[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47621-47625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 2
[IB Docket No. 01-185, ET Docket No. 95-18; FCC 01-225]
Flexibility for Delivery of Communications By Mobile Satellite
Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Band; Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules To Allocate
Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addresses proposals made by two Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) operators to allow Mobile Satellite operators to reuse
their assigned spectrum over land-based transmitters to improve service
quality, particularly where the satellite signals are blocked by
buildings or other
[[Page 47622]]
obstacles. This document also addresses other means by which the
Commission could permit flexible use of MSS spectrum.
The MSS operators claim that permitting MSS operators the
flexibility to use their assigned spectrum for ancillary terrestrial
operations would bolster the commercial viability of MSS systems by
allowing MSS operators to extend service to indoor and urban areas that
otherwise would remain unserved by a satellite-only MSS network. The
MSS operators claim that the improved service and customer base would,
in turn, enable the MSS industry to offer lower prices and higher
quality of service to rural and underserved areas. The NPRM seeks
comment on approaches by which the Commission could permit more
flexible use of MSS spectrum.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 11, 2001; reply comments
due on or before October 25, 2001. Written comments by the public on
the proposed information collections are due on or before October 11,
2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before
November 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing
comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Ball, Associate Chief,
International Bureau (202) 418-0427, or Breck Blalock, Deputy Chief,
Planning and Negotiations Division, International Bureau (202) 418-
8191. For additional information concerning the information
collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judy Boley at 202-
418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 01-185, ET Docket No. 95-
18, adopted August 9, 2001 and released August 17, 2001. The full text
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Room, Room
CY-A257, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC and also may
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc. (``ITS''), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Interested parties may file comments by using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998. The Commission will consider all relevant and timely
comments prior to taking final action in this proceeding. To file
formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies of
all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested
parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their
comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Parties not
filing via ECFS are also encouraged to file a copy of all pleadings on
a 3.5-inch diskette in Word 97 format.
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally,
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To receive filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters
should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following
words in the body of the message: ``get form your e-mail address.'' A
sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains proposed information collections. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as
other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due November
13, 2001. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX. (New collection).
Title: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile
Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/
2.4 GHz Band.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 143.
Number of Responses: 440.
Estimated Time Per Response: 4-31 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting and third party
disclosures.
Total Annual Burden: 3,082 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $141,000.
Needs and Uses: In this proceeding, the Commission releases an NPRM
that seeks comment on issues regarding whether and how the Commission
might bring flexibility to the delivery of Mobile Satellite Service.
The proposals contained in this NPRM would result in new or modified
information collection requirements that would be necessary to
facilitate the proposed rules if and when they become definitive. The
information collections would be used by the Commission under its
authority to license commercial satellite services in the U.S.
Synopsis
On August 9, 2001 the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking
comment on: (1) Proposals submitted by two satellite operators to allow
flexibility in the delivery of communications by mobile satellite
service (MSS) providers, and (2) other options pertaining to flexible
use of MSS spectrum. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on: (1)
The specific proposals made by MSS operators outlined below, (2) an
alternative proposal that would allow an entity to use MSS spectrum to
provide terrestrial service in conjunction with (or alternatively to)
MSS, and (3) whether the Commission should consider allowing MSS
operators in Big LEO bands to provide terrestrial services in these
bands.
In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on approaches by which
the
[[Page 47623]]
Commission may permit more flexible use of MSS spectrum. The Commission
recognizes that this concept raises new issues regarding allocation and
licensing of spectrum-based services, particularly different approaches
for licensing satellite and terrestrial services. The Commission
intends to establish a record on a variety of policy, economic, and
technical issues raised by the MSS Petitioners' proposals, including
potentially innovative ideas that may result in improved quality and
availability of services to the public.
First, both New ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Ltd. (New ICO)
and Motient Services, Inc. (Motient) (collectively, the MSS
Petitioners) filed proposals with the Commission, suggesting
incorporation of a wireless ``ancillary terrestrial component'' (ATC)
in their MSS networks. To date, MSS operators have not been allowed to
provide terrestrial operations. These parties contend that although a
satellite system is ideally suited to serve rural areas, it is
technically more difficult for MSS systems to deliver service in urban
areas where satellite signals may be blocked. In initiating the
proceeding, the Commission recognizes the potential long-term benefits
of expanded use of MSS, such as deployment of broadband services to
rural areas.
The NPRM seeks comment on the MSS Petitioners' claims that allowing
terrestrial operations in conjunction with MSS networks is important to
ensure the commercial viability of MSS systems, and that such
flexibility will promote the Commission's goal of bringing access to
advanced communications services to rural and underserved areas of the
country. The NPRM seeks comment on the severity of the signal problems
that underlie the MSS Petitioners' proposals. Further, the NPRM asks:
should we view the MSS Petitioners' proposals as indicating that too
much spectrum has been allocated for MSS? Would using this spectrum for
terrestrial service in urban areas diminish spectrum capacity for
satellite service to rural and unserved areas? Does the technology
exist to provide this integrated service? Would it be in the public
interest to adopt a segmentation plan wherein separated bands for
terrestrial services would be identified and available for licensing to
a larger group of parties, for example, through an auctions process?
Are technological advances likely to occur in the next few years that
will change the nature of the sharing relationship between terrestrial
and satellite services in the near future?
The NPRM also seeks comment on the following issues that would
arise if the MSS Petitioners' proposal were adopted: (1) Conditions on
the use of terrestrial components to ensure ancillary operation, such
that 2 GHz band MSS operators would be required to demonstrate that
they can provide space segment service covering all 50 states, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands 100% of the time, and L-band operators
would be required to demonstrate that they can provide space segment
service across their entire satellite coverage area, (2) licensing
requirements, such that for U.S.-licensed systems, the licenses would
permit these additional operations, and for non-U.S. licensed systems,
authority for such operations would be provided for in Declaratory
Orders reserving spectrum for the non-U.S. licensed systems, (3)
technical issues and rules modeled on rules in place for broadband PCS
\1\, (4) modifications to the Table of Allocations, and (5) the impact
on existing relocation and reimbursement rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NPRM seeks comment on these specific technical issues:
(1) protection of adjacent and intra-band operations, (2)
coordination with co-frequency systems, (3) frequency stability, (4)
use of handheld terminals aboard aircraft, (5) system architecture,
and (6) technical requirements specific to the L-band including
extending special requirements relating to the protection of
emergency operations and global radiolocation operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to technical issues, the NPRM seeks comment in the
following specific areas relating to terrestrial operations in MSS
bands: (1) Protection of adjacent and intra-band operations, (2)
coordination with co-frequency systems, (3) frequency stability, (4)
use of handheld terminals aboard aircraft, (5) system architecture, and
(6) technical requirements specific to the L-band including extending
special requirements relating to the protection of emergency operations
and global radiolocation operations.
Second, the Commission seeks comment on an alternate plan: Making
some MSS spectrum available for use by any entity to provide
terrestrial service either in conjunction with MSS systems or as an
alternative mobile service. Under this approach, portions of the
spectrum currently designated for 2 GHz and L-band MSS would be made
available for use by terrestrial operations, separated from the MSS
operations in the bands, and possibly assigned by auction. The NPRM
seeks comment on how such an identification and assignment process
might work from the perspective of MSS operators and others interested
in providing terrestrial services in this spectrum. The NPRM also seeks
comment on the implications of section 309(j) with regard to this
option.
Third, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should
consider extending to Big LEOs MSS licensees the opportunity to
incorporate terrestrial operations within the Big LEO MSS bands into
their respective MSS networks. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on
whether the general approach discussed for 2 GHz and L-band MSS could
be adopted for Big LEO MSS. In the alternative, the NPRM asks whether
the Commission should consider opening the Big LEO MSS band to parties
other than Big LEO licensees to provide services either in conjunction
with Big LEO MSS operators or to provide additional alternative
services.
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
The NPRM contains a proposed information collection. As part of our
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this
opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this
NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
No. 104-13.\2\ Public and agency comments are due at the same time as
other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due November 13, 2001.
Comments should address:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See generally 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility.
The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected.
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments by the public on the proposed information
collections are due November 13, 2001. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the proposed information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to
Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 New Executive Office Building,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
[[Page 47624]]
20503, or via the Internet to [email protected].
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\3\ the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this 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 provided 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
This NPRM seeks comment on proposals to bring flexibility to
delivery of MSS. The NPRM seeks comment on issues regarding whether and
how we might bring flexibility to MSS either by: (1) permitting MSS
operators to provide coverage to areas where the MSS system is
attenuated by integrating terrestrial operations within their networks
using assigned MSS frequencies, as has been proposed by two operators,
or (2) opening up portions of the 2 GHz and L-band for MSS or
terrestrial operators to provide a stand-alone terrestrial service
offered in conjunction with MSS or use it for additional alternative
services. We believe that permitting greater flexibility would reduce
regulatory burdens and, with minimal disruption to existing permittees
and licensees, result in the continued development of 2 GHz and L-band
MSS and other satellite services to the public.
2. Legal Basis
This action is taken pursuant to sections 1, and 4(i) and (j) of
the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and
section 201(c)(11) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 721(c)(11), and section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\4\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act.\5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite
or mobile satellite service operators. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications Services, Not
Elsewhere Classified.\7\ This definition provides that a small entity
is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to
Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of
Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified which could
potentially fall into the 2 GHz, L-band, or Big LEO MSS category. Of
those, approximately 775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or
less and qualify as small entities. The rules proposed in this NPRM
apply only to entities providing 2 GHz, L-band, or Big LEO mobile
satellite service. Small businesses may not have the financial ability
to become 2 GHz MSS system operators because of the high implementation
costs associated with satellite systems and services. At least one of
the 2 GHz MSS licensees and one of the Big LEO licensees may be
considered a small business at this time. We expect, however, that by
the time of implementation they will no longer be considered small
businesses due to the capital requirements for launching and operating
its proposed system. Since there is limited spectrum and orbital
resources available for assignment at 2 GHz, we estimate that no more
than eight entities will be approved by the Commission as operators
providing these services. Therefore, because of the high implementation
costs and the limited spectrum resources, we do not believe that small
entities will be impacted by this rulemaking to a great extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 51334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
The proposed action in this NPRM would affect those entities
applying for 2 GHz, L-band, and Big LEO MSS space station
authorizations and those applying to participate in assignment of 2
GHz, L-band, and Big LEO MSS spectrum. In this NPRM, we seek comment on
requiring U.S.-licensed operators to file an authorization request to
use terrestrial facilities and to demonstrate that the eligibility
criteria have been met. Foreign-licensed operators would be required to
file a Letter of Intent and/or an appropriate earth station
authorization, including the terrestrial facilities as part of the
application, demonstrating compliance with the eligibility and coverage
requirements. We seek comment on alternatives to these proposed
licensing requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
In developing the proposals contained in this NPRM, we have
attempted to allow flexibility for efficient operations by all
participants in the 2 GHz, L-band, and Big LEO MSS market, regardless
of size, consistent with our other objectives. We believe the proposed
conditions under which these entities would be granted this additional
flexibility would not impose a significant economic impact on small
entities because: (1) The conditions are reasonable and not overly
burdensome and (2) as mentioned above, we do not expect small entities
to be impacted by this rulemaking due to the substantial implementation
costs involved. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the impact of our
proposals on small
[[Page 47625]]
entities and on any possible alternatives that could minimize any such
impact.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed
Rules
None.
Deadlines and Instructions for Filing Comments
Under Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making on or before October 11, 2001. Reply
comments are due October 25, 2001. Interested parties may file comments
by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
filing paper copies.\8\ The Commission will consider all relevant and
timely comments prior to taking final action in this proceeding. To
file formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies
of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested
parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their
comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Interested
parties should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554. Parties not filing via ECFS are also encouraged
to file a copy of all pleadings on a 3.5-inch diskette in Word 97
format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21,517 (1998);
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, Report and
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11,322 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It Is Ordered that pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
303(r), 303(y), 308, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It Is Further Ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information
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.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-23048 Filed 9-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P