
factors to consider in categorizing
various devices, and should those
factors differ depending on the use case?
For example, should nets attached to a
vessel be considered for AMRD Group A
since approaching vessels will need to
be aware of their location for navigation
safety? Should static nets be considered
for Group B due to their static nature,
or do they remain a navigation hazard
for approaching vessels? We also seek
comment on the international
ramifications if we were to authorize
operation of devices used to mark
fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2,
including the ramifications for
international technical and
intergovernmental organizations. For
example, would revisions to existing
technical standards, recommendations,
or mandates be required at IEC, IMO,
ITU or elsewhere?
17. While we are concerned about the
proliferation of devices that use AIS 1
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35704
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and 2 to mark fishing equipment, and
their potential overall effect on maritime
safety, we also seek comment on any
potential safety-related reasons to
integrate such devices on AIS 1 and 2,
including whether they might enhance
the safety of navigation (e.g., by helping
ships to avoid collision with fishing
nets). Are there use or deployment
restrictions on devices intended to mark
fishing equipment that we could impose
to potentially accommodate the addition
of such devices on AIS 1 and 2, while
not undermining the core safety purpose
of AIS? Would allowing devices that
could be used to mark fishing
equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2
help maritime operators and ships
relying on AIS to avoid collisions? Do
concerns about AIS 1 and 2 overloading
or traffic congestion generally vary
depending on the type of fishing areas—
e.g., fishing areas near ports or fishing
lanes versus deep sea fishing areas?
What other devices and/or applications
are being considered for AMRD Group
A and B? If the potential for new types
of devices and/or applications for Group
A is limited, could this provide an
opportunity for devices that could be
used to mark fishing equipment to
operate as Group A devices on AIS 1
and 2 and not impact the AIS network
and its core maritime safety purpose?
Could the impact be further reduced if
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment utilized a carriersense time-division multiple-access
(CSTDMA) system used by Class B AIS
transceivers, as opposed to random
access time-division multiple access
(RATDMA) used by other AIS devices?
18. Operation on 160.900 MHz by
Devices that Could be Used to Mark
Fishing Equipment. In order to assess
the relative costs and benefits of
permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment, we explore whether
other frequencies could be allocated to
such uses, in particular 160.900 MHz.
The ITU, in amending its Radio
Regulations to permit certain devices
categorized as AMRD Group B to use
AIS technology, specifically identified
160.900 MHz for purposes other than
safety on a non-interference basis to
existing primary incumbents. We note,
however, that the Commission has
issued a substantial number of licenses
authorizing primary operations within a
25 kHz bandwidth of 160.900 MHz. Our
Universal Licensing System (ULS)
reflects 579 incumbent licensees on
these channels, mostly railroad entities
authorized across the nation, including
near port cities, for uses such as
dispatch, track maintenance, car
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
maintenance, and safety-related
communications. ULS records also
reflect three licenses near 160.900 MHz
issued to public safety entities for land
mobile operation under Part 90 of the
Commission’s rules, and 44 fixed and
mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Remote
Pickup under Part 74 of the
Commission’s rules. Remote pickup
channels can be used by a mobile
transmitter to relay signals from a
remote location back to the studio, or
between two points, such as a main
studio and an auxiliary studio.
19. We seek comment on whether the
Commission should maintain
consistency with the international
maritime approach regarding devices
used to mark fishing equipment and
authorize operation of these devices on
160.900 MHz. As stated, we recognize
that incumbents currently operate near
this frequency and seek comment on the
specific level of incumbent deployments
near 160.900 MHz, including geographic
locations and technical parameters. We
also seek comment on whether there are
protective measures that could be
employed to minimize the potential for
harmful interference to incumbents
while still accommodating new
maritime uses on or near 160.900 MHz.
If stakeholders support 160.900 MHz as
the appropriate frequency for devices
that could be used to mark fishing
equipment in lieu of AIS 1 and 2, we
seek comment on how the Commission
should specifically protect incumbents,
including many U.S. rail entities, and
any incumbents that might operate near
waterways, such as ports. To what
extent can the Commission
accommodate operation of devices that
could be used to mark fishing
equipment and incumbents on or near
this frequency? We also note that the
three public safety incumbent systems
near 160.900 MHz are operated by
governmental jurisdictions. Should
public safety systems be provided the
same protection as non-public safety
systems operating on or near 160.900
MHz or does their status as public safety
entities requiring reliable
communications dictate more stringent
protective measures? If so, what
protective measures are necessary?
20. We recognize that the ITU
established power level limits for
AMRD Group B operation on 160.900
MHz not to exceed 100 mW and antenna
height limits not to exceed 1 m above
the surface of the sea. If we were to
authorize operation of devices that
could be used to mark fishing
equipment on 160.900 MHz, we seek
comment on whether the ITU
established power/height limitations are
sufficient to protect U.S. licensed
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
incumbents operating near 160.900
MHz. If not, what alternative technical
and operational limitations would be
appropriate to mitigate the likelihood of
harmful interference to incumbent
licensees? Should we consider creating
exclusion areas where devices that
could be used to mark fishing
equipment cannot be deployed if
operating on 160.900 MHz? Commenters
supporting domestic use of 160.900
MHz for such devices should address
these and any other issues, including
the existence of appropriate technical
and operational standards, necessary for
such devices to successfully operate
without causing harmful interference to
incumbent licensees. If co-existence is
not technically feasible, should we
consider requiring incumbents to
relocate to new spectrum, and if so,
what are the available and appropriate
spectrum alternatives for incumbents?
We also recognize that any new
authorized uses of 160.900 MHz may
impact existing operations near the
Canadian and Mexican borders and
therefore seek comment on what
measures might be necessary to protect
use of the 160.900 MHz spectrum
outside of the United States, consistent
with applicable treaties or
arrangements.
21. Consumer Labeling. We seek
comment on whether to establish
labeling requirements on authorized
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment to provide consumers
guidance on whether the equipment
being purchased complies with the
Coast Guard’s rules and the
Commission’s rules. By requiring
labeling on devices approved for use in
marking fishing equipment, consumers
would be on notice not to purchase
devices that do not contain the
approved label. For example, if we
adopted such an approach,
unauthorized devices used in marking
fishing equipment that operate on AIS 1
and 2, currently illegally marketed as
‘‘AIS Fishing Net Buoys,’’ would not
contain the label of approval. We seek
comment on requiring consumer
labeling for devices that could be used
to mark fishing equipment, including
the costs and benefits of such an
approach.
IV. Procedural Matters
22. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for notice-and-comment rulemaking
proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.’’
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning
potential rule and policy changes
contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in Appendix A.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
23. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the potential policy and rule changes
that the Commission seeks comment on
in the NPRM. 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 as specified in the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
24. As required by Section 8416 of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021, the Commission initiated a
proceeding to explore whether to
authorize devices used to mark fishing
equipment for use on Automatic
Identification System (AIS) channels.
Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates
that the Commission initiate a
proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider
whether to authorize devices use to
mark fishing equipment in radio
frequencies assigned for AIS. Congress
further instructs the Commission to
‘‘consider whether imposing
requirements with respect to the manner
in which [AIS] devices are deployed
and used would enable the
authorization of [devices used to mark
fishing equipment] to operate in radio
frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations
consistent with the core purpose of the
[AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.’’
25. Pursuant to the mandates of
Section 8416 of the NDAA21, the NPRM
raises germane technical, operational
and economic issues that could result in
rules changes in its request for
comments on whether to permit devices
that could be used to mark fishing
equipment to operate on channels
currently assigned for AIS operation in
the United States and internationally,
specifically AIS channels 1 and 2. The
NPRM seeks comment on the current
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
types and usages of such devices. The
NPRM inquires whether requirements
could be adopted by the Commission to
enable authorization of devices that are
designed to mark fishing equipment to
operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with
the core purpose of AIS to prevent
maritime accidents and seeks comment
on this issue. The Commission also
requests input on the overall costs and
benefits of potentially allowing devices
used to mark fishing equipment to
operate on AIS 1 and 2, including the
risks to maritime safety. Further, to the
extent that the Commission were to
permit devices used to mark fishing
equipment on AIS 1 and AIS 2, the
NPRM seeks input on the certification
procedures that should be required, and
whether, and to what extent the current
Commission AIS equipment
certification rules would need to be
amended. Additionally, the NPRM seeks
input on whether there are restrictions
or requirements such as technical
parameters, and use or deployment
restrictions on devices intended to mark
fishing equipment, that the Commission
could impose to mitigate against a
negative impact on existing uses
without undermining the core safety
purpose of AIS technology.
26. As part of the Commission’s
assessment of the relative costs and
benefits of permitting the use of AIS 1
and 2 by devices that could be used to
mark fishing equipment, the NPRM
seeks comment on whether to, in the
alternative, authorize devices that could
be used to mark fishing equipment for
operation on 160.900 MHz pursuant to
a relevant International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)
recommendation. As more vessels
become equipped with authorized AIS
equipment and as its use increases, AIS
channels have the potential to become
overloaded in areas with high vessel
traffic. In addition to the other impacts,
one consequence of overloading is a
reduction in the range of the AIS system
which reduces situational awareness for
mariners. The ITU has sought to address
this problem by defining the types of
navigation safety AIS uses that are
permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by
identifying 160.900 MHz for nonnavigation and non-safety AIS uses. In
addition to the ITU’s recommendation,
the NPRM seeks comment on how best
to categorize devices used to mark
fishing equipment. Further, the
Commission requests input on the
appropriate technical and operational
limitations and protective measures that
could be adopted to best protect existing
incumbents with deployments on the
160.900 MHz frequency from
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35705
interference while still accommodating
new maritime uses.
27. Finally, the NPRM inquires
whether a consumer labeling
requirement should be adopted to
provide consumers guidance on
whether the equipment being purchased
complies with both the Coast Guard’s
and the Commission’s rules. By
requiring labeling on devices approved
for use in marking fishing equipment,
consumers would be on notice not to
purchase devices that do not contain the
approved label. The Commission
requests information on the costs and
benefits of imposing such a labeling
requirement.
B. Legal Basis
28. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r),
308, 309, and 384 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(r),
308, 309, and 384, and pursuant to
Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
29. 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 and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
30. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
phone services, paging services,
wireless internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is that such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35706
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
employed fewer than 1,000 employees
and 12 firms employed of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) are small entities.
31. Marine Radio Services. Small
businesses in the aviation and marine
radio services use a marine very high
frequency (VHF), medium frequency
(MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any
type of emergency position indicating
radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an
aircraft radio, and/or any type of
emergency locator transmitter (ELT).
The Commission nor the SBA have
developed a size standard applicable to
these small businesses. For purposes of
this analysis, the Commission uses the
SBA small business size standard for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), which is
1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms employed fewer than
1,000 employees and 12 firms employed
of 1000 employees or more. Thus under
this category and the Marine Radio
Services. Small businesses in the
aviation and marine radio services use
a marine very high frequency (VHF),
medium frequency (MF), or high
frequency (HF) radio, any type of
emergency position indicating radio
beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft
radio, and/or any type of emergency
locator transmitter (ELT). The
Commission nor the SBA have
developed a size standard applicable to
these small businesses. For purposes of
this analysis, the Commission uses the
SBA small business size standard for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), which is
1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms employed fewer than
1,000 employees and 12 firms employed
of 1000 employees or more. Thus under
this category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority firms in this
industry are small entities.
32. Based on Commission data most
applicants for recreational licenses are
individuals. Approximately 581,000
ship station licensees and 131,000
aircraft station licensees operate
domestically and are not subject to the
radio carriage requirements of any
statute or treaty. For purposes of our
evaluations in this analysis, we estimate
that there are up to approximately
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
712,000 licensees that are small
businesses (or individuals) under the
SBA standard. In addition, between
December 3, 1998 and December 14,
1998, the Commission held an auction
of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the
157.1875–157.4500 MHz (ship transmit)
and 161.775–162.0125 MHz (coast
transmit) bands. For purposes of the
auction, the Commission defined a
‘‘small’’ business as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average gross revenues for
the preceding three years not to exceed
$15 million dollars. In addition, a ‘‘very
small’’ business is one that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates,
has average gross revenues for the
preceding three years not to exceed $3
million dollars. There are approximately
10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast
Service, and the Commission estimates
that almost all of them qualify as
‘‘small’’ businesses under the above
special small business size standards.
33. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by these establishments are:
transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has
established a size standard for this
industry of 1,250 employees or less.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that 841 establishments operated in this
industry in that year. Of that number,
828 establishments operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments
operated with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments
operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Based on this data, we conclude that a
majority of manufacturers in this
industry are small.
34. Private Land Mobile Radio
Licensees. Private land mobile radio
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role
in a vast range of industrial, business,
land transportation, and public safety
activities. Companies of all sizes
operating in all U.S. business categories
use these radios. Because of the vast
array of PLMR users, the Commission
has not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA
category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) which encompasses business
entities engaged in radiotelephone
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
communications. The appropriate size
standard for this category under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 shows that there were 967 firms
that operate for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms has employment of 999
or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of PLMR licensees are small entities.
35. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset,
three broad groups of small entities that
could be directly affected herein. First,
while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are
used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business
having fewer than 500 employees. These
types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 30.7 million
businesses.
36. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of
$50,000 or less to delineate its annual
electronic filing requirements for small
exempt organizations. Nationwide, for
tax year 2018, there were approximately
571,709 small exempt organizations in
the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000
or less according to the registration and
tax data for exempt organizations
available from the IRS.
37. Finally, the small entity described
as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
is defined generally as ‘‘governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau
data from the 2017 Census of
Governments indicate that there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number there were 36,931 general
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,040 special purpose governments—
independent school districts with
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
enrollment populations of less than
50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017
U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall
into the category of ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’
38. Broadcast Auxiliary Services
(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) Licensees
(TV Stations). Only licensees of
broadcast stations, broadcast networks,
and cable networks can hold RPU
licenses. BAS involves 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 or from the studio to the
transmitter). The Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary
Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU)
licensees. The closest applicable SBA
small business size standard for Remote
pickup BAS when used by a TV station
is for Television Broadcasting and such
a business is small if it has $41.5
million or less in annual receipts. The
2012 Economic Census reports that 751
firms in this category operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 656 had
annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less,
and 25 had annual receipts between
$25,000,000 and $49,999,999. Based on
this data we estimate that the majority
of firms are small entities under the
applicable SBA size standard.
39. Broadcast Auxiliary Services
(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) Licensees
(Radio Stations). Only licensees of
broadcast stations, broadcast networks,
and cable networks can hold RPU
licenses. BAS involves 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 or from the studio to the
transmitter). The Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary
Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU)
licensees. The closest applicable SBA
small business size standard for Remote
pickup BAS when used by a radio
station is for Radio Stations and such a
business is small if it has $41.5 million
or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849
firms operated for the entire year. Of
that number, 2,806 firms operated with
annual receipts of less than $25 million
per year and 17 firms operated with
annual receipts between $25 million
and $49,999,999 million. Therefore,
based on the SBA’s size standard the
majority of firms are small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
40. Broadcast Auxiliary Services
(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) (Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing). Only licensees of
broadcast stations, broadcast networks,
and cable networks can hold RPU
licenses. BAS involves 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 or from the studio to the
transmitter). The Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary
Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU)
licensees. The closest applicable SBA
small business size standard for Remote
pickup BAS involving BAS equipment
manufacturers is for Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing and such a business is
small if it has 1,250 employees or less.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that 841 establishments operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of that
number, 828 establishments operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7
establishments operated with between
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6
establishments operated with 2,500 or
more employees. Based on this data, we
conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are
small.
41. Boat Dealers. This U.S. industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in (1) retailing new and/or used
boats or retailing new boats in
combination with activities, such as
repair services and selling replacement
parts and accessories, and/or (2)
retailing new and/or used outboard
motors, boat trailers, marine supplies,
parts, and accessories. The SBA has
established a size standard for this
industry, which is having annual
receipts of $35 million or less. 2012 U.S.
Census Bureau data indicate that 3,338
firms operated in this industry
throughout the entire year. Of that
number, 3,328 operated with annual
receipts of less than $25 million, while
17 firms had annual receipts between
$25 million and $49,999,999. Based on
this data, we conclude that a majority of
the firms in this industry are small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
42. The inquiries raised for comment
in the NPRM may create new or
additional reporting or recordkeeping
and/or other compliance obligations on
small entities, if adopted. The NPRM
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35707
seeks comment on potentially allowing
devices used to mark fishing equipment
on to AIS channels 1 and 2 pursuant to
a statutory mandate and requests
information on potential rule changes
that can be made to facilitate this action.
Following the Congressional directive in
the NDAA21, the Commission is seeking
comment on multiple alternatives for
devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment that could result in
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements for small
entities. More specifically, in its request
for comment, the Commission seeks
information on the type of use or
deployment restrictions on devices
intended to mark fishing equipment it
could impose to potentially
accommodate the addition of such
devices on AIS channels 1 and 2, while
not undermining the core safety purpose
of AIS technology. The NPRM also seeks
input on what the certification
procedures should be implemented if
the Commission decides to allow
devices used to mark fishing equipment
on AIS channels 1 and 2 and whether
to amend the current AIS equipment
certification rules.
43. In the alternative, the Commission
is seeking comment on whether
alternative frequencies could provide a
viable option for devices that could be
used to mark fishing equipment, in
particular 160.900 MHz. If the
Commission decides that relocating
existing incumbents from the 160.900
MHz band is a feasible course of action,
those incumbents may face new
requirements. Further, if the
Commission adopts rules for devices
that could be used to mark fishing
equipment to protect incumbents on
160.900 MHz, entities deploying such
devices would need to conform to
technical and operational standards and
requirements. In addition, to the extent
the Commission established a consumer
labeling requirement pursuant to the
inquiry raised in the NPRM compliance
with a labeling requirement would be
applicable to device manufacturers.
44. At this time, the Commission is
not currently in a position to determine
whether, if adopted, the potential rule
changes that could result from questions
raised and issues discussed in the
NPRM will require small entities to hire
attorneys, engineers, consultants, or
other professionals, and cannot quantify
the cost of compliance with any the
potential rule changes that may be
adopted. In the discussion of these
issues relevant to whether to authorize
devices used to mark fishing equipment
for use on AIS channels or other
frequencies, the Commission has sought
comments from parties in the
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
35708
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
proceeding, including seeking cost and
benefit analyses. This information may
help the Commission identify and
evaluate other relevant matters,
including compliance costs and burdens
on small entities that may result from
the matters explored in the NPRM.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
45. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than
design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
46. In the NPRM, the Commission
seeks to identify the appropriate band
for devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment and how to best
protect maritime safety and incumbents.
The Commission has raised three
possible for approaches for
consideration. As discussed above, the
first approach looks at use of the current
1900–2000 kHz band and whether it
remains appropriate for use in support
of fishing operations. Pursuant to the
NDAA21 statutory mandate, the NPRM
seeks comment on whether imposing
requirements with respect to the manner
in which devices that could be used to
mark fishing equipment are deployed
would enable them to be authorized to
operate in radio frequencies assigned for
AIS consistent with the core AIS
purpose to prevent maritime accidents.
In the alternative, the Commission
raised for consideration whether
alternative frequencies could provide a
viable option for devices that could be
used to mark fishing equipment, in
particular 160.900 MHz. To understand
the technical, operational, and
economic impact of each of these
alternatives the Commission has
provided small entities and others the
opportunity to provide information,
including cost and benefit analyses on
issues identified in the NPRM as well as
information on any other issues relevant
to this matter.
47. The Commission expects to
consider more fully the economic
impact on small entities following its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Jul 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
review of comments filed in response to
the NPRM, including costs and benefits
analyses, and this IFRA. The
Commission’s evaluation of the
comments filed in this proceeding will
shape the final conclusions it reaches,
the final alternatives it considers, and
the actions it ultimately takes in this
proceeding to minimize any significant
economic impact that may occur on
small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
48. None.
VI. Ordering Clauses
49. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r),
308, 309, and 384 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384,
and pursuant to Section 8416 of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021, that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
50. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this 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 Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–14362 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057;
FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018–BE07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reclassification of the
Razorback Sucker From Endangered
to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus) from an
endangered species to a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
proposed downlisting is based on our
evaluation of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
which indicates that the species’ status
has improved due to conservation
actions and partnerships, and the
threats to the razorback sucker
identified at the time of listing in 1991
have been eliminated or reduced to the
point that the species is no longer
currently in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, but it is still likely to become
so within the foreseeable future without
current active and intensive
management. We also propose a rule
under section 4(d) of the Act that
provides for the conservation of the
razorback sucker.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
September 7, 2021. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by August 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Document availability: Supporting
documentation used to prepare this
proposed rule, including the 5-year
review and the species status
assessment (SSA) report, are available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057.
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35700-35708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 21-230; FCC 21-69; FR ID 35413]
Automatic Identification System Channels
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) fulfils
the Commission's statutory duty pursuant to Section 8416 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which directs
the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June 30, 2021 to
consider whether to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment
for use on Automatic Identification System (AIS) channels. This
document seeks comment on the extent to which the 1900-2000 kHz band is
used to support fishing operations, the extent of unauthorized
deployment of devices used to mark fishing equipment using AIS
technology on AIS channels, and whether to authorize devices used to
mark fishing equipment for use on current AIS channels. In addition,
the NPRM explores whether 160.900 MHz is a viable alternative for
devices used to mark fishing equipment. In the event the Commission
were to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment to use AIS
channels or 160.900 MHz, the NPRM seeks comment on whether there are
technical and operational constraints that could be imposed to maintain
maritime safety and protect incumbents. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment
on a consumer labeling approach for authorized equipment to provide
consumers guidance on whether the equipment being purchased complies
with both the Coast Guard's and the Commission's rules.
DATES: Interested parties may filed comments on or before August 6,
2021; and reply comments on or before September 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 21-230,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy 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 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.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19,
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2925.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 21-230, FCC 21-69
adopted on June 15, 2021 and released on June 16, 2021. The full text
of this document, including all Appendices, is available for public
inspection on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-69A1.pdf.
[[Page 35701]]
Congress directed the Commission to ``consider whether imposing
requirements with respect to the manner in which devices used to mark
fishing equipment are deployed and used would enable them to be
authorized to operate in radio frequencies assigned for [AIS]
consistent with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent maritime
accidents.'' The Commission currently authorizes radio buoy operations
under a ship station license for commercial fishing operations on the
open sea and the Great Lakes in the 1900-2000 kHz band.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation.
If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or Federal numbers where such data or arguments can be found)
in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given
to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.
1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. As required by Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, we initiate
this rulemaking proceeding to explore whether to authorize devices that
can be used to mark fishing equipment for use on Automatic
Identification System (AIS) channels without undermining the core
purpose of AIS to prevent maritime accidents. AIS is a maritime
navigation safety and domain awareness communication system that has
been successfully relied upon both domestically and internationally to
provide pertinent navigation safety information among vessels,
aircraft, and maritime authorities. The Commission's existing rules
limit the use of AIS channels to devices needed for safety and do not
authorize the use on AIS channels of devices used to mark fishing
equipment or the marketing of such devices. This NPRM seeks comment on
both the issue raised in Section 8416 of the NDAA21 and on the use of
alternative spectrum (other than AIS channels) for these types of
devices.
II. Background
2. Automatic Identification System. Under Commission rules, AIS is
defined as a ``maritime navigation safety communications system . . .
that provides vessel information, including the vessel's identity,
type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-
related information automatically to appropriately equipped shore
stations, other ships, and aircraft; receives automatically such
information from similarly fitted ships; monitors and tracks ships; and
exchanges data with shore-based facilities.'' The Commission's rules
codify the international standards for AIS to ensure AIS devices meet
the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO),
which imposes obligations on vessels traveling in international waters.
The IMO established those requirements to ``improve the safety of
navigation by assisting in the efficient navigation of ships,
protection of the environment, and operation of Vessel Traffic
Services.'' An AIS device allows users to receive data related to the
locations of other vessels in the area, additional objects like
navigational aids, and maritime-related messages. The IMO adopted a
requirement for AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage
or more engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross
tonnage or more not engaged on international voyages, and all passenger
ships carrying more than 12 passengers. The United States Coast Guard
(Coast Guard), acting pursuant to statutory directive, expanded the AIS
carriage requirement to most commercial vessels in U.S. navigable
waters.
3. The Commission has incorporated by reference, in part 80 of its
rules, an International Telecommunication Union (ITU) international
standard for AIS equipment and several other international standards
for AIS, as the basis for certifying compulsory and voluntary AIS
equipment. The only AIS equipment types currently authorized under part
80 of the Commission's rules are Class A and B shipborne equipment, AIS
Search and Rescue Transponders (AIS-SARTs), and Maritime Survivor
Locating Devices (MSLDs). Class A AIS devices are typically used by
sea-going vessels to comply with international and Coast Guard carriage
requirements, and have a much greater transmit power and provide more
information than Class B devices. Class B AIS devices may be used for
voluntary carriage by recreational and other non-compulsory vessels and
a select segment of mandatory AIS users in lieu of a Class A device.
AIS-SARTs are carried on board survival craft for use during a distress
situation to assist search and rescue personnel in locating those in
distress. An AIS-SART is used to locate a survival craft or distressed
vessel by transmitting a unique identification code and GPS coordinates
to all AIS-enabled vessels in VHF range. MSLDs are devices intended to
aid in locating persons in the water. The Commission has also granted
temporary waiver of its rules to permit certification and use of AIS
Aid to Navigation (AtoN) stations.
4. In 2006, the Commission implemented the international AIS
allocation domestically by designating VHF maritime Channels 87B
(161.975 MHz) and 88B (162.025 MHz) for AIS. These channels are
denominated AIS 1 and AIS 2, respectively, and are authorized for use
only by Class A and B AIS devices, AIS-SARTs, AIS AtoNs, and MSLDs. The
Commission does not authorize non-AIS use of the AIS channels or
certification of non-AIS VHF radios that include the AIS frequencies.
5. As more vessels become equipped with authorized AIS equipment
and usage increases, AIS 1 and 2 have the potential to become
overloaded in areas with high vessel traffic. A consequence of
overloading is an impact on mariner situational awareness, including
reduction in the navigational range of the AIS system, effectively
limiting the number of vessels that can be observed
[[Page 35702]]
within the system. As discussed below, the ITU has sought to address
this problem by defining the types of navigation safety AIS uses that
are permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by recommending the use of 160.900
MHz for non-navigation and non-safety AIS operations on a non-
interference basis.
6. Unauthorized Use of Devices on AIS Channels. In 2018, the
Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued an advisory stating that it had
observed a ``proliferation in the use and marketing of noncompliant
devices that operate on radio frequencies assigned to Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS), which are authorized exclusively for
marine navigation safety communications.'' One particular unauthorized
operation is the use of AIS frequencies in the marking of fishing
equipment, which can ``disrupt important maritime communications,
increasing the risk of accidents by creating confusion about whether an
AIS signal represents a vessel that must be avoided.'' Such
noncompliant AIS devices are often advertised as ``AIS Fishing Net
Buoys,'' and the devices can transmit a vessel identification signal
without essential navigational safety information. According to the
Enforcement Bureau, in addition to being illegal, the use of devices to
mark fishing nets on AIS channels ``can have a serious detrimental
effect on maritime safety, hampering the situational awareness of
maritime operators and endangering ships relying on AIS to avoid
collisions and allisions at sea.'' The Enforcement Bureau warned that
violations of the Commission's marketing or operating rules would be
subject to substantial monetary penalties. As the legal alternative,
the advisory pointed to compliant maritime equipment intended for
tracking fishing nets that is authorized to operate in the 1900-2000
kHz band.
7. Statutory Mandate. Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates that we
initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider whether
to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment in radio
frequencies assigned for AIS. Congress further instructed the
Commission to ``consider whether imposing requirements with respect to
the manner in which [AIS] devices are deployed and used would enable
the authorization of [devices used to mark fishing equipment] to
operate in radio frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations consistent
with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.''
III. Discussion
8. Pursuant to Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek comment on
whether to permit devices capable of marking fishing equipment to
operate on channels currently assigned in the United States and
internationally for AIS operation, specifically AIS 1 and 2, and on
related operational issues. As stated, in the United States, AIS 1 and
2 currently are authorized only for maritime navigation safety
purposes, and Congress directed the Commission to ensure that any
changes to permitted operations in AIS spectrum are consistent with the
core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime accidents.
9. We seek comment below on the current types and usages of such
devices. We seek comment on whether such devices could operate on AIS 1
and 2 consistent with the purpose of AIS and, if so, under what
conditions. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of
permitting operation of these devices on AIS 1 and 2, including the
risks to maritime safety. In addition, we seek comment on the costs and
benefits of facilitating use of such devices on alternative spectrum,
specifically, by encouraging more robust use of frequencies in the
1900-2000 kHz band (which is currently authorized for radio buoy
operations under certain ship station licenses held by commercial
fishing vessels) and/or by permitting such use on 160.900 MHz
(consistent with ITU recommendations). We further seek comment on how
best to categorize devices used to mark fishing equipment and protect
incumbents through technical and operational limitations. Finally, we
seek comment on a consumer labeling approach to provide consumers
guidance on whether the equipment being purchased complies with the
Coast Guard's rules and the Commission's rules.
A. Current Environment for Devices Used To Mark Fishing Equipment
10. We seek comment generally on the current usage of spectrum to
operate devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment. We
consider two general types of fishing equipment; those attached to
vessels during fishing activities, such as long-lines, trawl nets or
drift nets, and those deployed for later retrieval, such as fixed
fishing nets, pots, traps or other fishing equipment. What is the
volume of usage of any of these devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment? How many mobile and/or fixed devices are typically
used by an individual vessel or fleet? To what extent does usage of
these devices vary based on the body of water where deployed? Are there
other types of fishing nets that we should consider? We recognize that
fishing seasons are time limited and vary by location, and we seek data
to determine the most trafficked locations during high fishing season.
Approximately how many devices are typically used to mark fishing
equipment in a given area during high season? Are the devices used
year-round, or only during the fishing season? If they are used year-
round, are the full complement of devices always in use, or does the
number of devices in use vary based on the time of year? Over how large
an area are these devices used? What types of technical developments
have occurred to facilitate the use of these devices? Are these devices
also used to mark the location of other types of marine equipment? We
seek extensive data input into our record in this proceeding as part of
our consideration of whether to authorize devices that could be used to
mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2.
11. 1900-2000 kHz Operations. We note that the Commission currently
authorizes radio buoy operations under a ship station license for
commercial fishing operations on the open sea and the Great Lakes in
the 1900-2000 kHz band. Under Commission rules, the output power is
limited to 8 watts and the station antenna height is limited to 4.6
meters above sea level for a buoy station, or 6 meters above the mast
of the ship for ship installations. We seek comment on the extent to
which this band is used in support of fishing operations. We ask that
commenters provide specific details regarding use cases to provide a
clearer understanding of the scope of the use of the 1900-2000 kHz band
in support of fishing operations. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of using the 1900-2000 kHz band in support of such
operations? How many devices currently used to mark fishing equipment
employ this band? What is the anticipated rate of increase in the
number of devices used to mark fishing equipment in this band? Is there
sufficient equipment available in this band for use in marking devices
for fishing operations? Would the current technical limits hinder the
use of this band for devices that can be used to mark fishing
equipment, or fail to incentivize equipment development? Given the
current power limits, what is the estimated number of devices in a
given area that this band can support without harmful interference?
What advantages or disadvantages are there to using equipment in this
band as compared to AIS equipment, specifically as related to any
differences in functionality, performance, and cost? We also seek
information, especially quantitative estimates, on the economic value
of improved safety and more
[[Page 35703]]
efficient commercial fishing operations from the use of these radio
buoys in the 1900-2000 kHz band.
12. Unauthorized Use of AIS Channels. We seek comment on whether
entities currently using AIS 1 and 2 for navigation safety and domain
awareness communication systems are experiencing problems from
unauthorized use of AIS 1 and 2. If so, how and to what extent does
such unauthorized use impact legitimate operations on AIS 1 and 2? We
seek specific comment on the types and quantity of devices used, or
marketed for use, to illegally operate on AIS 1 and 2 to mark fishing
equipment. Since the issuance of the 2018 Enforcement Bureau Advisory,
is there evidence of the continued proliferation of the unauthorized
deployment of devices used to mark fishing equipment using AIS channels
1 and 2, and if so, at what rate? Is any such proliferation largely
limited to certain bodies of water? How are such unauthorized uses
typically deployed--i.e., at what power levels and antenna heights--and
are there differences between fixed deployments and mobile deployments
(e.g., trawl use cases)?
13. As noted above, there is a concern that, in some areas, AIS 1
and 2 may become compromised. The Commission's Enforcement Bureau
Advisory stated that non-certified devices used to track or mark
fishing equipment ``can have a serious detrimental effect on maritime
safety, hampering the situational awareness of maritime operators and
endangering ships relying on AIS to avoid collisions and allisions at
sea.'' Further, an ITU Radiocommunication Bureau Recommendation
indicates that, to avoid confusion or an overload of information on the
bridge of a vessel, devices that do not enhance the safety of
navigation should not be permitted to use designated frequencies AIS 1
and 2. Do commenters agree with the ITU Recommendation? We seek
specific comment and data on the extent the use of unauthorized devices
is compromising the use of AIS 1 and 2 and any resulting impact on the
state of maritime safety.
B. Exploring Additional Spectrum for Devices That Could Be Used To Mark
Fishing Equipment
14. AIS Channels 1 and 2. Consistent with the Congressional
directive in Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek specific comment on
whether requirements could be imposed to enable authorization of
devices that are designed to mark fishing equipment to operate in AIS 1
and 2 consistent with the core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime
accidents. How would the introduction of such devices impact the
availability and utility of the AIS 1 and 2 channels, especially in
light of concerns about potential overloading? Would the authorization
of devices used to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2 result in
substantial further channel overloading? If low power/low-latency
requirements were utilized for operation of devices used to mark
fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2, would this alleviate concerns
regarding channel overloading? Are modifications or retrofits required
for existing devices to become compliant to the low-power/low-latency
requirements? If so, what is the likely unit cost to make existing
devices compliant with the low-power/low-latency requirements? How many
existing devices are estimated to be affected by any new requirements?
We seek comment on the overall costs and benefits of potentially
allowing devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to
operate on AIS 1 and 2, including the risks to maritime safety.
15. We also seek comment on whether we could authorize devices that
could be used to mark fishing equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2
without diminishing navigation safety in domestic and international
waters and impeding the efficiency of marine transportation systems. If
so, what is the likely cost? If the Commission were to permit such
devices to operate on AIS 1 and AIS 2, to what extent would we need to
amend our current AIS equipment authorization rules? If the Commission
were to permit devices used to mark fishing equipment to operate on AIS
1 and 2, what coordination procedures would be needed between the
Commission, the Coast Guard, and others to certify equipment and ensure
safe operation? Are there restrictions or requirements the Commission
could impose to mitigate against a negative impact on existing uses?
For example, should we limit the types of devices used to mark fishing
equipment that would be permitted to operate on AIS 1 and 2? Should we
authorize devices for operation only in certain areas? If so, is there
any practical way to enforce such limitations? Are there any technical
parameters or other limits the Commission might impose to ensure that
any new uses do not undermine the core purpose of AIS to prevent
maritime accidents? We note that, during the pendency of this
rulemaking, we will continue to enforce our rules that limit the use of
AIS channels to devices needed for safety and that do not authorize use
on AIS channels of devices used to mark fishing equipment or the
marketing of such devices.
16. Particularly in the maritime context, the Commission considers
international ramifications in determining whether its actions are in
the public interest. We therefore note that at WRC-19, the ITU updated
its Radio Regulations, to establish a new class of AIS devices, Group A
and Group B autonomous maritime radio devices (AMRD), and state that an
AMRD is a ``mobile station operating at sea and transmitting
independently of a ship station or a coast station.'' The ITU defined
AMRD Group A as devices that ``enhance the safety of navigation.'' In
contrast, the ITU defined AMRD Group B as ``[devices] that do not
enhance the safety of navigation (AMRD which deliver signals or
information which do not concern the navigation of the vessel or do not
complement vessel traffic safety in waterways).'' Should we consider a
similar categorization of AIS devices? Would this type of
categorization be consistent with the core purpose of AIS to prevent
maritime accidents? To the extent that the ITU categories might inform
our approach in this proceeding, and recognizing that the distinction
between devices in AMRD Groups A and B may be somewhat unclear and can
vary by use case, we request comment on the types of devices that
should be categorized as AMRD Group A verses Group B. Should the two
general categories of fishing nets mentioned above (and their
associated devices used for marking) be separately considered for AMRD
Group A or B? Are there other categories of fishing nets/devices that
should also be considered? What are the appropriate factors to consider
in categorizing various devices, and should those factors differ
depending on the use case? For example, should nets attached to a
vessel be considered for AMRD Group A since approaching vessels will
need to be aware of their location for navigation safety? Should static
nets be considered for Group B due to their static nature, or do they
remain a navigation hazard for approaching vessels? We also seek
comment on the international ramifications if we were to authorize
operation of devices used to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2,
including the ramifications for international technical and
intergovernmental organizations. For example, would revisions to
existing technical standards, recommendations, or mandates be required
at IEC, IMO, ITU or elsewhere?
17. While we are concerned about the proliferation of devices that
use AIS 1
[[Page 35704]]
and 2 to mark fishing equipment, and their potential overall effect on
maritime safety, we also seek comment on any potential safety-related
reasons to integrate such devices on AIS 1 and 2, including whether
they might enhance the safety of navigation (e.g., by helping ships to
avoid collision with fishing nets). Are there use or deployment
restrictions on devices intended to mark fishing equipment that we
could impose to potentially accommodate the addition of such devices on
AIS 1 and 2, while not undermining the core safety purpose of AIS?
Would allowing devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to
operate on AIS 1 and 2 help maritime operators and ships relying on AIS
to avoid collisions? Do concerns about AIS 1 and 2 overloading or
traffic congestion generally vary depending on the type of fishing
areas--e.g., fishing areas near ports or fishing lanes versus deep sea
fishing areas? What other devices and/or applications are being
considered for AMRD Group A and B? If the potential for new types of
devices and/or applications for Group A is limited, could this provide
an opportunity for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment
to operate as Group A devices on AIS 1 and 2 and not impact the AIS
network and its core maritime safety purpose? Could the impact be
further reduced if devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment
utilized a carrier-sense time-division multiple-access (CSTDMA) system
used by Class B AIS transceivers, as opposed to random access time-
division multiple access (RATDMA) used by other AIS devices?
18. Operation on 160.900 MHz by Devices that Could be Used to Mark
Fishing Equipment. In order to assess the relative costs and benefits
of permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by devices that could be used to
mark fishing equipment, we explore whether other frequencies could be
allocated to such uses, in particular 160.900 MHz. The ITU, in amending
its Radio Regulations to permit certain devices categorized as AMRD
Group B to use AIS technology, specifically identified 160.900 MHz for
purposes other than safety on a non-interference basis to existing
primary incumbents. We note, however, that the Commission has issued a
substantial number of licenses authorizing primary operations within a
25 kHz bandwidth of 160.900 MHz. Our Universal Licensing System (ULS)
reflects 579 incumbent licensees on these channels, mostly railroad
entities authorized across the nation, including near port cities, for
uses such as dispatch, track maintenance, car maintenance, and safety-
related communications. ULS records also reflect three licenses near
160.900 MHz issued to public safety entities for land mobile operation
under Part 90 of the Commission's rules, and 44 fixed and mobile
Broadcast Auxiliary Remote Pickup under Part 74 of the Commission's
rules. Remote pickup channels can be used by a mobile transmitter to
relay signals from a remote location back to the studio, or between two
points, such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.
19. We seek comment on whether the Commission should maintain
consistency with the international maritime approach regarding devices
used to mark fishing equipment and authorize operation of these devices
on 160.900 MHz. As stated, we recognize that incumbents currently
operate near this frequency and seek comment on the specific level of
incumbent deployments near 160.900 MHz, including geographic locations
and technical parameters. We also seek comment on whether there are
protective measures that could be employed to minimize the potential
for harmful interference to incumbents while still accommodating new
maritime uses on or near 160.900 MHz. If stakeholders support 160.900
MHz as the appropriate frequency for devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment in lieu of AIS 1 and 2, we seek comment on how the
Commission should specifically protect incumbents, including many U.S.
rail entities, and any incumbents that might operate near waterways,
such as ports. To what extent can the Commission accommodate operation
of devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment and incumbents
on or near this frequency? We also note that the three public safety
incumbent systems near 160.900 MHz are operated by governmental
jurisdictions. Should public safety systems be provided the same
protection as non-public safety systems operating on or near 160.900
MHz or does their status as public safety entities requiring reliable
communications dictate more stringent protective measures? If so, what
protective measures are necessary?
20. We recognize that the ITU established power level limits for
AMRD Group B operation on 160.900 MHz not to exceed 100 mW and antenna
height limits not to exceed 1 m above the surface of the sea. If we
were to authorize operation of devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment on 160.900 MHz, we seek comment on whether the ITU
established power/height limitations are sufficient to protect U.S.
licensed incumbents operating near 160.900 MHz. If not, what
alternative technical and operational limitations would be appropriate
to mitigate the likelihood of harmful interference to incumbent
licensees? Should we consider creating exclusion areas where devices
that could be used to mark fishing equipment cannot be deployed if
operating on 160.900 MHz? Commenters supporting domestic use of 160.900
MHz for such devices should address these and any other issues,
including the existence of appropriate technical and operational
standards, necessary for such devices to successfully operate without
causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees. If co-existence is
not technically feasible, should we consider requiring incumbents to
relocate to new spectrum, and if so, what are the available and
appropriate spectrum alternatives for incumbents? We also recognize
that any new authorized uses of 160.900 MHz may impact existing
operations near the Canadian and Mexican borders and therefore seek
comment on what measures might be necessary to protect use of the
160.900 MHz spectrum outside of the United States, consistent with
applicable treaties or arrangements.
21. Consumer Labeling. We seek comment on whether to establish
labeling requirements on authorized devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment to provide consumers guidance on whether the
equipment being purchased complies with the Coast Guard's rules and the
Commission's rules. By requiring labeling on devices approved for use
in marking fishing equipment, consumers would be on notice not to
purchase devices that do not contain the approved label. For example,
if we adopted such an approach, unauthorized devices used in marking
fishing equipment that operate on AIS 1 and 2, currently illegally
marketed as ``AIS Fishing Net Buoys,'' would not contain the label of
approval. We seek comment on requiring consumer labeling for devices
that could be used to mark fishing equipment, including the costs and
benefits of such an approach.
IV. Procedural Matters
22. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.''
[[Page 35705]]
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy
changes contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the potential policy and
rule changes that the Commission seeks comment on in the NPRM. 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 as specified in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
24. As required by Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Commission
initiated a proceeding to explore whether to authorize devices used to
mark fishing equipment for use on Automatic Identification System (AIS)
channels. Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates that the Commission
initiate a proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider whether to authorize
devices use to mark fishing equipment in radio frequencies assigned for
AIS. Congress further instructs the Commission to ``consider whether
imposing requirements with respect to the manner in which [AIS] devices
are deployed and used would enable the authorization of [devices used
to mark fishing equipment] to operate in radio frequencies assigned for
[AIS] stations consistent with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent
maritime accidents.''
25. Pursuant to the mandates of Section 8416 of the NDAA21, the
NPRM raises germane technical, operational and economic issues that
could result in rules changes in its request for comments on whether to
permit devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to operate
on channels currently assigned for AIS operation in the United States
and internationally, specifically AIS channels 1 and 2. The NPRM seeks
comment on the current types and usages of such devices. The NPRM
inquires whether requirements could be adopted by the Commission to
enable authorization of devices that are designed to mark fishing
equipment to operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with the core purpose of
AIS to prevent maritime accidents and seeks comment on this issue. The
Commission also requests input on the overall costs and benefits of
potentially allowing devices used to mark fishing equipment to operate
on AIS 1 and 2, including the risks to maritime safety. Further, to the
extent that the Commission were to permit devices used to mark fishing
equipment on AIS 1 and AIS 2, the NPRM seeks input on the certification
procedures that should be required, and whether, and to what extent the
current Commission AIS equipment certification rules would need to be
amended. Additionally, the NPRM seeks input on whether there are
restrictions or requirements such as technical parameters, and use or
deployment restrictions on devices intended to mark fishing equipment,
that the Commission could impose to mitigate against a negative impact
on existing uses without undermining the core safety purpose of AIS
technology.
26. As part of the Commission's assessment of the relative costs
and benefits of permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by devices that could
be used to mark fishing equipment, the NPRM seeks comment on whether
to, in the alternative, authorize devices that could be used to mark
fishing equipment for operation on 160.900 MHz pursuant to a relevant
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) recommendation. As more
vessels become equipped with authorized AIS equipment and as its use
increases, AIS channels have the potential to become overloaded in
areas with high vessel traffic. In addition to the other impacts, one
consequence of overloading is a reduction in the range of the AIS
system which reduces situational awareness for mariners. The ITU has
sought to address this problem by defining the types of navigation
safety AIS uses that are permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by identifying
160.900 MHz for non-navigation and non-safety AIS uses. In addition to
the ITU's recommendation, the NPRM seeks comment on how best to
categorize devices used to mark fishing equipment. Further, the
Commission requests input on the appropriate technical and operational
limitations and protective measures that could be adopted to best
protect existing incumbents with deployments on the 160.900 MHz
frequency from interference while still accommodating new maritime
uses.
27. Finally, the NPRM inquires whether a consumer labeling
requirement should be adopted to provide consumers guidance on whether
the equipment being purchased complies with both the Coast Guard's and
the Commission's rules. By requiring labeling on devices approved for
use in marking fishing equipment, consumers would be on notice not to
purchase devices that do not contain the approved label. The Commission
requests information on the costs and benefits of imposing such a
labeling requirement.
B. Legal Basis
28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, and pursuant
to Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
29. 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 and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
30. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms
[[Page 35706]]
employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) are small
entities.
31. Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and
marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium
frequency (MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency
position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft
radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The
Commission nor the SBA have developed a size standard applicable to
these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission
uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms
employed of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the
Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine
radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency
(MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position
indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or
any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission nor the
SBA have developed a size standard applicable to these small
businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA
small business size standard for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms
employed of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority firms in this industry are small entities.
32. Based on Commission data most applicants for recreational
licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees
and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not
subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty.
For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that
there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small
businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition,
between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an
auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz
(ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a ``small'' business as
an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15
million dollars. In addition, a ``very small'' business is one that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross
revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million
dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast
Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify
as ``small'' businesses under the above special small business size
standards.
33. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that
year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000
employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in
this industry are small.
34. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The
appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967
firms that operate for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms has
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees
are small entities.
35. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.
36. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
37. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with
[[Page 35707]]
enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the
2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971
entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
38. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU)
Licensees (TV Stations). Only licensees of broadcast stations,
broadcast networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. BAS
involves 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 or from the studio to the transmitter). The
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The
closest applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup
BAS when used by a TV station is for Television Broadcasting and such a
business is small if it has $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.
The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts
of $25,000,000 or less, and 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000
and $49,999,999. Based on this data we estimate that the majority of
firms are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
39. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU)
Licensees (Radio Stations). Only licensees of broadcast stations,
broadcast networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. BAS
involves 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 or from the studio to the transmitter). The
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The
closest applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup
BAS when used by a radio station is for Radio Stations and such a
business is small if it has $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts
of less than $25 million per year and 17 firms operated with annual
receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, based
on the SBA's size standard the majority of firms are small entities.
40. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) (Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing). Only licensees of broadcast stations, broadcast
networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. BAS involves 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 or from the studio to the transmitter). The Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Broadcast
Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The closest
applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup BAS
involving BAS equipment manufacturers is for Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing and
such a business is small if it has 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of that number, 828 establishments
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated
with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated
with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a
majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.
41. Boat Dealers. This U.S. industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in (1) retailing new and/or used boats or retailing
new boats in combination with activities, such as repair services and
selling replacement parts and accessories, and/or (2) retailing new
and/or used outboard motors, boat trailers, marine supplies, parts, and
accessories. The SBA has established a size standard for this industry,
which is having annual receipts of $35 million or less. 2012 U.S.
Census Bureau data indicate that 3,338 firms operated in this industry
throughout the entire year. Of that number, 3,328 operated with annual
receipts of less than $25 million, while 17 firms had annual receipts
between $25 million and $49,999,999. Based on this data, we conclude
that a majority of the firms in this industry are small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
42. The inquiries raised for comment in the NPRM may create new or
additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance
obligations on small entities, if adopted. The NPRM seeks comment on
potentially allowing devices used to mark fishing equipment on to AIS
channels 1 and 2 pursuant to a statutory mandate and requests
information on potential rule changes that can be made to facilitate
this action. Following the Congressional directive in the NDAA21, the
Commission is seeking comment on multiple alternatives for devices that
could be used to mark fishing equipment that could result in reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities.
More specifically, in its request for comment, the Commission seeks
information on the type of use or deployment restrictions on devices
intended to mark fishing equipment it could impose to potentially
accommodate the addition of such devices on AIS channels 1 and 2, while
not undermining the core safety purpose of AIS technology. The NPRM
also seeks input on what the certification procedures should be
implemented if the Commission decides to allow devices used to mark
fishing equipment on AIS channels 1 and 2 and whether to amend the
current AIS equipment certification rules.
43. In the alternative, the Commission is seeking comment on
whether alternative frequencies could provide a viable option for
devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment, in particular
160.900 MHz. If the Commission decides that relocating existing
incumbents from the 160.900 MHz band is a feasible course of action,
those incumbents may face new requirements. Further, if the Commission
adopts rules for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment
to protect incumbents on 160.900 MHz, entities deploying such devices
would need to conform to technical and operational standards and
requirements. In addition, to the extent the Commission established a
consumer labeling requirement pursuant to the inquiry raised in the
NPRM compliance with a labeling requirement would be applicable to
device manufacturers.
44. At this time, the Commission is not currently in a position to
determine whether, if adopted, the potential rule changes that could
result from questions raised and issues discussed in the NPRM will
require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or
other professionals, and cannot quantify the cost of compliance with
any the potential rule changes that may be adopted. In the discussion
of these issues relevant to whether to authorize devices used to mark
fishing equipment for use on AIS channels or other frequencies, the
Commission has sought comments from parties in the
[[Page 35708]]
proceeding, including seeking cost and benefit analyses. This
information may help the Commission identify and evaluate other
relevant matters, including compliance costs and burdens on small
entities that may result from the matters explored in the NPRM.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
45. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
46. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks to identify the appropriate
band for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment and how
to best protect maritime safety and incumbents. The Commission has
raised three possible for approaches for consideration. As discussed
above, the first approach looks at use of the current 1900-2000 kHz
band and whether it remains appropriate for use in support of fishing
operations. Pursuant to the NDAA21 statutory mandate, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether imposing requirements with respect to the manner in
which devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment are deployed
would enable them to be authorized to operate in radio frequencies
assigned for AIS consistent with the core AIS purpose to prevent
maritime accidents. In the alternative, the Commission raised for
consideration whether alternative frequencies could provide a viable
option for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment, in
particular 160.900 MHz. To understand the technical, operational, and
economic impact of each of these alternatives the Commission has
provided small entities and others the opportunity to provide
information, including cost and benefit analyses on issues identified
in the NPRM as well as information on any other issues relevant to this
matter.
47. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in
response to the NPRM, including costs and benefits analyses, and this
IFRA. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this
proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur
on small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
48. None.
VI. Ordering Clauses
49. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301,
303(r), 308, 309, and 384 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, and pursuant to Section 8416 of
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
50. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this 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 Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14362 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P