Released: November 1, 2001

**request FOR Further Comment on selected issues regarding the
authorization of satellite digital audio radio service**

**terrestrial repeater Networks**

IB Docket No. 95-91

RM No. 8610

DA No. 01-2570

Report No. SPB-176

In March 1997, the Commission adopted service rules for satellite
digital audio radio service (SDARS) authorizations in the 2320-2345 MHz
frequency band.[^1] The Commission noted that some SDARS applicants
intended to implement, as necessary, repeaters or "gap fillers" in urban
canyons and other areas where it may be difficult to receive DARS
signals transmitted by a satellite. At that time, however, there was no
information in the record on the specific operations of the SDARS
repeaters and several issues concerning the licensing and regulation of
the repeaters were unresolved. To resolve these issues, the Commission
issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) seeking
comment on the proposed use of SDARS repeaters in conjunction with SDARS
systems.[^2] The Commission proposed to license SDARS repeaters on a
blanket basis, that is, multiple repeaters under a single authorization,
provided there were no unresolved international coordination, antenna
clearance, or environmental impact issues. The Commission also
tentatively concluded that it would prohibit the use of SDARS repeaters
to transmit locally originated programming.

In October 1997, the Commission authorized two licensees, Sirius
Satellite Radio and XM Radio, to launch and operate satellites to
provide SDARS.[^3] Both entities have launched all of their authorized
satellites. Recognizing that a repeater network is essential to
achieving nationwide service and that the rulemaking to establish
operating parameters for repeaters has not been concluded, the
International Bureau granted special temporary authority (STA) on
September 17, 2001, for each SDARS licensee to operate its repeater
network, subject to various conditions.[^4] The STAs permit the
licensees to operate SDARS repeaters, for 180 days or until final rules
are adopted, on a nationwide, commercial basis, with an Equivalent
Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) at or below 2 kW (Low Power
Repeaters) and with an EIRP above 2 kW (High Power Repeaters), as
specified in the STA request.[^5]

Since the Further Notice, the Commission has received detailed technical
information on the SDARS repeaters and significant comment from the
Wireless Communications Service (WCS), Multipoint Distribution Service
(MDS), Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licensees and the
SDARS licensees on terrestrial repeater licensing.[^6]

**[PROPOSALS]{.underline}**

By this Public Notice, we seek to augment the record on the specific
proposals described below for the resolution of issues identified in the
record that have not yet been directly addressed by commenters.
Specifically, we seek comment on an approach that defines a compensation
methodology for SDARS licensees to pay for the components necessary for
WCS licensees to eliminate the effects of blanketing interference to
their receivers.[^7] This approach is based on features of existing and
proposed WCS and SDARS systems as well as on comments received from all
licensees. We seek comment on this approach and on any variation or
alternatives that commenters have proposed in this proceeding.[^8] We
also include for comment various alternatives for a long-term solution
to the potential blanketing interference between SDARS and WCS licensees
with stations close to high power repeaters. In addition, we seek
comment on provisions that would address the effect of SDARS operations
on MDS and ITFS licensees. Based on this approach and the comments
received to this Public Notice, specific rules will be developed for
adoption in the Commission's rules. Commenters should support their
views with concrete analysis and documentation.

**I. Repeater Requirements**

We seek comment on the sufficiency of an approach that would require
SDARS repeaters to meet the following:

A. [Definitions.]{.underline}

> 1\. Low Power Repeaters (LPRs) are limited to an EIRP less than or
> equal to 2 kW.
>
> 2\. High Power Repeaters (HPRs) are limited to an EIRP greater than 2
> kW and less than or equal to 40 kW.

B. [Authorized transmissions*.*]{.underline} SDARS repeaters shall be
used only to transmit the complete programming, and only that
programming that is also transmitted by an authorized DARS satellite and
in such a way that the satellite signal and the terrestrial repeater
signal are received nearly simultaneously by SDARS subscriber receivers.

C. [Eligibility and frequencies.]{.underline} Authorization to operate
SDARS repeaters is granted only to licensees of SDARS systems with
operational space stations. An SDARS licensee shall locate repeater
frequency assignments in the center of its exclusively licensed
frequency band, with the edge of the repeater band being no less than
four megahertz from the edge of the SDARS spectrum at 2320 MHz and 2345
MHz.

D. [Emission limits.]{.underline}

> 1\. SDARS repeater out-of-band emission levels shall comply with
> 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(f) within the 2320-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5‑2345 MHz
> frequency bands.
>
> 2\. Below 2320 MHz and above 2345 MHz, the power of any SDARS repeater
> emission shall be attenuated below the peak equivalent isotropically
> radiated power (P~eirp~) within the assigned frequency band(s) of
> operation between 2320 MHz and 2345 MHz, measured in watts, by a
> factor not less than 75 + 10log (P~eirp~) dB, where P~eirp~ is
> measured in watts.
>
> 3\. Compliance with the above provision is based on the use of
> measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz
> or more, but at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the
> fundamental emission of the transmitter, provided the measured energy
> is integrated over a 1 MHz bandwidth.

**II. Prior Approval**

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

**III. Low Power Repeater (LPR) Operations**

A. [LPR Operation.]{.underline} We seek comment on permitting an SDARS
licensee to operate an unlimited number of LPRs without prior
coordination as of the effective date of the Commission Order adopting
final rules governing SDARS repeaters and where prior approval is not
required.

B. [Notification of LPRs to WCS, MDS/ITFS licensees.]{.underline} We
seek comment on imposing a notification requirement on SDARS licensees
to provide notice to any WCS, MDS, or ITFS licensee that may be
operating in the vicinity of an LPR brought into operation after the
final SDARS rules are effective. At least 30 days prior to commencing
operations from any new LPR transmitting station, or with increased
power from any existing LPR up to 2 kW EIRP, the SDARS licensee shall
notify all WCS, and MDS/ITFS licensees in or through whose licensed
service area they intend to operate, and provide the technical
parameters of the SDARS terrestrial repeater transmission facility.

C. [LPR interference to MDS/ITFS receivers.]{.underline} To provide
parity with the requirements imposed on WCS licensees to remedy
blanketing interference caused to MDS/ITFS receivers,[^9] as proposed by
several commenters in this proceeding, we seek comment on requiring
SDARS licensees to remedy any blanketing interference caused to MDS/ITFS
receivers from LPRs. We also seek comment on requiring the SDARS
licensees to bear the full financial obligation to remedy interference
from their repeaters to MDS/ITFS block downconverters if all of the
following conditions are met:

\(1\) The complaint is received by the SDARS licensee prior to February
20, 2002;

\(2\) The MDS/ITFS downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 1998;

\(3\) The SDARS terrestrial repeater station transmits at 50W or more
peak EIRP; and

> \(4\) The MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a SDARS terrestrial
> repeater's free space power flux density contour of -34 dBW/m^2^.

We also seek comment on the following concepts: that if the SDARS
licensee cannot otherwise eliminate any interference that its repeater
causes to MDS/ITFS reception, then that SDARS licensee must cease
operations from the offending LPR facility. In addition, if SDARS
licensees collocate their repeater antennas on the same tower, they
shall assume shared responsibility for remedying interference complaints
within the area determined by the -34 dBW/m^2^ power flux density
contour, unless the offending station can be readily determined and then
that station operator shall assume full financial responsibility. Also,
if the complainant is also entitled to compensation from one or more
licensees in the Wireless Communications Service pursuant to 47 CFR §
27.58, we seek comment on whether the cost should be shared equally
among all WCS and SDARS licensees that cause such interference.

**IV. High Power Repeater (HPR) Operations**

We seek comment on the following compensation methodology that will
apply to SDARS licensees operating HPRs. This concept establishes a safe
harbor in which SDARS licensees would not be required to coordinate with
or compensate WCS licensees to resolve blanketing interference that may
be caused to WCS receiving stations from SDARS repeaters. It also
establishes "zones" outside of this safe harbor in which WCS licensees
would be entitled to compensation to resolve interference from HPR
operations. The methodology includes a schedule for providing
compensation. We seek comment on this proposal and its implementation as
well as any variations of this concept as set forth below.Specifically,
we solicit comment on whether or not compensation should be provided for
consumer premises equipment (CPE) and on whether or not there should be
a limit of the SDARS licensees' financial liability.

A. [Permitted HPR Operations**.**]{.underline} We seek comment on
whether SDARS licensees should be permitted to operate HPRs at locations
with technical parameters as limited by the Commission in the XM and
Sirius STA Orders[^10] for 18 months after the effective date of the
final rules and whether, within 15 days from the release date of these
rules, the SDARS licensees should be required to file with the
Commission technical information on HPRs that have been moved to an
alternate location, reduced in power, or no longer in operation as a
result of interference concerns with WCS, MDS or ITFS facilities prior
to the release date of the final SDARS repeater rules.

B. [Safe Harbor.]{.underline} We seek comment on whether SDARS licensees
should have any obligation to coordinate with WCS stations, including
WCS customer premises equipment, located within the power level contour
that would be generated by a 2 kW EIRP LPR, and using free space loss
and the specified receive system threshold characteristics of the
affected WCS licensee, as follows:

  ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Maximum LPR  LPR EIRP      Maximum                            
  EIRP (kW)    (dBm)         Safe Harbor                        
                             Distance                           
                             from LPR to                        
                             edge of                            
                             contour                            
                             (miles)                            

                             -25 dBm     -35 dBm    -45 dBm     -58 dBm
                             contour     contour    contour     contour

  2            63            0.16        0.50       1.56        6.97
  ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------

Free space path loss is defined as:

Loss~dB~ = 32.5 + 20log(distance in km) + 20log(frequency in MHz)

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

  ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  HPR EIRP     HPR EIRP      Maximum                            
  (kW)         (dBm)         Liability                          
                             Zone                               
                             Distance                           
                             from HPR to                        
                             edge of                            
                             contour                            
                             (miles)                            

                             -25 dBm     -35 dBm    -45 dBm     -58 dBm
                             contour     contour    contour     contour

  40           76            0.70        2.20       6.97        31.13
  ------------ ------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------

Free space path loss is defined as:

Loss~dB~ = 32.5 + 20log(distance in km) + 20log(frequency in MHz)

These tables are intended to provide generic rules that take into
account the fact that the technical parameters of WCS systems may vary.
The Safe Harbor and Liability Zone sizes depend upon the overload
threshold of the affected WCS receiver. The tables provide the range of
sensitivities of the WCS receivers to be deployed as stated in the
record. For example, if the WCS licensee deploys receivers that overload
at --25dBm, the first table indicates that the Safe Harbor maximum
radius distance will be 0.16 miles. If the SDARS repeater operates at 40
kW with an omni-directional antenna, the second table indicates that the
Liability Zone will have a maximum radius of 0.70 miles. If the SDARS
licensee uses a 10 kW repeater, the Liability Zone radius would be
calculated using the free space path loss formula to be 0.35 miles.

D. [Blanketing interference to WCS stations.]{.underline} We seek
comment on whether a WCS station located within the Liability Zone is
considered to potentially receive blanketing interference from the
notified HPR(s) and the affected WCS licensee is entitled to
compensation according to the Compensation Schedule below. Under this
approach, SDARS and WCS licensees would be expected to coordinate in
good faith to avoid interference problems and to allow the greatest
operational flexibility in each other\'s operations. To remedy actual
blanketing interference to WCS stations already in operation or planned
for operation in the 18-month period, either by compensation or power
reductions, the licensees must, in as expeditious a manner as possible,
exchange information about WCS station deployment (e.g., the number of
base stations planned to be in operation in the 18 months following the
effective date of the SDARS rules; the station locations within the
Liability Zone in order of anticipated deployment, if known; the
technical characteristics of those stations; and the estimated
reasonable cost to resolve interference to the WCS stations receiving
blanketing interference from the specified HPR(s)).

E. [Compensation Schedule.]{.underline} If an SDARS licensee is notified
by an affected WCS licensee that it is receiving blanketing interference
within the Liability Zone that prevents the provision of commercial
service, the SDARS licensee shall immediately pay the reasonable costs
of eliminating or mitigating such interference. This is similar to what
the Commission has required of WCS licensees to do for MDS/ITFS
licensees and of new FM broadcast licensees to do for complainants.[^11]
The SDARS licensee shall compensate the WCS licensee for the cost of the
components to protect its station receivers from blanketing interference
caused by the HPRs (e.g. filters for base stations or RF Automatic Gain
Control for CPE). The following schedule sets forth the timeframes
during which WCS licensees' interference complaints shall be remedied
and the prorated financial liability of SDARS licensees following the
effective date of the rules governing SDARS repeaters:

0 to 6 months -- SDARS licensee pays 100% of components for base
stations;

6 to 12 months -- SDARS licensee pays 50% of components for base
stations;

12 to 18 months -- SDARS licensee pays 25% of components for base
stations;

after 18 months -- SDARS licensee has no financial liability.

Under this approach, for 18 months after the final rules are effective,
the SDARS HPR operations would be limited to the locations and
parameters identified in the STA requests. That is, the population of
HPRs would be frozen. After the 18 month period, any new HPR would have
to be coordinated with affected WCS operations or would be limited in
maximum power, as described below in section V., B. There would also be
an obligation on SDARS licensees to abide by the final rules to ensure
future protection to WCS licensees.

We also seek comment on the appropriateness of including the cost of
resolving interference to WCS CPE in the Compensation Schedule. We seek
comment on the time within which SDARS licensees must mitigate
interference to WCS CPE and whether or not we should require SDARS
licensees to pay any compensation or provide compensation for up to 18
months for WCS CPE. We seek further comment on whether the SDARS
licensees should be required to provide filters for WCS base stations or
to pay all the costs associated with eliminating the interference for
both base stations and CPE, including labor, as well as on any other
aspects of possible interference mitigation. Moreover, we seek comment
on whether the SDARS licensee's monetary liability to WCS licensees
should be limited to a particular amount. If so, what is that amount and
the rationale for it? We also generally seek comment on whether the
resolution of interference should be left to the SDARS and WCS
licensees.

F. [Blanketing interference to MDS/ITFS receivers.]{.underline} Similar
to the approach for SDARS licensees to remedy blanketing interference
caused to MDS/ITFS receivers from LPRs until February 20, 2002 in
Section III. C., we seek comment on applying this approach with regard
to HPRs. Specifically, we seek comment on whether SDARS licensees should
bear the full financial obligation to remedy interference to MDS/ITFS
block downconverters if all of the following conditions are met:

\(1\) The complaint is received by the SDARS licensee prior to February
20, 2002;

\(2\) The MDS/ITFS downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 1998;
and

> \(3\) The MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a SDARS HPR
> station's free space power flux density contour of -34 dBW/m^2^.

We seek comment on requiring that if the SDARS licensee cannot otherwise
eliminate interference caused to MDS/ITFS block downconverters, the
SDARS licensee must reduce its power or cease operations from the
offending SDARS HPR station. If SDARS licensees collocate their antennas
on the same tower, they shall assume shared responsibility for remedying
interference complaints within the area determined by the -34 dBW/m^2^
power flux density contour, unless an offending station can be readily
determined in which case the offending SDARS should be required to
assume full financial responsibility. If the MDS/ITFS complainant is
also entitled to compensation from one or more licensees in the Wireless
Communications Service pursuant to section 27.58 of this part, the cost
shall be shared equally among all WCS and SDARS licensees with stations
causing such interference.

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

In addition to a methodology to limit interference and establish
compensation to WCS and MDS/ITFS licensees, we seek comment on how to
facilitate the future deployment of HPRs. We seek comment on whether to
establish a power cap and a notification process for HPRs. We also
request comment on a possible requirement that operator-to-operator
agreements among SDARS and WCS/MDS/ITFS licensees be established before
an SDARS licensee would be permitted to commence further HPR operations
or other similar alternatives. Specifically, we seek comment on the
following:

A. [MDS/ITFS Receivers.]{.underline} We seek comment on imposing a
requirement on SDARS licensees to provide notice to any MDS/ITFS
licensee that may be operating in the vicinity of an HPR station: at
least 90 days prior to commencing operations from any new HPR, the SDARS
licensee shall notify all MDS/ITFS licensees, in or through whose
licensed service area an SDARS licensee intends to operate, of the
technical parameters of the SDARS terrestrial repeater transmission
facility.

B. [WCS Stations.]{.underline} We seek comment on how to regulate HPRs
after the 18-month compensation period described above has expired. One
alternative would be to place a power cap on HPRs and establish a
notification process for them similar to that proposed for MDS/ITFS
receivers. Under this approach, all existing HPRs would be grandfathered
and the power cap would apply to new repeaters after expiration of the
compensation schedule in the approach described above. Prior to
commencing operation from any new HPR, the SDARS licensee would be
required to provide a 90-day notice to WCS licensees. We specifically
seek comment on what an appropriate power cap should be in the range of
2 kW to 40 kW. For example, is a 9 kW EIRP level (39.5 dBW, which is
midway between the 2 kW (33 dBW) and 40 kW (46 dBW) powers established
in the record as acceptable to WCS/MDS/ITFS licensees and desired by
SDARS licensees, respectively) appropriate to apply to future HPRs?
Would this power cap distribute equally among WCS and SDARS licensees
the responsibility to manage their operations in the presence of each
other's service and provide for the ability of all services to deploy
expeditiously? If applied to existing repeaters, what transition period
would be necessary or appropriate?

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

**VI. Radio Frequency (RF) Safety**

In February 1997, the Commission adopted rules for Wireless
Communications Services.[^12] In that Report and Order, the Commission
modified Section 1.1307(b) of its rules to require applicants proposing
to operate fixed terrestrial stations in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
MHz frequency bands to perform routine environmental evaluations if
their station's EIRP exceeds 1640 Watts.[^13] We now seek comment on
modifying this Section of the Commission's rules to accommodate SDARS
repeaters governed by Part 25, which will operate in the 2320-2345 MHz
frequency bands. The proposal is based on suggestions offered by the
DARS and WCS licensees. The WCS licensees propose to require routine
environmental evaluation for SDARS repeaters operating above 1640 Watt
EIRP level, the same requirement for terrestrial stations in the WCS
bands (2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz). SDARS licensees propose to
increase the level to 2000 Watts EIRP presumably because that power
level reflects the technical distinctions between SDARS repeaters and
WCS stations throughout the other proposals set forth in this Public
Notice. We seek comment on the following proposed modification to Table
1 in Section 1.1307 particularly from the standpoint of RF safety to the
public. We specifically propose that actions that may have a significant
environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be
prepared for:

Table 1: Transmitters, Facilities, and Operations Subject to Routine
Environmental Evaluation

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Service (title 47 CFR rule part)    Evaluation required if

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

\*\*\*\*\*

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Satellite Communications (part    | *Satellite DARS Terrestrial       |
| 25)                               | Repeaters*: \>2000 W EIRP         |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | All others included.              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**Procedural Matters:** Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may
file supplemental comments limited to the issues raised in this Public
Notice no later than **21** days after this Public Notice appears in the
Federal Register and supplemental reply comments no later than **28**
days after this Public Notice appears in the Federal Register. Because
the DARS repeaters STAs expire on March 18, 2002 or on the
implementation of permanent rules for repeater operations, whichever
occurs first, we must adhere to the schedule set forth in this Public
Notice and do not contemplate granting extensions of time. Comments
should reference IB Docket No. 95-91 and should include the DA number on
the front of this Public Notice. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).[^14] Comments
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. In completing the
transmittal screen, parties responding should include their full name,
mailing address, and the applicable docket number, IB Docket No. 95-91.
Parties filing comments on paper must file an original and four copies
of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.
An additional copy of all pleadings should also be sent to Rockie
Patterson, International Bureau, FCC Room 6-B524, 445 12^th^ Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20554. One copy of all comments should also be sent to
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12^th^
Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of all filings
are available for public inspection and copying during regular business
hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, 445 12^th^ Street, SW,
telephone 202-857-3800; facsimile 202-857-3805.

For *ex parte* purposes, this proceeding continues to be a
"permit-but-disclose" proceeding, in accordance with Section 1.1200(a)
of the Commission's rules, and is subject to the requirements set forth
in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

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

For further information, please contact Rockie Patterson, Satellite
Engineering Branch at 202-418-1183.

Action by the Chief, International Bureau, November 1, 2001.

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis**

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^15] the Bureau
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in the International Bureau's Public Notice
Requesting Further Comment on Selected Issues Regarding the
Authorization of Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service Terrestrial
Repeater Networks (Notice). Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadline for comments on the Notice provided above on
pages 8-9. The Bureau will send a copy of the Notice, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.[^16] In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

2\. **Need for and Objections of the Proposed Rules.** This Notice seeks
comments on specific proposals to resolve issues regarding the proposed
use of satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) terrestrial
repeaters in conjunction with SDARS systems.

The Bureau intends to evaluate whether the proposed rules will
facilitate the efficient implementation of SDARS while seeking to limit
or mitigate interference to terrestrial operators. The proposals define
a compensation methodology for SDARS licensees to pay for the components
necessary for WCS licensees to eliminate the effects of blanketing
interference to WCS receivers. It also seeks comment on provisions that
would resolve potential interference to MDS and ITFS licensees.

3\. **Legal Basis.** This Notice is adopted pursuant to Sections 1,
4(i), 4(j), 303(c), 303(f), and 303(g) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151(i), 154(i), 154(j), 303(c), 303(f) and
303(g).

4\. **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply.** The RFA directs agencies to provide a
description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^17]
The RFA defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as
the terms "small business," "small organization," or "small concern"
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^18] 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.[^19] A small organization is generally
"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field."[^20] Nationwide, as of 1992, there
were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^21] "Small governmental
jurisdiction"[^22] generally means "governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than 50,000.[^23] As of 1992, there were
approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the United States.[^24]
This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these
37,566, or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^25] The Census
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we
estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small entities.

5\. *SDARS.* The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit
broadcast satellite operators. Therefore, the applicable definition of
small entity is the definition under Small Business Administration (SBA)
rules applicable to the Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
classified. This definition provides that a small entity is one with
\$11.0 million or less in annual receipts.[^26] There are only two SDARS
providers authorized to provide service in the DARS spectrum band, XM
Radio, Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. While neither has
implemented nationwide service, both entities have financing of over
\$100 million. In addition, the DARS licensees have significant
partnership interests with large corporations: General Motors in XM
Radio, Inc. and DiamlerChrysler in Sirius Satellite Radio. Because of
the above and the high implementation and operating costs for SDARS
systems, we do not believe either DARS licensee qualifies as a small
entity.

*Wireless Communications Services* (*WCS*). This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined \"small business\" for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of \$40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
\"very small business\" as an entity with average gross revenues of \$15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
these definitions.[^27] The FCC auctioned geographic area licenses in
the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that
qualified as very small business entities, and one that qualified as a
small business entity. We conclude that the number of geographic area
WCS licensees affected includes these eight entities.

*Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)*. The Commission refined the
definition of "small entity" for the auction of MDS as an entity that
together with its affiliates has average gross annual revenues that are
not more than \$40 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^28]
This definition of a small entity is described in the Commission's
Report and Order concerning MDS auctions, and has been approved by the
SBA.[^29] The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for
authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (BTA's). Of 67 winning
bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders indicated that
they were minority owned and four winners indicated that they were women
owned businesses. MDS is an especially competitive service, with
approximately 1,573 previously authorized and proposed MDS facilities.
Information available to us indicates that no MDS facility generates
revenue in excess of \$11 million annually. We tentatively conclude that
for purposes of IRFA, there are 1,634 small MDS providers as defined by
the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

*Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).* There are presently
2,032 ITFS licensees. All but one hundred of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the
definition of a small business. We do not, however, collect annual
revenue data for ITFS licensees and are not able to ascertain how many
of the 100 non-educational licensees would be categorized as small under
the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932
ITFS licensees are small businesses.

6\. **Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements.** Under the proposals licensees, such as WCS,
MDS and ITFS, potentially affected by the operation of SDARS repeaters
will have to undertake a minimal engineering analysis to determine
whether it has operations within the liability zone or the safe harbor
as defined in the Notice. This analysis can be completed using the
technical information provided by the DARS licensees and basic
commercially available software. Thus, there may be minimal costs to
these licensees associated with conducting the engineering study. As
noted below, resolution of any actual interference would be at the
expense of the DARS licensee provided the WCS, MDS or ITFS licensees are
in the established vicinities and file timely complaints as set forth in
the Notice.

7\. Compliance requirements for the DARS licensees, if it is determined
that there is actual interference, include contacting the affected
licensee and remedying the interference. The remedy may involve weighing
options such as reducing the repeater's power or compensating the
affected licensees by providing equipment and labor to alter the
affected licensee's receivers. Costs to the DARS licensees may relate to
engineering studies, cost analyses and expenses in equipment and labor.
These costs may be determined on a case-by-case basis.

8\. **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered**. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) use of
performance, rather than design standards; and (4) and exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part there of, for small entities.[^30]

9\. The proposed rule represents an alternative to extremes presented by
the licensees involved in this proceeding and spreads the economic
impact and business decisions to resolve interference among the
licensees. Our proposed alternatives are based on the actual performance
of equipment deployed and would benefit small entities affected by
interference from the SDARS use of their terrestrial repeaters by
providing assurances that interference to their operations will be
resolved by the DARS licensees within the parameters set forth in the
Notice. In addition, we have sought comment on whether the proposed
compensation schedule and associated time frames are sufficient, and
especially seek comment from small entities, given that they may be some
of the potentially affected licensees.[^31]

10\. **Federal Rules that duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the
Commission's Proposals.** None.

[^1]: Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio
    Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, *Report and
    Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed*
    *Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 5745 (1997).

[^2]: *Id*. at 5810.

[^3]: *See* American Mobile Radio Corp., *Order and Authorization*, 13
    FCC Rcd 8829 (1997). (American Mobile Radio Corp. is now known as XM
    Radio Inc.); and Satellite CD Radio, Inc., *Order and*
    *Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 7971 (1997). (Satellite CD Radio is now
    known as Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.) *See also* Sirius Satellite
    Radio, Inc., for Minor Modification of License to Construct, Launch
    and Operate a Non-geostationary Satellite Audio Radio Service
    System, *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 5419 (Int'l Bur.
    2001).

[^4]: *See* XM Radio, Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority
    to Operate Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service Complimentary
    Terrestrial Repeaters, *Order and Authorization*, DA 01-2172 (rel.
    September 17, 2001) and Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., Application
    for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital Audio
    Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, *Order and
    Authorization*, DA 01-2171 (rel. September 17, 2001).

[^5]: *Id.* at para. 17.

[^6]: *Ex Parte* Communications have been filed by: Sirius Satellite
    Radio, Inc., XM Radio Inc., Aerospace & Flight Test Radio
    Coordinating Council; AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Alabama
    Broadcasters Association, BeamReach Networks, Inc., BellSouth
    Corporation and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Cellular Phone Taskforce,
    Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association, Entercom
    Communications Corp., General Motors Corp., MCI WorldCom, Inc.,
    WorldCom, Inc., and WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., Metricom,
    Inc., Mt. Wilson Broadcasters, Inc., National Association of
    Broadcasters, Navini Networks, Inc., Radio Operators Caucus, Spike
    Broadband Systems, Inc., Susquehanna Radio Corp., Verizon Wireless
    and Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. We have
    considered aspects of these filings in formulating our proposals set
    forth in this Public Notice.

[^7]: *See* 47 CFR § 27.58. The rules require WCS licensees to resolve
    interference to MDS/ITFS licensees at no cost to the licensee
    experiencing interference. S*e*e also 47 CFR § 73.318. The rules
    require new FM broadcast stations to resolve interference within
    their blanketing contour at no cost to the complainant for one year
    after commencing operations.

[^8]: *See Supra* n. 6.

[^9]: *See* 47 CFR § 27.58.

[^10]: XM STA *Order Supra* n. 4 at para. 17, Sirius STA *Order* *Supra*
    n. 4 at para. 17.

[^11]: See CFR 47 § 27.58, § 73.318.

[^12]: Report and Order, Amendment to the Commission's Rules to
    Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"),
    February 19, 1997.

[^13]: *See* 47 CFR § 1.1307(b), Table 1, Transmitters, Facilities, and
    Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation.

[^14]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

[^15]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^16]: *Id.* at § 603(a).

[^17]: *Id*. at § 604(b)(3).

[^18]: *Id*. at § 601(3).

[^19]: *Id*. at § 632.

[^20]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^21]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 (special
    tabulation of data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the
    U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.

[^23]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^24]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census
    of Governments."

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 4899.

[^27]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA to Amy Zoslov,
    Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, FCC (December 2,
    1998).

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^29]: Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding,
    MM Docket No. 94-31 and PP Docket No. 93-253, *Report and Order*, 10
    FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).

[^30]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^31]: *See* Sections III B & C; IV E & F*, supra.*