Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 26067 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

West Fork Dairy Creek ......... Approximately .8 miles upstream of NW Wilson River 

Highway.

None *191 City of Banks. 

Approximately .72 miles downstream of NW Banks 

Road.

None *192 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Banks 

Maps are available for inspection at 100 S. Main Street, Banks, OR 97106. 

City of Hillsboro 

Maps are available for inspection at 150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, OR 97123. 

Unincorporated Areas of Washington County 

Maps are available for inspection at 155 North First Ave., Ste. 300, Hillsboro, OR 97124. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: April 21, 2008. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Federal Insurance Administrator of the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E8–10335 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 27 

[WT Docket Nos. 03–66; 03–67; 02–68; IB 

Docket No. 02–364; ET Docket No. 00–258; 

FCC 08–83] 

Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and 

Mobile Broadband Access, 

Educational and Other Advanced 

Services in the 2150–2162 and 2500–

2690 MHz Bands; Reviewing of the 

Spectrum Sharing Plan Among NonGeostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile 

Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 

GHz Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to assign Educational Broadband 

Service (EBS) spectrum in the Gulf of 

Mexico. It also seeks comment on how 

to license unassigned and available EBS 

spectrum. Specifically, we seek 

comment on whether it would be in the 

public interest to develop a scheme for 

licensing unassigned EBS spectrum that 

avoids mutual exclusivity; we ask 

whether EBS eligible entities could 

participate fully in a spectrum auction; 

we seek comment on the use of small 

business size standards and bidding 

credits for EBS if we adopt a licensing 

scheme that could result in mutually 

exclusive applications; we seek 

comment on the proper market size and 

size of spectrum blocks for new EBS 

licenses; and we seek comment on 

issuing one license to a State agency 

designated by the Governor to be the 

spectrum manager, using frequency 

coordinators to avoid mutually 

exclusive EBS applications, as well as 

other alternative licensing schemes. The 

Commission must develop a new 

licensing scheme for EBS in order to 

achieve the Commission’s goal of 

facilitating the development of new and 

innovative wireless services for the 

benefit of students throughout the 

nation. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 7, 2008. Submit reply comments on 

or before August 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. You may submit 

comments, identified by FCC 08–83, or 

by WT Docket No. 03–66, WT Docket 

No. 03–67, WT Docket No. 02–68, IB 

Docket No. 02–364, or ET Docket No. 

00–258, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information contact John 

Schauble, Broadband Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at 

(202) 418–0797 or via the Internet to 

John.Schauble@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the FCC’s Broadband Radio 

Service/Educational Broadband Service 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM), 

FCC 08–83, adopted on March 18, 2008, 

and released on March 20, 2008. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
26068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300, 

facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via e-mail 

at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text 

is also available on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov/ 

edocs_public/attachment/FCC-08- 

83A1doc. This full text may also be 

downloaded at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/ 

releases.html. Alternative formats 

(computer diskette, large print, audio 

cassette, and Braille) are available by 

contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–

7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, or via e-mail 

to bmillin@fcc.gov. 

Summary 

BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM 

1. We seek comment on whether and 

how we license EBS spectrum in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Commenters should 

address the issue of whether there is a 

need in the Gulf of Mexico for the type 

of educational services that EBS is 

designed to meet. Because there are no 

schools or universities in the Gulf of 

Mexico, we seek comment on whether 

any changes to our educational use 

requirements are appropriate for the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

2. We also seek further comment on 

the appropriate licensing scheme for 

new EBS licenses. We note that the 

opportunities presented by the new 

technical rules and band plan create 

additional demand for EBS spectrum, 

and that EBS eligible entities have not 

been able to file applications for new 

stations since 1995. The record 

developed to date is insufficient for us 

to adequately weigh the various options 

for licensing EBS spectrum, including 

options that might avoid mutually 

exclusive applications. 

3. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 

(Budget Act) expanded the 

Commission’s competitive bidding 

authority under section 309(j) of the 

Communications Act by adding, among 

other things, provisions governing 

auctions for broadcast and other 

previously exempt services. In a 

subsequent order, the Commission 

concluded that the legislation required 

that mutually exclusive applications for 

new Instructional Television Fixed 

Service (ITFS) stations be subject to 

auction. The Commission concluded 

that ITFS did not fall within the 

exemption from competitive bidding for 

noncommercial educational broadcast 

stations. The Commission expressed 

concern that section 309(j), as adopted, 

might not reflect Congress’ intent with 

regard to the treatment of competing 

ITFS applications. Given the 

instructional nature of the service and 

the reservation of ITFS spectrum for 

noncommercial educational use, the 

Commission thought it possible that 

Congress did not intend its expansion of 

our auction authority in the Budget Act 

to include that service. Accordingly, the 

Commission did not proceed 

immediately with an auction of ITFS 

applications but sought Congressional 

guidance with regard to assigning 

licenses for ITFS by competitive bidding 

and proposed that Congress exempt 

ITFS applications from competitive 

bidding. In 2000, the Commission 

opened a settlement window to resolve 

mutual exclusivity between applications 

by allowing payments to applicants in 

return for dismissing their applications 

and permitting agreements providing for 

the authorization to be awarded to a 

non-applicant third party. 

4. In 2003, the Commission reiterated 

its prior conclusion that mutually 

exclusive applications for new ITFS 

stations would be subject to competitive 

bidding and noted the Commission’s 

attempt to seek Congressional guidance 

on this issue. It also held that there 

would be no opportunity to file new 

ITFS applications, amendments, or 

modifications of any kind of station 

(except for applications that involved 

minor modifications, assignment of 

licenses, or transfer of control) while the 

Commission undertook a major 

restructuring of the 2.5 GHz band plan 

and technical rules. The Commission 

also sought comment on potential 

options for assigning licenses for 

unassigned ITFS spectrum by 

competitive bidding. While the 

Commission later lifted the freeze on 

modification applications, the freeze on 

applications for new EBS stations 

remained in place. 

5. In the 2004 BRS Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

proposed to assign new EBS spectrum 

licenses using competitive bidding. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

geographic areas for new licenses, 

frequency blocks for new licenses, rules 

for auctions, bidding credits for small 

businesses and designated entities, and 

auctioning spectrum as a means of 

transitioning areas where a proponent 

has not come forward within the 

deadline established by the 

Commission. 

6. Notwithstanding the Commission’s 

prior determinations that applications 

for initial EBS spectrum licenses are not 

exempt from competitive bidding under 

the Communications Act, today, we 

seek comment on a mechanism for 

assigning EBS licenses by competitive 

bidding among applicants, as well as 

through other means that would avoid 

mutual exclusivity among applications, 

obviating any need for competitive 

bidding. 

5. Given various characteristics of 

eligible EBS licensees that are unique 

among potential Commission licensees, 

a licensing mechanism that depends on 

competitive bidding to assign licenses 

may not provide many otherwise 

eligible EBS licensees with a full 

opportunity to participate, accordingly, 

we seek further comment on the 

appropriate licensing mechanism for 

new EBS licenses. We do so without 

prejudging the appropriate time for 

issuing new EBS licenses, whether 

pursuant to competitive bidding or an 

alternative assignment mechanism. 

6. We seek comment on several 

threshold questions involving the 

possibility of adopting a licensing 

scheme that provides for mutually 

exclusive applications and competitive 

bidding. First, do EBS eligible entities, 

in general, have the authority to bid for 

spectrum licenses? Second, if EBS 

eligible entities have the authority to bid 

for spectrum, do they have the authority 

to bid for spectrum outside of their 

respective jurisdictions? We seek 

comment on whether educational 

institutions would be able to 

competitively bid for Basic Trading 

Areas (BTAs), given that school districts 

are usually smaller than counties, while 

BTAs can be very large and frequently 

bisect state boundaries. If EBS eligible 

entities cannot bid for spectrum outside 

of their respective jurisdictions, but are 

otherwise able to bid for spectrum, we 

seek comment on whether educational 

institutions could form a consortium or 

some other joint entity to bid for 

spectrum in areas larger than their 

respective jurisdictions and as large as 

a BTA. 

7. Moreover, we seek comment on 

how we should structure the auction to 

ensure that licenses are disseminated 

among a wide variety of applicants. In 

this connection, we seek comment on 

whether we should prohibit non-profit 

educational organizations from 

participating in an auction and limiting 

eligible bidders to EBS eligible entities 

that are publicly supported or privately 

controlled educational institutions 

accredited by the appropriate State 

department of education or the 

recognized regional and national 

accrediting organization. 

8. We propose to conduct any auction 

of the EBS spectrum in conformity with 

the general competitive bidding rules 

set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the 

Commission’s rules, consistent with 

many of the bidding procedures that 

have been employed in previous 

auctions. Specifically, we propose to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 26069 

employ the part 1 rules governing, 

among other things, competitive bidding 

design, designated entities, application 

and payment procedures, collusion 

issues, and unjust enrichment. 

9. We seek comment on whether we 

should adopt bidding credits and small 

business size standards in the auction of 

EBS spectrum. 

10. We seek comment on the size of 

the spectrum blocks to be auctioned. 

Under one possible scheme, the 

winning bidder would receive both the 

three low-power channels and the one 

high-power channel assigned to the 

group. We could also auction the highpower channels in the group separately 

from the low-power channels in the 

group. A third option would be to 

license all of the available spectrum in 

the Lower Band Segment (LBS) and 

Upper Band Segment (UBS) as one 

frequency block and all of the available 

Middle Band Segment (MBS) spectrum 

as a separate frequency block. 

11. With respect to a geographic area 

licensing scheme, we seek comment on 

the size of the area to be licensed. 

Several commenters recommend that we 

license available and unassigned EBS 

spectrum by BTA to correspond to the 

BRS licensing area. We could also 

assign licenses by State. We also seek 

comment on whether we should license 

smaller areas such as cellular market 

areas. If we decide to license the lowpower channels separately from the 

high-power channels, we seek comment 

on whether we should adopt a different 

geographic area for the MBS channels. 

12. We also seek comment on whether 

special eligibility or spectrum 

aggregation limits would be appropriate 

or necessary to ensure that public and 

private educational institutions can 

successfully bid for spectrum. 

13. If, as a result of the record 

developed in response to this BRS/EBS 

2nd FNPRM, we learn that very few EBS 

eligible entities can bid for spectrum, 

we may find that the public interest of 

making this spectrum available will lead 

us to adopt a licensing scheme that 

avoids competitive bidding. In this 

connection, we seek comment on all 

available options for granting 

geographic area licenses without 

granting one of multiple mutually 

exclusive applications. Commenters 

proposing such options should provide 

a detailed description of how their 

proposed option would work, describe 

what they believe the proper geographic 

area and channel blocks should be for 

proposed licenses, and explain why 

they believe their proposed licensing 

scheme would allow vacant EBS 

spectrum to be rapidly placed into use 

by EBS-eligible licensees and meet the 

educational, spectrum policy, and 

broadband goals underlying EBS. 

14. One option would be to issue one 

license to a State agency designated by 

the Governor to be the spectrum 

manager for the entire State, using 

frequency coordinators to avoid 

mutually exclusive EBS applications, as 

well as other alternative licensing 

schemes. In connection with this state 

licensing option, we seek comment on 

whether any modifications to our 

Secondary Markets leasing rules would 

be appropriate for these state licenses. 

We also seek comment on whether any 

modifications to our special leasing 

rules for EBS stations would be 

appropriate for state licenses. 

15. Under spectrum manager leasing 

arrangements and de facto transfer 

leasing arrangements, the licensee must 

meet the eligibility requirements in the 

Commission’s rules. Thus, the State 

agency designated by the Governor 

would have to meet the eligibility 

requirements of § 27.1201 of our rules. 

We seek comment on whether any 

restrictions on a state’s leasing 

discretion would be necessary to ensure 

that the full range of educational entities 

have access to EBS spectrum. 

16. We also seek comment on whether 

any modifications to our special leasing 

rules for EBS stations would be 

appropriate for state licenses. Under 

§ 27.1214 of our rules, a licensee must 

comply with certain educational 

programming requirements and retain 

the opportunity to purchase or to lease 

dedicated or common EBS equipment 

used for educational purposes or 

comparable equipment if the lease 

terminates. 

17. Another option would adopt a 

licensing scheme similar to the one we 

use to license private land mobile radio 

spectrum. Under this approach, 

applicants could submit applications for 

new EBS stations at any time to certified 

frequency coordinators. The frequency 

coordinators would review the 

applications and, in case of conflict, 

certify the earlier filed application that 

complies with the Commission’s rules 

for submission to the Commission. 

18. Using frequency coordination to 

award licenses for new EBS stations 

raises a variety of issues. First, we seek 

comment on whether there are entities 

that could be qualified to serve as an 

EBS frequency coordinator and the 

process by which the Commission 

should select one or more frequency 

coordinators. Second, we seek comment 

on the processes that a frequency 

coordinator would use to handle 

requests for EBS frequencies and to 

determine whether an application 

complies with the Commission’s rules. 

We also seek comment on the 

appropriate geographic area for new 

licenses. We also seek comment on the 

appropriate size of the frequency block 

for EBS licenses awarded through the 

frequency coordination process. 

Available alternatives include: (1) 

Issuing a separate license for each 

channel group; (2) licensing MBS 

channels separately and licensing LBS 

and UBS channels together; (3) issuing 

one UBS license, one MBS license, and 

one LBS license in a given geographic 

area. Finally, we ask whether it is 

appropriate or necessary to place 

limitations on the number of 

applications that a licensee or its 

affiliates could file for new EBS stations 

in a given time period in order to ensure 

that a wide variety of EBS licensees can 

access spectrum. We seek comment on 

these and any other issues relating to 

the use of frequency coordination to 

assign new EBS licenses. 

19. Our discussion of specific 

proposals and questions is not meant to 

preclude commenters from offering 

other proposals or raising other 

questions relating to the assignment of 

new EBS licenses. We seek comment on 

all questions and issues relating to the 

assignment of new EBS licenses. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

Proceeding 

20. This is a permit-but-disclose 

notice and comment rulemaking 

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are 

permitted, except during the Sunshine 

Agenda period, provided they are 

disclosed pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules. 

Comment Period and Procedures 

21. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the FCC’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using: (1) The FCC’s Electronic 

Comment Filing system (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
26070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Comments shall be 

sent as an electronic file via the Internet 

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

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, Postal Service mailing address, 

and the applicable docket number. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet e-mail. To get 

filing instructions for e-mail comments, 

commenters should send an e-mail to 

ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 

words in the body of the message, ‘‘get 

form.’’ A sample form and directions 

will be sent in response. 

• Paper filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. The Commission’s 

contractor will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

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

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. Commercial 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 

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

Postal Service first-class, Express, and 

Priority mail must be addressed to 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). 

• Availability of Documents: The 

public may view the documents filed in 

this proceeding during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, 

and on the Commission’s Internet Home 

Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of 

comments and reply comments are also 

available through the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor: Best Copy and 

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

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

1–800–378–3160. 

Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

22. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4) requirements. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

23. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM. Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines specified in the BRS/ 

EBS 2nd FNPRM for comments. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the BRS/EBS 2nd 

FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

24. The BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM seeks 

comment on various alternatives to 

license unassigned and available EBS 

spectrum throughout the United States 

and the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the 

BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM seeks comments 

on the following options: 

(a) Using competitive bidding to 

license unassigned and available 

spectrum. If this option is adopted the 

Commission proposes to use the 

competitive bidding rules in part 1, 

subpart Q of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether to adopt bidding credits and 

small business size standard, the size of 

the spectrum blocks to be auctioned, 

and the size of geographic areas to be 

licensed. 

(b) Issuing one license per State to a 

State agency designated by the Governor 

to act as a spectrum manager for the 

State. The State agency would be 

required to meet the eligibility 

restrictions in § 27.1201 of the 

Commission’s rules. The State agency 

would be able use spectrum manager 

leasing arrangements or de facto transfer 

leasing arrangements. 

(c) Using a leasing scheme similar to 

the one used to license private land 

mobile radio spectrum. Under this 

approach, applicants could submit 

applications for new EBS stations at any 

time to frequency coordinators. 

25. We believe our proposals will 

encourage utilization of this band and 

the development of new innovative 

services to the public such as providing 

wireless broadband services, including 

high-speed Internet access and mobile 

services while encouraging educators to 

use the band for educational services. 

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 

26. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 

301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 

324, 332, 333 and 706 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 

308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 

706. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

27. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms, 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A small business 

concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. A small 

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of 

2002, there were approximately 1.6 

million small organizations. The term 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is 

defined as ‘‘governments of cities, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 26071 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty thousand.’’

The term ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ Census 

Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there 

were 87,525 local governmental 

jurisdictions in the United States. We 

estimate that, of this total, 84,377 

entities were ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that 

most governmental jurisdictions are 

small. Below, we discuss the total 

estimated numbers of small businesses 

that might be affected by our actions. 

28. The Educational Broadband 

Service (EBS) (previously referred to as 

the Instructional Television Fixed 

Service (ITFS)) is used to provide 

educational services to students. The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for Cable and Other 

Program Distribution, which includes 

all such companies generating $13.5 

million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this category that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had 

annual receipts of under $10 million, 

and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million 

or more but less than $25 million. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of providers in this service 

category are small businesses that may 

be affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. This SBA small 

business size standard is applicable to 

EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS 

licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 

are held by educational institutions. 

Educational institutions are included in 

this analysis as small entities. Thus, we 

estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are 

small businesses. 

29. There are presently 2,032 EBS 

licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 

are held by educational institutions. 

Educational institutions may be 

included in the definition of a small 

entity. EBS is a non-profit non-broadcast 

service. We do not collect, nor are we 

aware of other collections of, annual 

revenue data for EBS licensees. We find 

that up to 1,932 of these educational 

institutions are small entities that may 

take advantage of our amended rules to 

provide additional flexibility to EBS. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

30. There are no new reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements proposed in the BRS/EBS 

2nd FNPRM. 

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

31. RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for small entities.’’

32. The Commission has not proposed 

an approach for licensing EBS spectrum. 

Instead, the Commission seeks comment 

on three distinct approaches for 

licensing EBS spectrum to determine 

which approach would best suit the 

needs of schools and universities and 

other non-profit educational 

institutions. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

33. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

34. It is further ordered that notice is 

hereby given of the proposed regulatory 

changes described in this Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

and that comment is sought on these 

proposals. 

35. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–10105 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 512 

[Docket No. NHTSA–06–26140; Notice 3] 

RIN 2127–AJ95 

Confidential Business Information 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of Petition for 

Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for reconsideration regarding 

amendments to NHTSA’s regulation on 

Confidential Business Information. The 

petition, by the American Association 

for Justice, sought the rescission of class 

determinations that provide confidential 

treatment for certain categories of 

information submitted to NHTSA 

pursuant to the Early Warning Reporting 

regulations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, telephone (202) 366–5263, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Pursuant to the Transportation Recall 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA 

has adopted Early Warning Reporting 

(EWR) regulations. 49 CFR Part 579. See 

49 U.S.C. 30166(m), Public Law 106–

414. Under these regulations, in general, 

larger manufacturers must submit 

certain data to the NHTSA on a 

quarterly basis. Their EWR reports 

include information on production, 

incidents involving deaths or injuries, 

property damage claims, consumer 

complaints, warranty claims, field 

reports and common green tires, with 

some variation based on the reporting 

sector. In general, smaller manufacturers 

must report on incidents involving 

deaths. 

On October 19, 2007, NHTSA 

published regulations addressing the 

confidentiality of EWR data. 72 FR 

59434. The Appendices to the October 

2007 notice contain class 

determinations providing that certain 

EWR information is confidential. Under 

Appendix C to 49 CFR Part 512, EWR 

data on production (except for light 

vehicles), consumer complaints, 

warranty claims, field reports and 

common green tires, as well as copies of 

field reports are confidential. 72 FR at 

59470. Under Appendix D, the last six 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS