[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26067-26071]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08my08-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[WT Docket Nos. 03-66; 03-67; 02-68; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket
No. 00-258; FCC 08-83]
Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access,
Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690
MHz Bands; Reviewing of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-
Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the
1.6/2.4 GHz Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
assign Educational Broadband Service (EBS) spectrum in the Gulf of
Mexico. It also seeks comment on how to license unassigned and
available EBS spectrum. Specifically, we seek comment on whether it
would be in the public interest to develop a scheme for licensing
unassigned EBS spectrum that avoids mutual exclusivity; we ask whether
EBS eligible entities could participate fully in a spectrum auction; we
seek comment on the use of small business size standards and bidding
credits for EBS if we adopt a licensing scheme that could result in
mutually exclusive applications; we seek comment on the proper market
size and size of spectrum blocks for new EBS licenses; and we seek
comment on issuing one license to a State agency designated by the
Governor to be the spectrum manager, using frequency coordinators to
avoid mutually exclusive EBS applications, as well as other alternative
licensing schemes. The Commission must develop a new licensing scheme
for EBS in order to achieve the Commission's goal of facilitating the
development of new and innovative wireless services for the benefit of
students throughout the nation.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 7, 2008. Submit reply comments
on or before August 6, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 08-83,
or by WT Docket No. 03-66, WT Docket No. 03-67, WT Docket No. 02-68, IB
Docket No. 02-364, or ET Docket No. 00-258, 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.
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: For further information contact John
Schauble, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554, at (202) 418-0797 or via the Internet to John.Schauble@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the FCC's Broadband
Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM), FCC 08-83, adopted on March
18, 2008, and released on March 20, 2008. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission's
[[Page 26068]]
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202)
488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com.
The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs--public/attachment/FCC-08-83A1doc. This
full text may also be downloaded at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/
releases.html. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print,
audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin
at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail to
bmillin@fcc.gov.
Summary
BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM
1. We seek comment on whether and how we license EBS spectrum in
the Gulf of Mexico. Commenters should address the issue of whether
there is a need in the Gulf of Mexico for the type of educational
services that EBS is designed to meet. Because there are no schools or
universities in the Gulf of Mexico, we seek comment on whether any
changes to our educational use requirements are appropriate for the
Gulf of Mexico.
2. We also seek further comment on the appropriate licensing scheme
for new EBS licenses. We note that the opportunities presented by the
new technical rules and band plan create additional demand for EBS
spectrum, and that EBS eligible entities have not been able to file
applications for new stations since 1995. The record developed to date
is insufficient for us to adequately weigh the various options for
licensing EBS spectrum, including options that might avoid mutually
exclusive applications.
3. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Budget Act) expanded the
Commission's competitive bidding authority under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act by adding, among other things, provisions governing
auctions for broadcast and other previously exempt services. In a
subsequent order, the Commission concluded that the legislation
required that mutually exclusive applications for new Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS) stations be subject to auction. The
Commission concluded that ITFS did not fall within the exemption from
competitive bidding for noncommercial educational broadcast stations.
The Commission expressed concern that section 309(j), as adopted, might
not reflect Congress' intent with regard to the treatment of competing
ITFS applications. Given the instructional nature of the service and
the reservation of ITFS spectrum for noncommercial educational use, the
Commission thought it possible that Congress did not intend its
expansion of our auction authority in the Budget Act to include that
service. Accordingly, the Commission did not proceed immediately with
an auction of ITFS applications but sought Congressional guidance with
regard to assigning licenses for ITFS by competitive bidding and
proposed that Congress exempt ITFS applications from competitive
bidding. In 2000, the Commission opened a settlement window to resolve
mutual exclusivity between applications by allowing payments to
applicants in return for dismissing their applications and permitting
agreements providing for the authorization to be awarded to a non-
applicant third party.
4. In 2003, the Commission reiterated its prior conclusion that
mutually exclusive applications for new ITFS stations would be subject
to competitive bidding and noted the Commission's attempt to seek
Congressional guidance on this issue. It also held that there would be
no opportunity to file new ITFS applications, amendments, or
modifications of any kind of station (except for applications that
involved minor modifications, assignment of licenses, or transfer of
control) while the Commission undertook a major restructuring of the
2.5 GHz band plan and technical rules. The Commission also sought
comment on potential options for assigning licenses for unassigned ITFS
spectrum by competitive bidding. While the Commission later lifted the
freeze on modification applications, the freeze on applications for new
EBS stations remained in place.
5. In the 2004 BRS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission proposed to assign new EBS spectrum licenses using
competitive bidding. The Commission also sought comment on geographic
areas for new licenses, frequency blocks for new licenses, rules for
auctions, bidding credits for small businesses and designated entities,
and auctioning spectrum as a means of transitioning areas where a
proponent has not come forward within the deadline established by the
Commission.
6. Notwithstanding the Commission's prior determinations that
applications for initial EBS spectrum licenses are not exempt from
competitive bidding under the Communications Act, today, we seek
comment on a mechanism for assigning EBS licenses by competitive
bidding among applicants, as well as through other means that would
avoid mutual exclusivity among applications, obviating any need for
competitive bidding.
5. Given various characteristics of eligible EBS licensees that are
unique among potential Commission licensees, a licensing mechanism that
depends on competitive bidding to assign licenses may not provide many
otherwise eligible EBS licensees with a full opportunity to
participate, accordingly, we seek further comment on the appropriate
licensing mechanism for new EBS licenses. We do so without prejudging
the appropriate time for issuing new EBS licenses, whether pursuant to
competitive bidding or an alternative assignment mechanism.
6. We seek comment on several threshold questions involving the
possibility of adopting a licensing scheme that provides for mutually
exclusive applications and competitive bidding. First, do EBS eligible
entities, in general, have the authority to bid for spectrum licenses?
Second, if EBS eligible entities have the authority to bid for
spectrum, do they have the authority to bid for spectrum outside of
their respective jurisdictions? We seek comment on whether educational
institutions would be able to competitively bid for Basic Trading Areas
(BTAs), given that school districts are usually smaller than counties,
while BTAs can be very large and frequently bisect state boundaries. If
EBS eligible entities cannot bid for spectrum outside of their
respective jurisdictions, but are otherwise able to bid for spectrum,
we seek comment on whether educational institutions could form a
consortium or some other joint entity to bid for spectrum in areas
larger than their respective jurisdictions and as large as a BTA.
7. Moreover, we seek comment on how we should structure the auction
to ensure that licenses are disseminated among a wide variety of
applicants. In this connection, we seek comment on whether we should
prohibit non-profit educational organizations from participating in an
auction and limiting eligible bidders to EBS eligible entities that are
publicly supported or privately controlled educational institutions
accredited by the appropriate State department of education or the
recognized regional and national accrediting organization.
8. We propose to conduct any auction of the EBS spectrum in
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part
1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, consistent with many of the
bidding procedures that have been employed in previous auctions.
Specifically, we propose to
[[Page 26069]]
employ the part 1 rules governing, among other things, competitive
bidding design, designated entities, application and payment
procedures, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment.
9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt bidding credits and
small business size standards in the auction of EBS spectrum.
10. We seek comment on the size of the spectrum blocks to be
auctioned. Under one possible scheme, the winning bidder would receive
both the three low-power channels and the one high-power channel
assigned to the group. We could also auction the high-power channels in
the group separately from the low-power channels in the group. A third
option would be to license all of the available spectrum in the Lower
Band Segment (LBS) and Upper Band Segment (UBS) as one frequency block
and all of the available Middle Band Segment (MBS) spectrum as a
separate frequency block.
11. With respect to a geographic area licensing scheme, we seek
comment on the size of the area to be licensed. Several commenters
recommend that we license available and unassigned EBS spectrum by BTA
to correspond to the BRS licensing area. We could also assign licenses
by State. We also seek comment on whether we should license smaller
areas such as cellular market areas. If we decide to license the low-
power channels separately from the high-power channels, we seek comment
on whether we should adopt a different geographic area for the MBS
channels.
12. We also seek comment on whether special eligibility or spectrum
aggregation limits would be appropriate or necessary to ensure that
public and private educational institutions can successfully bid for
spectrum.
13. If, as a result of the record developed in response to this
BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, we learn that very few EBS eligible entities can bid
for spectrum, we may find that the public interest of making this
spectrum available will lead us to adopt a licensing scheme that avoids
competitive bidding. In this connection, we seek comment on all
available options for granting geographic area licenses without
granting one of multiple mutually exclusive applications. Commenters
proposing such options should provide a detailed description of how
their proposed option would work, describe what they believe the proper
geographic area and channel blocks should be for proposed licenses, and
explain why they believe their proposed licensing scheme would allow
vacant EBS spectrum to be rapidly placed into use by EBS-eligible
licensees and meet the educational, spectrum policy, and broadband
goals underlying EBS.
14. One option would be to issue one license to a State agency
designated by the Governor to be the spectrum manager for the entire
State, using frequency coordinators to avoid mutually exclusive EBS
applications, as well as other alternative licensing schemes. In
connection with this state licensing option, we seek comment on whether
any modifications to our Secondary Markets leasing rules would be
appropriate for these state licenses. We also seek comment on whether
any modifications to our special leasing rules for EBS stations would
be appropriate for state licenses.
15. Under spectrum manager leasing arrangements and de facto
transfer leasing arrangements, the licensee must meet the eligibility
requirements in the Commission's rules. Thus, the State agency
designated by the Governor would have to meet the eligibility
requirements of Sec. 27.1201 of our rules. We seek comment on whether
any restrictions on a state's leasing discretion would be necessary to
ensure that the full range of educational entities have access to EBS
spectrum.
16. We also seek comment on whether any modifications to our
special leasing rules for EBS stations would be appropriate for state
licenses. Under Sec. 27.1214 of our rules, a licensee must comply with
certain educational programming requirements and retain the opportunity
to purchase or to lease dedicated or common EBS equipment used for
educational purposes or comparable equipment if the lease terminates.
17. Another option would adopt a licensing scheme similar to the
one we use to license private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this
approach, applicants could submit applications for new EBS stations at
any time to certified frequency coordinators. The frequency
coordinators would review the applications and, in case of conflict,
certify the earlier filed application that complies with the
Commission's rules for submission to the Commission.
18. Using frequency coordination to award licenses for new EBS
stations raises a variety of issues. First, we seek comment on whether
there are entities that could be qualified to serve as an EBS frequency
coordinator and the process by which the Commission should select one
or more frequency coordinators. Second, we seek comment on the
processes that a frequency coordinator would use to handle requests for
EBS frequencies and to determine whether an application complies with
the Commission's rules. We also seek comment on the appropriate
geographic area for new licenses. We also seek comment on the
appropriate size of the frequency block for EBS licenses awarded
through the frequency coordination process. Available alternatives
include: (1) Issuing a separate license for each channel group; (2)
licensing MBS channels separately and licensing LBS and UBS channels
together; (3) issuing one UBS license, one MBS license, and one LBS
license in a given geographic area. Finally, we ask whether it is
appropriate or necessary to place limitations on the number of
applications that a licensee or its affiliates could file for new EBS
stations in a given time period in order to ensure that a wide variety
of EBS licensees can access spectrum. We seek comment on these and any
other issues relating to the use of frequency coordination to assign
new EBS licenses.
19. Our discussion of specific proposals and questions is not meant
to preclude commenters from offering other proposals or raising other
questions relating to the assignment of new EBS licenses. We seek
comment on all questions and issues relating to the assignment of new
EBS licenses.
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
20. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the
Commission's rules.
Comment Period and Procedures
21. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the FCC's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The FCC's Electronic Comment
Filing system (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal,
or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the
[[Page 26070]]
caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of
the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Comments shall be sent as an
electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/
ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket 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 include the
following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form
and directions will be sent in response.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Availability of Documents: The public may view the
documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the
Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments
and reply comments are also available through the Commission's
duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160.
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
22. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4) requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in
the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of
this BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
24. The BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on various alternatives to
license unassigned and available EBS spectrum throughout the United
States and the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM
seeks comments on the following options:
(a) Using competitive bidding to license unassigned and available
spectrum. If this option is adopted the Commission proposes to use the
competitive bidding rules in part 1, subpart Q of the Commission's
rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt bidding
credits and small business size standard, the size of the spectrum
blocks to be auctioned, and the size of geographic areas to be
licensed.
(b) Issuing one license per State to a State agency designated by
the Governor to act as a spectrum manager for the State. The State
agency would be required to meet the eligibility restrictions in Sec.
27.1201 of the Commission's rules. The State agency would be able use
spectrum manager leasing arrangements or de facto transfer leasing
arrangements.
(c) Using a leasing scheme similar to the one used to license
private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this approach, applicants
could submit applications for new EBS stations at any time to frequency
coordinators.
25. We believe our proposals will encourage utilization of this
band and the development of new innovative services to the public such
as providing wireless broadband services, including high-speed Internet
access and mobile services while encouraging educators to use the band
for educational services.
B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
26. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7,
10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and
706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319,
324, 332, 333, and 706.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
27. 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. 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. A small
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small
organizations. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined
as ``governments of cities,
[[Page 26071]]
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' The term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total,
84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we
estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we
discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be
affected by our actions.
28. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to
as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)) is used to
provide educational services to students. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which
includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and
43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million.
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this
service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules
and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard is
applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100
of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational
institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we
estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.
29. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these
licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions
may be included in the definition of a small entity. EBS is a non-
profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of
other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. We find
that up to 1,932 of these educational institutions are small entities
that may take advantage of our amended rules to provide additional
flexibility to EBS.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
30. There are no new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance
requirements proposed in the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
31. 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 (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
small entities.''
32. The Commission has not proposed an approach for licensing EBS
spectrum. Instead, the Commission seeks comment on three distinct
approaches for licensing EBS spectrum to determine which approach would
best suit the needs of schools and universities and other non-profit
educational institutions.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
33. None.
Ordering Clauses
34. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed regulatory changes described in this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
35. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10105 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P