[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35700-35708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14362]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[WT Docket No. 21-230; FCC 21-69; FR ID 35413]


Automatic Identification System Channels

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) fulfils 
the Commission's statutory duty pursuant to Section 8416 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which directs 
the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June 30, 2021 to 
consider whether to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment 
for use on Automatic Identification System (AIS) channels. This 
document seeks comment on the extent to which the 1900-2000 kHz band is 
used to support fishing operations, the extent of unauthorized 
deployment of devices used to mark fishing equipment using AIS 
technology on AIS channels, and whether to authorize devices used to 
mark fishing equipment for use on current AIS channels. In addition, 
the NPRM explores whether 160.900 MHz is a viable alternative for 
devices used to mark fishing equipment. In the event the Commission 
were to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment to use AIS 
channels or 160.900 MHz, the NPRM seeks comment on whether there are 
technical and operational constraints that could be imposed to maintain 
maritime safety and protect incumbents. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment 
on a consumer labeling approach for authorized equipment to provide 
consumers guidance on whether the equipment being purchased complies 
with both the Coast Guard's and the Commission's rules.

DATES: Interested parties may filed comments on or before August 6, 
2021; and reply comments on or before September 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 21-230, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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 commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
    See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and 
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2925.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 21-230, FCC 21-69 
adopted on June 15, 2021 and released on June 16, 2021. The full text 
of this document, including all Appendices, is available for public 
inspection on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-69A1.pdf.

[[Page 35701]]

    Congress directed the Commission to ``consider whether imposing 
requirements with respect to the manner in which devices used to mark 
fishing equipment are deployed and used would enable them to be 
authorized to operate in radio frequencies assigned for [AIS] 
consistent with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent maritime 
accidents.'' The Commission currently authorizes radio buoy operations 
under a ship station license for commercial fishing operations on the 
open sea and the Great Lakes in the 1900-2000 kHz band.

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation.
    If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the 
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's 
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her 
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant 
page and/or Federal numbers where such data or arguments can be found) 
in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given 
to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written 
ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.  
1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. As required by Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, we initiate 
this rulemaking proceeding to explore whether to authorize devices that 
can be used to mark fishing equipment for use on Automatic 
Identification System (AIS) channels without undermining the core 
purpose of AIS to prevent maritime accidents. AIS is a maritime 
navigation safety and domain awareness communication system that has 
been successfully relied upon both domestically and internationally to 
provide pertinent navigation safety information among vessels, 
aircraft, and maritime authorities. The Commission's existing rules 
limit the use of AIS channels to devices needed for safety and do not 
authorize the use on AIS channels of devices used to mark fishing 
equipment or the marketing of such devices. This NPRM seeks comment on 
both the issue raised in Section 8416 of the NDAA21 and on the use of 
alternative spectrum (other than AIS channels) for these types of 
devices.

II. Background

    2. Automatic Identification System. Under Commission rules, AIS is 
defined as a ``maritime navigation safety communications system . . . 
that provides vessel information, including the vessel's identity, 
type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-
related information automatically to appropriately equipped shore 
stations, other ships, and aircraft; receives automatically such 
information from similarly fitted ships; monitors and tracks ships; and 
exchanges data with shore-based facilities.'' The Commission's rules 
codify the international standards for AIS to ensure AIS devices meet 
the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), 
which imposes obligations on vessels traveling in international waters. 
The IMO established those requirements to ``improve the safety of 
navigation by assisting in the efficient navigation of ships, 
protection of the environment, and operation of Vessel Traffic 
Services.'' An AIS device allows users to receive data related to the 
locations of other vessels in the area, additional objects like 
navigational aids, and maritime-related messages. The IMO adopted a 
requirement for AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage 
or more engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross 
tonnage or more not engaged on international voyages, and all passenger 
ships carrying more than 12 passengers. The United States Coast Guard 
(Coast Guard), acting pursuant to statutory directive, expanded the AIS 
carriage requirement to most commercial vessels in U.S. navigable 
waters.
    3. The Commission has incorporated by reference, in part 80 of its 
rules, an International Telecommunication Union (ITU) international 
standard for AIS equipment and several other international standards 
for AIS, as the basis for certifying compulsory and voluntary AIS 
equipment. The only AIS equipment types currently authorized under part 
80 of the Commission's rules are Class A and B shipborne equipment, AIS 
Search and Rescue Transponders (AIS-SARTs), and Maritime Survivor 
Locating Devices (MSLDs). Class A AIS devices are typically used by 
sea-going vessels to comply with international and Coast Guard carriage 
requirements, and have a much greater transmit power and provide more 
information than Class B devices. Class B AIS devices may be used for 
voluntary carriage by recreational and other non-compulsory vessels and 
a select segment of mandatory AIS users in lieu of a Class A device. 
AIS-SARTs are carried on board survival craft for use during a distress 
situation to assist search and rescue personnel in locating those in 
distress. An AIS-SART is used to locate a survival craft or distressed 
vessel by transmitting a unique identification code and GPS coordinates 
to all AIS-enabled vessels in VHF range. MSLDs are devices intended to 
aid in locating persons in the water. The Commission has also granted 
temporary waiver of its rules to permit certification and use of AIS 
Aid to Navigation (AtoN) stations.
    4. In 2006, the Commission implemented the international AIS 
allocation domestically by designating VHF maritime Channels 87B 
(161.975 MHz) and 88B (162.025 MHz) for AIS. These channels are 
denominated AIS 1 and AIS 2, respectively, and are authorized for use 
only by Class A and B AIS devices, AIS-SARTs, AIS AtoNs, and MSLDs. The 
Commission does not authorize non-AIS use of the AIS channels or 
certification of non-AIS VHF radios that include the AIS frequencies.
    5. As more vessels become equipped with authorized AIS equipment 
and usage increases, AIS 1 and 2 have the potential to become 
overloaded in areas with high vessel traffic. A consequence of 
overloading is an impact on mariner situational awareness, including 
reduction in the navigational range of the AIS system, effectively 
limiting the number of vessels that can be observed

[[Page 35702]]

within the system. As discussed below, the ITU has sought to address 
this problem by defining the types of navigation safety AIS uses that 
are permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by recommending the use of 160.900 
MHz for non-navigation and non-safety AIS operations on a non-
interference basis.
    6. Unauthorized Use of Devices on AIS Channels. In 2018, the 
Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued an advisory stating that it had 
observed a ``proliferation in the use and marketing of noncompliant 
devices that operate on radio frequencies assigned to Automatic 
Identification Systems (AIS), which are authorized exclusively for 
marine navigation safety communications.'' One particular unauthorized 
operation is the use of AIS frequencies in the marking of fishing 
equipment, which can ``disrupt important maritime communications, 
increasing the risk of accidents by creating confusion about whether an 
AIS signal represents a vessel that must be avoided.'' Such 
noncompliant AIS devices are often advertised as ``AIS Fishing Net 
Buoys,'' and the devices can transmit a vessel identification signal 
without essential navigational safety information. According to the 
Enforcement Bureau, in addition to being illegal, the use of devices to 
mark fishing nets on AIS channels ``can have a serious detrimental 
effect on maritime safety, hampering the situational awareness of 
maritime operators and endangering ships relying on AIS to avoid 
collisions and allisions at sea.'' The Enforcement Bureau warned that 
violations of the Commission's marketing or operating rules would be 
subject to substantial monetary penalties. As the legal alternative, 
the advisory pointed to compliant maritime equipment intended for 
tracking fishing nets that is authorized to operate in the 1900-2000 
kHz band.
    7. Statutory Mandate. Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates that we 
initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider whether 
to authorize devices used to mark fishing equipment in radio 
frequencies assigned for AIS. Congress further instructed the 
Commission to ``consider whether imposing requirements with respect to 
the manner in which [AIS] devices are deployed and used would enable 
the authorization of [devices used to mark fishing equipment] to 
operate in radio frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations consistent 
with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.''

III. Discussion

    8. Pursuant to Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek comment on 
whether to permit devices capable of marking fishing equipment to 
operate on channels currently assigned in the United States and 
internationally for AIS operation, specifically AIS 1 and 2, and on 
related operational issues. As stated, in the United States, AIS 1 and 
2 currently are authorized only for maritime navigation safety 
purposes, and Congress directed the Commission to ensure that any 
changes to permitted operations in AIS spectrum are consistent with the 
core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime accidents.
    9. We seek comment below on the current types and usages of such 
devices. We seek comment on whether such devices could operate on AIS 1 
and 2 consistent with the purpose of AIS and, if so, under what 
conditions. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of 
permitting operation of these devices on AIS 1 and 2, including the 
risks to maritime safety. In addition, we seek comment on the costs and 
benefits of facilitating use of such devices on alternative spectrum, 
specifically, by encouraging more robust use of frequencies in the 
1900-2000 kHz band (which is currently authorized for radio buoy 
operations under certain ship station licenses held by commercial 
fishing vessels) and/or by permitting such use on 160.900 MHz 
(consistent with ITU recommendations). We further seek comment on how 
best to categorize devices used to mark fishing equipment and protect 
incumbents through technical and operational limitations. Finally, we 
seek comment on a consumer labeling approach to provide consumers 
guidance on whether the equipment being purchased complies with the 
Coast Guard's rules and the Commission's rules.

A. Current Environment for Devices Used To Mark Fishing Equipment

    10. We seek comment generally on the current usage of spectrum to 
operate devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment. We 
consider two general types of fishing equipment; those attached to 
vessels during fishing activities, such as long-lines, trawl nets or 
drift nets, and those deployed for later retrieval, such as fixed 
fishing nets, pots, traps or other fishing equipment. What is the 
volume of usage of any of these devices that could be used to mark 
fishing equipment? How many mobile and/or fixed devices are typically 
used by an individual vessel or fleet? To what extent does usage of 
these devices vary based on the body of water where deployed? Are there 
other types of fishing nets that we should consider? We recognize that 
fishing seasons are time limited and vary by location, and we seek data 
to determine the most trafficked locations during high fishing season. 
Approximately how many devices are typically used to mark fishing 
equipment in a given area during high season? Are the devices used 
year-round, or only during the fishing season? If they are used year-
round, are the full complement of devices always in use, or does the 
number of devices in use vary based on the time of year? Over how large 
an area are these devices used? What types of technical developments 
have occurred to facilitate the use of these devices? Are these devices 
also used to mark the location of other types of marine equipment? We 
seek extensive data input into our record in this proceeding as part of 
our consideration of whether to authorize devices that could be used to 
mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2.
    11. 1900-2000 kHz Operations. We note that the Commission currently 
authorizes radio buoy operations under a ship station license for 
commercial fishing operations on the open sea and the Great Lakes in 
the 1900-2000 kHz band. Under Commission rules, the output power is 
limited to 8 watts and the station antenna height is limited to 4.6 
meters above sea level for a buoy station, or 6 meters above the mast 
of the ship for ship installations. We seek comment on the extent to 
which this band is used in support of fishing operations. We ask that 
commenters provide specific details regarding use cases to provide a 
clearer understanding of the scope of the use of the 1900-2000 kHz band 
in support of fishing operations. What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of using the 1900-2000 kHz band in support of such 
operations? How many devices currently used to mark fishing equipment 
employ this band? What is the anticipated rate of increase in the 
number of devices used to mark fishing equipment in this band? Is there 
sufficient equipment available in this band for use in marking devices 
for fishing operations? Would the current technical limits hinder the 
use of this band for devices that can be used to mark fishing 
equipment, or fail to incentivize equipment development? Given the 
current power limits, what is the estimated number of devices in a 
given area that this band can support without harmful interference? 
What advantages or disadvantages are there to using equipment in this 
band as compared to AIS equipment, specifically as related to any 
differences in functionality, performance, and cost? We also seek 
information, especially quantitative estimates, on the economic value 
of improved safety and more

[[Page 35703]]

efficient commercial fishing operations from the use of these radio 
buoys in the 1900-2000 kHz band.
    12. Unauthorized Use of AIS Channels. We seek comment on whether 
entities currently using AIS 1 and 2 for navigation safety and domain 
awareness communication systems are experiencing problems from 
unauthorized use of AIS 1 and 2. If so, how and to what extent does 
such unauthorized use impact legitimate operations on AIS 1 and 2? We 
seek specific comment on the types and quantity of devices used, or 
marketed for use, to illegally operate on AIS 1 and 2 to mark fishing 
equipment. Since the issuance of the 2018 Enforcement Bureau Advisory, 
is there evidence of the continued proliferation of the unauthorized 
deployment of devices used to mark fishing equipment using AIS channels 
1 and 2, and if so, at what rate? Is any such proliferation largely 
limited to certain bodies of water? How are such unauthorized uses 
typically deployed--i.e., at what power levels and antenna heights--and 
are there differences between fixed deployments and mobile deployments 
(e.g., trawl use cases)?
    13. As noted above, there is a concern that, in some areas, AIS 1 
and 2 may become compromised. The Commission's Enforcement Bureau 
Advisory stated that non-certified devices used to track or mark 
fishing equipment ``can have a serious detrimental effect on maritime 
safety, hampering the situational awareness of maritime operators and 
endangering ships relying on AIS to avoid collisions and allisions at 
sea.'' Further, an ITU Radiocommunication Bureau Recommendation 
indicates that, to avoid confusion or an overload of information on the 
bridge of a vessel, devices that do not enhance the safety of 
navigation should not be permitted to use designated frequencies AIS 1 
and 2. Do commenters agree with the ITU Recommendation? We seek 
specific comment and data on the extent the use of unauthorized devices 
is compromising the use of AIS 1 and 2 and any resulting impact on the 
state of maritime safety.

B. Exploring Additional Spectrum for Devices That Could Be Used To Mark 
Fishing Equipment

    14. AIS Channels 1 and 2. Consistent with the Congressional 
directive in Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek specific comment on 
whether requirements could be imposed to enable authorization of 
devices that are designed to mark fishing equipment to operate in AIS 1 
and 2 consistent with the core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime 
accidents. How would the introduction of such devices impact the 
availability and utility of the AIS 1 and 2 channels, especially in 
light of concerns about potential overloading? Would the authorization 
of devices used to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2 result in 
substantial further channel overloading? If low power/low-latency 
requirements were utilized for operation of devices used to mark 
fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2, would this alleviate concerns 
regarding channel overloading? Are modifications or retrofits required 
for existing devices to become compliant to the low-power/low-latency 
requirements? If so, what is the likely unit cost to make existing 
devices compliant with the low-power/low-latency requirements? How many 
existing devices are estimated to be affected by any new requirements? 
We seek comment on the overall costs and benefits of potentially 
allowing devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to 
operate on AIS 1 and 2, including the risks to maritime safety.
    15. We also seek comment on whether we could authorize devices that 
could be used to mark fishing equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2 
without diminishing navigation safety in domestic and international 
waters and impeding the efficiency of marine transportation systems. If 
so, what is the likely cost? If the Commission were to permit such 
devices to operate on AIS 1 and AIS 2, to what extent would we need to 
amend our current AIS equipment authorization rules? If the Commission 
were to permit devices used to mark fishing equipment to operate on AIS 
1 and 2, what coordination procedures would be needed between the 
Commission, the Coast Guard, and others to certify equipment and ensure 
safe operation? Are there restrictions or requirements the Commission 
could impose to mitigate against a negative impact on existing uses? 
For example, should we limit the types of devices used to mark fishing 
equipment that would be permitted to operate on AIS 1 and 2? Should we 
authorize devices for operation only in certain areas? If so, is there 
any practical way to enforce such limitations? Are there any technical 
parameters or other limits the Commission might impose to ensure that 
any new uses do not undermine the core purpose of AIS to prevent 
maritime accidents? We note that, during the pendency of this 
rulemaking, we will continue to enforce our rules that limit the use of 
AIS channels to devices needed for safety and that do not authorize use 
on AIS channels of devices used to mark fishing equipment or the 
marketing of such devices.
    16. Particularly in the maritime context, the Commission considers 
international ramifications in determining whether its actions are in 
the public interest. We therefore note that at WRC-19, the ITU updated 
its Radio Regulations, to establish a new class of AIS devices, Group A 
and Group B autonomous maritime radio devices (AMRD), and state that an 
AMRD is a ``mobile station operating at sea and transmitting 
independently of a ship station or a coast station.'' The ITU defined 
AMRD Group A as devices that ``enhance the safety of navigation.'' In 
contrast, the ITU defined AMRD Group B as ``[devices] that do not 
enhance the safety of navigation (AMRD which deliver signals or 
information which do not concern the navigation of the vessel or do not 
complement vessel traffic safety in waterways).'' Should we consider a 
similar categorization of AIS devices? Would this type of 
categorization be consistent with the core purpose of AIS to prevent 
maritime accidents? To the extent that the ITU categories might inform 
our approach in this proceeding, and recognizing that the distinction 
between devices in AMRD Groups A and B may be somewhat unclear and can 
vary by use case, we request comment on the types of devices that 
should be categorized as AMRD Group A verses Group B. Should the two 
general categories of fishing nets mentioned above (and their 
associated devices used for marking) be separately considered for AMRD 
Group A or B? Are there other categories of fishing nets/devices that 
should also be considered? What are the appropriate factors to consider 
in categorizing various devices, and should those factors differ 
depending on the use case? For example, should nets attached to a 
vessel be considered for AMRD Group A since approaching vessels will 
need to be aware of their location for navigation safety? Should static 
nets be considered for Group B due to their static nature, or do they 
remain a navigation hazard for approaching vessels? We also seek 
comment on the international ramifications if we were to authorize 
operation of devices used to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2, 
including the ramifications for international technical and 
intergovernmental organizations. For example, would revisions to 
existing technical standards, recommendations, or mandates be required 
at IEC, IMO, ITU or elsewhere?
    17. While we are concerned about the proliferation of devices that 
use AIS 1

[[Page 35704]]

and 2 to mark fishing equipment, and their potential overall effect on 
maritime safety, we also seek comment on any potential safety-related 
reasons to integrate such devices on AIS 1 and 2, including whether 
they might enhance the safety of navigation (e.g., by helping ships to 
avoid collision with fishing nets). Are there use or deployment 
restrictions on devices intended to mark fishing equipment that we 
could impose to potentially accommodate the addition of such devices on 
AIS 1 and 2, while not undermining the core safety purpose of AIS? 
Would allowing devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to 
operate on AIS 1 and 2 help maritime operators and ships relying on AIS 
to avoid collisions? Do concerns about AIS 1 and 2 overloading or 
traffic congestion generally vary depending on the type of fishing 
areas--e.g., fishing areas near ports or fishing lanes versus deep sea 
fishing areas? What other devices and/or applications are being 
considered for AMRD Group A and B? If the potential for new types of 
devices and/or applications for Group A is limited, could this provide 
an opportunity for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment 
to operate as Group A devices on AIS 1 and 2 and not impact the AIS 
network and its core maritime safety purpose? Could the impact be 
further reduced if devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment 
utilized a carrier-sense time-division multiple-access (CSTDMA) system 
used by Class B AIS transceivers, as opposed to random access time-
division multiple access (RATDMA) used by other AIS devices?
    18. Operation on 160.900 MHz by Devices that Could be Used to Mark 
Fishing Equipment. In order to assess the relative costs and benefits 
of permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by devices that could be used to 
mark fishing equipment, we explore whether other frequencies could be 
allocated to such uses, in particular 160.900 MHz. The ITU, in amending 
its Radio Regulations to permit certain devices categorized as AMRD 
Group B to use AIS technology, specifically identified 160.900 MHz for 
purposes other than safety on a non-interference basis to existing 
primary incumbents. We note, however, that the Commission has issued a 
substantial number of licenses authorizing primary operations within a 
25 kHz bandwidth of 160.900 MHz. Our Universal Licensing System (ULS) 
reflects 579 incumbent licensees on these channels, mostly railroad 
entities authorized across the nation, including near port cities, for 
uses such as dispatch, track maintenance, car maintenance, and safety-
related communications. ULS records also reflect three licenses near 
160.900 MHz issued to public safety entities for land mobile operation 
under Part 90 of the Commission's rules, and 44 fixed and mobile 
Broadcast Auxiliary Remote Pickup under Part 74 of the Commission's 
rules. Remote pickup channels can be used by a mobile transmitter to 
relay signals from a remote location back to the studio, or between two 
points, such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.
    19. We seek comment on whether the Commission should maintain 
consistency with the international maritime approach regarding devices 
used to mark fishing equipment and authorize operation of these devices 
on 160.900 MHz. As stated, we recognize that incumbents currently 
operate near this frequency and seek comment on the specific level of 
incumbent deployments near 160.900 MHz, including geographic locations 
and technical parameters. We also seek comment on whether there are 
protective measures that could be employed to minimize the potential 
for harmful interference to incumbents while still accommodating new 
maritime uses on or near 160.900 MHz. If stakeholders support 160.900 
MHz as the appropriate frequency for devices that could be used to mark 
fishing equipment in lieu of AIS 1 and 2, we seek comment on how the 
Commission should specifically protect incumbents, including many U.S. 
rail entities, and any incumbents that might operate near waterways, 
such as ports. To what extent can the Commission accommodate operation 
of devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment and incumbents 
on or near this frequency? We also note that the three public safety 
incumbent systems near 160.900 MHz are operated by governmental 
jurisdictions. Should public safety systems be provided the same 
protection as non-public safety systems operating on or near 160.900 
MHz or does their status as public safety entities requiring reliable 
communications dictate more stringent protective measures? If so, what 
protective measures are necessary?
    20. We recognize that the ITU established power level limits for 
AMRD Group B operation on 160.900 MHz not to exceed 100 mW and antenna 
height limits not to exceed 1 m above the surface of the sea. If we 
were to authorize operation of devices that could be used to mark 
fishing equipment on 160.900 MHz, we seek comment on whether the ITU 
established power/height limitations are sufficient to protect U.S. 
licensed incumbents operating near 160.900 MHz. If not, what 
alternative technical and operational limitations would be appropriate 
to mitigate the likelihood of harmful interference to incumbent 
licensees? Should we consider creating exclusion areas where devices 
that could be used to mark fishing equipment cannot be deployed if 
operating on 160.900 MHz? Commenters supporting domestic use of 160.900 
MHz for such devices should address these and any other issues, 
including the existence of appropriate technical and operational 
standards, necessary for such devices to successfully operate without 
causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees. If co-existence is 
not technically feasible, should we consider requiring incumbents to 
relocate to new spectrum, and if so, what are the available and 
appropriate spectrum alternatives for incumbents? We also recognize 
that any new authorized uses of 160.900 MHz may impact existing 
operations near the Canadian and Mexican borders and therefore seek 
comment on what measures might be necessary to protect use of the 
160.900 MHz spectrum outside of the United States, consistent with 
applicable treaties or arrangements.
    21. Consumer Labeling. We seek comment on whether to establish 
labeling requirements on authorized devices that could be used to mark 
fishing equipment to provide consumers guidance on whether the 
equipment being purchased complies with the Coast Guard's rules and the 
Commission's rules. By requiring labeling on devices approved for use 
in marking fishing equipment, consumers would be on notice not to 
purchase devices that do not contain the approved label. For example, 
if we adopted such an approach, unauthorized devices used in marking 
fishing equipment that operate on AIS 1 and 2, currently illegally 
marketed as ``AIS Fishing Net Buoys,'' would not contain the label of 
approval. We seek comment on requiring consumer labeling for devices 
that could be used to mark fishing equipment, including the costs and 
benefits of such an approach.

IV. Procedural Matters

    22. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (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.''

[[Page 35705]]

Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy 
changes contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the potential policy and 
rule changes that the Commission seeks comment on 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 as specified in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of 
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    24. As required by Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Commission 
initiated a proceeding to explore whether to authorize devices used to 
mark fishing equipment for use on Automatic Identification System (AIS) 
channels. Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates that the Commission 
initiate a proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider whether to authorize 
devices use to mark fishing equipment in radio frequencies assigned for 
AIS. Congress further instructs the Commission to ``consider whether 
imposing requirements with respect to the manner in which [AIS] devices 
are deployed and used would enable the authorization of [devices used 
to mark fishing equipment] to operate in radio frequencies assigned for 
[AIS] stations consistent with the core purpose of the [AIS] to prevent 
maritime accidents.''
    25. Pursuant to the mandates of Section 8416 of the NDAA21, the 
NPRM raises germane technical, operational and economic issues that 
could result in rules changes in its request for comments on whether to 
permit devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment to operate 
on channels currently assigned for AIS operation in the United States 
and internationally, specifically AIS channels 1 and 2. The NPRM seeks 
comment on the current types and usages of such devices. The NPRM 
inquires whether requirements could be adopted by the Commission to 
enable authorization of devices that are designed to mark fishing 
equipment to operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with the core purpose of 
AIS to prevent maritime accidents and seeks comment on this issue. The 
Commission also requests input on the overall costs and benefits of 
potentially allowing devices used to mark fishing equipment to operate 
on AIS 1 and 2, including the risks to maritime safety. Further, to the 
extent that the Commission were to permit devices used to mark fishing 
equipment on AIS 1 and AIS 2, the NPRM seeks input on the certification 
procedures that should be required, and whether, and to what extent the 
current Commission AIS equipment certification rules would need to be 
amended. Additionally, the NPRM seeks input on whether there are 
restrictions or requirements such as technical parameters, and use or 
deployment restrictions on devices intended to mark fishing equipment, 
that the Commission could impose to mitigate against a negative impact 
on existing uses without undermining the core safety purpose of AIS 
technology.
    26. As part of the Commission's assessment of the relative costs 
and benefits of permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by devices that could 
be used to mark fishing equipment, the NPRM seeks comment on whether 
to, in the alternative, authorize devices that could be used to mark 
fishing equipment for operation on 160.900 MHz pursuant to a relevant 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) recommendation. As more 
vessels become equipped with authorized AIS equipment and as its use 
increases, AIS channels have the potential to become overloaded in 
areas with high vessel traffic. In addition to the other impacts, one 
consequence of overloading is a reduction in the range of the AIS 
system which reduces situational awareness for mariners. The ITU has 
sought to address this problem by defining the types of navigation 
safety AIS uses that are permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by identifying 
160.900 MHz for non-navigation and non-safety AIS uses. In addition to 
the ITU's recommendation, the NPRM seeks comment on how best to 
categorize devices used to mark fishing equipment. Further, the 
Commission requests input on the appropriate technical and operational 
limitations and protective measures that could be adopted to best 
protect existing incumbents with deployments on the 160.900 MHz 
frequency from interference while still accommodating new maritime 
uses.
    27. Finally, the NPRM inquires whether a consumer labeling 
requirement should be adopted to provide consumers guidance on whether 
the equipment being purchased complies with both the Coast Guard's and 
the Commission's rules. By requiring labeling on devices approved for 
use in marking fishing equipment, consumers would be on notice not to 
purchase devices that do not contain the approved label. The Commission 
requests information on the costs and benefits of imposing such a 
labeling requirement.

B. Legal Basis

    28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 
301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, and pursuant 
to Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.

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

    29. 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 and policies, if adopted. 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.
    30. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, 
paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms

[[Page 35706]]

employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated small 
business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) are small 
entities.
    31. Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and 
marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium 
frequency (MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency 
position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft 
radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a size standard applicable to 
these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission 
uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms 
employed of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine 
radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency 
(MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position 
indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or 
any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a size standard applicable to these small 
businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA 
small business size standard for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms 
employed of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that 
the majority firms in this industry are small entities.
    32. Based on Commission data most applicants for recreational 
licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees 
and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not 
subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. 
For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that 
there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small 
businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, 
between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an 
auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz 
(ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For 
purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a ``small'' business as 
an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has 
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 
million dollars. In addition, a ``very small'' business is one that, 
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross 
revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million 
dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast 
Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify 
as ``small'' businesses under the above special small business size 
standards.
    33. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for 
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that 
year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 
employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. 
Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in 
this industry are small.
    34. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio 
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, 
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies 
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these 
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to 
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses 
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The 
appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 
firms that operate for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms has 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees 
are small entities.
    35. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.
    36. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    37. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with

[[Page 35707]]

enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 
2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 
entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    38. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) 
Licensees (TV Stations). Only licensees of broadcast stations, 
broadcast networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. 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). The 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The 
closest applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup 
BAS when used by a TV station is for Television Broadcasting and such a 
business is small if it has $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category 
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts 
of $25,000,000 or less, and 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 
and $49,999,999. Based on this data we estimate that the majority of 
firms are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
    39. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) 
Licensees (Radio Stations). Only licensees of broadcast stations, 
broadcast networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. 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). The 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The 
closest applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup 
BAS when used by a radio station is for Radio Stations and such a 
business is small if it has $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million per year and 17 firms operated with annual 
receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, based 
on the SBA's size standard the majority of firms are small entities.
    40. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) (Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing). Only licensees of broadcast stations, broadcast 
networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses. 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). The Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Broadcast 
Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees. The closest 
applicable SBA small business size standard for Remote pickup BAS 
involving BAS equipment manufacturers is for Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing and 
such a business is small if it has 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of that number, 828 establishments 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated 
with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated 
with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a 
majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.
    41. Boat Dealers. This U.S. industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in (1) retailing new and/or used boats or retailing 
new boats in combination with activities, such as repair services and 
selling replacement parts and accessories, and/or (2) retailing new 
and/or used outboard motors, boat trailers, marine supplies, parts, and 
accessories. The SBA has established a size standard for this industry, 
which is having annual receipts of $35 million or less. 2012 U.S. 
Census Bureau data indicate that 3,338 firms operated in this industry 
throughout the entire year. Of that number, 3,328 operated with annual 
receipts of less than $25 million, while 17 firms had annual receipts 
between $25 million and $49,999,999. Based on this data, we conclude 
that a majority of the firms in this industry are small.

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

    42. The inquiries raised for comment in the NPRM may create new or 
additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance 
obligations on small entities, if adopted. The NPRM seeks comment on 
potentially allowing devices used to mark fishing equipment on to AIS 
channels 1 and 2 pursuant to a statutory mandate and requests 
information on potential rule changes that can be made to facilitate 
this action. Following the Congressional directive in the NDAA21, the 
Commission is seeking comment on multiple alternatives for devices that 
could be used to mark fishing equipment that could result in reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. 
More specifically, in its request for comment, the Commission seeks 
information on the type of use or deployment restrictions on devices 
intended to mark fishing equipment it could impose to potentially 
accommodate the addition of such devices on AIS channels 1 and 2, while 
not undermining the core safety purpose of AIS technology. The NPRM 
also seeks input on what the certification procedures should be 
implemented if the Commission decides to allow devices used to mark 
fishing equipment on AIS channels 1 and 2 and whether to amend the 
current AIS equipment certification rules.
    43. In the alternative, the Commission is seeking comment on 
whether alternative frequencies could provide a viable option for 
devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment, in particular 
160.900 MHz. If the Commission decides that relocating existing 
incumbents from the 160.900 MHz band is a feasible course of action, 
those incumbents may face new requirements. Further, if the Commission 
adopts rules for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment 
to protect incumbents on 160.900 MHz, entities deploying such devices 
would need to conform to technical and operational standards and 
requirements. In addition, to the extent the Commission established a 
consumer labeling requirement pursuant to the inquiry raised in the 
NPRM compliance with a labeling requirement would be applicable to 
device manufacturers.
    44. At this time, the Commission is not currently in a position to 
determine whether, if adopted, the potential rule changes that could 
result from questions raised and issues discussed in the NPRM will 
require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 
other professionals, and cannot quantify the cost of compliance with 
any the potential rule changes that may be adopted. In the discussion 
of these issues relevant to whether to authorize devices used to mark 
fishing equipment for use on AIS channels or other frequencies, the 
Commission has sought comments from parties in the

[[Page 35708]]

proceeding, including seeking cost and benefit analyses. This 
information may help the Commission identify and evaluate other 
relevant matters, including compliance costs and burdens on small 
entities that may result from the matters explored in the NPRM.

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

    45. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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 such small 
entities.''
    46. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks to identify the appropriate 
band for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment and how 
to best protect maritime safety and incumbents. The Commission has 
raised three possible for approaches for consideration. As discussed 
above, the first approach looks at use of the current 1900-2000 kHz 
band and whether it remains appropriate for use in support of fishing 
operations. Pursuant to the NDAA21 statutory mandate, the NPRM seeks 
comment on whether imposing requirements with respect to the manner in 
which devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment are deployed 
would enable them to be authorized to operate in radio frequencies 
assigned for AIS consistent with the core AIS purpose to prevent 
maritime accidents. In the alternative, the Commission raised for 
consideration whether alternative frequencies could provide a viable 
option for devices that could be used to mark fishing equipment, in 
particular 160.900 MHz. To understand the technical, operational, and 
economic impact of each of these alternatives the Commission has 
provided small entities and others the opportunity to provide 
information, including cost and benefit analyses on issues identified 
in the NPRM as well as information on any other issues relevant to this 
matter.
    47. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic 
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in 
response to the NPRM, including costs and benefits analyses, and this 
IFRA. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this 
proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final 
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur 
on small entities.

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

    48. None.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    49. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 
303(r), 308, 309, and 384 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, and pursuant to Section 8416 of 
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2021, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    50. It is further 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14362 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P