[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58697-58703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29328]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[IB Docket No. 95-91; DA 01-2570]


Authorization of Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service 
Terrestrial Repeater Networks

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
seeks to augment the record concerning terrestrial repeaters in the 
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service. Comments are sought on the 
proposals set out in the document to seek resolution of issues 
identified in the record that have not yet been directly addressed by 
commenters. The comments filed in response to this document and those 
currently in the record will be used to develop specific rules for the 
use of terrestrial repeaters in SDARS.

DATES: Comments are due December 14, 2001. Reply comments are due 
December 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). (See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998)). Comments filed through the 
ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, 
parties responding should include their full name, mailing address, and 
the applicable docket number, IB Docket No. 95-91. Parties filing 
comments on paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. 
All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman 
Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. An additional 
copy of all pleadings should also be sent to Rockie Patterson, 
International Bureau, FCC Room 6-B524, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. One copy of all comments should also be sent to 
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of all filings 
are available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, telephone 202-857-3800; facsimile 202-857-3805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rockie Patterson, Satellite 
Engineering

[[Page 58698]]

Branch, Satellite and Radio communication Division, International 
Bureau, 202-418-1183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Report No. SPB-176, DA 
01-2570, released on November 1, 2001. The full text of this document 
is available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also 
be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex 
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, 
or via e-mail [email protected].

Summary

    In March 1997, the Commission adopted service rules for satellite 
digital audio radio service (SDARS) authorizations in the 2320-2345 MHz 
frequency band. (See 62 FR 11083 (March 11, 1997)). In conjunction with 
the service rules, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (See 62 FR 19095 (April 18, 1997), seeking comment on the 
proposed use of SDARS repeaters which some applicants intended to 
implement, as necessary, in urban canyons and other areas where it may 
be difficult to receive DARS signals transmitted by a satellite. At 
that time, no information was in the record on the specific operations 
of the SDARS repeaters and several issues concerning the licensing and 
regulation of the repeaters were unresolved. Since the Further Notice, 
the Commission has received detailed technical information on the SDARS 
repeaters and significant comment from the Wireless Communications 
Service (WCS), Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licensees and the SDARS licensees on 
terrestrial repeater licensing. By this document, we seek to augment 
the record on the specific proposals described below for the resolution 
of issues identified in the record that have not yet been directly 
addressed by commenters.

Proposals

    We seek comment on an approach that defines a compensation 
methodology for SDARS licensees to pay for the components necessary for 
WCS licensees to eliminate the effects of blanketing interference to 
their receivers. See 47 CFR 27.58. We seek comment on this approach and 
on any variation or alternatives that commenters have proposed in this 
proceeding. We also include for comment various alternatives for a 
long-term solution to the potential blanketing interference between 
SDARS and WCS licensees with stations close to high power repeaters. We 
seek comment on provisions that would address the effect of SDARS 
operations on MDS and ITFS licensees. Commenters should support their 
views with concrete analysis and documentation.

I. Repeater Requirements

    We seek comment on the sufficiency of an approach that would 
require SDARS repeaters to meet the following:
A. Definitions.
    1. Low Power Repeaters (LPRs) are limited to an EIRP less than or 
equal to 2 kW.
    2. High Power Repeaters (HPRs) are limited to an EIRP greater than 
2 kW and less than or equal to 40 kW.
B. Authorized transmissions.
    SDARS repeaters shall be used only to transmit the complete 
programming, and only that programming that is also transmitted by an 
authorized DARS satellite and in such a way that the satellite signal 
and the terrestrial repeater signal are received nearly simultaneously 
by SDARS subscriber receivers.
C. Eligibility and frequencies.
    Authorization to operate SDARS repeaters is granted only to 
licensees of SDARS systems with operational space stations. An SDARS 
licensee shall locate repeater frequency assignments in the center of 
its exclusively licensed frequency band, with the edge of the repeater 
band being no less than four megahertz from the edge of the SDARS 
spectrum at 2320 MHz and 2345 MHz.
D. Emission limits.
    1. SDARS repeater out-of-band emission levels shall comply with 47 
CFR 25.202(f) within the 2320-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5-2345 MHz frequency 
bands.
    2. Below 2320 MHz and above 2345 MHz, the power of any SDARS 
repeater emission shall be attenuated below the peak equivalent 
isotropically radiated power (Peirp) within the assigned 
frequency band(s) of operation between 2320 MHz and 2345 MHz, measured 
in watts, by a factor not less than 75 + 10log (Peirp) dB, 
where Peirp is measured in watts.
    3. Compliance with the previous provision is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz 
or more, but at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the 
fundamental emission of the transmitter, provided the measured energy 
is integrated over a 1 MHz bandwidth.

II. Prior Approval

    We seek comment on SDARS licensees obtaining prior Commission 
approval to operate: (1) Any SDARS repeater that exceeds the power 
levels and/or proximity restrictions specified in existing 
international agreements with Canada and Mexico covering the use of 
SDARS frequency bands, except that Commission approval shall not be 
required for SDARS repeaters already coordinated successfully with 
Canada or Mexico; (2) any SDARS repeater that fails to comply with the 
requirements of 47 CFR 17.4 of the Commission's rules; (3) any SDARS 
repeater that will have significant environmental effects, as defined 
by 47 CFR 1.1301 through 1.1319 of the Commission's rules. We seek 
comment on the feasibility of this requirement.

III. Low Power Repeater (LPR) Operations

    A. LPR Operation. We seek comment on permitting an SDARS licensee 
to operate an unlimited number of LPRs without prior coordination as of 
the effective date of the Commission Order adopting final rules 
governing SDARS repeaters and where prior approval is not required.
    B. Notification of LPRs to WCS, MDS/ITFS licensees. We seek comment 
on imposing a notification requirement on SDARS licensees to provide 
notice to any WCS, MDS, or ITFS licensee that may be operating in the 
vicinity of an LPR brought into operation after the final SDARS rules 
are effective. At least 30 days prior to commencing operations from any 
new LPR transmitting station, or with increased power from any existing 
LPR up to 2 kW EIRP, the SDARS licensee shall notify all WCS, and MDS/
ITFS licensees in or through whose licensed service area they intend to 
operate, and provide the technical parameters of the SDARS terrestrial 
repeater transmission facility.
    C. LPR interference to MDS/ITFS receivers. To provide parity with 
the requirements imposed on WCS licensees to remedy blanketing 
interference caused to MDS/ITFS receivers (See 47 CFR 27.58), as 
proposed by several commenters in this proceeding, we seek comment on 
requiring SDARS licensees to remedy any blanketing interference caused 
to MDS/ITFS receivers from LPRs. We also seek comment on requiring the 
SDARS licensees to bear the full financial obligation to remedy 
interference from

[[Page 58699]]

their repeaters to MDS/ITFS block downconverters if all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The complaint is received by the SDARS licensee prior to 
February 20, 2002;
    (2) The MDS/ITFS downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 
1998;
    (3) The SDARS terrestrial repeater station transmits at 50W or more 
peak EIRP; and
    (4) The MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a SDARS 
terrestrial repeater's free space power flux density contour of -34 
dBW/m\2\.
    We also seek comment on the following concepts: that if the SDARS 
licensee cannot otherwise eliminate any interference that its repeater 
causes to MDS/ITFS reception, then that SDARS licensee must cease 
operations from the offending LPR facility. If SDARS licensees 
collocate their repeater antennas on the same tower, they shall assume 
shared responsibility for remedying interference complaints within the 
area determined by the -34 dBW/m\2\ power flux density contour, unless 
the offending station can be readily determined and then that station 
operator shall assume full financial responsibility. If the complainant 
is also entitled to compensation from one or more licensees in the 
Wireless Communications Service pursuant to 47 CFR 27.58, we seek 
comment on whether the cost should be shared equally among all WCS and 
SDARS licensees that cause such interference.

IV. High Power Repeater (HPR) Operations

    We seek comment on the following compensation methodology that will 
apply to SDARS licensees operating HPRs. This concept establishes a 
safe harbor in which SDARS licensees would not be required to 
coordinate with or compensate WCS licensees to resolve blanketing 
interference that may be caused to WCS receiving stations from SDARS 
repeaters. It also establishes ``zones'' outside of this safe harbor in 
which WCS licensees would be entitled to compensation to resolve 
interference from HPR operations. The methodology includes a schedule 
for providing compensation. We seek comment on this proposal and its 
implementation as well as any variations of this concept as set forth 
below. Specifically, we solicit comment on whether or not compensation 
should be provided for consumer premises equipment (CPE) and on whether 
or not there should be a limit of the SDARS licensees' financial 
liability.
    A. Permitted HPR Operations. We seek comment on whether SDARS 
licensees should be permitted to operate HPRs at locations with 
technical parameters as limited by the Commission in the XM and Sirius 
STA Orders (See DA 01-2172 and DA 01-2171 (rel. September 17, 2001)) 
for 18 months after the effective date of the final rules and whether, 
within 15 days from the release date of these rules, the SDARS 
licensees should be required to file with the Commission technical 
information on HPRs that have been moved to an alternate location, 
reduced in power, or no longer in operation as a result of interference 
concerns with WCS, MDS or ITFS facilities prior to the release date of 
the final SDARS repeater rules.
    B. Safe Harbor. We seek comment on whether SDARS licensees should 
have any obligation to coordinate with WCS stations, including WCS 
customer premises equipment, located within the power level contour 
that would be generated by a 2 kW EIRP LPR, and using free space loss 
and the specified receive system threshold characteristics of the 
affected WCS licensee, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum safe harbor distance from LPR to edge of contour (miles)
 Maximum LPR EIRP    LPR EIRP (dBm)  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       (kW)                            -25 dBm contour    -35 dBm contour    -45 dBm contour    -58 dBm contour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             2                 63               0.16               0.50               1.56              6.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free space path loss is defined as: LossdB = 32.5 + 20log(distance in km) + 20log(frequency in MHz)

    C. Liability Zone. We seek comment on whether SDARS licensees 
should be required to coordinate in good faith with WCS licensees with 
respect to WCS stations located outside of the Safe Harbor but located 
within the Liability Zone defined by the power level contour generated 
by the actual HPR EIRP, and using free space loss and the specified 
receive system threshold characteristics of the ``affected'' WCS 
licensee (i.e., the affected licensee is that licensee with one or more 
stations inside the Liability Zone). At any stage in the 18-month 
period following the effective date of the SDARS repeater rules, an 
SDARS licensee may elect to reduce its HPR power level to any level 
that would reduce its Liability Zone. The edge of the Liability Zone 
shall not extend beyond the distances from the HPR according to the 
following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum liability zone distance from HPR to edge of contour (miles)
  HPR EIRP (kW)      HPR EIRP (dBm)  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        25 dBm contour    -35 dBm contour    -45 dBm contour    -58 dBm contour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            40                 76               0.70               2.20               6.97             31.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free space path loss is defined as: LossdB = 32.5 + 20log(distance in km) + 20log(frequency in MHz)

    These tables are intended to provide generic rules that take into 
account the fact that the technical parameters of WCS systems may vary. 
The Safe Harbor and Liability Zone sizes depend upon the overload 
threshold of the affected WCS receiver. The tables provide the range of 
sensitivities of the WCS receivers to be deployed as stated in the 
record. For example, if the WCS licensee deploys receivers that 
overload at -25dBm, the first table indicates that the Safe Harbor 
maximum radius distance will be 0.16 miles. If the SDARS repeater 
operates at 40 kW with an omni-directional antenna, the second table 
indicates that the Liability Zone will have a maximum radius of 0.70 
miles. If the SDARS licensee uses a 10 kW repeater, the Liability Zone 
radius would be calculated using the free space path loss formula to be 
0.35 miles.
    D. Blanketing interference to WCS stations. We seek comment on 
whether a WCS station located within the Liability Zone is considered 
to potentially receive blanketing interference from the notified HPR(s) 
and the affected WCS licensee is entitled to compensation according to 
the Compensation Schedule. Under this approach, SDARS and WCS licensees 
would be expected to coordinate in

[[Page 58700]]

good faith to avoid interference problems and to allow the greatest 
operational flexibility in each other's operations. To remedy actual 
blanketing interference to WCS stations already in operation or planned 
for operation in the 18-month period, either by compensation or power 
reductions, the licensees must, in as expeditious a manner as possible, 
exchange information about WCS station deployment (e.g., the number of 
base stations planned to be in operation in the 18 months following the 
effective date of the SDARS rules; the station locations within the 
Liability Zone in order of anticipated deployment, if known; the 
technical characteristics of those stations; and the estimated 
reasonable cost to resolve interference to the WCS stations receiving 
blanketing interference from the specified HPR(s)).
    E. Compensation Schedule. If an SDARS licensee is notified by an 
affected WCS licensee that it is receiving blanketing interference 
within the Liability Zone that prevents the provision of commercial 
service, the SDARS licensee shall immediately pay the reasonable costs 
of eliminating or mitigating such interference. This is similar to what 
the Commission has required of WCS licensees to do for MDS/ITFS 
licensees and of new FM broadcast licensees to do for complainants. 
(See 47 CFR 17.58, 73-318). The SDARS licensee shall compensate the WCS 
licensee for the cost of the components to protect its station 
receivers from blanketing interference caused by the HPRs (e.g., 
filters for base stations or RF Automatic Gain Control for CPE). The 
following schedule sets forth the timeframes during which WCS 
licensees' interference complaints shall be remedied and the prorated 
financial liability of SDARS licensees following the effective date of 
the rules governing SDARS repeaters:
    0 to 6 months--SDARS licensee pays 100% of components for base 
stations;
    6 to 12 months--SDARS licensee pays 50% of components for base 
stations;
    12 to 18 months--SDARS licensee pays 25% of components for base 
stations;
    after 18 months--SDARS licensee has no financial liability.
    Under this approach, for 18 months after the final rules are 
effective, the SDARS HPR operations would be limited to the locations 
and parameters identified in the STA requests. The population of HPRs 
would be frozen. After the 18 month period, any new HPR would have to 
be coordinated with affected WCS operations or would be limited in 
maximum power, as described below in section V., B. SDARS licensees 
would be obligated to abide by the final rules to ensure future 
protection to WCS licensees.
    We seek comment on the appropriateness of including the cost of 
resolving interference to WCS CPE in the Compensation Schedule. We seek 
comment on the time within which SDARS licensees must mitigate 
interference to WCS CPE and whether or not we should require SDARS 
licensees to pay any compensation or provide compensation for up to 18 
months for WCS CPE. We seek further comment on whether the SDARS 
licensees should be required to provide filters for WCS base stations 
or to pay all the costs associated with eliminating the interference 
for both base stations and CPE, including labor, as well as on any 
other aspects of possible interference mitigation. Moreover, we seek 
comment on whether the SDARS licensee's monetary liability to WCS 
licensees should be limited to a particular amount. If so, what is that 
amount and the rationale for it? We also generally seek comment on 
whether the resolution of interference should be left to the SDARS and 
WCS licensees.
    F. Blanketing interference to MDS/ITFS receivers. Similar to the 
approach for SDARS licensees to remedy blanketing interference caused 
to MDS/ITFS receivers from LPRs until February 20, 2002 in Section III. 
C., we seek comment on applying this approach with regard to HPRs. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether SDARS licensees should bear 
the full financial obligation to remedy interference to MDS/ITFS block 
downconverters if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) The complaint is received by the SDARS licensee prior to 
February 20, 2002;
    (2) The MDS/ITFS downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 
1998; and
    (3) The MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a SDARS HPR 
station's free space power flux density contour of -34 dBW/m\2\.
    We seek comment on requiring that if the SDARS licensee cannot 
otherwise eliminate interference caused to MDS/ITFS block 
downconverters, the SDARS licensee must reduce its power or cease 
operations from the offending SDARS HPR station. If SDARS licensees 
collocate their antennas on the same tower, they shall assume shared 
responsibility for remedying interference complaints within the area 
determined by the -34 dBW/m\2\ power flux density contour, unless an 
offending station can be readily determined in which case the offending 
SDARS should be required to assume full financial responsibility. If 
the MDS/ITFS complainant is also entitled to compensation from one or 
more licensees in the Wireless Communications Service pursuant to 
Sec. 27.58, the cost shall be shared equally among all WCS and SDARS 
licensees with stations causing such interference.

V. Operation of HPRs after the compensation schedule to WCS/MDS/ITFS 
licensees no longer applies

    In addition to a methodology to limit interference and establish 
compensation to WCS and MDS/ITFS licensees, we seek comment on how to 
facilitate the future deployment of HPRs. We seek comment on whether to 
establish a power cap and a notification process for HPRs. We also 
request comment on a possible requirement that operator-to-operator 
agreements among SDARS and WCS/MDS/ITFS licensees be established before 
an SDARS licensee would be permitted to commence further HPR operations 
or other similar alternatives. Specifically, we seek comment on the 
following:
    A. MDS/ITFS Receivers. We seek comment on imposing a requirement on 
SDARS licensees to provide notice to any MDS/ITFS licensee that may be 
operating in the vicinity of an HPR station: at least 90 days prior to 
commencing operations from any new HPR, the SDARS licensee shall notify 
all MDS/ITFS licensees, in or through whose licensed service area an 
SDARS licensee intends to operate, of the technical parameters of the 
SDARS terrestrial repeater transmission facility.
    B. WCS Stations. We seek comment on how to regulate HPRs after the 
18-month compensation period described previously has expired. One 
alternative would be to place a power cap on HPRs and establish a 
notification process for them similar to that proposed for MDS/ITFS 
receivers. Under this approach, all existing HPRs would be 
grandfathered and the power cap would apply to new repeaters after 
expiration of the compensation schedule in the approach described 
previously. Prior to commencing operation from any new HPR, the SDARS 
licensee would be required to provide a 90-day notice to WCS licensees. 
We specifically seek comment on what an appropriate power cap should be 
in the range of 2 kW to 40 kW. For example, is a 9 kW EIRP level (39.5 
dBW, which is midway between the 2 kW (33 dBW) and 40 kW (46 dBW) 
powers established in the record as acceptable to WCS/MDS/ITFS 
licensees and desired by SDARS licensees, respectively) appropriate to 
apply to future HPRs? Would this power cap distribute equally among WCS 
and

[[Page 58701]]

SDARS licensees the responsibility to manage their operations in the 
presence of each other's service and provide for the ability of all 
services to deploy expeditiously? If applied to existing repeaters, 
what transition period would be necessary or appropriate?
    Another alternative would be to permit HPR operations at power 
levels up to 40 kW EIRP only after prior agreement among SDARS and 
affected WCS licensees has been reached. In this case, each SDARS 
licensee would be required to exchange information with affected WCS 
licensees about its repeater deployment and technical parameters. The 
SDARS licensee would be required also to take all practical steps to 
locate additional HPRs in areas that will mitigate the potential for 
blanketing interference to WCS operations. Prior to commencing 
operation of an additional HPR, the SDARS licensee would be required to 
certify to the Commission that it has completed coordination of the HPR 
with all affected WCS licensees. We seek comment on these options and 
any other alternatives for the deployment of HPRs after the 18-month 
period has expired.

VI. Radio Frequency (RF) Safety

    In February 1997, the Commission adopted rules for Wireless 
Communications Services. (See 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997)). In that 
Report and Order, the Commission modified Sec. 1.1307(b) of its rules 
to require applicants proposing to operate fixed terrestrial stations 
in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz frequency bands to perform 
routine environmental evaluations if their station's EIRP exceeds 1640 
Watts. See 47 CFR 1.1307(b), Table 1. We now seek comment on modifying 
this Section of the Commission's rules to accommodate SDARS repeaters 
governed by part 25, which will operate in the 2320-2345 MHz frequency 
bands. The proposal is based on suggestions offered by the DARS and WCS 
licensees. We seek comment on the proposed modification to Table 1 in 
Sec. 1.1307 particularly from the standpoint of RF safety to the 
public. We specifically propose that actions that may have a 
significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments 
(EAs) must be prepared, are greater than 2000 W EIRP for satellite DARS 
terrestrial repeaters.
    Procedural Matters: Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments limited to the issues raised in this document no later than 
December 14, 2001 and reply comments no later than December 21, 2001. 
Because the DARS repeaters STAs expire on March 18, 2002 or on the 
implementation of permanent rules for repeater operations, whichever 
occurs first, we must adhere to the schedule set forth in this document 
and do not contemplate granting extensions of time. Comments should 
reference IB Docket No. 95-91 and should include the DA number on the 
front of this document, DA 01-2570. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). (See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 
1998).) Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In 
completing the transmittal screen, parties responding should include 
their full name, mailing address, and the applicable docket number, IB 
Docket No. 95-91. Parties filing comments on paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to 
the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 
TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. An additional copy of all pleadings 
should also be sent to Rockie Patterson, International Bureau, FCC Room 
6-B524, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. One copy of all 
comments should also be sent to the Commission's copy contractor, 
Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, 
D.C. 20554. Copies of all filings are available for public inspection 
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW, telephone 202-857-3800; 
facsimile 202-857-3805.
    For ex parte purposes, this proceeding continues to be a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding, in accordance with Sec. 1.1200(a) of the 
Commission's rules, and is subject to the requirements set forth in 
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
    The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau Reference Information 
Center shall send a copy of this document, Including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (see 5 
U.S.C. 603), the Bureau has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the 
International Bureau's document Requesting Further Comment on Selected 
Issues Regarding the Authorization of Satellite Digital Audio Radio 
Service Terrestrial Repeater Networks (SDARS document). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on 
the document provided. The Bureau will send a copy of the SDARS 
document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. In addition, the SDARS document and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    2. Need for and Objections of the Proposed Rules. This SDARS 
document seeks comments on specific proposals to resolve issues 
regarding the proposed use of satellite digital audio radio service 
(SDARS) terrestrial repeaters in conjunction with SDARS systems.
    The Bureau intends to evaluate whether the proposed rules will 
facilitate the efficient implementation of SDARS while seeking to limit 
or mitigate interference to terrestrial operators. The proposals define 
a compensation methodology for SDARS licensees to pay for the 
components necessary for WCS licensees to eliminate the effects of 
blanketing interference to WCS receivers. It also seeks comment on 
provisions that would resolve potential interference to MDS and ITFS 
licensees.
    3. Legal Basis. This SDARS document is adopted pursuant to sections 
1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(c), 303(f), and 303(g) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151(i), 154(i), 154(j), 303(c), 303(f) and 
303(g).
    4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if 
adopted. The RFA defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' or 
``small concern'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. A small 
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the SBA. A small organization is 
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of

[[Page 58702]]

1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. ``Small 
governmental jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than 50,000. As of 1992, there 
were approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the United States. 
This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these 
37,566, or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census 
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all 
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we 
estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small entities.
    SDARS. The Commission has not developed a definition of small 
entities applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit 
broadcast satellite operators. Therefore, the applicable definition of 
small entity is the definition under Small Business Administration 
(SBA) rules applicable to the Communications Services, Not Elsewhere 
classified. This definition provides that a small entity is one with 
$11.0 million or less in annual receipts. There are only two SDARS 
providers authorized to provide service in the DARS spectrum band, XM 
Radio, Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. While neither has 
implemented nationwide service, both entities have financing of over 
$100 million. In addition, the DARS licensees have significant 
partnership interests with large corporations: General Motors in XM 
Radio, Inc. and DiamlerChrysler in Sirius Satellite Radio. Because of 
the above and the high implementation and operating costs for SDARS 
systems, we do not believe either DARS licensee qualifies as a small 
entity.
    Wireless Communications Services (WCS). This service can be used 
for fixed, mobile, radiolocation and digital audio broadcasting 
satellite uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the 
wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with 
average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding 
years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA 
has approved these definitions. The FCC auctioned geographic area 
licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning 
bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one that 
qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number of 
geographic area WCS licensees affected includes these eight entities.
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS). The Commission refined the 
definition of ``small entity'' for the auction of MDS as an entity that 
together with its affiliates has average gross annual revenues that are 
not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years. This 
definition of a small entity is described in the Commission's Report 
and Order concerning MDS auctions, and has been approved by the SBA. 
The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for 
authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (BTA's). Of 67 winning 
bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders indicated that 
they were minority owned and four winners indicated that they were 
women owned businesses. MDS is an especially competitive service, with 
approximately 1,573 previously authorized and proposed MDS facilities. 
Information available to us indicates that no MDS facility generates 
revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We tentatively conclude that 
for purposes of IRFA, there are 1,634 small MDS providers as defined by 
the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
    Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). There are presently 
2,032 ITFS licensees. All but one hundred of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the 
definition of a small business. We do not, however, collect annual 
revenue data for ITFS licensees and are not able to ascertain how many 
of the 100 non-educational licensees would be categorized as small 
under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 
1,932 ITFS licensees are small businesses.
    5. Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements. Under the proposals licensees, such as WCS, 
MDS and ITFS, potentially affected by the operation of SDARS repeaters 
will have to undertake a minimal engineering analysis to determine 
whether it has operations within the liability zone or the safe harbor 
as defined in the SDARS document. This analysis can be completed using 
the technical information provided by the DARS licensees and basic 
commercially available software. Thus, there may be minimal costs to 
these licensees associated with conducting the engineering study. As 
noted, resolution of any actual interference would be at the expense of 
the DARS licensee provided the WCS, MDS or ITFS licensees are in the 
established vicinities and file timely complaints as set forth in the 
SDARS document.
    Compliance requirements for the DARS licensees, if it is determined 
that there is actual interference, include contacting the affected 
licensee and remedying the interference. The remedy may involve 
weighing options such as reducing the repeater's power or compensating 
the affected licensees by providing equipment and labor to alter the 
affected licensee's receivers. Costs to the DARS licensees may relate 
to engineering studies, cost analyses and expenses in equipment and 
labor. These costs may be determined on a case-by-case basis.
    6. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (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) use of 
performance, rather than design standards; and (4) and exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part there of, for small entities.
    The proposed rule represents an alternative to extremes presented 
by the licensees involved in this proceeding and spreads the economic 
impact and business decisions to resolve interference among the 
licensees. Our proposed alternatives are based on the actual 
performance of equipment deployed and would benefit small entities 
affected by interference from the SDARS use of their terrestrial 
repeaters by providing assurances that interference to their operations 
will be resolved by the DARS licensees within the parameters set forth 
in the SDARS document. In addition, we have sought comment on whether 
the proposed compensation schedule and associated time frames are 
sufficient, and especially seek comment from small entities, given that 
they may be some of the potentially affected licensees.
    7. Federal Rules that duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Environmental impact statements, Satellites.


[[Page 58703]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Jennifer Gilsenan,
Branch Chief, Satellite Policy Branch, International Bureau.

Proposed Rule

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(I), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 
and 325(e).

    2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising the entry for Satellite 
Communications in Table 1 to read as follows:


Sec. 1.1307  Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, 
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *

                              Table 1--Transmitters, Facilities, and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Service (title 47 CFR rule part)                                                  Evaluation required if
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                          *        *        *        *        *
Satellite Communications (part 25)..........................                     Satellite DARS Terrestrial Repeaters: >2000 W EIRP All others included.
 
                                                          *        *        *        *        *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-29328 Filed 11-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P