On April 1, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions concerning Montana's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30.

By letter dated April 27, 2001, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program (Administrative Record No. MT-19-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Montana sent the amendment in response to a statutory revision passed by the 2001 Montana legislature. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

Specifically, Montana proposes to provide that a revoked permit will not terminate until 5 years after revocation, or until substantial revegetation occurs; that a person applying for the transfer of a revoked permit that has not terminated shall submit an application to the department that contains the information required for a permit applicant in Montana's statutes and that upon receipt on such application, the department shall cease reclamation activities on the permit area; that a person applying for a revoked permit need not submit any additional information unless the department can show that significant changes in the environmental baseline data have occurred; that the department may not prepare a review for permit transfer unless the department can show that the operation has caused or may cause significant impacts that have not been analyzed previously in an environmental review document; that the department shall process applications under timeframes already in the statutes; that following public comment period, the department shall transfer the permit when the new operator provides proof of site ownership or control and adequate bonding, with the requirement that prior to creating additional surface disturbance, all preexisting permit deficiencies and modifications necessary shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the department and that any preestablished environmental monitoring requirements continue; that under certain conditions the permit may not be transferred; that the department is not required to reimburse the former permittee or surety for funds expended for reclamation, monitoring or site maintenance; and that this statute does not apply to the revocation or transfer of an operating permit on Federal lands.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM requests your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana program.

Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not necessarily consider or include in the administrative record any comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at locations other than the Casper Field Office.

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SPATS No. MT-022-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Casper Field Office at (307) 261-6550.

We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t. on June 8, 2001. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915-5956). You can find later actions concerning the conditions of approval and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.

By letter dated May 2, 2001 (Administrative Record Number WV-1209), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its program. The program amendment consists of changes to the West Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation rules at 38 CSR 2 as amended by House Bill 2663. The amendment submitted by the State is intended to render the West Virginia program no less effective than the Federal requirements.

We are not requesting comments on the proposed changes to CSR 38-2-3.14.b.12, concerning the partial removal of coal processing refuse piles, for the following reason. In 1990, we stated that “the removal, transport and use (without onsite reprocessing) of coal mine refuse which does not meet the definition of “coal” set forth in 30 CFR 700.5; i.e., ASTM Standard D 388-77, is not subject to regulation [under SMCRA].” 55 FR 21314; May 23, 1990. CSR 38-2-3.14.b.12 pertains to the removal of coal refuse that does not meet the definition of coal. Therefore, it is not subject to regulation under SMCRA, and will not be considered here.

You will find West Virginia's program amendment presented below.

This definition is being amended by deleting the existing language and adding in its place the following language.

2.39. Cumulative Impact Area means the area, including the permit area, within which impacts resulting from the proposed operation may interact with the impacts of all anticipated mining on surface and groundwater systems. Anticipated mining shall include the entire projected lives through bond releases of:

2.39.a. The proposed operation;

2.39.b. All existing operations;

2.39.c. Any operation for which a permit application has been submitted to the Director, and;

2.39.d. All operations required to meet diligent development requirements for leased Federal coal for which there is actual mine development information available.

This provision is being amended by adding the words “a narrative indicating” to the survey and map requirements of this subsection. As amended, this provision requires a survey, map, and a narrative indicating whether or not subsidence could cause material damage to the identified structures and water supplies.

We note that this amendment is in response to the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(zzz). This required amendment provides that the State must amend the West Virginia program to require that the map of all lands, structures, and drinking, domestic and residential water supplies which may be materially damaged by subsidence show the type and location of all such lands, structures, and drinking, domestic and residential water supplies within the permit and adjacent areas, and to require that the permit application include a narrative indicating whether subsidence, if it occurred, could cause material damage to or diminish the value or reasonably foreseeable use of such structures or renewable resource lands or could contaminate, diminish, or interrupt drinking, domestic, or residential water supplies. For further information, see the February 9, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 6201, 6206-6207).

This provision is being amended by changing the proviso concerning material that meets the ASTM standard of the minimum BTU value to be classified as coal. As amended, if the material at existing abandoned coal processing waste piles meets the minimum BTU value standard to be classified as coal, as set forth in ASTM standard D 388-99, and if not AML eligible, a permit application which meets all applicable requirements of this rule shall be required. Prior to this amendment, the words “and if not AML eligible” did not appear in the provision, and the provision did not require the submittal of a permit application if the material met the minimum BTU value to be classified as coal.

This amendment has been submitted to address the required regulatory program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(nnnn). In the May 5, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 26130, 26130-26131), we did not approve CSR 38-2-3.14.a. to the extent that it would apply to the removal of abandoned coal mine refuse piles where, on average, the material to be removed meets the definition of coal in 30 CFR 700.5. In addition, we did not approve subsection 3.14 to the extent that it could be interpreted as applying to the on-site processing of abandoned coal refuse piles. Consequently, we required at 30 CFR 948.16(nnnn) that the State amend its program to either: (1) Delete subsection 3.14; or (2) revise subsection 14 to clearly specify that its provisions apply only to activities that do not qualify as surface coal mining operations as that term is defined in 30 CFR 701.5; i.e., that subsection 3.14 does not apply to either the removal of abandoned coal mine waste piles that, on average, meet the definition of coal or to the on-site reprocessing of coal mine waste piles. We also stated that if the State chooses the second option, it should also submit the sampling protocol that will be used to determine whether the refuse piles meet the definition of coal. The sampling protocol must be designed to ensure that no activities meeting the definition of surface coal mining operations escape regulation under the State counterpart to SMCRA and the Federal regulations.

This provision is being amended by adding the following sentence. “Material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit areas means any long term or permanent change in the hydrologic balance caused by surface mining operation(s) which has a significant adverse impact on the capability of the affected water resource(s) to support existing conditions and uses.”

This provision is being amended by deleting the existing first two sentences. In their place, the following sentences are added.

In addition, the final existing sentence is being amended by adding the following words to the end of that sentence: “to land or structures, or the estimated cost to replace water supply.”

This amendment is intended to address the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(ffff). For more information, see Finding 26 in the February 9, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 6201, 6212-6213).

This subsection is new, and provides the following: “Funding less than fifty percent (50%) may qualify if the construction is undertaken as part of an approved reclamation project in accordance with WV Code § 22-3-28.”

This revision is intended to revise the West Virginia program to add the additional flexibility afforded by the revised Federal definition of the term “government-financed construction” at 30 CFR 707.5. For more information, see the February 12, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 7469).

This provision is amended by adding new language at the end of the existing one-sentence paragraph, and by adding three new subdivisions. As amended, the provision is as follows:

3.32.g. The prohibition of subdivision 3.32.c shall not apply to a permit application due to any violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition at a surface mine eligible for remining under permit held by the applicant that meets the requirements of 30 CFR 773.15(4)(i). An event will be presumed to be unanticipated for purposes of this paragraph if it:

3.32.g.1. Arose after remining permit was issued.

3.32.g.2. Was related to prior mining; and

3.32.g.3. Was not identified in the remining permit.

This provision is amended by deleting the words, “normal flow or gradient of the stream, adversely affect fish migration or related environmental values, materially damage the.” In addition the words “or other environmental resources” are added. As amended, the provision is as follows:

5.2.a. Intermittent or Perennial Stream. No land within one hundred feet (100′) of an intermittent or perennial stream shall be disturbed by surface mining operations including roads unless specifically authorized by the Director. The Director will authorize such operations only upon finding that surface mining activities will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other environmental resources of the stream and will not cause or contribute to violations of applicable State or Federal water quality standards. The area not to be disturbed shall be designated a buffer zone and marked accordingly.

This provision is new, and is as follows:

11.3.a.3. Surety received after July 1, 2001 must be recognized by the treasurer of state as holding a current certificate of authority from the United States Department of the Treasury as an acceptable surety on federal bonds.

This provision is being amended by prohibiting bond release if water discharged requires passive treatment. The provision currently prohibits bond release if chemical treatment is needed. In addition, a new sentence is added that clarifies that measures approved in the permit and taken during mining and reclamation to prevent the formation of acid drainage shall not be considered passive treatment.

This amendment is intended to address the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(qqq). This required amendment requires that the West Virginia program be amended to clarify that bond may not be released where passive treatment systems are used to achieve compliance with applicable effluent limitations. For more information, see Finding 2, in the February 21, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 6511, 6517). As amended, the provision is as follows:

12.2.e. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this rule, no bond release or reduction will be granted if, at the time, water discharged from or affected by the operation requires chemical or passive treatment in order to comply with applicable effluent limitations or water quality standards. Measures approved in the permit and taken during mining and reclamation to prevent the formation of acid drainage shall not be considered passive treatment; Provided, That the Director may approve a request for Phase I but not Phase II or III, release if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that either: * * *.

This provision is amended by deleting the words, “or other responsible party.” This amendment is intended to address the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(jjjj). For more information, see the November 12, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 61506-61507). As amended, this provision is as follows:

12.4.e. The operator or permittee shall be liable for all costs in excess of the amount forfeited. The Director may commence civil, criminal or other appropriate action to collect such costs.

This provision is new. This amendment is intended to address the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(xx). For more information, see Finding 32 in the February 21, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 6511, 6524-6525), and Finding 8(a) in the October 4, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR 50256, 50264-50265). This new provision is as follows:

14.8.[a.]6. Constructed outcrop barriers shall be designed using standard engineering procedures to inhibit slides and erosion to ensure the long-term stability of the backfill. The constructed outcrop barriers shall have a minimum static safety factor of 1.3, and where water quality is paramount, the constructed barriers shall be composed of impervious material with controlled discharge points.

This provision is being amended by deleting language concerning an exception to the requirements to release bonds, and by adding a new proviso concerning revegetation. This amendment is intended to address the required program amendment codified at 30 CFR 948.16(pppp). For more information, see Finding 9 in the May 5, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 26130, 26133). As amended, the provision is as follows:

24.4. Requirements to Release Bonds. Bond release for remining operations shall be in accordance with all of the requirements set forth in subsection 12.2 of this rule; Provided that there is no evidence of a premature vegetation release.

In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking comments, on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of the West Virginia program.

If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed amendment during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the notice, and should explain the reason for your recommendation(s). We may not be able to consider or include in the Administrative Record comments delivered to an address other than the one listed above (see ADDRESSES ).

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII, Word Perfect, or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SPATS NO. WV-091-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Charleston Field office at (304) 347-7158.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during our regular business hours at the OSM Administrative Record Room (see ADDRESSES ). Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, you should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. (local time), on June 8, 2001. The location and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak at the public hearing, the hearing will not be held.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who testifies at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her testimony. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all persons scheduled to speak have been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after all persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish to speak have been heard.

Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak at a hearing, a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. If you wish to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed amendment, you may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting will be made a part of the Administrative Record.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart federal regulation.

This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the federal and state governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that state laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that state programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of state regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific state, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed state regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the states must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed state regulatory program provision does not constitute a major federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The state submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the state. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart federal regulation.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the fact that the state submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

This proposal addresses the following local rules: AVAPCD 1171 and MCESD 344. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 01-75, adopted March 16, 2001, and released March 20, 2001. The complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

1. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making conducts an extensive review of the Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) rules and proposes changes to create a more efficient BAS that can readily adapt to regulatory and technological changes. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making also examines the relationships between the BAS and the radio services that share frequency bands with the BAS. In many cases the BAS, the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) (part 78), and Fixed Microwave Services (FS) (part 101) authorize technically and operationally similar stations (i.e., they use the same equipment, channelization, bandwidth, etc.) in shared frequency bands. The technical rules for these services are not always consistent, which, at times, has led to confusion regarding compliance and difficulties when licensees in different services have tried to operate in common geographic areas. Because we believe that this issue must be addressed to ensure that shared bands are used as efficiently as possible, we initiate this proceeding and again seek comment on the best way to conform the technical rules for these services.

2. One of our main goals is to ensure that licensees can operate in an environment in which the potential for interference is minimized. Interference protections are essential to spectrum usage rights to prevent licensees from unduly affecting other licensees in terms of system operation or cost. Nonetheless, we attempt to establish rules that are no more restrictive than necessary to achieve our goals in order to provide maximum flexibility to our licensees. Therefore, we seek comment on the extent that commenters believe our proposals or other portions of the rules relevant to this proceeding are more restrictive than necessary to achieve our goals.

3. The significant proposals made by this NPRM concerning BAS, as well as CARS and FS operations that share frequency bands with BAS, are as follows:

• We propose to permit TV and aural BAS stations to use any available digital modulation techniques in all BAS frequency bands. This proposal would allow BAS stations to take advantage of the latest developments in technology and to smooth the transition to digital TV and radio.

• We propose to update the BAS emission masks to facilitate the introduction of digital equipment and to provide consistency with those used in part 101.

• We propose to modify the equation used by BAS and CARS for determining the maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for short path lengths. This proposal would eliminate the steep reduction in EIRP for path lengths shorter than the minimum for which we permit the use of full power.

• We propose to allow BAS and CARS stations to use automatic transmit power control (ATPC) in order to facilitate more efficient spectrum use.

• We propose to update the transmitter power rules for BAS and CARS to provide EIRP limits for all frequency bands.

• We propose to require TV BAS and CARS services to prior coordinate their frequency use when using shared frequency bands. This proposal would serve to minimize instances of harmful interference that occur when a new station begins transmitting.

4. In addition, we make a variety of proposals designed to update the BAS rules. Our initiatives include instituting temporary conditional authority for all BAS stations, updating the Remote Pickup BAS channel plan to provide compatibility with the channel plan adopted for private land mobile radio (PLMR) in the Commission's Refarming proceeding (PR Docket No. 92-235), updating the short-term operation rules, and updating the BAS application rules to make them consistent with the Universal Licensing System (ULS). We also propose, without discussion, many minor rule changes intended to clarify or fix typographical errors in existing rules.

5. Finally, we propose to allow wireless assist video devices to operate on certain VHF-TV and UHF-TV channels on a non-interference basis to services allocated on that spectrum. These devices, which are already used by broadcasters, are needed to aid film and television producers in filming at various locations in a cost effective manner and should result in a greater use of a finite spectrum resource.

6. Emission limitation requirements (emission masks) for digital modulation is addressed in 47 CFR 74.637(c), which provides an emission mask for analog or digital modulation in the 6425-6525 MHz, 17,700-19,700 MHz, and 31.0-31.3 GHz bands. Although the rules do not specifically prohibit digital modulation in other TV BAS bands (i.e., 2025-2110 MHz, 2450-2483.5 MHz, 6875-7125 MHz, and 12,700-13,250 MHz), the Commission policy relative to BAS has been to allow digital modulation only in bands where it is specifically authorized. To facilitate the transition to digital TV and to accommodate narrower channels in the 2 GHz band, we propose to modify the rules in § 74.637 to permit digital modulation in all TV BAS bands. In addition, to allow aural BAS licensees to take advantage of the spectral efficiency that digital modulation offers, we propose to modify 47 CFR 74.535 to permit the use of any digital modulation in all aural BAS bands.

7. 47 CFR 74.644 specifies the minimum path length for which the maximum EIRP will be authorized for fixed links for TV BAS. Applicants proposing path lengths shorter than those specified, are required to reduce power in accordance with the equation provided in the rule section. We note that the rules in 47 CFR 78.108(b) for the CARS also use the same equation as used for BAS for determining the minimum path length. We believe that the CARS also would benefit from modifying the equation for determining maximum power for short path lengths. Accordingly, we propose to modify our rules to implement in 47 CFR 74.644 and 78.108 the same equation codified at 47 CFR 101.143 for determining the maximum EIRP for path lengths shorter than the specified minimum. We seek comment on this proposal.

8. We note that 47 CFR 74.644 does not specify a minimum path length for fixed BAS links in the 2450-2483.5 MHz band. However, part 101 does specify a minimum path length of 17 kilometers for the FS in all bands between 1850 and 7150 MHz. To promote spectrum efficiency by preventing the use of overpowered systems over short paths, we believe it would be beneficial to specify a minimum path length for BAS in the 2450-2483.5 MHz band. Thus, we propose to adopt a minimum path length of 17 kilometers for the BAS in the 2450-2483.5 MHz band. We request comment on whether this proposal would unnecessarily constrain part 74 operations. Additionally, we propose to grandfather any existing fixed links that may be less than 17 kilometers at their current power.

9. Currently, 47 CFR 74.636 and 74.534 specify the power limitations for TV and aural BAS, respectively. For some frequency bands only transmitter output power is specified, and for some frequency bands both transmitter output power and EIRP, which describes the amount of energy that is actually being radiated by the transmitting antenna, are specified. Because EIRP describes the amount of energy that is actually being radiated, it is the parameter that is pertinent to understanding the RF environment for coordinating stations and mitigating interference. Further, the use of the equation for maximum EIRP for short path lengths proposed above is contingent on the rules specifying a maximum EIRP value in each frequency band in which the equation applies. In addition, specification of EIRP values for BAS is consistent with the Commission's implementation of the Universal Licensing System (ULS), which is used to process BAS applications with those in part 101. We propose to modify the BAS rules to specify maximum EIRP values for all aural and TV BAS frequency bands.

10. We note that the rules in part 101 for FS microwave licensees specify EIRP values. Where EIRP values exist in the part 101 rules for fixed operations in frequency bands shared with fixed BAS, we propose to adopt the part 101 value for fixed BAS in the same band. Because many BAS and part 101 services are similar in nature, it appears reasonable for the same values to be used in both rule parts. Specifically, we propose that fixed operations for TV BAS in the 1990-2110 MHz and 2450-2500 MHz bands have EIRP limits of 45 dBW. For aural BAS in the 944-952 MHz band, we propose to limit EIRP to 40 dBW, which is identical to the limit specified in part 101 for FS in the 941.5-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands.

11. EIRP values also are necessary for mobile TV BAS operations in the 1990-2110 MHz and 2450-2500 MHz. The EIRP limits for mobile BAS can be generated using the maximum allowable transmitter power currently specified in the part 74 rules in conjunction with the gain of commonly available antennas. Our research suggests that typical maximum antenna gain is approximately 25 dBi in the 1990-2110 MHz and 2450-2500 MHz bands, and the maximum transmitter power is 12 watts (10.8 dBW) in these bands; this equates to an EIRP of 35.8 dBW. Accounting for some line loss, we propose to allow mobile operations to transmit at a maximum EIRP of 35 dBW in the 1990-2110 MHz and 2450-2500 MHz bands.

12. We also propose to adopt similar EIRP limits for CARS in frequency bands shared with part 74 and 101 operations to ensure that the anticipated benefits of these proposals can be enjoyed by all licensees in these bands. Specifically, we propose to adopt an EIRP limit of 35 dBW for mobile CARS operations in the 1990-2110 MHz band, identical to the proposal for TV BAS, and maintain the 55 dBW EIRP (fixed) and 45 dBW EIRP (mobile) limits for TV BAS and CARS operations in the 12,700-13,250 MHz band. We note that the part 101 rules for FS stations operating in the 12,700-13,250 MHz band only allow a maximum EIRP of 50 dBW. However, because BAS and CARS stations transmit multichannel video signals and FS stations do not, we believe the additional power is warranted to ensure reliable service. Finally, we propose to grandfather at their current power levels, existing stations that may be transmitting at EIRP levels above those proposed.

13. We seek comment on all aspects of these proposals. In particular, we ask commenters to address whether the proposed EIRP values are appropriate for BAS and CARS operations, and whether they provide adequate power for BAS and CARS stations to transmit over typical distances for various types of applications. Are the power levels too high as to cause difficulty in coordinating operations in certain areas? Would these proposals negatively impact the flexibility of BAS and CARS operations? Because digital signals generally require less power than analog signals, should we consider adopting different power standards for digital and analog equipment? If so, what should those values be? Also, commenters should address whether the EIRP for part 101 users operating in the 12,700-13,250 MHz band should be raised to 55 dBW.

14. Finally, we note that the transmitter power rules in part 101 specify only EIRP values and do not specify values for transmitter output power. Should we similarly amend the BAS rules to remove the specifications for transmitter output power from the rules? When considering this, commenters should keep in mind that FCC Form 601 does not collect output power for TV and aural BAS applications. Furthermore, for the purpose of frequency coordination only the EIRP is needed because it is a measure of station presence and transmitter output power is not. Commenters should also address what effect such action may have on the equipment authorization process and what changes to those processes may need to be made.

15. Emission masks serve to maximize spectrum efficiency by permitting reasonable and practical information transfer within a channel and at the same time limiting out of band emissions to minimize adjacent channel interference. Our rules contain a number of emission masks tailored to specific operations and channel sizes. Although the same equipment is often certified and used by licensees in different services, our rules, in some cases, allow each service to use a different emission masks for the same type of emission (e.g., FM, AM, etc.) in the same frequency band.

16. We propose to make the emission mask requirements for BAS consistent with the emission mask requirements for FS microwave services in part 101. We believe that the part 101 emission masks have proven effective for this type of service and that imposing a single set of standards across shared frequency bands will simplify the manufacturing and equipment authorization processes. Additionally, consistent rules will provide a level of certainty to licensees regarding the expected RF environment, minimize the potential of harmful interference and simplify the frequency coordination process. Additionally, we propose to grandfather existing equipment authorized pursuant to current emission masks. We seek comment on these proposals.

TV BAS:

• For FM modulation in all TV BAS frequency bands, to eliminate the FM emission mask of § 74.637(a) and to apply the FM emission mask of § 74.637(c)(1). The emission mask in paragraph (c)(1) of § 74.637 would provide equipment manufacturers more flexibility in the design of equipment because it permits the out-of-band emissions to be attenuated at a slightly slower rate. Such flexibility can be gained without compromising the interference potential of these transmitters because we believe that the specified attenuation is sufficient to protect adjacent channel operations;

• For digital modulation in TV BAS frequency bands above 15 GHz, to apply the emission mask for digital modulation in § 74.637(c)(2);

• For digital modulation in all TV BAS frequency bands below 15 GHz, to apply the emission mask for digital modulation in § 101.111(a)(2)(i) of this chapter;

• For vestigial sideband amplitude modulation in all TV BAS frequency bands, to apply the emission mask for vestigial sideband amplitude modulation in § 74.637(c)(3); and

• For all other types of modulation in all TV BAS frequency bands, to apply the emission mask of § 74.637(b).

Aural BAS:

• For FM modulation in all aural BAS frequency bands, to eliminate the FM emission mask of § 74.535(a) and to apply the FM emission mask of § 74.535(e)(1). As with the choice of emission mask for TV BAS, the emission mask of paragraph (e)(1) would provide equipment manufactures more flexibility in equipment design than the emission mask of paragraph (a) of § 74.535;

• For digital modulation in aural BAS frequency bands above 15 GHz, to apply the emission mask for digital modulation in § 74.535(e)(2);

• For digital modulation in aural BAS frequency bands below 15 GHz, to apply the emission mask for digital modulation in § 101.111(a)(2)(i) of this chapter; and

• For all other types of modulation in all aural BAS frequency bands, to apply the emission mask of § 74.535(b).

17. In trying to provide consistency among the various rule parts, we are also mindful of certain differences between them, such as the type of multiplexing employed, the type and amount of data or program material transmitted, and the method of transmission. For example, BAS and CARS are beginning to deploy digital multichannel video systems which are not used by FS users. Additionally, these stations may use various modulation schemes, such as OFDM or COFDM and others. In light of these developments, we seek comment on the validity of our proposals to adopt the Part 101 digital emission masks for BAS.

18. One of the main objectives of this NPRM is to provide the necessary regulatory framework to ensure that digital equipment can be used in all BAS frequency bands. It is likely that for the foreseeable future many BAS operations both above and below 15 GHz will continue to be analog. However, as users upgrade equipment and the transition to DTV continues, more digital equipment will be deployed. Given this situation, we ask commenters to address whether the BAS and FS should continue to have different digital emission masks above and below 15 GHz. We note that analog BAS operations in shared bands above 15 GHz, e.g., the 17.7-19.7 GHz band, are currently operating adjacent channel to digital Part 101 equipment. Additionally, we ask commenters to address whether the current Part 101 emission masks are applicable to BAS operation. Commenters that believe a different emission mask should be adopted should provide details on an appropriate emission masks for digital operation. What parameters need to be considered? What type of roll-off is appropriate to ensure sufficient information transfer while providing adequate protection to adjacent channels? Also, we seek comment of whether the same or different emission masks should be applied to CARS and FS stations.

19. We also propose to adopt a standard measurement procedure for the above proposed emission masks to measure the emission's interference potential and ensure that the instrumentation does not detrimentally affect the measurement. Therefore, we propose that the measuring instrumentation for complying with the emission masks use a minimum resolution bandwidth of 100 kilohertz for bands below 1 GHz and a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz for bands above 1 GHz. This proposal is consistent with available measurement instrumentation. Additionally, we note that the current industry trend for measuring digital emissions just outside the channel is to use measuring instrumentation having a minimum resolution capability of 1% of the bandwidth of the carrier emission. This is evidenced by measurement procedures and interpretations in our rules (see, e.g., 47 CFR 15.321(d), 15.323(d) and 24.238(b)) for the licensed Personal Communications Services (PCS) and unlicensed PCS devices. Should a similar measurement procedure for emissions adjacent to the channel be used for BAS? We seek comment on our proposal, including what procedures should be used. To ensure consistency across frequency bands shared with the FS microwave service, should a similar measurement requirement be adopted for part 101 emission masks? If we adopt similar emission masks for the CARS, should a similar measurement requirement be adopted for part 78 emission masks?

20. With respect to compliance with the emission mask requirements, an additional issue that must be addressed is equipment that multiplexes both analog and digital signals for transmission over a single channel. Such operation complicates the equipment certification process because the emission masks are referenced to either analog or digital modulation techniques, but not both. In the FS, a transmitter is considered to be using digital modulation techniques, and must meet those emission requirements, when digital modulation occupies 50% or more of the total peak frequency deviation of a transmitted radio frequency carrier. We believe this rule has worked well for equipment in use under part 101, and we propose to adopt a similar requirement for the emission masks for TV and aural BAS. We seek comment on whether this is the best method for ensuring compliance with our emission mask rules when analog and digital signals are multiplexed.

21. Finally, an issue related to the characterization of analog/digital multiplexed transmitters involves the assignment of emission designators. In many cases, this hybrid equipment uses frequency division multiplexing and transmits the analog and digital signals side-by-side. When this technique is used, the analog and digital signals are transmitted on frequencies offset from the assigned frequency. For example, a hybrid transmitter with a 25 megahertz bandwidth may have a 15 megahertz analog signal centered on a frequency 5 megahertz above the assigned frequency and a digital signal centered on a frequency 7.5 megahertz below the assigned frequency. SBE asks that these transmitters be licensed using a dual emission designator, rather than the single designator used for conventional FM video analog STLs. We note that the ULS is not designed to recognize a dual emission designator and is unable to capture the information SBE requests. ULS does, however, enable licensees to obtain authorizations for both analog and digital emissions by allowing multiple emission designators to be associated with an authorized frequency. In this instance, though, the emission designator would need to depict the entire 25 megahertz bandwidth for each type of emission. We further note that the information sought by SBE can be determined using the transmitter manufacturer and model number which ULS does collect. For these reasons, we propose that hybrid radios that multiplex analog and digital signals continue to use a single emission designator. We seek comment on this proposal.

22. Since 1996 when the Commission amended its part 101 rules, Automatic Transmit Power Control (ATPC) has been used successfully in the FS microwave bands. Because ATPC has been beneficial to efficient spectrum use in FS operations under part 101, we propose to amend the part 74 rules to state that TV BAS licensees may also use ATPC. We see no reason why the benefits of using ATPC should be limited to the TV BAS, and thus we also propose to modify §§ 74.534 and 78.101 of our rules to allow licensees of aural BAS and CARS stations to use ATPC as well.

23. Because the geostationary satellite rules are subject to international agreement, maintaining them in multiple rule parts is cumbersome and has led to varying requirements among the rules in parts 74, 78, and 101 because they are not always updated at the same time. To remedy this situation, we propose to simplify the organization of the geostationary satellite protection rules by eliminating duplicative rule sections and having them appear only once. Therefore, we propose that the technical rules for protecting geostationary satellites from interference from terrestrial systems be maintained in part 101, and that parts 74 and 78 merely state that licensees must comply with the geostationary satellites protection rules contained in part 101. This proposal will have the effect of simplifying and streamlining our rules by keeping the rules regarding a common subject in one place, which ensures consistent treatment of all our licensees. Additionally, should these rules need future updating due to changes in the Radio Regulations or changes in service allocations, only one rule section will need to be amended. We seek comment on this proposal.

24. Currently, parts 74 and 78 of the Commission's rules for TV BAS and CARS require that the frequency coordination procedures of part 101 be used for assignments in the 6425-6525 MHz and 17.7-19.7 GHz bands. The part 101 procedures generally require parties to coordinate their planned spectrum use with affected parties prior to filing a license application. Additionally, the TV BAS and CARS rules specify identical interference protection criteria for the 12,700-13,250 MHz band. Such rules are necessary to promote spectrum efficiency and to minimize the potential for any system to cause harmful interference to other systems in the same frequency band. In the part 101 Order, 61 FR 26670, May 28, 1996, the Commission amended its rules to conform the frequency coordination procedures for microwave systems to the TIA industry standards and to apply these standards to all bands.

25. As stated in the part 101 Order, common procedures and standards will simplify the rules and lead to economies of scale in microwave equipment. Those same benefits can also be enjoyed by BAS and CARS. Thus, we propose to require that all prospective applicants in frequency bands above 1990 MHz for TV BAS and CARS coordinate their planned spectrum use prior to filing applications, using the procedures of § 101.103(d). Further, in order that applicants and licensees can easily locate the coordination rules, we propose to amend § 78.36 to mirror the part 101 coordination rules. We seek comment on this proposal and ask if we should reference the part 101 rule within part 78 rather than reproducing it.

26. In addition to the efficiency benefits stated above, uniform frequency coordination requirements will simplify the coordination of stations operating in shared frequency bands and minimize the potential of stations causing harmful interference. We seek comment on our proposal to require TV BAS and CARS operations to prior coordinate their stations using the part 101 procedures. In considering this proposal, commenters should address whether a frequency coordination requirement should be imposed uniformly across the United States or should it only apply to the most heavily congested markets. If frequency coordination should only apply in certain markets, commenters should state which markets are appropriate and the factors used in making that determination.

27. Additionally, we note that coordination rules are not specified for aural BAS stations. Recognizing that thousands of aural BAS stations are in use serving AM and FM radio stations across the United States, we seek comment on whether the lack of coordination requirements for this service has led to interference situations. Should the Commission require aural BAS stations operating above 944 MHz to also adhere to the procedures of § 101.103(d)?

28. Frequency tolerance is the maximum permissible deviation of the center frequency of an emission from its assigned frequency. To streamline our rules further and to offer manufacturers common technical standards for equipment, we propose to amend the frequency tolerance rules for TV BAS. Specifically, consistent with the proposal made in the part 101 NPRM, 65 FR 38333, June 20, 2000, we propose to eliminate separate frequency tolerance requirements for base and mobile operations. Additionally, we note that the current TV BAS frequency tolerance rules do not specify a limit for the 2450-2483.5 MHz band. To remedy this situation, we propose to adopt a frequency tolerance of 0.001% for fixed and mobile TV BAS equipment operating in the 2450-2483.5 MHz band. This proposal is consistent with the frequency tolerance allowed in Part 101 for FS this band. Finally, we propose to grandfather existing authorized equipment at their current frequency tolerance. We seek comment on this proposal.

29. Recently, in ET Docket No. 98-206, the Commission allocated Non-Geostationary Fixed Satellite Service (NGSO FSS) uplinks on a co-primary basis in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. However, the NGSO FSS systems were excluded from operating in the 13.15-13.2125 GHz band (channels A19, A20, B19 and B20). The 13.15-13.20 GHz portion of that band is currently used by TV BAS and CARS Pickup Stations within 50 kilometers of the top 100 television markets and by fixed TV auxiliary stations in all other areas. In the NGSO Order, 66 FR 7607, January 24, 2001, the Commission expanded these exclusions in favor of TV BAS and CARS to include frequencies up to 13.2125 GHz and to extend to the entire United States. The Commission took this action with the expectation that BAS and CARS mobile operations will concentrate their mobile use on those four channels. Based on the action taken in the NGSO Order, we propose to update § 74.602(a) Note 2 to reflect these changes. Further, we propose to grandfather all fixed stations that were licensed in the 13.15-13.2125 MHz band prior to the effective date of the rules in the NGSO Order. We seek comment on this proposal.

30. In 1997, the Commission reallocated the 31.0-31.3 GHz band to the Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Consequently, BAS and CARS are no longer authorized to obtain new assignments in that band, and a search of our database reveals that there are not any currently active authorizations for BAS or CARS in that band. In this connection, we note that the frequency assignment rules in 47 CFR 74.502 for aural BAS, 74.602 for TV BAS, and 78.18 for CARS no longer reference the 31.0-31.3 GHz band. However, many of the technical rules continue to mention this band. Therefore, we propose to eliminate references to technical parameters for the 31.0-31.3 GHz band that currently exist in the aural BAS, TV BAS and CARS rules.

31. Similar to the 31.0-31.3 GHz band, the Commission, in 1997, adopted rules and procedures to assign the 38.6-40.0 GHz band by competitive bidding. This band had been available for assignment to mobile BAS and CARS licenses without bandwidth limitation and on a secondary basis to fixed stations. In addition to the new assignment procedures, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), pursuant to delegated authority, adopted a Freeze Order, 61 FR 8062, March 1, 1996, announcing that the Commission would no longer accept for filing any new applications for 39 GHz licenses in the Common Carrier or Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Radio Services. In May 2000, the Commission assigned 2,173 licenses in 175 Economic Areas by competitive bidding in this band. Because the band has been auctioned and consistent with the Freeze Order, no new assignments can be made for BAS or CARS licenses in the 38.6-40.0 GHz band. Accordingly, we propose to remove all references to the 38.6-40.0 GHz bands from the BAS and CARS rules. As a final matter we note that there are 16 incumbent Television Pickup BAS and no CARS licensees operating in this band. The BAS licensees may continue to operate under the parameters of their current licenses and to renew them in the future. We seek comment on this proposal.

32. We make various proposals which conform rules among parts 74, 78, and 101. In general, for service specific rules, such as maximum EIRP for short path lengths and transmitter power, we keep those rules with each rule part. However, for rules that affect each of the services sharing spectrum, our preference is to list that rule only in one location and cross reference the other rule parts to that single listing. For example, we propose that the rules regarding interference to geostationary satellites be listed only in part 101 and cross referenced from parts 74 and 78. When several services are subject to the same requirements, having that requirement in only one location ensures consistent treatment of all our licensees and simplifies the update process if any of these procedures should change. We seek comment on whether there are additional instances in which the rules can be consolidated and cross referenced.

33. To complement the above proposal that aural and TV BAS stations coordinate their applications prior to filing, we propose to allow applicants who apply for new or modified stations to operate under temporary conditional authority after an application has been properly filed with the Commission. Our experience regarding temporary conditional operation in parts 90 and 101 has shown it to be a useful tool which enables applicants to begin providing service in a timely manner without having to wait for the Commission to finish processing their applications. This proposal, however, is contingent on our proposal to require prior frequency coordination of the requested operations. By relying on the coordination process, the Commission can be assured that BAS operations will not cause harmful interference to existing stations.

34. In addition to requiring prior coordination, we propose to make temporary conditional authority subject to the following conditions:

• The applicant must be eligible to operate the particular class of broadcast auxiliary station.

• The station must be operating in conformance with the rules for that particular class of station and in accordance with the terms of the frequency coordination.

• The application does not propose operation in an area that requires international coordination.

• The application does not request a waiver of the Commission's rules.

• The proposed station will not significantly affect the environment as defined in part 1, subpart I of the Commission's rules.

• The antenna structure either has a FCC Registration Number or is determined to not need one.

• The proposed station affords protection to radio “quiet” zones and monitoring stations.

35. We also propose to allow temporary conditional authority for low power auxiliary stations authorized under part 74, subpart H. Although these stations do not require prior coordination and we are not proposing to add such a requirement, we believe that they can operate under this authority without harming existing operations due to the restriction that they limit their power to 1 watt output power.

36. We propose to remove 47 CFR 74.431(g) and adopt a new rule section, 47 CFR 74.25, to allow temporary conditional authorizations for all broadcast auxiliary services. We seek comment on these proposals.

37. Section 47 CFR 74.24 provides broadcast licensees regulated under part 73 of our rules (i.e., AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations, including Class A stations) with the authority to operate a broadcast auxiliary station on a short-term basis, for up to 720 hours per year, without prior authorization from the Commission. This rule provides broadcasters with flexibility to respond to short term situations such as a newsworthy event outside of a station's normal operating area, without coming to the Commission with requests for special temporary authority (STA). We note that this rule does not afford the same flexibility to broadcast network entities, cable network entities, or Low Power Television Stations (LPTV), even though these entities are eligible to hold BAS licenses. Because we believe that broadcast and cable network entities and LPTV stations would benefit from the short-term operation rule and such use would provide equity under our rules for all entities eligible for a BAS license, we propose to expand the eligibility of this rule.

38. As noted, there is a notification requirement with which licensees must comply prior to operating under the short-term operation rule. This notification requirement, however, does not apply when “* * * an unanticipated need for immediate short-term mobile station operation would render compliance with the provisions of this paragraph impractical.” For example, a station may wish to send a news crew to report on a natural disaster that occurs outside of its service area, which by its nature is not a planned event. On the other hand, stations may wish to report from a convention or sporting event or other planned events. In these instances, it is not acceptable to bypass the notification requirement. Because these are scheduled events, stations should have ample time to provide the necessary notification prior to the event. Accordingly, we propose to clarify that entities may not invoke the notification exception for scheduled events.

39. The Commission often designates a coordinator as the single point of contact for advance coordination of auxiliary broadcast frequency usage for major national and international level scheduled news events. In the past, groups would petition the Commission prior to a major event and volunteer to act as the special event coordinator. The Commission has taken this action based on concern that uncoordinated use of auxiliary broadcast stations on a temporary basis might result in spectrum congestion and excessive interference causing less complete broadcast coverage. Currently, the rules do not contain a procedure for designating a coordinator for short-term operations. To remedy this deficiency, we propose that procedures to designate a coordinator for short-term operations be placed in the rules. Specifically, the Commission will not, on its own, designate a special events coordinator. Such designation will continue to be bestowed on an entity only after the Commission receives a request to designate a coordinator. The Commission will issue a Public Notice to inform the broadcast industry that such a designation has been made. Typically, these Public Notices have been issued at least three months prior to an event, with many occurring up to a year prior. Once an organization receives such designation, coordination must be done on a non-discriminatory basis. Entities must abide by the decision of the coordinator. However, if a disagreement arises, the Commission will be the final arbiter of any dispute. We seek comment on this proposal.

40. We also seek comment on the current limitation of 720 hours per year per frequency for short-term operations. Based on the way event coverage has changed over time, is this limit still appropriate? Should it be increased or decreased? Additionally, we note that there is no requirement for stations to log or report their short-term use under this section, and thus there is no way to track operation under this rule and verify compliance. Should we require stations to keep a log of their short term use in their station records, or alternatively, should we eliminate the 720 hour limit? We seek comment on this and all aspects of our proposals regarding the short-term operation rule.

41. Under 47 CFR 74.602(h), TV STLs and TV relay stations may be authorized, on a secondary basis, to operate on spectrum allocated for UHF-TV stations. In addition to being secondary to full power UHF-TV and Class A TV stations, these stations are also secondary to LPTV stations and translator stations, and to land mobile stations authorized under parts 22 and 90 of the rules in areas where land mobile sharing is currently permitted. Also, because transmissions by TV STL and relay stations are not necessarily used by licensees to transmit information for broadcast over the air, their signals are not intended for reception by the general public. To meet these obligations, licensees generally employ a narrow-beam point-to-point signal. The rules, however, do not contain any guidelines regarding acceptable power limits or antenna specifications for these stations. Instead, the Commission has developed policies to determine compliance of these stations with the rules. Specifically, applicants that request output power greater than 20 watts or a transmitting antenna with a 3 dB beamwidth greater than 25 degrees are asked to submit an engineering analysis to demonstrate why the higher output power or wider beamwidth is necessary. Because the Commission is increasingly relying on automated processing, as evidenced by the ULS, we believe that it would be beneficial to codify operational parameters for these stations so that prospective applicants have as much information as possible to assist them. We believe that this will shorten the application process by minimizing the number of applications that need to be returned due to failure to submit an engineering analysis if the stated specifications are exceeded. We believe that an appropriate trigger for requiring an engineering analysis is an EIRP for the proposed system of 35 dBW. We expect that allowing licensees to use EIRPs up to 35 dBW without submitting an engineering analysis will provide licensees with flexibility to choose optimal power and antennas for their systems while meeting the requirements of transmitting on a non-interference basis and propose to adopt this limit in our rules.

42. We believe that our current policy, which limits the antenna to a 3 dB beamwidth of 25 degrees or less has served both users and those they are required to protect. The Commission also has generally requested operators of these stations to transmit using vertical polarization, rather than the standard horizontal polarization that is employed for TV transmissions. The Commission implemented this policy to safeguard STL and relay station transmission from reception by the public. We believe that these criteria also should be codified in the rules. Accordingly, we propose to modify 47 CFR 74.602(h) of the rules to require applicants for TV STLs or TV relay stations to comply with the three technical parameters described above or to submit an engineering analysis explaining why higher power, a wider antenna, or a different polarization is needed.

43. In addition, we note that the Commission regularly licenses TV translator relay stations on UHF-TV channels. Therefore, to make the rules consistent with current licensing policy, we propose to explicitly state in 47 CFR 74.602(h) that these stations may be authorized to operate on UHF-TV channels on a secondary basis, subject to the same guidelines described above. We seek comment on this proposal.

44. Finally, the current rules in 47 CFR 74.602(h) authorize the secondary point-to-point use of TV STL and TV relay stations on UHF-TV channels 14-69. We note that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 directed the Commission to auction recaptured television broadcast spectrum and to allocate spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band (UHF-TV channels 60-69) for public safety services and for commercial use. The Commission has already implemented the reallocation of the 746-806 MHz band and intends to reallocate the 698-746 MHz band (UHF-TV channels 52-59) in the future. In light of the reallocation of the UHF-TV channels above channel 51, we propose to limit future secondary point-to-point use of TV STL and TV relay stations to UHF-TV channels 14-51. We further propose to grandfather existing stations that operate on the UHF-TV channels above channel 51. We seek comment on this proposal.

45. 47 CFR 74.603 of the Commission's rules provides authority for TV BAS stations to use an aural broadcast STL or intercity relay station licensed under the aural BAS rules to transmit the aural portion of a television broadcast program. This use is on a secondary non-interference basis to programming of aural broadcast stations. It is our understanding that the current practice within the industry is to use multiplexing techniques, rather than separate sound channels, to transmit the aural portion of their programming along with the video portion over a single TV BAS channel. Therefore, we believe that 47 CFR 74.603 is no longer necessary, and we propose to eliminate it. Additionally, we propose to eliminate the corresponding provision of 47 CFR 74.502(b) that provides TV BAS licensees' authorization to use the aural BAS channels. If we eliminate these provisions as proposed, we seek comment on whether the aural BAS rules need to be modified to specify that aural BAS stations are for the transmission of aural program material of an aural broadcast station in all places where the rules simply refer to a broadcast station.

46. We seek comment on whether we should delete 47 CFR 74.603(c), which provides grandfathering rights so that TV BAS stations could continue operating aural STL or intercity relay stations that were in service prior to July 10, 1970. That rule states that such grandfathering could continue until the Commission makes a decision on their disposition through a rule making proceeding. In particular, we seek comment on whether any stations continue to maintain and operate separate stations for aural and video content and where such use occurs. This proposal might particularly affect stations in smaller markets where there are fewer AM or FM radio stations.

47. In 1984, the Commission wrote a comprehensive revision of the rules for remote pickup frequency assignments, which split the channels in the 150 MHz, 160 MHz and 450 MHz bands into 5 kilohertz channels that could be “stacked” to create channels of various sizes. Thus, licensees could continue operating their equipment under existing licenses and new licensees, and existing licensees seeking to update their systems could make use of newer narrowband technology. The Report and Order , 49 FR 45155, November 15, 1984, however, stated that an effective date for these rules would be specified in a future Order. To date, the Commission has not taken such action. The rules written in 1984 were intended to provide licensees more freedom to choose and implement new technologies in their effort to make the most efficient use of the spectrum. Because many technical and regulatory changes have occurred since 1984, we propose to amend the rules adopted in 1984, to ensure that this objective will be achieved.

48. The channel plan in place prior to the 1984 revision provided 60 kHz channel spacing in the 150 MHz (Group K 1 channels) and 160 MHz (Group K 2 channels) VHF bands and various channel spacings (from 10 kHz to 100 kHz) in the 450 MHz UHF band.

49. Since 1984, significant advances have been achieved in the development of narrowband radios, such as the maturation of digital modulation techniques, improved coding processes, and development of more stable oscillators. In 1995, based on advances such as these, the Commission adopted a narrowband channel plan for the 150-174 MHz and 450-512 MHz bands used by part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) licensees. In that decision, the Commission adopted a channel plan in which channels were spaced every 7.5 kilohertz in the 150 MHz band and every 6.25 kilohertz in the 450 MHz band. Under certain circumstances, these channels could be stacked to allow the use of 6.25, 12.5 or 25 kilohertz equipment.

50. Because many of the 150 MHz and 160 MHz Remote Pickup channels are shared with the part 90 Industrial/Business Pool, we believe that it would be beneficial for both services to share a common channel plan. These benefits include more predictable adjacent channel performance, easier coordination procedures, and economies of scale for equipment. Under the 1984 rules, however, these benefits would not be realized if Remote Pickup licensees modify their operating frequencies to correspond to channel centers based on 5 kilohertz spacing. A shift to 5 kHz spacing for BAS would create an operating environment in which parts 74 and 90 licensees are operating co-channel offset by 2.5 kilohertz or by 5 kilohertz. In many cases there would be significant overlap of RF energy between adjacent channels which could degrade the performance of user's systems as other nearby users attempt to transmit on closely spaced adjacent channels. In addition to the increase in potential interference, these conflicting channel plans would complicate the frequency coordination process. Consequently, we propose to amend the frequency assignment rules for the 150 MHz and 160 MHz bands in 47 CFR 74.402 to be consistent with the channel plan in effect in part 90 (i.e., 7.5 kilohertz channel spacing). Additionally, we propose to allow licensees to stack up to 4 channels to operate on channels as wide as 30 kilohertz. We believe that implementing this channel plan suits Remote Pickup BAS operators as it does PLMRS providers, and it will benefit users by allowing for common equipment to be used for both parts 74 and 90 licensees. Remote Pickup Service licensees would be able to take advantage of further advancements in land mobile radio technology as it is developed and brought to market. We believe that the vast majority of licensees in the 150 MHz and 160 MHz bands can be accommodated by the proposed channel plan without having to change their equipment. There are only 7 remote pickup licensees in the 150 MHz band and 25 in the 160 MHz band that have begun operating using the 1984 channel plan. Only these licensees would need to transition to the proposed plan.

51. We also propose to modify the 1984 channel plan for the Group N 1 and N 2 450 MHz Remote Pickup channels. In this case, we propose to standardize the remote pickup channel plan with the part 90 channel plan by listing channels 6.25 kilohertz apart and allowing licensees to stack up to 8 channels (50 kilohertz). Although part 74 licensees do not share this band with part 90 licensees, by aligning to the part 90 channel plan, BAS licensees in this band will reap the same benefits as those expected for the VHF band. Under our proposal, a transition to the proposed plan would be needed only for those licensees who implemented the 1984 plan.

52. To accommodate all licensees who are operating in compliance with the 1984 channel plan, we propose to give them three years from the date a new channel plan is adopted by the Commission to modify their equipment and comply with the new plan. We believe that this provides licensees adequate time to either retune or replace equipment. However, because the number of licensees affected by our proposals is small, we propose to provide them the option to continue operating using the 1984 channel plan after the three year transition period ends, but only on a secondary, non-interference basis. We believe that this course of action will minimize disruption to existing remote pickup BAS systems. Finally, we note that this proposal is consistent with the treatment of part 90 licensees that were operating on 5 kHz channels in the VHF band prior to the Refarming proceeding.

53. The Group P channels are limited to operational communications, including tones for signaling and for remote control and automatic transmission system control and telemetry. Because there are only eight Group P channels (four at each end of the band) and they are limited to this specialized use, we are not inclined, at this point, to alter them. However, in light of the technological advances in radio cited above, we are not convinced that the Group R and Group S wide bandwidth channels are still needed. Although we are not making specific proposals for these three groups of channels, we seek comment on the extent to which these channels are being used. Should their current bandwidth designations be maintained or should they also be aligned with the 6.25 kilohertz channel plan?

54. Because Remote Pickup Service licensees will benefit most by having the capability to choose from a wide variety of radios, and in accordance with our proposal to standardize the Remote Pickup channels with those listed in part 90, we believe that this service should adhere to the technical standards of part 90. In this way, part 74 licensees could choose from among the wide variety of radios available for PLMRS licensees. Accordingly, for equipment designed to operate on channels with bandwidths of 30 kilohertz or less in the VHF and UHF Remote Pickup Service bands, we propose that the equipment comply with the part 90 technical rules for the emission mask and frequency stability. Additionally, we ask commenters to address whether the transient frequency behavior rules in 47 CFR 90.214 would be appropriate to impose on remote pickup service transmitters.

55. The Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) has been working for the last several years on narrowbanding Federal Government operations in a number of frequency bands. Based on the work of the IRAC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has published the final policy in the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Frequency Management. We note that one of the frequency bands subject to narrowbanding is the 162-174 MHz band, and that the Remote Pickup BAS may share, on a secondary basis, two frequencies—166.25 MHz and 170.15 MHz—in this band with Federal Government users. Under 47 CFR 2.106, Note US11, remote pickup stations may use these frequencies except within 150 miles of New York City where they are reserved for use by public safety users, in Alaska, or in the Tennessee Valley Authority area. We also note that these frequencies are used in some areas by fixed stations in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to relay information to local stations for dissemination to the public. It has been the policy of NTIA and the FCC to protect these EAS stations from potential harmful interference.

56. Under the narrowbanding policies adopted by NTIA, all new Federal Government systems after January 1, 1995, and all Federal Government systems after January 1, 2005, in the 162-174 MHz band must be capable of operating within a 12.5 kHz channel. The current Commission rules provide for operations on channels up to 25 kilohertz wide. In order to ensure continued successful sharing of the spectrum with Federal Government users, we propose to require that Remote Pickup BAS use of the 166.25 MHz and 170.15 MHz frequencies be in accordance with the same 12.5 kHz channel size and meet the January 1, 2005 implementation schedule applicable for all Federal Government users. Notwithstanding the need for new equipment, what are the advantages and/or disadvantages to implementing this proposal? For example, migrating to the narrow channels may improve adjacent channel performance, but will it harm the quality of the information being transmitted? Additionally, we propose to formally acknowledge the protected status of non-Federal Government stations operating on these frequencies that are used as an integral part of the EAS. These proposals encompass a revision of § 2.106, footnote US11 and a change in § 74.462 of our rules. We seek comment on these proposals.

57. ULS is an automated licensing system and integrated database designed to infuse greater efficiency into the licensing process by using a consolidated set of application forms, automating many license review processes, and facilitating electronic application filing and data retrieval. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau began using ULS for Aural and TV BAS licensing on August 30, 1999 and for Remote Pickup BAS on September 19, 2000. Due to this transition, many BAS service rules require updating to reflect ULS application processing procedures. Many of these changes are ministerial in nature, such as updating application form numbers. In some cases, more substantive rule changes are necessary and merit additional discussion. These proposals are discussed further.

58. One of the main changes promulgated by the ULS Report and Order , 63 FR 68904, December 14, 1998, was to consolidate the application and processing rules for all wireless services into a single subpart in part 1 of the Commission's rules. Subpart F of part 1 is now the sole section of rules that wireless applicants and licensees, including BAS applicants and licensees, consult regarding the handling of various application procedures. To make clear that the BAS adheres to the rules laid out in part 1, Subpart F, we propose amending 47 CFR 1.901 and 1.902 to add the appropriate references to part 74. Similarly, we propose to add a new section, 47 CFR 74.6, to reference BAS applicants and licensees to the application and processing rules in part 1, Subpart F.

59. Under the part 1, Subpart F rules, the Commission issues a license which specifies the construction period set forth in the rule part governing the specific service. Licensees are to notify the Commission when operations commence, and licensees that fail to commence operations within the required construction period automatically forfeit their license. Stations operating under the broadcast auxiliary rules are subject to the construction requirements specified in 47 CFR 73.3598, which provide three years to construct stations from the date a construction permit is issued. However, a two step license mechanism of issuing a construction permit and a license subsequent to construction is not used for wireless services. Instead, the current practice is to issue a TV or aural BAS license with a requirement to construct a station within 18 months and a remote pickup BAS license with a requirement to construct a station within 12 months. We propose to amend 47 CFR 73.3598 and related rules in part 73 to remove references to broadcast auxiliary stations and to create a new § 74.34 to specify rules for the construction of BAS stations.

60. Accordingly, we propose to modify the rules to codify current Commission practice. We propose to modify the construction period for remote pickup BAS to 12 months; the same period allowed for PLMR stations authorized under part 90. Also, we propose to modify the construction period for TV and aural BAS stations to 18 months. We believe that fixed aural and TV BAS stations are similar to fixed microwave stations, which are authorized under part 101 and have an 18 month construction period. We seek comment on this proposal, including alternative time periods for constructing BAS stations.

61. Under the rules in part 74, BAS licensees may apply for an STA by informal application, which has generally been interpreted to mean by letter request. In the ULS Report and Order , the Commission adopted rules that eliminate letter requests for all purposes where a form can be used. In implementing this policy, the Commission stated that this will, “reduce applicant and licensee burdens, increase efficiency and better serve the public interest.” In keeping with this policy and the stated benefits, we propose to amend the part 74 rules for BAS to require that STA requests follow the procedures outlined in 47 CFR 1.931 of the Commission's rules. We note that when an immediate STA is needed during times of emergency or natural disaster, requests can be made via telephone or facsimile and such requests can be granted orally. In these situations, STA recipients are required under the rules to follow up with a formal application as soon as feasibly possible. We seek comment on this proposal.

62. In the ULS Report and Order , the Commission adopted rules to define certain actions as major changes for all wireless services. Additionally, the Commission adopted rules which define major changes for each service category. Minor changes are defined as all changes that are not major. These designations when used in conjunction with other adopted rule amendments assist the Commission in streamlining the licensing process. As an example, § 1.947(b) allows applicants to make minor modifications to their stations without prior Commission approval so long as they file an application form within thirty days of making such a modification. ULS, programmed with logic that can automatically determine if an application for modification is major or minor, can then process these applications without the need for prior intervention by Commission staff. Applicants get their applications processed faster, and Commission staff is freed up to concentrate on other tasks.

63. Accordingly, we propose to amend the part 74 rules in accordance with the procedures already adopted in the ULS proceeding for major and minor amendments and modifications. Specifically, amendments to aural and TV BAS applications and modifications to aural and TV BAS licenses would be evaluated based on the rules defining a major change in 47 CFR 1.929(a) and (d) and remote pickup BAS applications would adhere to the rules set forth in 47 CFR 1.929(a) and (c)(4). In many cases, the rules adopted in the ULS Report and Order provide more flexibility than the current part 74 rules afford BAS licensees. The proposal described herein would implement rule changes that treat BAS applicants in a consistent manner with the treatment given other wireless services. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.

64. 47 CFR 74.462 of the Commission's rules specifies authorized emissions for remote pickup BAS frequencies and frequency bands. We note that this section contains emission designators that no longer conform to current International Telecommunication Union (ITU) specifications or to those contained in subpart C of part 2 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we propose to update § 74.462 to replace all outdated emission designators with emission designators that conform to ITU specifications and part 2 rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

65. AMPTP has petitioned the Commission to allow the use of wireless assist video devices (WAVDs) on a secondary, non-interference basis on unused TV channels in the upper VHF and the UHF bands. Video assist devices produce low resolution images that can be used by members of a production crew to make decisions with respect to content, lighting, and image framing.

66. We believe that there is a sufficient basis for proposing rules to allow motion picture and TV producers to use WAVDs under certain conditions designed to minimize the interference risk to users of the band. This would be an appropriate expansion of the capabilities they are currently provided in part 74 of our rules, and provides them with the same capabilities as other part 74 licensees who can so operate under other existing rule sections. However, we are concerned that expanding the use of WAVDs not increase the interference risk to current or future authorized spectrum users. As noted, several commenters stated that the use of WAVDs would proliferate and be used by unauthorized users in a similar fashion to our experience with wireless microphones. We believe that there are significant differences between the cost of wireless microphones and WAVDs that will limit the use of these devices. Further, we do not believe that WAVDs are widely available. We request specific comments regarding the costs of WAVDs and whether these costs will limit their use. We also seek comment on the availability of these devices. Are they widely available to the general public? Additionally, we request comments on how the FCC can restrict the use of WAVDs by authorized users.

67. It appears that WAVDs cannot be easily accommodated in or are not suitable to other bands. In addition, we believe that these devices would be beneficial in keeping film and TV production costs down and allowing needed mobility and increased safety during filming. Therefore, we propose to amend the Commission's rules in part 74 to authorize motion picture and TV producers as well as TV BAS license holders to use VHF-TV and UHF-TV spectrum for WAVDs under conditions as set forth below. We propose to add the rules for these devices in a new 47 CFR 74.870 in part 74, subpart H, Low Power Auxiliary Stations. WAVDs would be subject to complying with all rules in subpart H, except where such requirements differ from those described below.

68. We propose that motion picture and television producers, as defined in 47 CFR 74.801, be eligible to operate WAVDs. These entities are currently eligible to hold Low Power Auxiliary Station licenses. Our proposal, therefore, would extend to all entities eligible to hold a part 74 license, the opportunity to use WAVDs. We also propose to limit the use of WAVDs to production facilities or locations for use in producing material being filmed or taped for later showing on television broadcast stations. Thus, WAVDs could not be used for ENG operations or to assist with the production of live events. Additionally, we propose that WAVDs be excluded from operating under the rules for short-term operation used by other part 74 licensees. These restrictions are intended to minimize the possibility for interference similar to what parts 73 and 74 licensees have experienced from other co-channel operations in the vicinity of their operations, such as TV BAS and wireless microphones.

69. To further reduce the interference potential of these devices, we propose that WAVDs be authorized on a non-interference basis. Thus, WAVDs could not cause harmful interference to any existing or future allocated services operating in accordance with the Table of Allocations in part 2 of the Commission's rules, and WAVD users would be responsible for correcting any instance of harmful interference using any means necessary, up to and including shutting down the transmitter. We do not, however, propose to change the existing allocation of this spectrum for the broadcasting service (and land mobile in the 470-512 MHz band). This proposal is consistent with the treatment of wireless microphones operating on the same spectrum.

70. We propose to require that WAVD users obtain a license from the Commission prior to operation. Specifically, we propose that applicants use FCC Form 601 to apply for an WAVD license. As with wireless microphones, applicants would file FCC Form 601 Main Form and Schedule H—Technical Data Schedule for the Private Land Mobile and Land Mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Radio Services (parts 90 and 74). We propose that, similar to other BAS licensees, the license term for a WAVD license be concurrent with the normal licensing period for TV broadcast stations located in the same area of operation. A WAVD licensee would not be geographically limited, subject only to the channel separation rules we would adopt. These licenses are normally issued for a period of eight years with the expiration date determined by the area of the country in which the station operates. For applicants that propose to operate at various sites either regionally or nationally, the license period would be determined by the location of the applicant as indicated on FCC Form 601. Further, we propose that a WAVD licensee be authorized to use any authorized frequency and to operate on as many frequencies simultaneously as necessary, subject to the limitations and the notification requirements described below. Finally, because of the limited eligibility we propose for WAVDs and the nature of their use, we propose that WAVD licenses be non-assignable and non-transferable. We request comment on all aspects of these proposals concerning eligibility, status and licensing.

71. We propose to allow WAVDs to operate on unused television broadcast frequencies, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, we propose that WAVDs be authorized to use the 180-210 MHz band (corresponding to VHF-TV channels 8-12) and the 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz bands (corresponding to UHF-TV channels 14-36 and 38-51). We believe that WAVDs can effectively operate on this spectrum on a non-interference basis.

72. We are not proposing to allow WAVDs in the 174-180 MHz and 210-216 MHz bands (TV channels 7 and 13) because these bands are adjacent to bands which accommodate the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS), which supports auditory assistance devices and health care aids that operate pursuant to 47 CFR 90.265 of our rules. Because there are a large number of channels available, these restrictions should not impair the utility of this new service. We note that the nomadic nature of LPRS and WAVD operations could make it difficult to prevent interference between these services. In addition, by not allowing WAVDs to operate on these channels, we also would protect from interference the Navy's SPASUR radar system, which operates in the 216.88-217.08 MHz band.

73. We propose to specifically exclude WAVDs from using land mobile radio channels, in the 470-512 MHz band (TV channels 14-20) in cities where such use is authorized by the rules. Additionally, we propose to restrict the use of WAVDs on channels adjacent to public safety channels in those cities. Therefore, all TV channels listed in 47 CFR 90.303 of our rules will be excluded from WAVD use at the locations listed in that rule. In addition, we propose that 482-488 MHz (TV channel 16), which New York City public safety users are using under a waiver, also be excluded from WAVD usage in that area. Another exclusion we propose is 476-494 MHz (TV channels 15-17) in the Gulf of Mexico, which is used by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service and for communication links in the Offshore Radiotelephone Service (ORS) under part 22 of our rules. Finally, we propose to exclude 488-494 MHz (TV channel 17) in Hawaii, which is used for common carrier control and repeater stations for point-to-point inter-island communications.

74. We also propose that WAVDs be excluded on a nationwide basis from operating in the 608-614 MHz band (TV channel 37) to protect radio astronomy operations. This proposal is in accordance with the Table of Allocations in part 2 of the Commission's rules which specifies that no stations will be authorized to transmit in that band. We also note that the Commission has recently authorized the use of medical telemetry in the 608-614 MHz band and this exclusion will protect those operations. Finally, we propose that WAVDs not be allowed to use channels above 698 MHz (channel 51) in the UHF-TV band. This proposal recognizes that part of the TV band above channel 51 has been and more will be reallocated to uses other than broadcasting. We seek comment on all aspects of these proposals on authorized frequencies.

75. In addressing technical and operational requirements for WAVDs, our proposals are designed to protect other users of the TV bands. We propose to limit the ERP of WAVDs to 250 milliwatts. This should provide adequate power for reliable transmissions up to 300 meters. Additionally, the lower ERP limit will provide more protection to other users of the TV band. To further minimize the potential for harmful interference by preventing the ability of users to use high gain antennas, we also propose to require that the transmitting devices contain a permanently attached antenna. We also seek comment on whether an alternative limit on power levels may be more appropriate. We seek answers to the following:

• What signal strength is necessary at the WAVD receiver to ensure reliable use?

• Is 250 milliwatts ERP adequate to ensure this signal strength at 300 meters or is a different ERP more appropriate?

• What assumptions are being used in making this calculation?

• How is the signal strength affected by antenna height?

• Should the rules specify a relationship between antenna height and power?

76. AMPTP asks that we allow WAVDs to operate with a bandwidth up to 6 megahertz to provide sufficient operating flexibility. Because they state that these devices will transmit audio, video, and time information either in analog or digital format, this appears to be a reasonable request. Further, we believe that producers can benefit from low equipment costs by taking advantage of economies of scale by using existing NTSC or newer DTV equipment. Accordingly, we propose to allow WAVDs to operate with a bandwidth up to 6 MHz, limited to transmitting on a single TV channel (i.e., WAVD transmissions may not overlap the TV channel edge). To ensure compliance with this requirement, we propose that WAVDs be subject to the same emission limitations that we are proposing for other TV BAS transmitters.

77. We also propose that all WAVD transmitters be authorized for use under the certification procedures of part 2 of our rules. This third-party review process will insure that these transmitters are designed to the parameters ultimately adopted. We seek comment on whether we should authorize these low power devices under declaration of conformity (DOC) procedures. The DOC process would allow manufacturers to declare compliance with our requirements, provided the equipment is tested for compliance using an accredited laboratory and is properly labeled. Because these are new devices, we do not believe that use of verification procedures, in which no independent third-party testing is required, is appropriate.

78. AMPTP proposed that WAVDs be authorized to operate with a separation distance of at least 120 kilometers from an authorized user of the TV band to avoid interference. This distance corresponds to the Grade B contour of a TV station operating in the upper VHF-TV band with maximum power. We note that wireless microphones, which may use up to 50 milliwatts and 250 milliwatts output power in the VHF-TV and UHF-TV bands, respectively, maintain distances of up to 129 kilometers from TV broadcasting stations, a distance slightly larger than the Grade B contour. Although the ERP we are proposing for WAVDs is higher than that authorized for wireless microphones operating in the upper VHF TV band, we also have proposed to allow WAVDs to operate with a bandwidth of 6 megahertz compared to the maximum 200 kilohertz authorized for wireless microphones. Therefore, the energy radiated from a WAVD will be spread over a much larger bandwidth than that used for wireless microphones resulting in less signal energy in any given portion of the bandwidth. This difference coupled with the ability of wireless microphones to avoid sensitive portions of the TV signal due to their smaller bandwidth should offset the difference in power levels between the two devices. Thus, similar to the rules for wireless microphones, we propose that WAVDs maintain 129 kilometers separation from TV broadcasting stations, including low power TV stations and translator stations operating on the same frequency. To protect TV stations, we believe that this distance is more appropriate than the 120 kilometer distance proposed by AMPTP because it requires that these devices operate completely outside the Grade B contour, whereas the 120 kilometer distance would allow WAVDs to be located at the edge of the Grade B contour with the potential for generating signals into it. We seek comment on whether this distance is appropriate to protect both NTSC and DTV signals from harmful interference. We will not require a minimum separation distance from WAVDs to other TV BAS operations on the TV channels. We believe that the directional nature of the TV BAS operations, coupled with our proposals for notification prior to operation, are adequate to protect TV BAS operations.

79. To protect land mobile stations operating in the 470-512 MHz band, we have proposed to require WAVDs to maintain at least 6 MHz frequency separation when operating in the same area. To further define this protection criteria we propose to require WAVDs to maintain a separation of at least 200 kilometers from the coordinates listed in 47 CFR 90.303 when operating co-channel (i.e., at least 52 kilometers away from the nearest mobile station). We note that this proposed separation distance between WAVDs and land mobile stations is less than that proposed for TV stations. However, we believe that land mobile receivers do not require the same level of protection as television receivers because land mobile receivers are more robust than television receivers (i.e., they operate with up to 25 kilohertz bandwidths as opposed to 6 megahertz for TV and therefore allow less energy to pass through the receiver).

80. For operations by the ORS and PLMRS in the Gulf of Mexico in the 476-494 MHz band, the Commission's rules stipulate various zones in which each allocated TV channel can be used. ORS and PLMRS stations are mostly used for point-to-point or point-to-multipoint operations, which do not require the same level of protection as mobile services due to the directional nature of fixed transmissions. Communications with mobile stations in the Gulf of Mexico are generally limited to stations within the gulf (e.g., stations on boats or aircraft) or to stations on the shore. Therefore, we propose to exclude WAVDs from operating within 52 km of the Gulf of Mexico in the 476-494 MHz band. This would provide the same level of protection as we proposed to provide to mobile stations operating within U.S. cities. We also propose to exclude WAVDs from operating within 52 km of Hawaii in the 488-494 MHz band. We seek comment on whether these proposals are sufficient to protect land mobile stations or conversely whether they are overly restrictive such that they inhibit the use of WAVDs. Commenters who believe that our proposals are overly restrictive should address the level of protection necessary to protect land mobile operations.

81. The proposals set forth are designed to maximize the number of channels and areas in which WAVDs can operate while at the same time protecting broadcasters and land mobile users from harmful interference. Subject to the proposed limitations, WAVDs would have use of VHF-TV channels 8-12 and UHF-TV channels 22-36 and 38-51 nationwide. For UHF-TV channels 14-21 our proposals would prohibit WAVD use on certain channels in and around a limited number of cities, but allow their use across the rest of the United States. As an alternative, to protect land mobile users, we could prohibit WAVDs from operating on UHF-TV channels 14-21 altogether. Such an option would limit the number of available operating channels for WAVDs at most locations nationwide. However, it would also create a simpler regulatory framework. We seek comment on this option. Specifically, what is the effect of prohibiting the use of WAVDs on UHF-TV channels 14-21 on their ability to find vacant channels on which to operate in various areas?

82. We propose that prior to operating at a specific location, a WAVD licensee must notify the local broadcast coordinator in the area where they wish to operate. In this regard, we note that SBE maintains a list of local coordinators on their web site at http://www.sbe.org . Alternatively, in areas where there may not be a local coordinator, we propose that a WAVD licensee must notify any TV station within 161 kilometers (100 miles) operating on channels adjacent to the WAVD. We believe that notification rather than full coordination is sufficient for these devices due to their low ERP and limited operating range. We are inclined to agree with AMPTP that the requirements adopted in WT Docket No. 99-168 can be used as the basis for our proposal. We propose slight modifications to the procedures adopted in that proceeding to reflect differences in the services (i.e., WAVDs need notification for temporary use at specific locations with the notification being accomplished by a local independent coordinator, as opposed to land mobile coordination which is usually done for long-term or permanent use by a national level coordinator). Specifically, we propose that each notification include the proposed frequency or frequencies, location, antenna height, type of emission, effective radiated power, intended dates of operation, and licensee contact information. Because we have proposed to limit use of WAVDs to scheduled productions, we believe that it is reasonable to require that these notifications be made at least ten business days prior to the date that WAVD use is required. We believe that this provides adequate time for the coordinator to respond to the applicant. We further propose that failure of a coordinator to respond to such a notification will be interpreted as an approval. Applicants should be aware that we are proposing that coordinators have the full ten days to respond to a coordination request and should plan to initiate notification as far in advance as possible to avoid production delays. We believe that our proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements of producers and the needs of the coordinator to study the notification and provide comments as necessary. We propose that the coordinator's recommendation regarding the specific operation of a particular WAVD—whether it can operate as proposed or with suggested modifications to operating parameters—is to be followed by the WAVD licensee. Of course, licensees may appeal to the Commission if they disagree with a coordinator. We propose that in these instances, the licensee bear the burden of proof in overturning the coordinator's recommendation. The requirements proposed herein would ensure that WAVDs operate in a manner that will minimize the potential for harmful interference. We decline to propose specific technical guidelines in order to provide coordinators a large degree of latitude to tailor requirements to specific local operating environments. Our experience has been that coordinators have performed their duties with a high degree of professionalism and integrity and we believe that the coordinators will continue to act in this manner. We seek comment on our notification proposals. Specifically, do we need to require that additional information be provided? Is the ten-day period for a coordinator to respond to a request enough time or too much time? Should specific technical criteria, such as C/I ratios, be adopted?

83. Additionally, we propose that WAVD licensees be subject to the station identification requirements of 47 CFR 74.882, which require that stations transmit station identification at the beginning and end of each period of operation at a single location. As with wireless microphones, we believe that even with the low power levels that WAVDs will use, such a requirement is necessary so that if any interference is experienced, it can readily be traced back to its source and can be mitigated. We seek comment on these additional aspects of proposed technical operational requirements for WAVDs.

84. Finally, to ensure that users understand the proper operation and requirements of WAVDs, we propose that manufacturers include certain information in the product literature that is included with the device. Section 302 of the Communications Act provides the Commission with authority to make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of devices which emit radio frequency energy. For WAVDs, we propose that the product literature supplied to the user include the statements explaining that an FCC license is needed prior to operating, explaining that operation may not cause interference to TV reception, and identifying the intended uses of the device. In order to provide flexibility to manufacturers, we do not propose specific language or placement of this information, so long as it is included with the device. We believe that providing this information with the product literature will minimize the potential for these devices to proliferate to unauthorized users and cause interference to TV. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should address whether the required information is sufficient or if more or less information should be required.

85. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 1 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 the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 2 In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register . 3

86. The Notice or Proposed Rule Making presents a significant update to the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS). Many of the proposals are intended to ease the transition from current analog equipment to the digital equipment that will be necessary to support digital TV. Additionally, this NPRM proposes to implement changes to streamline the licensing process and make the BAS licensing rules consistent with those used in the rest of the wireless services. These proposals pave the way for BAS to take full advantage of the Commission's Universal Licensing. This NPRM also seeks to implement changes that would make the rules consistent among similar services, such as BAS, fixed service microwave, and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS). Finally, the NPRM proposes to allow motion picture and television producers access to certain VHF and UHF TV channels for wireless video assist devices (WAVDs). WAVDs increase the safety of production sets and at the same time enable these groups to save money on production costs.

87. This action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.

88. 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 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 section 3 of the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. 5 Under the Small business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (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). 6

89. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”  7 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. 8 The definition of “small governmental entity” is one with populations of fewer than 50,000. 9 There are approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the nation. 10 This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this number have populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. 11 The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

90. The proposals in this NPRM would affect licensees of BAS (remote pickup, aural, and television), CARS, and fixed microwave services. Additionally, they affect manufacturers of equipment that supports the BAS. BAS involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit to the studio or from the studio to the transmitter). CARS includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming within cable television system distribution systems. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to these licensees. Therefore, the applicable definitions of small entities for each of these services under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules is as follows: (1) For TV BAS, we will use standard industrial classification (SIC) code 4833 (Television Broadcasting Stations) which are classified as small businesses if they have annual revenues of no more than $10.5 million;  12 (2) For Aural BAS, we will use SIC code 4832 (Radio Broadcasting Stations) which are classified as small businesses if they have revenue of no more than $5 million;  13 (3) For Remote pickup BAS we will use SIC code 4833 when used by a TV station or 4832 when used by a radio station. The definition of small business for these codes has already been listed; (4) For CARS, we will use SIC code 4841 (Cable and Other Pay Television Services) which are classified as small businesses if they have annual revenue of no more than $11 million;  14 (5) For fixed microwave, we will use SIC code 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) which are classified as small businesses if they employ no more than 1,500 people;  15 (6) For BAS equipment manufacturers, we will use SIC code 3663 (Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment) which are classified as small businesses if they employ no more than 750 people. 16

91. The 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most recent information available, shows that 715 TV broadcasting firms out of a total of 885 had less than $10 million annual revenue, 17 4748 radio broadcasting firms  18 out of a total of 4932 had less than $5 million annual revenue, 19 between 1401 and 1471 cable television firms out of a total of 1573 had less than $11 million annual revenue, 20 and more than 1166 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1178 had fewer than 1,500 employees. 21 Similarly, the 1992 Census of Manufactures shows that between 908 and 925 out of 948 radio and television communications equipment manufacturing establishments  22 had fewer than 750 employees. 23 Any of these small businesses can potentially be affected by the proposals of the NPRM. We seek comment on this analysis. In providing such comment, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how many total and small business entities would be affected.

92. Under the proposals contained in this NPRM , there are changes to reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. In many cases, these changes streamline the existing licensing process or provide additional flexibility to licensees and applicants. Many of the proposed changes are related to the use of the Universal Licensing System (ULS) by BAS applicants and licensees. As explained in the NPRM , applicants for BAS stations must apply through the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau using the ULS, which was adopted by Report and Order in 1998. 24 To comply with this system, our proposals for BAS are consistent with the decisions reached in that Report and Order . Accordingly, our proposals include eliminating requests made by letter if there is a standard application form which can be used instead, 25 modifying the rules defining major and minor changes to those used for fixed microwave systems, 26 and eliminating the need to report transmitter output power and requiring that all stations comply with limits on effective isotropic radiated power. 27 We also propose to change the period of construction for a BAS station from the currently used three years to eighteen months, consistent with the period used for fixed microwave stations. 28

93. Additionally, we propose to conform some of the rules that affect frequency bands that are shared among BAS licensees (part 74), CARS licensees (part 78), and fixed microwave licensees (part 101). Here, we propose to update the rules that protect interference to geostationary satellites from receiving harmful interference from fixed stations to those currently listed in the ITU International Radio Regulations. The effect of this update is to expand the number of frequency bands to which these rules apply. 29 We also propose to adopt for BAS equipment, emission limitations that are consistent with those already being used for fixed microwave stations. 30 We also propose that all BAS applicants for stations operating above 944 MHz, comply with the same frequency coordination guidelines in place for fixed microwave stations. 31

94. Further changes entail providing technical guidelines for TV studio-to-transmitter links and TV relay stations that operate on UHF-TV channels. These guidelines have always been imposed, but never codified. 32 Also, with respect to BAS Remote Pickup stations, we propose to alter their channel plan to be consistent with the same channel spacing requirements as are used for Private Land Mobile Radio stations in Part 90 of our rules. 33 Finally, we propose to allow a new type of device to operate on certain VHF and UHF TV channels, wireless assist video devices. Because they are new, we propose rules for the licensing and use of these devices. 34 We request comment on how these requirements can be modified to reduce the burdens on small entities and still meet the objectives of this proceeding.

95. 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 (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 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. 35

96. We have proposed to reduce burdens wherever possible. Our proposals regarding the BAS would reduce burdens on small entities. First, we have proposed to allow aural and TV BAS licensees to use digital modulation techniques in all of their allocated frequency bands. Currently, they can only use these techniques in a few bands and must file waiver requests and requests for special temporary authority (STA) to transmit digital signals in other bands. Our proposals would eliminate the need for these waivers and STAs, thus saving businesses the time it takes to prepare these requests and their associated filing fees. 36 Second, we have proposed to alter the equation used to determine the allowable EIRP for short path lengths. Under our proposal, there would no longer be a large drop-off in allowable EIRP when the path length of a fixed station was slightly shorter than the minimum necessary for maximum power. The effect of this would be to provide more flexibility in the way small entities design their systems. Because they would be able to use fewer sites, this would have the effect would be a reduction in the cost of a system. 37 Third, we have proposed to allow automatic transmit power control (ATPC). ATPC would benefit small entities by reducing outages to digital receivers and expanding battery life. Both of these effects benefit small businesses by making their systems more reliable. 38

97. Many of our proposed rule amendments and their benefits, stem from the use of the ULS for application filing. This system, by providing for electronic filing on standardized forms benefits small entities in several ways. Applicants can submit applications to the Commission as soon as they have the necessary information on-hand. And they can get instant feedback as to the correctness of that application; ULS will not accept the application for filing unless it is correct on its face. If there are errors, ULS will provide error messages so that the application can be corrected and resubmitted. Also, the system makes extensive use of electronic processing, so that many of the tasks that were done by hand are now done by the computer. The overall effect is that application are processed faster and licenses are issued sooner, thus allowing small entities to begin providing service in a more timely manner. 39

98. We have proposed rules in the NPRM that would conform rules for similar services that share spectrum. These are TV BAS, CARS, and the fixed microwave service. As a whole, these proposals reduce burdens to small entities because many of these entities have licenses in each of these rule parts, but must currently contend with different rules in each part. Thus, small entities will benefit because they will, in many instances, be able to comply with a common set of rules for their systems, which operate in any of the named services. 40

99. Additionally, we have proposed many other changes that will benefit small entities. We have proposed to require that BAS systems prior coordinate their frequency use. Such a requirement will ensure that systems begin operating in a manner that minimizes the potential of causing interference. This protects the new system from possibly being shut down due to causing interference and protects the existing system from suffering a service disruption from receiving interference. Both of these results will benefit small entities operating in the BAS service. 41 Along with the frequency coordination requirement, we have proposed to extend the ability to operate under temporary conditional authority to all BAS frequency bands. This would benefit small entities by allowing them to begin operating sooner. 42 Further, we have proposed to extend the reach of the short-term operation rule to all entities eligible for a BAS license. This benefits small entities because many would not need to obtain additional licenses from the Commission to provide limited service a few times a year in areas in which they do not traditionally operate. Such a change would save small entities the time and money that they would otherwise expend obtaining a license. 43 Another proposed change entails us laying out the technical requirements for operating TV STLs or TV relay stations on UHF-TV channels. By doing this, applicants will know before applying exactly the requirements they must meet in order to obtain a license, thereby reducing the number or applications that must be returned by the Commission. Thus, small entities will benefit by not having to respond to returned applications. 44 We have also proposed to alter the channel plan for remote pickup BAS to conform to the channel plan adopted for PLMR services. Unless the same technical criteria are used for both services, different radios must be developed. Thus, our proposal would benefit small entities by keeping equipment costs down. 45 Finally, we have proposed to allow motion picture and television producers to operate a new type of device, wireless assist video devices, on certain unused VHF and UHF TV channels. This will benefit small entities by providing a more cost effective means for producers to monitor multiple camera angles when producing program material. 46

100. The regulatory burdens we have retained, such as filing applications on appropriate forms, are necessary to ensure that the public receives the benefits of new and existing services in a prompt and efficient manner. We also considered revising the burden of frequency coordination, but found that this alternative would unnecessarily increase the potential of harmful interference. 47 Additionally, under the frequency coordination procedures proposed, entities may self coordinate rather than paying a frequency coordinator. 48 We will continue to examine alternatives in the further with the objectives of eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing significant economic impact on small entities. We seek comment on significant alternatives commenters believe we should adopt.

101. None.

102. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332 and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 154(i), 302, 303(f), and (r), 332, 337, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby Adopted.

103. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 78 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116 released on May 8, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.

This NPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

The NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the PRA, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed and/or modified information collections discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due on or before June 25, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before July 23, 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: 3060-0855.

Title: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and Associated Requirements, CC Docket No. 96-45.

Form No.: FCC Form 499.

Type of Review: Proposed Revised Collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Needs and Uses: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on how to streamline and reform both the manner in which the Commission assesses carrier contributions to the universal service fund and the manner in which carriers may recover those costs from their customers. Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires carriers providing interstate telecommunications services to contribute to universal service. Under the current universal service rules, carriers' contributions are assessed as a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company would use information filed on carrier revenues, line counts, or number of accounts to determine the quarterly universal service contribution factor.

1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on how to streamline and reform both the manner in which the Commission assesses carrier contributions to the universal service fund and the manner in which carriers may recover those costs from their customers. Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), requires carriers providing interstate telecommunications services to contribute to universal service. Under the current universal service rules, carriers' contributions are assessed as a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. For carriers electing to recover their universal service contributions from their customers, the Commission generally has not specified a particular method of recovery. Rather, the Commission has required that contributors not shift more than an equitable share of their contributions to any customer or group of customers, and that carriers provide accurate, truthful, and complete information regarding the nature of the charge.

2. In this NPRM, we seek comment on whether and how to streamline and reform the universal service contribution methodology. We seek comment on specific proposals to require carriers to contribute based on a percentage of collected revenues, or to contribute on the basis of a flat-fee charge, such as a per-line charge. Additionally, we seek comment on limiting the manner in which carriers recover their contribution costs from their customers. If carriers choose to recover universal service contributions from their customers through line items, we propose to require carriers to do so through a uniform universal service line item that corresponds to the contribution assessment on the carrier.

3. We believe that we may need to revisit the concepts underlying the existing contribution system, in light of current market trends, to ensure that providers of interstate telecommunications services continue to “contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service.” Since the Commission's initial implementation of section 254 of the Act in 1997, we have seen many significant developments in the interstate telecommunications marketplace. We have witnessed the entry of new providers into the long distance market, including Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) that have received approval under section 271 of the Act to provide interstate telecommunications. We also are seeing certain wireline interexchange carriers suffer declining revenues in light of growing competition. Growth in the wireless telecommunications sector, as well as the advent of Internet Protocol (IP) telephony, has changed the dynamics of the interstate telecommunications market. Furthermore, many carriers are bundling services together in creative ways, such as offering flat-rate packages that include both interstate and intrastate telecommunications and non-telecommunications products and services.

4. Changes to the universal service contribution methodology may be necessary to simplify and streamline the contribution process for carriers. For example, although not mandated by the Commission, many carriers choose to recover most, if not all, of their universal service contributions through line items on their customers' bills. Even though the Commission sets a uniform contribution factor for universal service, carriers may decide to boost this factor in order to account for “uncollectible” revenue and other variables. We believe that this process may require carriers to engage in complex calculations in order to fully recover their contribution costs through a line item on customer bills.

5. We also have concerns about the extent to which the universal service line item fee varies from one carrier to the next, even though the contribution factor set by the Commission is uniform across carriers. For example, in the fourth quarter 2000, the Commission established a contribution factor of 5.6688 percent. The major interexchange carriers, however, imposed line-item fees on residential and business customers ranging from approximately 5.9 percent to 8.6 percent. For the second quarter of 2001, after the Commission established a contribution factor of 6.8823%, one interexchange carrier raised its residential line item to 12%. This discrepancy between the contribution factor and the amount carriers charge consumers is inexplicable to the casual observer. Moreover, it appears that some carriers have chosen to recover universal service contributions through a line item on only certain classes of customers. Some carriers may be recovering universal service contributions from pre-subscribed customers through line items that are well in excess of the contribution factor, while recovering, through service rates, an unidentified amount of such costs from other customers of services such as pre-paid calling cards or dial-around service. The end result may be that certain customer classes are bearing a disproportionate share of the carrier's cost of universal service contributions, which could, in some circumstances, be inconsistent with the Commission's directive that contributors not shift more than an equitable share of their contributions to any customer or group of customers.

6. The Commission has an obligation to ensure that the universal service contribution system remains consistent with the statute, is reflective of current market trends, is simple for carriers to administer, and does not shift more than an equitable share of carrier contributions to any class of customers. We therefore conclude that we should revisit the issue of how contributions to the universal service fund are assessed on carriers and how carriers may recover such contribution costs from consumers. In this NPRM, we seek comment on how to streamline the assessment and recovery of universal service contributions, especially in light of recent developments in the telecommunications marketplace, while maintaining a universal service fund that is consistent with the requirements of the Act. We welcome input from all segments of the industry, consumer groups, state commissions, and the members of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board).

7. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.

8. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of a 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 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due July 23, 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.

9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

10. The Commission seeks comment in this NPRM as a part of its implementation of the Act's mandate that “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service.” Specifically, we seek comment on how to streamline and reform both the manner in which the Commission assesses carrier contributions to the universal service fund and the manner in which carriers may recover those costs from their customers. We seek comment on whether and how to revise the universal service contribution methodology. We seek comment on specific proposals to require carriers to contribute based on a percentage of collected revenues, or to contribute on the basis of a flat-fee charge, such as a per-line charge. Additionally, we seek comment on limiting the manner in which carriers recover contribution costs from end users. If carriers choose to recover universal service contributions from their end users through line items, we propose to require carriers to do so through a uniform universal service line item that corresponds to the contribution assessment on the carrier.

11. The legal basis as proposed for this NPRM is contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 254, 403.

12. The Commission's contributor reporting requirements apply to a wide range of entities, including all telecommunications carriers and other providers of interstate telecommunications services that offer telecommunications services for a fee. Thus, we expect that the rules adopted in this proceeding could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the estimated 5,000 filers of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, FCC Form 499, we do not know how many are small entities, but we offer a detailed estimate of the number of small entities within each of several major carrier-type categories.

13. To estimate the number of small entities that could be affected by these proposed rules, we first consider the statutory definition of “small entity” under the RFA. 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 that: (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). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

14. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees. We first discuss the number of small telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telecommunications companies that are commonly used under our rules.

15. A “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard ( e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

16. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, including the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Trends in Telephone Service report. According to data in the most recent report, there are 4,822 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, incumbent local exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, competitive access providers, interexchange carriers, other wireline carriers and service providers (including shared-tenant service providers and private carriers), operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, wireless carriers and services providers, and resellers.

17. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States Bureau of the Census (“the Census Bureau”) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.” For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

18. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

19. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition particular to small local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive access providers (CAPs), operator service providers (OSPs), payphone providers or resellers. The closest applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually on the Form 499-A. According to our most recent data, there are 1,335 incumbent LECs, 349 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, 758 payphone providers and 541 resellers. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,335 incumbent LECs, 349 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, 758 payphone providers, and 541 resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

20. Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. The applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. According to the most recent Trends Report, 806 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service (PCS) services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. We estimate that there are fewer than 806 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

21. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. If this general ratio continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.

22. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 62 FR 16004, April 3, 1997, we adopted criteria for defining small and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. Two auctions of Phase II licenses have been conducted. In the first auction, nine hundred and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3 different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: One of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses.

23. Private and Common Carrier Paging. In the Paging Third Report and Order, we adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends Report, 427 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and therefore are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 427 small paging carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order. We estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

24. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 48 small business winning bidders. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, plus the 48 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 231 small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as small or very small businesses.

25. Narrowband PCS. To date, two auctions of narrowband PCs licenses have been conducted. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held, small businesses were defined as entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. To ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in the auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered definition of small businesses in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 65 FR 35875, June 6, 2000. A small business is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A very small business is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. These definitions have been approved by the SBA. In the future, the Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve MTAs and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

26. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition.

27. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

28. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) . Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined “small business” for purposes of auctioning 900 MHz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200 channels, and 800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower 230 channels on the 800 MHz band, as a firm that has had average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less in the three preceding calendar years. The SBA has approved this small business size standard for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz auctions. Sixty winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band qualified as small business under the $15 million size standard. The auction of the 525 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten winning bidders for geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. An auction of 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000 and was completed on September 1, 2000. Of the 1,050 licenses offered in that auction, 1,030 licenses were sold. Eleven winning bidders for licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small business under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 EA licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses on the 800 and 900 MHz band.

29. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

30. For geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 60 who qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR's, 38 are small or very small entities.

31. Any decisions on rule changes adopted in this proceeding potentially could modify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of telecommunications service providers regulated under the Communications Act. As discussed previously, we potentially could require telecommunications service providers to file additional and/or different monthly or quarterly reports. In addition, we seek comment on whether to modify or eliminate the interim safe harbor for wireless telecommunications carriers. We also seek comment on whether to eliminate the de minimis exemption from universal service contribution requirements. Any such reporting requirements potentially could require the use of professional skills, including legal and accounting expertise. Without more data, we cannot accurately estimate the cost of compliance with a carrier surcharge by small telecommunications service providers. In this NPRM, we therefore seek comment on the frequency with which carriers subject to a carrier surcharge should submit reports to USAC, the types of burdens carriers will face in periodically submitting reports to USAC, and whether the costs of such reporting are outweighed by the potential benefits of a carrier surcharge. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of carrier surcharge reporting requirement proposals.

32. 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 (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 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.

33. As discussed previously, this NPRM seeks comment on how to streamline and reform both the manner in which the Commission assesses carrier contributions to the universal service fund and the manner in which carriers may recover those costs from their customers. We seek comment on whether and how to revise the universal service contribution methodology. We seek comment on specific proposals to require carriers to contribute based on a percentage of collected revenues, or to contribute on the basis of a flat-fee charge, such as a per-line charge. Additionally, we seek comment on limiting the manner in which carriers recover contribution costs from end users. If carriers choose to recover universal service contributions from their end users through line items, we propose to require carriers to do so through a uniform universal service line item that corresponds to the contribution assessment on the carrier. The NPRM also seeks comment on any other mechanisms for the assessment and recovery of universal service contributions.

34. Wherever possible, the NPRM proposes general rules, or alternative rules to reduce the administrative burden and cost of compliance for small telecommunications service providers. As discussed, under the current universal service contribution rules interstate telecommunications service providers whose annual universal service contribution is expected to be less than $10,000 are not required to contribute to the universal service mechanisms. In this NPRM, we seek comment on the impact of the proposed contribution assessment methodologies on the current de minimis exemption to the universal service contribution requirement. We specifically seek comment on whether to retain, modify, or eliminate the de minimis exemption. We also more generally seek comment from small businesses on the costs and benefits of reporting requirements associated with the various proposed universal service assessment methodologies. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on measures to avoid significant economic impact on small business entities, as defined by section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

35. None.

36. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments June 25, 2001, and reply comments July 9, 2001. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

37. 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. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. 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 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 <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

38. 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 appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

39. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this case CC Docket No. 96-45, 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. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

40. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or before June 25, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before July 23, 2001.

41. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

42. 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.

Management measures for rock shrimp under the FMP apply in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South Atlantic. For the purposes of the FMP and its implementing regulations, the South Atlantic consists of the Atlantic Ocean off the southern Atlantic states (i.e., from the Virginia/North Carolina border through the Florida Keys). The FMP currently establishes the following management measures for rock shrimp: Federal fishing vessel permits necessary to fish for, sell, transfer, or possess rock shrimp in or from the South Atlantic EEZ; Federal dealer permits to receive rock shrimp harvested in the South Atlantic EEZ; requirement for selected dealers to report receipts and prices of rock shrimp harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ; and a prohibition on fishing for or possessing rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank habitat area of particular concern.

The Council is preparing draft Amendment 5 to the FMP. Amendment 5 will address the following issues: (1) The implementation of a limited entry program for the rock shrimp fishery to remove speculative interests from the fishery and ensure the economic viability of the rock shrimp industry; (2) the establishment of mesh size restrictions to reduce the harvest of small rock shrimp; (3) the requirement for vessel operator permits and vessel monitoring systems to ensure better compliance with the FMP’s management measures and implementing regulations; and (4) the specification of geographic areas within which these aforementioned management measures would apply.

The Council is preparing a DSEIS as an integrated part of Amendment 5. The DSEIS will describe the amendment’s proposed management measures and their reasonable alternatives and will assess the environmental impacts of these proposed and alternative measures. The Council is requesting written comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the DSEIS.

Based on input to be received during 7 public hearings that the Council is conducting from May 3, 2001, through June 19, 2001 (see notice of these hearings at 66 FR 22144) on a preliminary draft of Amendment 5 and associated DSEIS, the Council intends to revise draft Amendment 5, as appropriate, and to finalize the DSEIS. The Council intends that the current public hearings on its preliminary draft Amendment 5 and DSEIS supplement, for scoping purposes, the three scoping meetings it held in 1994 to invite initial public input on the scope of the issues to be addressed by Amendment 5 and the types of environmental impacts associated with alternative management measures, including those proposed measures listed here. With the exception of the requirement for operator permits, which was disapproved by NMFS as contained in a previous FMP amendment, these management measures have not been included in a previous FMP amendment.

Once the Council completes the DSEIS, it will submit it to NMFS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA will publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability of the DSEIS for public comment. This procedure is pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

The Council intends to consider public comments received on the DSEIS before adopting final management measures for a final Amendment 5. The Council intends to prepare a final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) in support of its final Amendment 5. The Council would then submit the final Amendment 5 and supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS will announce availability of Amendment 5 for public review during the Secretarial review period though notice published in the Federal Register . During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with EPA for a final public comment period on the FSEIS. This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 5. All public comment periods on Amendment 5, its proposed implementing regulations, and on its associated FSEIS will be announced through notice published in the Federal Register . NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period for Amendment 5 (60-day period), whether they are on the amendment, the FSEIS, or the proposed regulations, prior to final agency action.

Copies of the preliminary draft Amendment 5/DSEIS may be obtained by contacting the Council (see ADDRESSES ).

The fishery for American lobster takes place from North Carolina to Maine. More than 50 percent of American lobsters harvested are landed in Maine, with the balance landed mostly in or from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Long Island Sound and Georges Bank. Over 80 percent of the lobster harvest occurs in state waters, which extend from the coast to 3 nautical miles (5.56 km) from shore. The lobster fishery occurs year-round in the United States, including the summer and fall months when the lobsters are molting. Approximately 97 percent of lobsters are taken in lobster traps. The rest are taken in trawls, gillnets, and dredges and by divers.

Prior to December 1999, the American lobster resource was managed in state waters by the ASMFC under the auspices of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), and in Federal waters by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Acknowledging that approximately 80 percent of the American lobster harvest occurs in state waters, and in an effort to establish a more effective lobster management regime by enhancing interjurisdictional cooperation, NMFS issued a final rule in December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68228) for the American lobster fishery. That final rule removed management measures issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and replaced them with the same and a variety of new management measures issued under the authority of ACFCMA. ACFCMA provides NMFS with the authority to implement regulations in Federal waters that are compatible with effective implementation of the ISFMP and consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such Federal regulations are promulgated pursuant to ACFCMA at 50 CFR part 697.

Amendment 3 of the ISFMP was approved by the ASMFC in December 1997 to achieve a healthy American lobster resource and develop a management regime that provides for sustained harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and provides for the cooperative development of conservation measures by all stakeholders. Following the May 2000 release of an updated peer-reviewed lobster stock assessment (ASMFC Stock Assessment Peer Review Report No. 00-01), which revised lobster egg production estimates and confirmed that overfishing of lobster stocks is occurring throughout the species range, the ASMFC developed Addendum II to Amendment 3 for implementing additional measures needed to rebuild American lobster stocks. Addendum II, approved by ASMFC in February 2001, establishes a revised egg production schedule to restore egg production in each LCMA to greater than the overfishing definition by the end of 2008. Measures under the addendum to help achieve this goal include a series of minimum gauge size increases and an increase in the minimum escape vent size of lobster trap gear fished in state and Federal waters of LCMA 2 (inshore Southern New England), LCMA 3 (offshore waters), LCMA 4 (inshore Northern Mid-Atlantic), LCMA 5 (inshore Southern Mid-Atlantic), and the Outer Cape Management Area, but not LCMA 1 (Gulf of Maine) and LCMA 6 (Long Island Sound). The addendum also calls for a revised timeline for LCMA 3 trap reductions, previously approved by the ASMFC under Addendum I. By approving Addendum II, the states have agreed to implement the first annual LCMA-specific gauge increases by December 31, 2001, and to implement the escape vent increase by 2003. On February 26, 2001, NMFS received a recommendation from ASMFC to implement complementary Federal measures for Federal waters of LCMAs 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape, as well as in LCMA 3 (comprised entirely of Federal waters).

Specifically, the minimum allowable harvest size of American lobster in state waters of LCMAs 2,4,5 and the Outer Cape is scheduled to increase from 3 1/4 inches (in.) (8.26 cm) to 3 9/32 in. (8.33 cm) in 2001, and increase 1/32 in. (0.08 cm) annually until 2004 to an ultimate minimum size of 3 3/8 in. (8.57 cm). The ASMFC recommends that the gauge increases in Federal waters of LCMA 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape, as well as in LCMA 3 follow this same schedule. If the egg production targets of the ISFMP have not been reached by 2004, ASMFC further recommends additional annual increases in LCMA 3 of 1/32 in. (0.08 cm) until 2008, to an ultimate minimum size of 3 ½ in. (8.89 cm). The current minimum allowable harvest size for American lobster in all Federal waters is 3 1/4 in. (8.26 cm).

Under Addendum II, states will require that each lobster trap have at least one rectangular escape vent measuring 2 in. (5.08 cm) by 5 3/4 in. (14.61 cm), or at least two circular escape vents, measuring 2 ½ in. (6.35 cm) in diameter. The ASMFC recommends that Federal regulations implement these new escape vent size requirements in Federal waters. At the current time, Federal regulations require that all lobster trap gear have a rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 1 15/16 in. (4.92 cm) by 5 3/4 in. (14.61 cm); or two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 7/16 in. (6.19 cm) in diameter.

Also, Addendum II recommends that the trap reduction schedule previously adopted for LCMA 3 under Addendum I of Amendment 3 to the ISFMP be updated to account for the elapsed time between the two addenda. If implemented through Federal regulations, each LCMA 3 trap allocation of greater than 1200 traps would be reduced on a sliding scale basis over 4 years, not to fall below 1200 traps. LCMA 3 allocations of less than 1200 traps would remain at their initial qualifying level and not increase from that baseline number. No allocation would exceed 2656 traps during the first year of implementation. At the end of the fourth year, the maximum number of traps allowed for any vessel would be 2267. At the current time, fishing effort in LCMA 3 is restricted to a fixed maximum limit of 1800 traps per vessel.

Addendum II furthermore recommends that NMFS require LCMA 3 lobstermen to maintain vessel logs to record lobster harvest. Current Federal regulations do not require vessel logs. Another component of the addendum includes a review of management measures in all LCMAs, by June 2001, to determine if other measures are needed to achieve ISFMP stock rebuilding objectives. Any adjustments would be adopted by ASMFC as a separate addendum by January 2002, at which time ASMFC may recommend further changes to Federal regulations.

ASMFC recommends that NMFS adopt Addendum II’s revised egg production schedule in all EEZ areas throughout the range of the lobster resource and implement the associated management measures (gauge increases, modifications to lobster trap gear requirements and LCMA 3 trap reduction schedule, and vessel log reporting requirement) in the Federal waters of the applicable LCMAs. NMFS is considering proposed rulemaking to revise further the Federal lobster regulations to be compatible with the ASMFC’s ISFMP and is seeking comments on implementation of the ASMFC’s recommendations for Federal waters.