[Federal Register: September 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56923-56931]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28se06-38]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 06-160; FCC 06-120]
Processing Applications in the Direct Broadcast Satellite
Service; Feasibility of Reduced Orbital Spacing for Provision of Direct
Broadcast Satellite Service in the United States
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes licensing
procedures and service rules for satellites providing Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) service. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks
comment on proposals that will apply to any application for authority
to provide DBS service in the United States using the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. This
includes both unassigned channels at orbit locations assigned to the
United States under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Region 2 Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) and feeder-link Plans,
and applications for DBS service from space stations located at orbital
locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 BSS and
feeder-link Plans. The NPRM seeks comment on new licensing procedures,
including the use of the first-come, first-served process for all DBS
applications, regardless of the proposed orbit location. Alternatively,
the NPRM requests comment on whether DBS should continue to be licensed
outside the scope of the Commission's first-come, first-served
satellite application processing procedures, and if so, what processing
framework should be used to license DBS. The NPRM also seeks comment
on: What additional issues the Commission should consider in situations
involving non-nine-degree spaced DBS applications; whether all the
licensing procedures applicable to other satellite services (e.g.,
performance bonds, milestones, and annual reports) should apply to DBS
systems; how to resolve impasses in operator-to-operator coordination
negotiations; whether new license terms should be adopted for all
current and future U.S.-licensed DBS systems; and other issues,
including what, if any, action is needed to address the impact of
reduced spacing DBS on other services.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 12, 2006, and reply
comments are due on or before January 11, 2007. Public and agency
comments on the Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (IFRA) analysis
are due November 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the
information
[[Page 56924]]
collection(s) proposed herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov,
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 via the Internet to
Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 202-395-5167.
You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-160, by any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Filings not submitted electronically must be sent to
the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th St., SW., Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554.
Mail courtesy copies to: JoAnn Lucanik, Satellite
Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Rm. 6-A660, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoAnn Lucanik (202) 418-0719,
Satellite Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning
the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at
Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in IB Docket No. 06-160, FCC 06-120,
adopted August 14, 2006 and released on August 18, 2006. The full text
of the NPRM is available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-488-5300,
facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification (IRFC) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals
considered in the NPRM. The text of the IRFC is set forth in Appendix A
of the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFC.
Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for
comments on the NPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFC.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (The RFA, see 5
U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II,
110 Stat. 857 (1996)) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis
be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 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 Small Business Administration
(SBA).
The rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if
adopted, would affect applicants for the Direct Broadcast Satellite
Service (DBS). The rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
apply only to entities providing DBS. Because DBS provides subscription
services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definitions of ``Cable
and Other Program Distribution'' or ``Satellite Telecommunications.''
These definitions provide that small entities are ones with $12.5
million or less in annual receipts. Small businesses of that size
(i.e., $12.5 million or less in annual receipts) will not have the
financial ability to become DBS system operators because of the high
implementation costs, including construction of satellite space
stations and the rocket launch process, associated with satellite
systems and services.
The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the
proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because all entities affected are large. The Commission will
send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also be
published in the Federal Register.
In addition, 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 collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due November 27, 2006. 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. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.''
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
Title: Service Rules for Direct Broadcast Service (DBS).
Form No.: Not Applicable.
Type of Review: New information collection.
Respondents: 5 respondents.
Estimated Number of Responses: 41 responses.
Estimated Time Per Response: 10 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting
requirements.
[[Page 56925]]
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 410 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Costs: $15,562,000.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not Applicable.
Needs and Uses: The purpose of this new information collection is
to address the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements proposed in
the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 06-120) to
establish service rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service under IB Docket No. 06-160. Among other requirements, the
Commission proposes several new information collection requirements
applicable to DBS licensees: (1) Annual reporting requirement on the
status of construction and anticipated launch dates, (2) milestone
schedules and (3) performance bonds that are posted within 30 days of
the grant of the license. Additionally, applicants may be required to
provide a technical showing that the proposed DBS system could operate
satisfactorily if all assignments in the BBS and feeder link plans were
implemented. If applicants seek U.S. licenses to launch and operate DBS
satellites with characteristics that differ from those in the ITU's
Plan, the Commission submits plan modifications to the ITU on behalf of
such applicants. For U.S. plan modifications, the ITU Radio Regulations
Appendix 4 information is prepared by the satellite operators and
submitted to the Commission, which reviews the information and forwards
it to the International Telecommunication Union's Radiocommunication
Bureau (ITU/BR).
Without the information collected through the Commission's
satellite licensing procedures, we would not be able to determine
whether to permit applicants for satellite licenses to provide
telecommunications services in the U.S. Therefore, we would be unable
to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in accordance with the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; as well as the obligations
imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom
Agreement.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
invites comment on revisions to our licensing procedures and technical
rules governing direct broadcast satellite (DBS) Service. The
Commission proposes service rules for geostationary satellite orbit
(GSO) DBS space stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band. The
Commission expects that adopting these procedures for DBS applications
will expedite the provision of beneficial services to the public, just
as these procedures have done in other satellite services.
2. The approaches the Commission proposes in the NPRM are prompted,
in part, by a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit that the Commission's July 2004 auction of
DBS licenses was unauthorized. Northpoint Technology, Ltd. and Compass
Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 412 F.3d 145 (DC
Cir. 2005) (Northpoint v. FCC). The proposed rules would replace
processing procedures that were designed to assign DBS licenses by
auctions. If adopted, these rules will apply to any application for
authority to provide DBS service to the United States using the 12.2-
12.7 GHz band and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band,
including unassigned channels at orbit locations assigned to the United
States under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2
Broadcasting Satellite Service and feeder-link Plans, as well as
applications for DBS service from space stations located at orbital
locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 BSS and
feeder-link Plans. As described in more detail in the following
paragraphs, the Commission has authorized only DBS satellites that are
a minimum of nine degrees apart on the geostationary arc. Nine degree
spacing derives from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Region 2 Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) Plan, which assigned to the
United States eight DBS orbital locations, each spaced a minimum of
nine degrees away from the next. In this NPRM, the Commission refers to
orbital locations other than those in the original Region 2 Plan as
``reduced spacing'' or ``non-nine-degree-spaced'' locations.
3. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on using first-come,
first-served processing procedures for all DBS applications, regardless
of the proposed orbit location. (As used in this NPRM, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``DBS applications'' refers to any application,
including requests for market access relating to a foreign-licensed
space station, for authority to provide DBS service to the United
States using the 12.2-12.7 GHz band and associated feeder links in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band, including unassigned channels at orbit locations
assigned to the United States under the ITU Region 2 BSS and feeder-
link Plans as well as requests to provide DBS service from space
stations located at orbital locations not assigned to the United States
in the ITU Region 2 BSS and feeder-link Plans (requests by both foreign
and domestic operators.)) Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment
on whether DBS should continue to be licensed outside the scope of the
First Space Station Licensing Reform Order's first-come, first-served
processing procedures, and if so, what processing framework should be
used to license DBS. See Amendment of the Commission's Space Station
Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003)
(``First Space Station Licensing Reform Order''). The Commission
specifically seeks comment on whether, pursuant to Section 309(j) of
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), and in light of the
Northpoint case, the Commission could design a competitive bidding
system, or auction, to assign mutually exclusive applications for DBS
licenses or spectrum.
4. As a threshold matter, the Commission observes that up until the
recent Northpoint ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit, applications for DBS licenses to operate at any orbital
location assigned to the United States under the ITU Region 2 Plan were
filed in accordance with an auctions track, as specified by section
25.148(d) and (e) of the Commission's rules. (47 CFR 25.148). This
track included both filing requirements for applications and a method
by which to process them. Given the recent Northpoint ruling by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, however, we cannot conduct an
auction to award DBS licenses unless we change our current policy that
permits DBS licensees to provide both domestic and international
services. (See Amendment to the Commission's Regulatory Policies
Governing Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate International
Satellite Systems, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2429 (1996)).
Consequently, we cannot now use the auction filing requirements.
Nevertheless, residual application filing requirements exist for DBS
applications--i.e., the general application filing requirements set
forth in sections 25.114 and 25.156 of the Commission's rules. In 2002,
when the Commission merged the Part 100 rules governing DBS into Part
25, these sections became applicable on their face to DBS and can
consequently be used for any DBS space station authorization
application that was not covered by a more specific filing procedure.
(See Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,
Report and
[[Page 56926]]
Order, IB Docket No. 98-21, 17 FCC Rcd 11331 (2002) (``Part 100
Order'')). Thus, for DBS applications that specified operations at
locations other than the eight U.S. orbital locations covered by the
ITU Region 2 Plan--and which were consequently ineligible for filing
under the auction rules--the filing requirements under sections 25.114
and 25.156 applied. There have been, however, no processing rules in
place for such applications; the only processing track currently in our
rules for DBS is the now-defunct auctions track, which, prior to
Northpoint, clearly applied to ITU Region 2 Plan locations only.
Despite the lack of specific rules, the Commission can process the DBS
applications for non-ITU Region 2 Plan locations that are currently on
file on an ad hoc basis, pursuant to our existing statutory authority.
Specifically, given our general statutory authority under sections 308
and 309 of the Communications Act, coupled with the application filing
requirements and rules regarding non-interference showings, we may
process the existing DBS applications provided that they are complete
and consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Any application granted prior to resolution of this proceeding would be
conditioned upon operator to operator coordination and the applicant
would be required to comply with the outcome of this proceeding.
5. Licensing Procedures: In the First Space Station Licensing
Reform Order, the Commission adopted various procedural reforms to
expedite the licensing process for most satellite services, with an
exception for DBS and the Digital Audio Radio Satellite (DARS) Service.
In light of the Northpoint decision, the Commission requests comment on
the appropriate procedures to be used in licensing future DBS systems.
6. The Commission proposes to treat applications for GSO DBS space
stations at both Region 2 Plan orbital locations and reduced spacing
locations under a ``first-come, first-served'' licensing approach. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also proposes
that the first-come, first-served license procedures, if adopted for
DBS, should also apply to requests from foreign-licensed DBS space
station operators to serve the United States. The Commission notes that
it decided in the DISCO II proceeding that entities wishing to serve
the United States with a non-U.S. satellite, including DBS satellites,
must file the same information as applicants for a U.S. space station
license, whether or not that satellite is already licensed by another
administration. (See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies
to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and
International Service in the United States, Report and Order, IB Docket
No. 96-111, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24175 at ] 190 (1997) (DISCO II or DISCO
II Order). DISCO II specifically said that foreign DBS operators
seeking access to the United States must file the same information as
U.S. applicants under Section 100.13, but that rule has since been
eliminated as DBS applications are now filed in accordance with the
general part 25 satellite rules. See Part 100 Order, 17 FCC Rcd 11349
at ]] 35-36.) Consequently, if we adopt a first-come, first-served
licensing procedure, foreign-licensed DBS operators seeking U.S. market
access and entities filing earth station applications to access
foreign-licensed DBS satellites must file the same information
requested under section 25.114 of the Commission's rules that U.S. DBS
applicants must file (including, without limitation, the technical
characteristics of the satellite as specified in sections 25.114(c) and
25.114(d)(1)-(5) and the analyses required under section
25.114(d)(13)). (See 47 CFR 25.114. The analyses required under section
25.114(d)(13) must take into account both the Appendix 30 BSS Plans and
the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans. Id.)
7. Our experience with the first-come, first-served approach
indicates that it would also allow us to issue licenses for DBS
satellites quickly, while still accommodating existing or new
competitive systems in the same spectrum. Further, this approach would
give applicants flexibility to design systems that will best serve
their targeted customers. As evidenced by the reduced-spacing DBS
applications and petitions received to date, reduced spacing proposals
are likely to vary based on the location selected, the operating
parameters of adjacent operators, and the applicant's own system
design. These factors would then guide the ITU agreement-seeking
process, which must be completed before a proposed modification can be
entered into the Region 2 Plans. The Commission believes that the
first-come, first-served approach permits interested parties to find,
through the negotiation process, the most suitable technical solutions
to operate DBS satellites. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach for processing future applications and petitions to operate
all DBS satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands.
8. If, however, the Commission decides that it is more appropriate
to treat all DBS satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands outside
the scope of the Space Station Reform Order, the Commission seeks
comment on what processing framework it should use for licensing these
satellites. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether,
pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act, ( 47 U.S.C.
309(j)) a competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to
assign mutually exclusive license applications for all DBS satellites
in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands in the United States. In this
regard, we note that the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision in the
Northpoint v. FCC case found the Commission's July 2004 auction of DBS
licenses was unauthorized in light of section 647 of the ORBIT Act,
which prohibits the Commission from using competitive bidding to assign
orbital locations or spectrum used ``for the provision of international
or global satellite communications services.'' (See Open-Market
Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications
Act, Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 section 647 (enacted Mar. 12, 2000),
codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f (ORBIT Act)). The Commission seeks comment
on whether the Commission could conduct an auction for all DBS
satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands consistent with the
Northpoint ruling and, if so, how such an auction would be implemented.
The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, limitations ITU
procedures may place on a Commission auction (for example, the ITU
first in time filing policy applies to the 12.2-12.7 GHz service).
Thus, a country filing first at the ITU obtains superior international
coordination rights at that orbital location. See ITU Appendices 30 and
30A. Further, if future legislative action authorizes the Commission to
award DBS licenses in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands via competitive
bidding, we request comment on how we could structure the auction.
Commenters should specify whether, and the extent to which, such an
auction would be different from one conducted without such legislation.
9. Safeguards against Speculation. The Commission's first-come,
first-served approach for processing space station applications
contains several safeguards to ensure that licensees remain committed
and able to proceed with system implementation in a timely manner. The
Commission's rules require all GSO-like applicants awarded a
[[Page 56927]]
license under this procedure to post a $3 million performance bond with
the Commission within 30 days of license grant. They also require
licensees to construct and launch the satellite consistent with a
specified milestone schedule. If the licensee fails to meet an
implementation milestone, the license becomes null and void and the
bond is executed. The rules also limit applicants to a total of five
pending applications and licenses for unbuilt satellites in a specific
frequency band at any one time. If the Commission adopts a first-come,
first-served processing procedure for DBS satellites, the Commission
proposes to apply these accompanying safeguards, including applying the
standard milestone schedule in section 25.164 of the Commission's rules
(which includes completion of critical design review within two years
of license grant) to DBS systems, in lieu of the due diligence
milestones set forth in section 25.148(b). The Commission requests
comment on these proposals. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment
on whether there are any public interest rationales for imposing a
higher performance bond and/or whether it should impose tighter limits
on the number of pending applications and licenses that applicants for
DBS systems may have for unbuilt satellites at any one time.
10. Annual Reporting Requirement. Most space station operators,
both GSO and NGSO, other than DBS operators, are subject to annual
reporting requirements. These reports must include, among other things,
the status of space station construction and anticipated launch dates.
We believe that these reports help to keep us apprised of whether DBS
operators are taking all necessary action to meet their milestones. A
reporting requirement would also put DBS operators on equal regulatory
footing with other satellite operators that must file annual reports,
including FSS operators providing direct-to-home services. We seek
comment on whether DBS licensees and foreign DBS operators that are
authorized to access the United States should be required to submit
similar annual reports regardless of the licensing mechanism we
ultimately adopt in this proceeding.
11. Technical Rules for the Operation of Reduced Spacing DBS
Satellites: As previously noted, the Commission believes that current
Commission rules can accommodate the filing of DBS applications that
specify operations at locations other than the eight orbital slots
assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 Plan (as specified in
Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations). Nevertheless, the
Commission seeks comment whether new technical DBS rules for processing
applications are necessary. The Commission's part 25 rules refer to and
incorporate provisions of the ITU Radio Regulations for purposes of
analyzing applications for DBS with technical parameters that differ
from those in the Region 2 Plan. Specifically, section 25.114(d)(13)(i)
requires that for satellites in the DBS service, applicants must submit
a ``sufficient technical showing that the proposed system could operate
satisfactorily if all assignments in the BSS and feeder link Plans were
implemented.'' (25 CFR 25.114(d)(13)(i)). This showing is intended to
demonstrate that the proposed system will meet its performance
objectives given the Region 2 Plan assignments. Section
25.114(d)(13)(ii) requires ``[a]nalyses of the proposed systems with
respect to the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A'' of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. (25 CFR
25.114(d)(13)(ii)). This showing is intended to demonstrate how the
proposed system will affect operating DBS systems and those systems
that are subject to pending Region 2 modification proposals. Section
25.148(f) requires that ``DBS operations must be in accordance with the
sharing criteria and technical characteristics contained in Appendices
30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations. Operation of systems using
differing technical characteristics may be permitted, with adequate
technical showing, and if a request has been made to the ITU to modify
the appropriate Plans to include the system's technical parameters.''
(47 CFR 25.148(f). Section 25.111(c) provides additional guidance
regarding the filing of plan modifications at the ITU. In particular,
this rule indicates what U.S. applicants and licensees must provide to
the Commission so that it may file plan modifications on the
licensee's/applicant's behalf. See 47 CFR 25.111(c)). Further, as noted
previously, the Part 100 Report and Order contemplated reduced
spacings. Thus, if an applicant can coordinate its proposal with other
U.S. DBS operators and secure agreement with other operators already
having assignments in the Region 2 Plans or with prior requests for
Plan modifications, the Commission believes its rules allow it to
consider these applications without establishing technical/operational
rules. However, the Commission recognizes that the DBS agreement
seeking process can be complex, and therefore the Commission seeks
comment below on methods to facilitate the coordination process should
we decline to establish new technical rules.
12. In its DBS Reduced Spacing Public Notice (International Bureau
Seeks Comments on Proposals to Permit Reduced Orbital Spacings Between
U.S. Direct Broadcast Satellites, Public Notice, Report No. SPB-196, 18
FCC Rcd 25683 (2003) (DBS Reduced Spacing Public Notice)) comments,
DIRECTV suggested that reduced-spacing DBS satellites may not be a
matter of urgency because a number of other capacity options are
available for the provision of DTH to U.S. consumers. In particular,
DIRECTV points out that ``there is an abundance of FSS Ku and Ka band
capacity that could be used to provide direct-to-home * * * video and
broadband services, as well as the prospect of future BSS capacity * *
* in the 17 GHz band * * *.'' (DIRECTV Comments at 3). The Commission
agrees that existing and potential DBS operators have other options at
their disposal to expand their service. Reduced spacing DBS would
provide existing and potential DBS operators with another valuable
option with which they can expand their service offerings. The
Commission seeks comment on whether existing Plan modification
processes are sufficient to allow room for expansion of existing DBS
service.
13. Resolution of Impasse in Operator Negotiations and Protection
Margins: The Commission foresees three possible scenarios in which
interference issues could be presented with respect to an application
seeking to provide DBS service from an orbital location spaced less
than nine-degrees from an existing DBS space station or seeking to
provide DBS service from a ``nine-degree'' location with parameters
different from those contained in the Plan (including requests from
foreign satellite operators to access the United States from such a
satellite), namely:
(i) The applicant has negotiated an operating arrangement with the
other potentially-affected U.S. DBS service providers,
(ii) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed DBS system
would not affect the systems of other U.S. DBS service providers as
defined by the ITU in Annex 1 of Appendix 30 and 30A, and has not
negotiated operating arrangements, or
(iii) The applicant has conducted interference analyses, the
results of which the applicant considers should be acceptable to other
U.S. DBS service providers, but one or more of the U.S. DBS service
providers disagree.
[[Page 56928]]
14. In the first two scenarios, the Commission could proceed with
public notice and review, and, taking any comments into account, could
take action on the application. In the third scenario, the Commission
could also proceed with public notice and review, although it could not
take action on the application until agreements are reached.
Furthermore, if the application is for a U.S.-licensed space station,
the Commission will not submit it to the ITU until agreement has been
reached with affected U.S. operators. In the case of such a
coordination impasse, the Commission could take one of several
approaches.
15. The simplest approach would be to set a deadline for reaching
agreement and to dismiss the application when the deadline expires if
no agreement has been reached. The Commission seeks comment on whether
this should be the preferred approach and, if so, what would be the
appropriate time period to allow for additional negotiations before
dismissing the application.
16. Another approach would be to grant or dismiss the application
depending on the acceptability of the interference as evaluated by the
Commission. The Commission seeks comment of whether this should be the
preferred approach and, if so, what criteria the Commission should use
in evaluating what constitutes ``acceptable'' interference.
17. The DIRECTV Petition suggests certain levels of C/I and certain
other technical parameters an applicant should use in designing its
system. DIRECTV proposes single-entry C/I levels of 24 dB for
``acceptable'' interference into an existing system and 12 dB from the
existing system into the new system. While this is an approach that
operators may take in negotiating operating arrangements, we do not
believe that such asymmetries, which would lead to dictating two
different classes of service in our rules, are appropriate for
regulatory enforcement.
18. The Commission could use the ITU's approach in resolving cases
of disagreement between the applicant and the licensees concerning the
acceptability of interference. However, the calculations are difficult
and complex and the acceptable C/I levels depend on the reference
situation such that, the higher the interference level initially, the
higher the acceptable level of interference would be. As discussed
above, the ITU considers a network to be ``affected'' by a proposed
Plan modification if it were to experience a change in OEPM of more
than 0.25 dB. In order to reduce the OEPM by less than 0.25 dB, the
single entry C/I needs to be at least 12.25 dB higher than the
aggregate C/I implicit in the reference situation. Thus, for example,
if the reference OEPM were -10 dB (aggregate reference C/I = 18 dB),
the single entry C/I from the new network would have to be at least
30.25 dB in order to maintain the OEPM within 0.25 dB of the reference
situation. By way of comparison, a single entry C/I level of 24 dB
would reduce the OEPM by about 1.0 dB in this example. Indeed, a single
entry C/I of 24 dB would reduce by more than 0.25 dB any OEPM higher
than -17.25 dB (aggregate reference C/I = 11.75 dB).
19. Another benchmark the Commission can use when coordination
negotiations reach an impasse is system ``unavailability.'' This DBS
performance criterion is meaningful to the consumer, as it is the
amount of time each year that the consumer's DBS receiver is not
providing video and audio signals to the consumer's television display
and sound system. When the total time that signals are available during
some time period is divided by the length of the time period, the
resulting metric is known as ``availability.'' This metric is usually
expressed in percentage terms. The complementary metric, the total time
that signals are not available in some time period, divided by the
length of the time period, is called ``unavailability,'' or ``outage.''
Mathematically, unavailability is equal to 100%--availability, when
availability is expressed in terms of a percentage. The ITU Region 2
BSS Plan was based on a target of 99.7% availability, which corresponds
to an outage of about 26.3 hours per year. (Amendment of Parts 2 and 25
of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, First Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4177 at ] 214 (2000)
(NGSO-FSS/MVDDS First R&O)). This target is usually exceeded by the
domestic DBS operators, who typically aim for at least 99.9%
availability for their systems, except in the high-precipitation and
fringe coverage areas.
20. In the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS First R&O, the Commission adopted
criteria to protect DBS systems from interference from non-
geostationary orbit fixed-satellite (NGSO-FSS) systems. These
interference protection criteria took the form of equivalent power flux
density (EPFD) limits. These limits were based on a goal of limiting
the increase in the unavailability of DBS systems due to interference
from the NGSO-FSS systems to 10%, without interference from the MVDDS
systems. In the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O (Amendment of parts 2 and 25
of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO-FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second
R&O)), the Commission adopted EPFD limits for Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) systems, again based on a goal of
limiting the increase in unavailability of DBS systems to 10% over the
unavailability that the DBS systems would experience without
interference from the MVDDS systems. (Amendment of parts 2 and 25 of
the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second
R&O)). This increase in unavailability is in addition to the 10%
increase in unavailability that is allocated to NGSO-FSS systems. The
Commission noted that the typical service availability of DBS systems
is on the order of 99.8 to 99.9%, corresponding to a level of
unavailability of 0.1 to 0.2%. The Commission stated that a 10%
increase in unavailability is insubstantial and does not approach a
level that could be considered harmful interference. The Commission
also noted that the increase in unavailability might be below or above
the 10% nominal level in different parts of the country.
[[Page 56929]]
21. The unavailability of a digital radiocommunication system, such
as a DBS system, is dependent on the ratio of the carrier power (C) of
the desired signal to the sum of the powers of the thermal noise and
interference (N + I) at the receiver. The received carrier power of
microwave signals, such as DBS signals, is reduced by precipitation in
the path between the DBS satellite and the subscriber's receiver. (If
the interfering signal seen by a DBS receiver is from another DBS
satellite, the power of the interfering signal will probably be reduced
as well, but most likely by a different amount than the power of the
desired signal.) The thermal noise seen by the receiver is also
increased by precipitation. The resulting reduction in C/N ratio in the
presence of precipitation is commonly known as a ``rain fade.'' The
intensity of the rain in the path between the satellite and the
subscriber's receiver is the determining factor in how much the C/N
ratio will be reduced. Therefore, the precipitation statistics at each
specific DBS receiver location will influence the average carrier-to-
noise-plus-interference ratio (C/(N+I)) experienced at that location,
and hence the average unavailability at that location. The Commission
took this into account in the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O, in which it
recognized that a single EPFD limit for all areas of the country was
inappropriate, due to the differing precipitation-induced propagation
degradations in different geographic regions. The Commission therefore
adopted four different EPFD limits for four different geographic
regions of the contiguous United States, based on the statistics
describing the precipitation characteristics of these regions.
22. Given the Commission's previous use of increase in
unavailability as an indirect DBS metric, the Commission seeks comment
on whether it could use a limit on the percentage of increase in
unavailability in various cities distributed around the United States
as the criterion for acceptability of the interference caused by
reduced spacing satellites, as evaluated by the Commission.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment as to whether it could use
regional EPFD limits, similar to what the Commission established in the
NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O. The Commission notes that it is not
revisiting the unavailability criteria previously adopted as they
pertain to MVDDS and NGSO-FSS systems.
23. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a single
symmetric interference criterion that the Commission could use to make
findings of acceptability of interference to existing DBS systems and,
if there is, what that criterion should be. If such a criterion exists,
the Commission seeks comment on what would be the appropriate
calculation methodology to determine the value of this criterion for a
particular coordination, and what would be the appropriate values for
any parameters, such as antenna mispointing angle, antenna pattern
mask, and DBS receiver threshold C/(N+I) level to existing DBS systems,
that the Commission should use in its calculations.
24. License Term: The Commission proposes to continue the ten year
non-broadcast DBS license term, and we seek comment on this proposal.
Licensees for Reduced Spacing DBS satellites will, of course, be
subject to geographic service requirements imposed by 47 CFR 25.148(c)
and public interest obligations imposed by 47 CFR 25.701.
25. Effect of Reduced Spacing DBS Satellites on Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service: The Commission proposes that MVDDS
protection of DBS (and DBS protection of MVDDS) under Part 101.1440
applies to less-than-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellites. The Commission
requests comment on whether there is a need to revisit these rules as a
result of authorization of additional U.S. services in the future at
orbital locations that are not currently assigned to the United States
in the Region 2 BSS plan. The Commission believes that all DBS service
in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band should be subject to the same regulatory
treatment.
26. Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed Satellite Services: The
Commission's rules apply footnote 5.487A of the International Radio
Regulations to the frequency band 12.2-12.7 GHz in the U.S. domestic
allocation. Thus, the Commission tentatively concludes that since it
intends to treat reduced spacing DBS space stations the same as Region
2 Plan DBS space stations, reduced spacing DBS satellites need not
consider interference into NGSO/FSS systems, and NGSO/FSS systems must
protect any non-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellite that is a part of the
Region 2 Plan. The Commission requests comment on whether the
Commission's rules are adequate to accommodate new DBS systems relative
to NGSO/FSS sharing, and whether there is a need to revise its rules to
account for non-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellites.
27. Mobile DBS Receivers: The Commission concluded in the NGSO-FSS
Order that it was not necessary to adopt any additional measures to
protect DBS service to aircraft. (NGSO-FSS Ku-Band R&O & FNPRM, 16 FCC
Rcd at 4173 ] 204). The Commission also notes that the original Region
2 Plan was based on 1.0-meter-diameter subscriber antennas. The current
ITU Radio Regulations require that the gain, beam width, co-polar
radiation pattern, cross-polar radiation pattern, and antenna diameter
in meters be supplied as part of the information filed in accordance
with Appendix 4 of the ITU Radio Regulations for a new Region 2 Plan
modification. In their filings requesting modifications to the Region 2
Plan, DBS applicants and licensees have specified subscriber antenna
diameters as small as 45 cm, but no smaller. Consequently, the smallest
antenna diameter that must be considered in the international
agreement-seeking process for U.S. Region 2 Plan modification requests
is currently 45 cm. Thus, DBS receiving antennas smaller than 45 cm in
diameter are not protected under the ITU Radio Regulations or the
Commission's rules. The Commission requests comment on whether
Commission rules can or should accommodate smaller antennas in order to
facilitate DBS service to mobile receivers. If we rely on the ITU
process for protection of mobile antennas, and decide not to adopt new
rules for their protection, the Commission seeks comment on whether
mobile antenna manufacturers' earth station licenses should be
conditioned to require disclosure to customers that their mobile
equipment is not protected from interference.
28. Full-CONUS Spectrum Cap: As the Commission observed in 2002,
DBS offers a strong competitive alternative to cable systems, and we
have not found any competitive problems with allowing a DBS operator to
operate in more than one full-CONUS orbital position. Indeed, allowing
such operation may enable DBS operators to better compete with cable
systems in the future. As recently as 2004, the Commission declined to
adopt any eligibility restrictions based on spectrum usage for the
three DBS licenses available in Auction No. 52. The Commission requests
comment on whether a spectrum cap on the number of full-CONUS orbital
locations that one satellite company can control is now necessary in
light of the rule changes proposed in this NPRM.
29. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission invites comment
on revising the processing procedures for DBS applications. Parties
opposing the proposed approaches should explain their reasons for
opposition with
[[Page 56930]]
particularity, recommending alternatives or explaining in detail why
they believe the proposed approaches are unnecessary. Interested
parties are also invited to recommend alternative license processing
procedures. Based on our experience with space station processing over
the past several years with comparable first-come, first-served
procedures, the Commission believes the proposed approaches will
similarly expedite the provision of new DBS service to the public.
Ex Parte Presentations
30. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to
oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of
the Commission's rules as well.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
31. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), (See 5 U.S.C.
603. The RFA, see U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract
with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)) the Commission has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and
actions considered in this NPRM. The text of the Certification is set
forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on this
Certification. Comments must be identified as responses to the RFA
Certification, and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
NPRM as provided in the caption, above. The Commission will send a copy
of the NPRM, including the Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
32. Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM contains proposed new and
modified information collection(s). 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 collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due 60 days from date of publication of the NPRM in the
Federal Register. 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. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
Comment Filing Procedures
33. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in response
to this NPRM no later than on or before 75 days after Federal Register
publication. Reply comments to these comments may be filed no later
than on or before 105 days after Federal Register publication. All
pleadings are to reference IB Docket No. 06-160. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
filing paper copies. Parties are strongly encouraged to file
electronically. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998).
34. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc/gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties
should transmit one copy of their comments to the docket in the caption
of this rulemaking. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov
and should include the following words in the body of the message,
``get form .'' A sample form and directions will
be sent in reply.
35. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 06-160. Filings can be sent
by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue
to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). If more
than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this
proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's mail
contractor, Vistronix, Inc. will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal
Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
36. Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5-inch diskette
formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or
compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the
commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this
case, IB Docket No. 06-160), type of pleading (comment or reply
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase:
``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one
party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
37. All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically
or by paper to each of the following: (1) The Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile
(202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. (2) Arthur Lechtman,
Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-mail Arthur.Lechtman@fcc.gov. (3) Mark
Young, Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-
[[Page 56931]]
mail Mark.Young@fcc.gov. (4) John Martin, Sr. Engineer, Satellite
Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554; e-mail John.Martin@fcc.gov. (5) Chip Fleming, Engineer,
Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554; e-mail Chip.Flemming@fcc.gov. (5) JoAnn Lucanik,
Associate Bureau Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-mail JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov.
38. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in
this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in
person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via
telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-
mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The pleadings will be also available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554 and through the Commission's Electronic Filing
System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission's World Wide Web site,
http://www.fcc.gov.
39. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments
and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All parties are
encouraged to utilize a table of contents and to include the name of
the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
submission. We also strongly encourage that parties track the
organization set forth in this NPRM in order to facilitate our internal
review process.
40. Commenters who file information that they believe is
proprietary may request confidential treatment pursuant to Section
0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their
original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted
comments, along with their request for confidential treatment.
Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. See
Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential
Information Submitted to the Commission, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
24816 (1998), Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even
if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does
not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an
appropriate request. See 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the
Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either
conditionally or unconditionally.
41. As such, we note that the Commission has the discretion to
release information on public interest grounds that does fall within
the scope of an FOIA exemption.
Further Information
42. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact
Arthur Lechtman, Attorney, Mark Young, Attorney, Chip Fleming,
Engineer, or John Martin, Sr. Engineer, Satellite Division,
International Bureau at (202) 418-0719. Information regarding this
proceeding and others may also be found on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.fcc.gov.
Ordering Clauses
43. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
44. 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 certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15951 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P