Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55149 

Flammability Limits in Compliance with 

Proposed Addendum p to Standard 34. HI–

02–7–2 (RP–1073). 

Wong, K.L. 1992. Carbon Dioxide. Internal 

Report, Johnson Space Center Toxicology 

Group. National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration: Houston, TX. 1987. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 14, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–

7671q. 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

2. The first table in Subpart G to 

Appendix B of part 82 is amended by 

adding 2 new entries to the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments 

* * * * * * * 

CFC–12 Automobile 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New equipment only).

Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) as a substitute for CFC– 

12.

Acceptable subject to use conditions.Engineering strategies and/or devices shall be incorporated into the 

system such that foreseeable 

leaks into the free space 1 of the 

passenger compartment do not result in concentrations greater than 

the CO2 short-term exposure limit 

(STEL) of 3% v/v for 15 minutes.

Manufacturers must adhere to all the 

safety requirements listed in the 

Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) Standard J639, including 

unique fittings and a high pressure 

system warning label.

Additional training for service technicians recommended. 

Manufacturers should conduct and 

keep on file Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FEMA) on the 

MVAC as stated in SAE J1739. 

In designing safety mitigation strategies and/or devices, manufacturers should factor in background 

CO2 concentrations potentially 

contributed from normal respiration 

by the maximum number of vehicle occupants. 

CFC–12 Automobile 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New equipment only).

HFC–152a as a 

substitute for 

CFC–12.

Acceptable subject to use conditions.Engineering strategies and/or devices shall be incorporated into the 

system such that foreseeable 

leaks into the passenger compartment do not result in HFC–152a 

concentrations of 3.7% v/v or 

above in any part of the free 

space 2 inside the passenger compartment for more than 15 seconds.

Manufacturers must adhere to all the 

safety requirements listed in the 

Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) Standard J639, including 

unique fittings and a flammable refrigerant warning label.

Additional training for service technicians recommended. 

Manufacturers should conduct and 

keep on file Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the 

MVAC as stated in SAE J1739. 

1Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module. 2Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module. 

[FR Doc. 06–7967 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 27, and 90 

[WT Docket Nos. 06–169, 96–86; FCC 06–

133] 

Revisions to Upper 700 MHz Guard 

Band Licenses; Development of 

Operational, Technical and Spectrum 

Requirements for Meeting Federal, 

State and Local Public Safety 

Communications Requirements 

Through the Year 2010 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on 

possible changes to its rules governing 

existing and prospective Upper 700 

MHz Guard Bands licensees as well as 

possible revision to its Upper 700 MHz 

band plan in order to promote the most 

efficient and effective use of the 

spectrum. Specifically, the Commission 

requests comment on whether to extend 

the Commission’s Secondary Markets 

spectrum leasing policies to the Guard 

Bands, whether to increase band 

manager flexibility for incumbents and 

prospective licensees; whether to 

eliminate the prohibition on deploying 

cellular architectures in the Guard 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
55150 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Bands; and whether to change the 

current Adjacent Channel Power (ACP) 

limits in the Guard Bands. Further, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

reclaimed spectrum (42 Guard Bands 

licenses that were returned from Nextel) 

should be re-licensed as commercial 

spectrum, or reallocated for critical 

infrastructure industries or public safety 

entities. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on proposals to modify the 

existing Upper 700 MHz band plan with 

respect to the Guard Bands, or to 

preserve the existing band plan. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 23, 2006 and reply comments 

are due on or before November 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., TW–

A325, Washington, DC 20554. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for filing 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Moon of the Mobility Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 

418–1793, e-mail at Paul.Moon@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 06–133, in 

WT Docket Nos. 06–169 and 96–86, 

adopted on September 6, 2006, and 

released on September 8, 2006. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the FCC’s copy contractor, Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile 

(202) 488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The full text may 

also be downloaded at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files and 

audio format) by e-mailing 

fcc504@fcc.gov, or calling the Consumer 

& Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. Several factors suggest that the 

Commission should re-examine its 

spectrum management policies 

regarding the 700 MHz Guard Bands. In 

the 800 MHz Report and Order in WT 

Docket No. 02–55, the Commission 

reclaimed 700 MHz Guard Bands B 

Block licenses surrendered by Nextel 

Communications, Inc., as part of the 

Commission’s 800 MHz re-banding 

process aimed at improving public 

safety communications. See Improving 

Public Safety Communications in the 

800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02–55, 

Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 

(2004). Although the Commission 

reclaimed the Nextel licenses in that 

Order, it deferred the resolution of how 

best to use the surrendered 700 MHz 

spectrum. Further, the Commission’s 

required annual Guard Band Manager 

reports, as well as comments from 

existing licensees, indicate that the 700 

MHz Guard Bands spectrum is underutilized. Finally, Congress recently 

created greater certainty regarding the 

availability of unencumbered 700 MHz 

spectrum for wireless commercial and 

public safety licensees—including the 

Guard Bands—by establishing a ‘‘hard 

date’’ of February 17, 2009, by which 

time incumbent analog broadcasters 

must vacate the spectrum. See Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109–

171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (‘‘DTV Act’’). As 

set forth in detail below, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

proposed uses of the reclaimed 

spectrum, as well as possible revisions 

to service rules and band plan that 

would enable the highest and best use 

of this service. 

2. The Commission seeks comment on 

proposed revisions to service and 

technical rules that could promote 

greater operational, technical and 

regulatory flexibility for the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands service generally. The 

NPRM seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should continue to apply 

the band manager rules for purposes of 

any re-auction of the former Nextel 

spectrum, or whether it would be more 

appropriate to eliminate ‘‘band manager 

only’’ eligibility restrictions and extend 

the Commission’s current Secondary 

Markets spectrum leasing policies to 

this spectrum. The Commission requests 

comment on whether it should consider 

making both regulatory options 

available to bidders in the event the 

reclaimed Nextel spectrum is reauctioned. For that matter, the 

Commission asks commenters to 

address whether it remains necessary in 

the public interest to permit only band 

managers to be licensed in the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands, which requires leasing to 

third parties to guarantee spectrum 

access through negotiated spectrum use 

agreements, while prohibiting the band 

manager from offering service or using 

the spectrum for its internal purposes. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

an alternative approach involving 

relaxation of certain band manager 

restrictions (e.g., leasing to affiliates) 

while retaining the overall concept. 

Further, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should modify 

its rules pertaining to incumbent 700 

MHz Guard Bands licensees in the event 

the Commission determines that the 

band manager concept should not be 

applied to any re-licensing of the Nextel 

returned spectrum. 

3. In addition to seeking public 

comment regarding eligibility and use 

restrictions, the Commission also 

requests comment on whether it is 

appropriate to remove or modify certain 

technical rules that were originally put 

in place to minimize interference to 

public safety operations. For example, 

the NPRM seeks comment on whether 

the restriction on cellular architecture in 

the Guard Bands should be maintained, 

eliminated or more clearly defined. The 

NPRM requests comment on a proposal 

that advocates the removal of the 

Commission’s cellular architecture 

prohibition in favor of a power flux 

density (PFD) limit used in conjunction 

with improved receiver technology. 

Alternatively, the Commission also 

seeks comment on whether it should 

reduce the 1 kilowatt maximum 

Effective Radiated Power (ERP) limit for 

those 700 MHz Guard Band base 

stations implemented in a cellular 

architecture, either applied 

independently or in conjunction with a 

PFD limit as a means of mitigating 

interference to public safety operations. 

Further, in order to determine the 

possible impact of removing or 

modifying the cellular architecture ban 

on all affected parties (Guard Bands 

licensees as well as public safety 

entities), the Commission seeks 

comment on the feasibility of 

completing the required coordination 

with public safety operations of the 

numerous sites involved in a cellular 

architecture. 

4. The NPRM also requests comment 

on whether the Commission should 

reconsider the existing out-of-band 

emission (OOBE) limits used for the 700 

MHz Guard Bands. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should replace its current use of 

Adjacent Channel Power (ACP) limits 

with the OOBE limits that apply to the 

Upper 700 MHz C and D Blocks. See 47 

CFR 27.53(c)(1) and (2). ACP limits 

differ from OOBE limits in that they 

require several different power 

attenuation levels at specific points 

displaced from the center frequency of 

a channel. OOBE limits, on the other 

hand, require that out-of-band signal 

power be attenuated to ensure that the 

maximum out-of-band signal power 

maintains an established, constant 

relation to the transmitter power. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

emission limits necessary to protect 

public safety operations in the event 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55151 

broadband operations are permitted in 

the public safety block, pursuant to a 

separate open proceeding. See 

Development of Operational, Technical 

and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting 

Federal, State and Local Public Safety 

Communications Requirements Through 

the Year 2010, Eighth Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket Nos. 

96–86 and 05–157, 21 FCC Rcd 3668 

(2006). Further, in the event that the 

Commission maintains the current ACP 

limits and does not apply OOBE limits 

to the Guard Bands, the NPRM asks 

whether the Commission’s rules should 

be modified to account for operations 

wider than 150 kilohertz, and requests 

that commenters propose attenuation 

values for band widths greater than 150 

kilohertz that will maintain adequate 

protection for public safety operations. 

5. Apart from the proposed revisions 

to service and technical rules, the NPRM 

also requests comment on whether the 

Commission should re-examine the 

current 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum 

plan. The Commission requests 

comment on a proposal submitted by 

Motorola, Inc. and the United 

Telecommunications Council 

(Motorola/UTC). The Motorola/UTC 

plan proposes that the Commission 

reallocate one megahertz of the Guard 

Bands B Block for critical infrastructure 

interoperability and retain the 

remainder of the B Block as a guard 

band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on alternative proposals filed 

by existing Guard Band Managers, 

including Access Spectrum, L.L.C., 

Pegasus Guard Band, L.L.C., Columbia 

Capital Equity Partners III, L.P. and 

PTPMS II Communications, L.L.C. 

These proposals ask the Commission to 

reallocate the 700 MHz Guard Bands, as 

well as the adjacent 700 MHz public 

safety spectrum, in order to 

accommodate broadband operations by 

both Guard Bands licensees and public 

safety entities. Because each of the 

proposals would require the 

Commission to reclaim the B Block 

spectrum, the NPRM requests comment 

on how best to clear the block of 

existing licensees in the event that the 

Commission concludes that it is in the 

public interest to reconfigure the band 

plan. The NPRM tentatively concludes, 

however, that it would not be 

appropriate to adopt any proposal that 

entails a shift in the narrowband 

channels within the public safety band 

unless two issues—the costs of 

reprogramming existing public safety 

radios, and international border 

coordination—are resolved 

expeditiously. The NPRM also 

tentatively concludes that any decision 

to shift the existing Upper 700 MHz 

band plan in a way that affects 

‘‘recovered analog spectrum’’ within the 

DTV transition would need to be made 

in time to allow the Commission to 

conduct the auction of recovered 

spectrum in accordance with the 

relevant statutory requirements. 

Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

6. As required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the 

proposals considered in this document. 

The text of the IRFA is set forth below. 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be filed 

in accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on this NPRM, 

and they should have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The Commission 

will send a copy of the NPRM, including 

the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in accordance with 

section 603(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-but-Disclose 

Proceeding 

7. This is a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’

notice and comment rulemaking 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 

CFR 1.1200, and 1.1206. Persons making 

oral ex parte presentations are reminded 

that memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written 

presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules as well. 

Comment Dates 

8. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

and 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments in response to this NPRM no 

later than on or before 30 days after 

Federal Register publication. Reply 

comments to these comments may be 

filed no later than on or before 45 days 

after Federal Register publication. All 

pleadings are to reference WT Docket 

Nos. 06–169 and 96–86. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Parties 

are strongly encouraged to file 

electronically. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

9. Comments filed through the ECFS 

can be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to 

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 

Parties should transmit one copy of 

their comments to the dockets in the 

caption of this rulemaking. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable dockets or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment via 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send and e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov 

and should include the following words 

in the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

10. Parties choosing to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing in WT Docket Nos. 06–169 

and 96–86. Filings can be sent by hand 

or messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). If more than one docket or 

rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of this proceeding, commenters 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. The Commission’s mail 

contractor will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. Commercial 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 

Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. 

Postal Service first-class mail, Express 

Mail, and Priority Mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. All filings must 

be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

11. Comments submitted on diskette 

should be on a 3.5-inch diskette 

formatted in an IBM-compatible format 

using Word for Windows or compatible 

software. The diskette should be clearly 

labeled with the commenter’s name, 

proceedings (including the docket 

numbers, in this case WTB Docket Nos. 

06–169 and 96–86), type of pleading 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
55152 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(comments or reply comments), date of 

submission, and the name of the 

electronic file on the diskette. The label 

should also include the following 

phrase: ‘‘Disk Copy—Not an Original.’’

Each diskette should contain only one 

party’s pleadings, preferably in a single 

electronic file. 

12. All parties must file one copy of 

each pleading electronically or by paper 

to each of the following: (1) The 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 

488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or 

via e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

13. Comments and reply comments 

and any other filed documents in this 

matter may be obtained from Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The pleadings 

will be also available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554, and through the Commission’s 

Electronic Filing System (ECFS) 

accessible on the Commission’s Web 

site, http://www.fcc.gov. 

14. Commenters who file information 

that they believe is proprietary may 

request confidential treatment pursuant 

to § 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 

Commenters should file both their 

original comments for which they 

request confidentiality and redacted 

comments, along with their request for 

confidential treatment. Commenters 

should not file proprietary information 

electronically. See Examination of 

Current Policy Concerning the 

Treatment of Confidential Information 

Submitted to the Commission, Report 

and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), 

Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 

20128 (1999). Even if the Commission 

grants confidential treatment, 

information that does not fall within a 

specific exemption pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

must be publicly disclosed pursuant to 

an appropriate request. See 47 CFR 

0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the 

Commission may grant requests for 

confidential treatment either 

conditionally or unconditionally. As 

such, we note that the Commission has 

the discretion to release information on 

public interest grounds that does fall 

within the scope of a FOIA exemption. 

15. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Further Information 

16. The World Wide Web addresses/ 

URLs that the Commission gives here 

were correct at the time this document 

was prepared but may change over time. 

They are included herein in addition to 

the conventional citations as a 

convenience to readers. The 

Commission is unable to update these 

URLs after adoption of this NPRM, and 

readers may find some URLs to be out 

of date as time progresses. The 

Commission also advises readers that 

the only definitive text of any FCC 

document is the one that is published in 

the FCC Record. In any case of 

discrepancy between the electronic 

documents cited here and the FCC 

Record, the version in the FCC Record 

is definitive. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

17. This NPRM contains proposed 

new and/or modified information 

collections. The Commission, as part of 

its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

proposed and/or modified information 

collections contained in this NPRM, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. 

Comments should address: (a) Whether 

the proposed and/or modified collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

18. Written comments by the public 

on the proposed and/or modified 

information collections are due October 

23, 3006. Written comments must be 

submitted by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/ 

or modified information collections on 

or before November 6, 2006. In addition 

to filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the proposed 

and/or modified information collections 

contained herein should be submitted to 

Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554, or via the Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov, and to Allison E. 

Zaleski, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, or via the 

Internet to 

Allison_E._Zaleski@omb.eop.gov. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

19. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the 

Commission has prepared this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

regarding the possible significant 

economic impact of the policies and 

rules proposed in this NPRM on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Written public comments are requested 

regarding this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to this IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments identified in the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 

603(a). In addition, this NPRM and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

20. In the 800 MHz Report and Order 

in WT Docket No. 02–55, the 

Commission reclaimed 700 MHz Guard 

Bands B Block licenses surrendered by 

Nextel Communications, Inc., as part of 

the Commission’s 800 MHz re-banding 

process aimed at improving public 

safety communications. See Improving 

Public Safety Communications in the 

800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02–55, 

Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 

(2004). Although the Commission 

reclaimed the Nextel licenses in that 

Order, it deferred the resolution of how 

best to use the surrendered 700 MHz 

spectrum. Further, the Commission’s 

required annual Guard Band Manager 

reports as well as comments from 

existing licensees indicate that the 700 

MHz Guard Bands spectrum is underutilized. Also, Congress recently created 

greater certainty regarding the 

availability of unencumbered 700 MHz 

spectrum for wireless commercial and 

public safety licensees—including the 

Guard Bands—by establishing a ‘‘hard 

date’’ of February 17, 2009, by which 

time incumbent analog broadcasters 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55153 

must vacate the spectrum. See Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109–

171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (‘‘DTV Act’’). 

These factors suggest that the 

Commission should re-examine its 

spectrum management policies 

regarding the 700 MHz Guard Bands. As 

set forth in detail below, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

proposed uses of the reclaimed 

spectrum, as well as possible revisions 

to service rules and band plan that 

would enable the highest and best use 

of this service. 

21. Band Manager Status. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

proposed revisions to service and 

technical rules that could promote 

greater operational, technical and 

regulatory flexibility for the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands service generally. For 

example, the NPRM seeks comment on 

the relative merits of the Secondary 

Markets leasing and band manager 

leasing mechanisms. The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should continue to apply the band 

manager rules for purposes of any reauction of the former Nextel spectrum, 

or whether it would be more 

appropriate to eliminate ‘‘band manager 

only’’ eligibility restrictions and extend 

the Commission’s current Secondary 

Markets spectrum leasing policies to 

this spectrum. The Commission requests 

comment on whether it should consider 

making both regulatory options 

available to bidders in the event the 

reclaimed Nextel spectrum is reauctioned. 

22. The Commission also asks 

commenters to address whether it 

remains necessary in the public interest 

to permit only band managers to be 

licensed in the 700 MHz Guard Bands, 

which requires leasing to third parties to 

guarantee spectrum access through 

negotiated spectrum use agreements, 

while prohibiting the band manager 

from offering service or using the 

spectrum for its internal purposes. The 

Commission also seeks comment on an 

alternative approach involving 

relaxation of certain band manager 

restrictions while retaining the overall 

concept. For example, the NPRM asks 

whether the Commission should remove 

or lessen the restriction on leasing to 

affiliates. Further, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should modify its rules pertaining to 

incumbent 700 MHz Guard Bands 

licensees in the event the Commission 

determines that the band manager 

concept should not be applied to any relicensing of the Nextel returned 

spectrum. 

23. Cellular System Architecture. In 

addition to seeking public comment 

regarding eligibility and use restrictions, 

the Commission also requests comment 

on whether it is appropriate to remove 

or modify certain technical rules that 

were originally put in place to minimize 

interference to public safety operations. 

For example, the NPRM seeks comment 

on whether the restriction on cellular 

architecture in the Guard Bands should 

be maintained, eliminated or more 

clearly defined. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether its ban on the use 

of cellular architecture in the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands should be removed or 

revised in ways that will provide all 

Guard Bands licensees, including small 

businesses, with greater operational 

flexibility yet ensure adequate 

interference protection to public safety 

operations. The NPRM requests 

comment on a proposal that advocates 

the removal of the Commission’s 

cellular architecture prohibition in favor 

of a power flux density (PFD) limit used 

in conjunction with improved receiver 

technology. The NPRM asks whether, in 

the event that the Commission 

eliminates the cellular architecture 

restriction, the Commission should 

implement a PFD limit as a means to 

mitigate interference to public safety 

operations. Alternatively, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should reduce the 1 kilowatt 

maximum Effective Radiated Power 

(ERP) limit for those 700 MHz Guard 

Band base stations implemented in a 

cellular architecture, either applied 

independently or in conjunction with a 

PFD limit as a means of mitigating 

interference to public safety operations. 

Further, in order to determine the 

possible impact of removing or 

modifying the cellular architecture ban 

on all affected parties (Guard Bands 

licensees as well as public safety 

entities), the Commission seeks 

comment on the feasibility of 

completing the required coordination 

with public safety operations of the 

numerous sites involved in a cellular 

architecture. 

24. Emission Limits. The NPRM also 

requests comment on whether the 

Commission should reconsider the 

existing out-of-band emission (OOBE) 

limits used for the 700 MHz Guard 

Bands. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

replace its current use of Adjacent 

Channel Power (ACP) limits with the 

OOBE limits that apply to the Upper 

700 MHz C and D Blocks. The 

Commission also asks commenters to 

provide comment on the emission limits 

necessary to protect public safety 

operations in the event broadband 

operations are permitted in the public 

safety block. See Development of 

Operational, Technical and Spectrum 

Requirements for Meeting Federal, State 

and Local Public Safety 

Communications Requirements Through 

the Year 2010, Eighth Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket Nos. 

96–86 and 05–157, 21 FCC Rcd 3668 

(2006). Further, in the event that the 

Commission maintains the current ACP 

limits and does not apply OOBE limits 

to the Guard Bands, the NPRM asks 

whether the Commission’s rules should 

be modified to account for operations 

wider than 150 kilohertz, and requests 

that commenters propose attenuation 

values for band widths greater than 150 

kilohertz that will maintain adequate 

protection for public safety operations. 

25. Band Plan Proposals. The NPRM 

requests comment on whether the 

Commission should re-examine the 

current 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum 

plan. The Commission requests 

comment on a proposal submitted by 

Motorola, Inc. and the United 

Telecommunications Council 

(Motorola/UTC). The Motorola/UTC 

proposal states that the nation’s critical 

infrastructure industries (CII) require 

wireless communications that are 

reliable, ubiquitous in coverage, and 

interoperable with public safety entities 

during emergencies, particularly where 

CII entities are among first responders to 

a disaster or emergency. The Motorola/ 

UTC plan proposes that the Commission 

reallocate one megahertz of the Guard 

Bands B Block for critical infrastructure 

interoperability and retain the 

remainder of the B Block as a guard 

band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on alternative proposals 

alternative proposals filed by existing 

Guard Band Managers, including Access 

Spectrum, L.L.C., Pegasus Guard Band, 

L.L.C., Columbia Capital Equity Partners 

III, L.P. and PTPMS II Communications, 

L.L.C. The proposals ask the 

Commission to reallocate the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands and public safety spectrum 

in order to accommodate broadband 

operations by Guard Bands licensees as 

well as public safety entities. Because 

each of the proposals would require the 

Commission to reclaim the B Block 

spectrum, the NPRM requests comment 

on how best to clear the block of 

existing licensees in the event that the 

Commission concludes that it is in the 

public interest to reconfigure the band 

plan. The NPRM tentatively concludes, 

however, that it would not be 

appropriate to adopt any proposal that 

entails a shift in the narrowband 

channels within the public safety band 

unless two issues—the costs of 

reprogramming existing public safety 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
55154 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

radios, and international border 

coordination—are resolved 

expeditiously. The NPRM also 

tentatively concludes that any decision 

to shift the existing Upper 700 MHz 

band plan in a way that affects 

‘‘recovered analog spectrum’’ within the 

DTV transition would need to be made 

in time to allow the Commission to 

conduct the auction of recovered 

spectrum in accordance with the 

relevant statutory requirements. 

Legal Basis 

26. The proposed actions are 

authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 

7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 333, 336 and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 

316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336 and 337. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

27. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 

603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

601(6). In addition, the term ‘‘small 

business’’ has the same meaning as the 

term ‘‘small business concern’’ under 

the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) 

(incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’

in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 

632). 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 

Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’). 

28. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. 

The term ‘‘small business’’ in the 

context of Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications Companies is 

defined as companies employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. An auction of 

52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses 

commenced on September 6, 2000, and 

closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 

104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were 

sold to nine bidders. Five of the bidders 

were small businesses that won a total 

of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 

MHz Guard Band licenses commenced 

on February 13, 2001, and closed on 

February 21, 2001. All eight of the 

licenses auctioned were sold to three 

bidders. One of these bidders was a 

small business that won a total of two 

licenses. 

29. Governmental Entities. The term 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is 

defined as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty thousand.’’

5 U.S.C. 601(5). As of 1997, there were 

approximately 87,453 governmental 

jurisdictions in the United States. This 

number includes 39,044 county 

governments, municipalities, and 

townships, of which 37,546 

(approximately 96.2%) have 

populations of fewer than 50,000, and of 

which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 

or more. Thus, we estimate the number 

of small governmental jurisdictions 

overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 

30. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As 

a general matter, Public Safety Radio 

licensees include police, fire, local 

government, forestry conservation, 

highway maintenance, and emergency 

medical services. See subparts A and B 

of part 90 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 90.1–90.22. The SBA rules contain 

a definition for cellular and other 

wireless telecommunications companies 

which encompass business entities 

engaged in wireless communications 

employing no more than 1,500 persons. 

See 13 CFR 121.201. According to 

Census Bureau data for 2002, in this 

category there was a total of 8,863 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 401 firms had 100 or more 

employees, and the remainder had 

fewer than 100 employees. With respect 

to local governments, in particular, 

since many governmental entities as 

well as private businesses comprise the 

licensees for these services, we include 

under public safety services the number 

of government entities affected. 

31. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has 

established a small business size 

standard for radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturing. Under the standard, 

firms are considered small if they have 

750 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR 

121.201. Census Bureau data for 1997 

indicates that, for that year, there were 

a total of 1,215 establishments in this 

category. Of those, there were 1,150 that 

had employment under 500, and an 

additional 37 that had employment of 

500 to 999. The Commission estimates 

that the majority of wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturers are small businesses. We 

note, however, that the major providers 

of 700 MHz equipment, Motorola and 

M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc., 

are not considered small businesses. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

32. This NPRM seeks comment on 

possible revisions to the 700 MHz Guard 

Bands service rules that may modify 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements. The 

Commission requests comment on 

proposals to apply its Secondary 

Markets leasing regime to reclaimed 700 

MHz Guard Bands spectrum as well as 

to existing licensees. Application of 

Secondary Markets leasing to the 700 

MHz Guard Bands would require a 

modification of current reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. Further, as 

noted, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether to eliminate its prohibition on 

cellular architecture in the 700 MHz 

Guard Bands. In light of the numerous 

sites that are involved in a cellular 

architecture, this proposal could lead to 

more intensive coordination with public 

safety operations if the ban is lifted. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

33. 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) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

34. Generally, the Commission’s 

primary objective in issuing the NPRM 

is to determine the most efficient and 

effective use of the reclaimed Nextel 

spectrum and the 700 MHz Guard 

Bands. The Commission invites 

comment on ways in which the 

Commission can achieve its goal of 

encouraging operational, technical and 

regulatory flexibility for all licensees, 

including small entities, while at the 

same time imposing minimal burdens 

on small entities. The Commission seeks 

comment on the effect the various 

proposals described in the NPRM will 

have on small entities, whether existing 

or prospective Guard Bands licensees, 

or public safety entities. To assist the 

Commission in its analysis, commenters 

are asked to provide information 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55155 

regarding which entities would be 

affected by possible revisions to 700 

MHz Guard Band service and technical 

rules as well as to the 700 MHz Guard 

Bands spectrum band plan as described 

in this NPRM. In particular, the 

Commission seeks estimates of how 

many small entities might be affected 

and whether the proposals under 

consideration would be overly 

burdensome to small entities. The 

following summarizes significant 

alternatives considered in the NPRM. 

35. Band Manager Status. Under the 

current rules, the Guard Band Manager 

must lease to third parties to guarantee 

spectrum access through negotiated 

spectrum use agreements, while the 

Guard Band Manager cannot itself offer 

service or use the spectrum for its 

internal purposes. Additionally, the 

Guard Band Manager cannot lease its 

spectrum to more than 49.9 percent of 

its affiliates in the licensed geographic 

area. These restrictions were created to 

promote the leasing of spectrum to third 

parties, many of whom would be small 

entities that lack the capacity or need to 

acquire an entire service area. The 

NPRM seeks comment on the relative 

merits of the Secondary Markets leasing 

and band manager leasing policies. 

Noting that certain Guard Bands 

licensees argue that the current band 

manager rules have resulted in the 

inefficient use of the spectrum, the 

NPRM asks whether the Commission 

should retain the existing Guard Band 

Manager rules or whether the 

Commission should apply a different 

regulatory structure, such as the 

Secondary Market rules, to the Guard 

Bands spectrum generally. 

Alternatively, the NPRM asks whether 

the Commission should continue to 

apply the band manager rules for 

purposes of any re-auction of the former 

Nextel spectrum, or even if existing 

rules are retained for existing licensees. 

The NPRM also asks whether it should 

permit existing or new licensees to 

choose among several regulatory options 

for managing the Guard Bands. 

36. The NPRM also seeks comment on 

an alternative approach involving the 

relaxation of certain band manager 

eligibility restrictions, while retaining 

the overall existing band manager 

concept. For example, the NPRM ask 

whether the Commission should remove 

or lessen the restriction that band 

managers may not lease more than 49.9 

percent of their spectrum in a 

geographic area to affiliates. 

Alternatively, the Commission asks 

whether it should change its rules to 

permit a band manager to use its 

licensed spectrum in some capacity 

exclusively for internal purposes. 

37. Cellular System Architecture. The 

NPRM seeks comment on whether the 

restriction on cellular architecture in the 

Guard Bands should be removed or 

modified in order to facilitate the use of 

broadband technology by all Guard 

Bands licensees, including those 

qualifying as small businesses. The 

Commission seeks comment on a 

proposal to lift the cellular architecture 

prohibition and replace it with a power 

flux density (PFD) limit as an alternative 

means to ensure adequate interference 

protection to public safety operations. 

The NPRM also seeks comment on 

another option, applied either 

independently or in conjunction with a 

PFD limit, to reduce the 1 kilowatt 

maximum ERP limit for Guard Bands 

base stations implemented in a cellular 

architecture. Noting that reducing ERP 

limits could minimize the area of 

interference surrounding each base 

station, thereby reducing the overall 

potential for interference to adjacent 

channel public safety mobiles/portables, 

the Commission seeks comment as to 

what base station ERP limit applied to 

a Guard Bands system based on a 

cellular architecture would adequately 

protect public safety systems. 

38. Emission Limits. The NPRM also 

requests comment on whether the 

Commission should reconsider the 

existing OOBE limits used for the 700 

MHz Guard Bands. The Commission 

originally applied the current ACP 

limits to the Guard Bands because it 

found that the immediate proximity of 

the Guard Bands to the public safety 

block justifies an application of the 

same emission limit for the Guard 

Bands as applies for emissions from 

within the public safety block. In the 

NPRM, the Commission seeks comment 

on the proposal to replace its current 

use of ACP limits with OOBE limits. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the emission limits necessary to protect 

public safety operations in the event 

broadband operations are permitted in 

the public safety block. Alternatively, to 

the extent that the Commission 

determines that the use of ACP limits 

does not sufficiently guard public safety 

entities against unwanted OOBE, the 

NPRM asks whether the Commission’s 

rules should be modified to account for 

operations wider than 150 kilohertz, 

and requests that commenters provide 

attenuation values for bandwidths 

greater than 150 kilohertz that will 

maintain adequate protection for public 

safety operations. Finally, the NPRM 

also considers the relative merits of 

maintaining the status quo. 

39. Band Plan Proposals. The NPRM 

requests comment on whether the 

Commission should re-examine the 

current 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum 

plan, and asks commenters to consider 

several alternative band plan proposals. 

First, Motorola/UTC requests that the 

Commission reallocate the licenses 

surrendered by Nextel from the Guard 

Bands B Block as narrowband channels 

for critical infrastructure industries in 

support of interoperability with public 

safety entities. Motorola/UTC argue that 

one megahertz of the B Block 

contiguous with the public safety block 

could carry narrowband channels 

dedicated to providing critical 

infrastructure entities with the ability to 

communicate with state and local 

agencies. The NPRM seeks comment on 

the potential benefit of creating a 

separate class of interoperability 

channels, and whether the proposal 

should be applied only to the former 

Nextel spectrum or to all Guard Bands 

licenses. 

40. The NPRM also seeks comment on 

a proposal requesting that the 

Commission rededicate the relinquished 

Nextel spectrum for exclusive public 

safety use. The NPRM seeks comment 

on whether there have been any 

technical or marketplace developments 

that may alleviate concerns that redesignating the spectrum for public 

safety applications may result in 

increased interference to public safety. 

41. Alternatively, the Commission 

also seeks comment on various 

proposals from existing Guard Band 

Managers to revise the Upper 700 MHz 

band plan. A consortium consisting of 

almost all existing Guard Band 

Managers filed a White Paper proposing 

three alternative Upper 700 MHz band 

plans with the goal of facilitating 

broadband communications inside the 

Guard Bands. Subsequently, a new 

consortium, which includes most of the 

White Paper proponents, filed the 

Optimization Plan, advocating another, 

more comprehensive band plan 

proposal that implicates the Guard 

Bands as well as the Upper 700 MHz 

public safety block. 

42. The Optimization Plan proposes, 

in part, that three megahertz from the 

existing B Block should be allocated to 

the public safety block as additional 

spectrum for broadband 

communications, and that the remaining 

Guard Bands spectrum should be 

consolidated into a new A Block. The 

NPRM seeks comment on whether the 

public interest (including the interests 

of small entities) would be served by 

adoption of the band plan proposed in 

the Optimization Plan, and asks for 

comment on a number of ‘‘transition’’

issues, including timing and cost 

considerations associated with a band 

plan shift, how existing B Block licenses 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
55156 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

could be reclaimed by the Commission, 

as well as how a reconfigured and 

enlarged A Block should be licensed, in 

the event the Commission adopts the 

Optimization Plan. 

43. Further, because the Optimization 

Plan does not specifically disclaim or 

supercede the preceding White Paper 

band plan proposals, the Commission 

seeks comment on the White Paper 

proposals as well. As in the case of the 

Optimization Plan, the White Paper’s 

three proposals entail some shift in the 

position of the commercial spectrum 

blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band. The 

White Paper’s three band plan proposals 

would increase the existing allocation of 

one megahertz for the A Block up to 

one-and-a-half or two megahertz. In 

order to facilitate broadband within an 

enlarged A Block, the White Paper 

proposals involve either eliminating the 

B Block while adding bandwidth to the 

A Block and the public safety block, or 

reducing the B Block while adding 

bandwidth to the A Block. The NPRM 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should adopt any of the 

various White Paper proposals and also 

requests comment on the same 

transition issues raised by consideration 

of the Optimization Plan. The NPRM 

seeks comment on similar transition 

issues, including cost, timing and 

equitable compensation considerations, 

for each of the other alternative 

proposals as well. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

44. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

45. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 

7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 333, 336 and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 

316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336 and 337, 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

hereby adopted. 

46. Pursuant to applicable procedures 

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on or before 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register, and 

reply comments on or before 45 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

47. 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. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Communications common 

carriers. 

47 CFR Part 27 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

47 CFR Part 90 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communication Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–7912 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 172 

[Docket No. PHMSA–06–25885 (HM–232F)] 

RIN 2137–AE22 

Hazardous Material: Revision of 

Requirements for Security Plans 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) and 

announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering 

revisions to the list of hazardous 

materials that require development and 

implementation of a security plan to 

address security risks during 

transportation in commerce. This effort 

is being coordinated with other 

Department of Transportation modal 

administrations (Federal Aviation 

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and Federal 

Railroad Administration) and the 

Transportation Security Administration 

of the Department of Homeland 

Security. The revisions would address 

outstanding petitions requesting that 

certain materials be excepted from the 

security plan requirements. PHMSA 

will hold a public meeting on November 

30, 2006 to obtain stakeholder 

comments on security plan 

requirements. This ANPRM and the 

public meeting provide an opportunity 

for the public to comment on this issue 

and make recommendations on the 

applicability of the security plan 

requirements. 

DATES: Public meeting: The meeting will 

be held on November 30, 2006. The 

meeting will begin at 9 a.m. 

Written comments: Comments must 

be received by December 20, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Public meeting: The 

meeting will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Nassif 

Building, Room 2230, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Requests for special 

accommodations should be addressed to 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Material 

Safety Administration, PHH–10, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; telephone (202) 366–8553. 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments identified by the docket 

number (PHMSA–06–25885) by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• FAX: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

PL–402, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: PL–402 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulation Identification 

Number (RIN) for this notice. Internet 

users may access comments received by 

DOT at http://dms.dot.gov. Note that 

comments received may be posted 

without change to http://dms.dot.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. 

While all comments should be sent to 

DOT’s Docket Management System 

(DMS), comments or those portions of 

comments PHMSA determines to 

include trade secrets, confidential 

commercial information, or sensitive 

security information (SSI) will not be 

placed in the public docket and will be 

handled separately. If you believe your 

comments contain trade secrets, 

confidential commercial information, or 

SSI, those comments or the relevant 

portions of those comments should be 

appropriately marked so that DOT may 

make a determination. PHMSA 

procedures in 49 CFR part 105 establish 

a mechanism by which commenters 

may request confidentiality. 

In accordance with 49 CFR 105.30, 

you may ask PHMSA to keep 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1