[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 90 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26067-26071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10105]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[WT Docket Nos. 03-66; 03-67; 02-68; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket 
No. 00-258; FCC 08-83]


Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, 
Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 
MHz Bands; Reviewing of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-
Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 
1.6/2.4 GHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to 
assign Educational Broadband Service (EBS) spectrum in the Gulf of 
Mexico. It also seeks comment on how to license unassigned and 
available EBS spectrum. Specifically, we seek comment on whether it 
would be in the public interest to develop a scheme for licensing 
unassigned EBS spectrum that avoids mutual exclusivity; we ask whether 
EBS eligible entities could participate fully in a spectrum auction; we 
seek comment on the use of small business size standards and bidding 
credits for EBS if we adopt a licensing scheme that could result in 
mutually exclusive applications; we seek comment on the proper market 
size and size of spectrum blocks for new EBS licenses; and we seek 
comment on issuing one license to a State agency designated by the 
Governor to be the spectrum manager, using frequency coordinators to 
avoid mutually exclusive EBS applications, as well as other alternative 
licensing schemes. The Commission must develop a new licensing scheme 
for EBS in order to achieve the Commission's goal of facilitating the 
development of new and innovative wireless services for the benefit of 
students throughout the nation.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 7, 2008. Submit reply comments 
on or before August 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 08-83, 
or by WT Docket No. 03-66, WT Docket No. 03-67, WT Docket No. 02-68, IB 
Docket No. 02-364, or ET Docket No. 00-258, by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact John 
Schauble, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554, at (202) 418-0797 or via the Internet to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the FCC's Broadband 
Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM), FCC 08-83, adopted on March 
18, 2008, and released on March 20, 2008. The full text of this 
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased 
from the Commission's

[[Page 26068]]

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 
488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at [email protected]. 
The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-08-83A1doc. This 
full text may also be downloaded at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, 
audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin 
at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail to 
[email protected].

Summary

BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM

    1. We seek comment on whether and how we license EBS spectrum in 
the Gulf of Mexico. Commenters should address the issue of whether 
there is a need in the Gulf of Mexico for the type of educational 
services that EBS is designed to meet. Because there are no schools or 
universities in the Gulf of Mexico, we seek comment on whether any 
changes to our educational use requirements are appropriate for the 
Gulf of Mexico.
    2. We also seek further comment on the appropriate licensing scheme 
for new EBS licenses. We note that the opportunities presented by the 
new technical rules and band plan create additional demand for EBS 
spectrum, and that EBS eligible entities have not been able to file 
applications for new stations since 1995. The record developed to date 
is insufficient for us to adequately weigh the various options for 
licensing EBS spectrum, including options that might avoid mutually 
exclusive applications.
    3. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Budget Act) expanded the 
Commission's competitive bidding authority under section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act by adding, among other things, provisions governing 
auctions for broadcast and other previously exempt services. In a 
subsequent order, the Commission concluded that the legislation 
required that mutually exclusive applications for new Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS) stations be subject to auction. The 
Commission concluded that ITFS did not fall within the exemption from 
competitive bidding for noncommercial educational broadcast stations. 
The Commission expressed concern that section 309(j), as adopted, might 
not reflect Congress' intent with regard to the treatment of competing 
ITFS applications. Given the instructional nature of the service and 
the reservation of ITFS spectrum for noncommercial educational use, the 
Commission thought it possible that Congress did not intend its 
expansion of our auction authority in the Budget Act to include that 
service. Accordingly, the Commission did not proceed immediately with 
an auction of ITFS applications but sought Congressional guidance with 
regard to assigning licenses for ITFS by competitive bidding and 
proposed that Congress exempt ITFS applications from competitive 
bidding. In 2000, the Commission opened a settlement window to resolve 
mutual exclusivity between applications by allowing payments to 
applicants in return for dismissing their applications and permitting 
agreements providing for the authorization to be awarded to a non-
applicant third party.
    4. In 2003, the Commission reiterated its prior conclusion that 
mutually exclusive applications for new ITFS stations would be subject 
to competitive bidding and noted the Commission's attempt to seek 
Congressional guidance on this issue. It also held that there would be 
no opportunity to file new ITFS applications, amendments, or 
modifications of any kind of station (except for applications that 
involved minor modifications, assignment of licenses, or transfer of 
control) while the Commission undertook a major restructuring of the 
2.5 GHz band plan and technical rules. The Commission also sought 
comment on potential options for assigning licenses for unassigned ITFS 
spectrum by competitive bidding. While the Commission later lifted the 
freeze on modification applications, the freeze on applications for new 
EBS stations remained in place.
    5. In the 2004 BRS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission proposed to assign new EBS spectrum licenses using 
competitive bidding. The Commission also sought comment on geographic 
areas for new licenses, frequency blocks for new licenses, rules for 
auctions, bidding credits for small businesses and designated entities, 
and auctioning spectrum as a means of transitioning areas where a 
proponent has not come forward within the deadline established by the 
Commission.
    6. Notwithstanding the Commission's prior determinations that 
applications for initial EBS spectrum licenses are not exempt from 
competitive bidding under the Communications Act, today, we seek 
comment on a mechanism for assigning EBS licenses by competitive 
bidding among applicants, as well as through other means that would 
avoid mutual exclusivity among applications, obviating any need for 
competitive bidding.
    5. Given various characteristics of eligible EBS licensees that are 
unique among potential Commission licensees, a licensing mechanism that 
depends on competitive bidding to assign licenses may not provide many 
otherwise eligible EBS licensees with a full opportunity to 
participate, accordingly, we seek further comment on the appropriate 
licensing mechanism for new EBS licenses. We do so without prejudging 
the appropriate time for issuing new EBS licenses, whether pursuant to 
competitive bidding or an alternative assignment mechanism.
    6. We seek comment on several threshold questions involving the 
possibility of adopting a licensing scheme that provides for mutually 
exclusive applications and competitive bidding. First, do EBS eligible 
entities, in general, have the authority to bid for spectrum licenses? 
Second, if EBS eligible entities have the authority to bid for 
spectrum, do they have the authority to bid for spectrum outside of 
their respective jurisdictions? We seek comment on whether educational 
institutions would be able to competitively bid for Basic Trading Areas 
(BTAs), given that school districts are usually smaller than counties, 
while BTAs can be very large and frequently bisect state boundaries. If 
EBS eligible entities cannot bid for spectrum outside of their 
respective jurisdictions, but are otherwise able to bid for spectrum, 
we seek comment on whether educational institutions could form a 
consortium or some other joint entity to bid for spectrum in areas 
larger than their respective jurisdictions and as large as a BTA.
    7. Moreover, we seek comment on how we should structure the auction 
to ensure that licenses are disseminated among a wide variety of 
applicants. In this connection, we seek comment on whether we should 
prohibit non-profit educational organizations from participating in an 
auction and limiting eligible bidders to EBS eligible entities that are 
publicly supported or privately controlled educational institutions 
accredited by the appropriate State department of education or the 
recognized regional and national accrediting organization.
    8. We propose to conduct any auction of the EBS spectrum in 
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 
1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, consistent with many of the 
bidding procedures that have been employed in previous auctions. 
Specifically, we propose to

[[Page 26069]]

employ the part 1 rules governing, among other things, competitive 
bidding design, designated entities, application and payment 
procedures, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment.
    9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt bidding credits and 
small business size standards in the auction of EBS spectrum.
    10. We seek comment on the size of the spectrum blocks to be 
auctioned. Under one possible scheme, the winning bidder would receive 
both the three low-power channels and the one high-power channel 
assigned to the group. We could also auction the high-power channels in 
the group separately from the low-power channels in the group. A third 
option would be to license all of the available spectrum in the Lower 
Band Segment (LBS) and Upper Band Segment (UBS) as one frequency block 
and all of the available Middle Band Segment (MBS) spectrum as a 
separate frequency block.
    11. With respect to a geographic area licensing scheme, we seek 
comment on the size of the area to be licensed. Several commenters 
recommend that we license available and unassigned EBS spectrum by BTA 
to correspond to the BRS licensing area. We could also assign licenses 
by State. We also seek comment on whether we should license smaller 
areas such as cellular market areas. If we decide to license the low-
power channels separately from the high-power channels, we seek comment 
on whether we should adopt a different geographic area for the MBS 
channels.
    12. We also seek comment on whether special eligibility or spectrum 
aggregation limits would be appropriate or necessary to ensure that 
public and private educational institutions can successfully bid for 
spectrum.
    13. If, as a result of the record developed in response to this 
BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, we learn that very few EBS eligible entities can bid 
for spectrum, we may find that the public interest of making this 
spectrum available will lead us to adopt a licensing scheme that avoids 
competitive bidding. In this connection, we seek comment on all 
available options for granting geographic area licenses without 
granting one of multiple mutually exclusive applications. Commenters 
proposing such options should provide a detailed description of how 
their proposed option would work, describe what they believe the proper 
geographic area and channel blocks should be for proposed licenses, and 
explain why they believe their proposed licensing scheme would allow 
vacant EBS spectrum to be rapidly placed into use by EBS-eligible 
licensees and meet the educational, spectrum policy, and broadband 
goals underlying EBS.
    14. One option would be to issue one license to a State agency 
designated by the Governor to be the spectrum manager for the entire 
State, using frequency coordinators to avoid mutually exclusive EBS 
applications, as well as other alternative licensing schemes. In 
connection with this state licensing option, we seek comment on whether 
any modifications to our Secondary Markets leasing rules would be 
appropriate for these state licenses. We also seek comment on whether 
any modifications to our special leasing rules for EBS stations would 
be appropriate for state licenses.
    15. Under spectrum manager leasing arrangements and de facto 
transfer leasing arrangements, the licensee must meet the eligibility 
requirements in the Commission's rules. Thus, the State agency 
designated by the Governor would have to meet the eligibility 
requirements of Sec.  27.1201 of our rules. We seek comment on whether 
any restrictions on a state's leasing discretion would be necessary to 
ensure that the full range of educational entities have access to EBS 
spectrum.
    16. We also seek comment on whether any modifications to our 
special leasing rules for EBS stations would be appropriate for state 
licenses. Under Sec.  27.1214 of our rules, a licensee must comply with 
certain educational programming requirements and retain the opportunity 
to purchase or to lease dedicated or common EBS equipment used for 
educational purposes or comparable equipment if the lease terminates.
    17. Another option would adopt a licensing scheme similar to the 
one we use to license private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this 
approach, applicants could submit applications for new EBS stations at 
any time to certified frequency coordinators. The frequency 
coordinators would review the applications and, in case of conflict, 
certify the earlier filed application that complies with the 
Commission's rules for submission to the Commission.
    18. Using frequency coordination to award licenses for new EBS 
stations raises a variety of issues. First, we seek comment on whether 
there are entities that could be qualified to serve as an EBS frequency 
coordinator and the process by which the Commission should select one 
or more frequency coordinators. Second, we seek comment on the 
processes that a frequency coordinator would use to handle requests for 
EBS frequencies and to determine whether an application complies with 
the Commission's rules. We also seek comment on the appropriate 
geographic area for new licenses. We also seek comment on the 
appropriate size of the frequency block for EBS licenses awarded 
through the frequency coordination process. Available alternatives 
include: (1) Issuing a separate license for each channel group; (2) 
licensing MBS channels separately and licensing LBS and UBS channels 
together; (3) issuing one UBS license, one MBS license, and one LBS 
license in a given geographic area. Finally, we ask whether it is 
appropriate or necessary to place limitations on the number of 
applications that a licensee or its affiliates could file for new EBS 
stations in a given time period in order to ensure that a wide variety 
of EBS licensees can access spectrum. We seek comment on these and any 
other issues relating to the use of frequency coordination to assign 
new EBS licenses.
    19. Our discussion of specific proposals and questions is not meant 
to preclude commenters from offering other proposals or raising other 
questions relating to the assignment of new EBS licenses. We seek 
comment on all questions and issues relating to the assignment of new 
EBS licenses.

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
    20. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's rules.
Comment Period and Procedures
    21. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the FCC's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The FCC's Electronic Comment 
Filing system (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, 
or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the

[[Page 26070]]

caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include 
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Comments shall be sent as an 
electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, 
commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the 
following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form 
and directions will be sent in response.
     Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive 
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
     Availability of Documents: The public may view the 
documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the 
Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments 
and reply comments are also available through the Commission's 
duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160.

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    22. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4) requirements.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM. Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in 
the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of 
this BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in 
the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    24. The BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on various alternatives to 
license unassigned and available EBS spectrum throughout the United 
States and the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM 
seeks comments on the following options:
    (a) Using competitive bidding to license unassigned and available 
spectrum. If this option is adopted the Commission proposes to use the 
competitive bidding rules in part 1, subpart Q of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt bidding 
credits and small business size standard, the size of the spectrum 
blocks to be auctioned, and the size of geographic areas to be 
licensed.
    (b) Issuing one license per State to a State agency designated by 
the Governor to act as a spectrum manager for the State. The State 
agency would be required to meet the eligibility restrictions in Sec.  
27.1201 of the Commission's rules. The State agency would be able use 
spectrum manager leasing arrangements or de facto transfer leasing 
arrangements.
    (c) Using a leasing scheme similar to the one used to license 
private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this approach, applicants 
could submit applications for new EBS stations at any time to frequency 
coordinators.
    25. We believe our proposals will encourage utilization of this 
band and the development of new innovative services to the public such 
as providing wireless broadband services, including high-speed Internet 
access and mobile services while encouraging educators to use the band 
for educational services.

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules

    26. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 
10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 
706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 
324, 332, 333, and 706.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms, ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. A small 
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small 
organizations. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined 
as ``governments of cities,

[[Page 26071]]

towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, 
with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' The term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 
84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we 
estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we 
discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be 
affected by our actions.
    28. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to 
as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)) is used to 
provide educational services to students. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which 
includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total 
of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this 
service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules 
and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard is 
applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 
of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational 
institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we 
estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.
    29. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these 
licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions 
may be included in the definition of a small entity. EBS is a non-
profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of 
other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. We find 
that up to 1,932 of these educational institutions are small entities 
that may take advantage of our amended rules to provide additional 
flexibility to EBS.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    30. There are no new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance 
requirements proposed in the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    31. RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
small entities.''
    32. The Commission has not proposed an approach for licensing EBS 
spectrum. Instead, the Commission seeks comment on three distinct 
approaches for licensing EBS spectrum to determine which approach would 
best suit the needs of schools and universities and other non-profit 
educational institutions.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    33. None.

Ordering Clauses

    34. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the 
proposed regulatory changes described in this Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
    35. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10105 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P