[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33666-33668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-14082]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

[IB Docket No. 02-364; FCC 03-15]


Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit 
Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits comment on redistributing spectrum in 
the 1.6/2.4 GHz band (Big LEO band). The Commission initiated the 
notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding because recent rule 
changes, as well as changing traffic patterns and consumer demands, 
suggest that it is an appropriate time for the Commission to re-examine 
the Big LEO spectrum. In addition, a licensed Big LEO operator 
requested access to additional spectrum in this band.

DATES: Comments are due July 7, 2003, and reply comments are due July 
21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-B204, Washington, DC, 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Trey Hanbury, Breck Blalock, or James Ball, 
Policy Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's notice 
of proposed rulemaking in IB Docket No. 02-364, FCC No. 03-15, adopted 
January 29, 2003, and released on February 3, 2002. The full text of 
this document is available for public inspection and copying during 
normal reference room hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document 
is also available for download over the Internet at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A1.pdf. The 
document may be obtained from Qualex International, in person at 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 
(202) 863-2893, via facsimile at (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at 
[email protected].
    Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (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. 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 
[email protected], and should include the following words in the body of the 
message, ``get form .'' A sample form 
and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by 
paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can 
be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, 
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. The 
Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The 
filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight 
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All 
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On February 3, 2003, the Commission released a Report and Order and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding. The Report and 
Order relating to this proceeding is published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register. The NPRM seeks comment on proposals for 
reassigning or reallocating a portion of spectrum in the Big LEO MSS 
frequency bands. At the time that the Commission developed the Big LEO 
spectrum sharing plan, it explained that it might be appropriate to re-
visit the plan in the future. Since then, two MSS systems deployed and 
have begun to operate, while several other systems have either 
surrendered their license or failed to meet the terms of their license. 
These changes, as well as changing traffic patterns and consumer 
demands, suggest that now is an appropriate time to re-examine the Big 
LEO spectrum plan. In addition, Iridium, one of the two licensed Big 
LEO operators, has requested access to additional spectrum in the Big 
LEO band. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that a

[[Page 33667]]

rebalancing of spectrum in the Big LEO band would serve the public 
interest and seeks comment on the proposal in Iridium's petition and on 
various alternative uses for the Big LEO spectrum, including whether 
the Commission should reallocate spectrum for unlicensed services, an 
additional commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) licensee or other 
services, or initiate a second processing round by which the Commission 
could authorize new MSS entry.
    The Commission seeks specific technical detail and cost-benefit 
analysis on the current and projected use of the Big LEO band in the 
NPRM. For example, given Iridium's request for additional spectrum, how 
is Iridium utilizing its current spectrum allocations and what are its 
future spectrum requirements? If the Commission were to make more Big 
LEO spectrum available, exactly how much additional spectrum would be 
appropriate? What type of system would Iridium deploy in this 
additional spectrum? How is Globalstar utilizing its currently assigned 
Big LEO spectrum? What are Globalstar's projected spectrum needs? Will 
it require additional Big LEO spectrum in the future? If Globalstar 
does not use or is not permitted to use the entire Big LEO service 
downlink spectrum, what should the Commission do with any unused 
spectrum? Will changes to the Big LEO spectrum sharing plan have any 
effect on GLONASS, the Russian Global Navigation System, and 
radioastronomy service (RAS) operations in the band? How does the 
current U.S. Big LEO spectrum sharing plan fit with international band 
plans for Big LEO operations and what impact will changes to the U.S. 
plan have on plans in other regions?
    The Commission also seeks comment on the possibility of making any 
returned spectrum available in a second Big LEO processing round. How 
much spectrum would need to be made available to provide sufficient 
incentive for applicants to participate in a second Big LEO processing 
round? Are the current Big LEO processing rules sufficient to handle a 
second processing round or would the Commission need to conduct a 
rulemaking to develop appropriate rules for second round applicants and 
licensees?
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on possibility of re-
allocating any returned Big LEO spectrum. Should unlicensed devices be 
allowed to operate in the band? Should this band be allocated for site-
based or critical infrastructure licensees? Alternatively, should the 
Commission pair spectrum in the uplink and downlink service bands for 
assignment to a terrestrial CMRS licensee? The Commission seeks comment 
on implementation of ATC in the portion of the Big LEO bands beyond 
those authorized for ATC in the Report and Order adopted in this 
docket, see In the Matter of Flexibility for Delivery of Communications 
by Mobil Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and 
the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order, IB Docket 01-185, FCC No. 03-
15. This Report and Order is published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. The Commission asks whether there are any advantages 
or disadvantages to allowing CDMA or TDMA systems to deploy ATC in 
particular parts of the unresolved portions of the Big LEO service up 
and downlink spectrum.

Procedural Issues

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an 
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' In the NPRM, the Commission 
certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the RFA, 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) on the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and actions considered in the NPRM. Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the NPRM. Comments are due July 7, 2003. The Commission will send a 
copy of the document, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA 
has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). See 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq., title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

    This NPRM seeks comment on proposals for reassigning or 
reallocating a portion of spectrum in the Big LEO MSS frequency bands. 
Given the state of the Big LEO MSS industry including changing traffic 
patterns, consumer demand and a recent request for additional spectrum 
by Iridium, one of the Big LEO operators, the NPRM seeks comment on: 
(1) the Commission's original spectrum sharing plan, (2) the proposal 
of Iridium for additional spectrum and (3) other possible uses of the 
band.

Legal Basis

    This action is taken pursuant to sections 1, and 4(i) and (j) of 
the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 
section 201(c)(11) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 721(c)(11), and section 553 of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Would Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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. Id. section 632
    The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities 
applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite 
or mobile satellite service operators. Therefore, the applicable 
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications Services, Not 
Elsewhere Classified. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 51334. This 
definition provides that a small entity is one with $11.0 million or 
less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data, there are 848 
firms that fall under the category of Communications Services, Not 
Elsewhere Classified which could potentially fall into the L-band, Big 
LEO or 2 GHz MSS category. Of those, approximately 775 reported annual 
receipts of $11 million or less

[[Page 33668]]

and qualify as small entities. The options proposed in this NPRM apply 
only to entities providing Big LEO MSS. Small businesses may not have 
the financial ability to become MSS system operators because of the 
high implementation costs associated with satellite systems and 
services. At least one of the Big LEO licensees may be considered a 
small business at this time. We expect, however, that by the time of 
implementation they will no longer be considered small businesses due 
to the capital requirements for launching and operating their proposed 
systems. Therefore, because of the high implementation costs and the 
limited spectrum resources, we do not believe that small entities will 
be impacted by this rulemaking to a great extent.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The proposed action in this NPRM would affect those entities 
applying for Big LEO MSS space station authorizations and those 
applying to participate in assignment of Big LEO MSS spectrum, 
including through potential re-allocation. In this NPRM, we tentatively 
conclude that a re-balancing of the Big LEO MSS band will serve the 
public interest. We seek comment on the current use of the Big LEO MSS 
uplink band (1610-1626.5 MHz) by the current licensees, Iridium and 
Globalstar, any potential impact on GLONASS, the Russian Global 
Navigation Satellite System, and radioastronomy, and Big LEO MSS 
service downlink (2483.5-2500 MHz) spectrum uses. We also seek comment 
on the possibility of making Big LEO MSS spectrum available in a second 
Big LEO processing round, re-allocating a portion of the Big LEO 
spectrum for other uses, including unlicensed devices, site-based or 
critical infrastructure licensees, or assignment to terrestrial 
commercial mobile radio service licensees. We do not propose any other 
reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements in the NPRM.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    In developing the tentative conclusion and the proposals contained 
in this NPRM, we have attempted to allow flexibility for efficient 
operations in the Big LEO MSS market, regardless of size, consistent 
with our other objectives. We have also sought comment on other uses of 
the spectrum that may enhance service to the public. We believe that 
our tentative conclusion that the Big LEO MSS band should be re-
balanced, our request for comment on the current use of the band by the 
Big LEO licensees, and our request for comment on other uses of the 
band will not impose a significant economic impact on small entities 
because: (1) The information sought is reasonable and not overly 
burdensome; and (2) as mentioned above, we do not expect small entities 
to be impacted by this NPRM due to the substantial implementation costs 
involved to use the spectrum at issue in this NPRM. Nonetheless, we 
seek comment on the impact of our proposals on small entities and on 
any possible alternatives that could minimize any such impact.

Federal Rules and May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed 
Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-4(j), 201-205, 
214, 303(r), and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-154(j), 201-205, 214, 303(r), 309, this notice of 
proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    It is ordered that, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this 
notice of proposed rulemaking, including the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-14082 Filed 6-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P