35700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

phone and fax: 206–231–3220; email: 

shahram.daneshmandi@faa.gov. 

Issued on June 30, 2021. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14360 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 90 and 95 

[ET Docket No 19–138; Report No. 3176; 

FRS 34533] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s rulemaking proceeding 

by Sean T. Conway, on behalf of 5G 

Automotive Association, Julian 

Gehman, on behalf of The Amateur 

Radio Emergency Data Network, and 

Hilary Cain, on behalf of The Alliance 

for Automotive Innovation. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before July 22, 2021. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before August 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Coleman, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, Policy and Rules 

Division, (202) 418–2705 or 

jamie.coleman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3176, released 

June 16, 2021. The full text of the 

Petitions can be accessed online via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

submission to Congress or the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being 

adopted by the Commission. 

Subject: Use of the 5.850–5.925 GHz 

Band, FCC 20–164, published at 86 FR 

23281, May 3, 2021, ET Docket No. 19– 

138. This document is being published 

pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 

CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 3. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14494 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[WT Docket No. 21–230; FCC 21–69; FR ID 

35413] 

Automatic Identification System 

Channels 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) fulfils the 

Commission’s statutory duty pursuant 

to Section 8416 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, 

which directs the Commission to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding by June 

30, 2021 to consider whether to 

authorize devices used to mark fishing 

equipment for use on Automatic 

Identification System (AIS) channels. 

This document seeks comment on the 

extent to which the 1900–2000 kHz 

band is used to support fishing 

operations, the extent of unauthorized 

deployment of devices used to mark 

fishing equipment using AIS technology 

on AIS channels, and whether to 

authorize devices used to mark fishing 

equipment for use on current AIS 

channels. In addition, the NPRM 

explores whether 160.900 MHz is a 

viable alternative for devices used to 

mark fishing equipment. In the event 

the Commission were to authorize 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

to use AIS channels or 160.900 MHz, 

the NPRM seeks comment on whether 

there are technical and operational 

constraints that could be imposed to 

maintain maritime safety and protect 

incumbents. Finally, the NPRM seeks 

comment on a consumer labeling 

approach for authorized equipment to 

provide consumers guidance on 

whether the equipment being purchased 

complies with both the Coast Guard’s 

and the Commission’s rules. 

DATES: Interested parties may filed 

comments on or before August 6, 2021; 

and reply comments on or before 

September 7, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 21–230, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

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

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, at (202) 418–2925. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT 

Docket No. 21–230, FCC 21–69 adopted 

on June 15, 2021 and released on June 

16, 2021. The full text of this document, 

including all Appendices, is available 

for public inspection on the 

Commission’s website at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-69A1.pdf. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35701 

Congress directed the Commission to 

‘‘consider whether imposing 

requirements with respect to the manner 

in which devices used to mark fishing 

equipment are deployed and used 

would enable them to be authorized to 

operate in radio frequencies assigned for 

[AIS] consistent with the core purpose 

of the [AIS] to prevent maritime 

accidents.’’ The Commission currently 

authorizes radio buoy operations under 

a ship station license for commercial 

fishing operations on the open sea and 

the Great Lakes in the 1900–2000 kHz 

band. 

Ex Parte Rules 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must: (1) List all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made; and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. 

If the presentation consisted in whole 

or in part of the presentation of data or 

arguments already reflected in the 

presenter’s written comments, 

memoranda, or other filings in the 

proceeding, the presenter may provide 

citations to such data or arguments in 

his or her prior comments, memoranda, 

or other filings (specifying the relevant 

page and/or Federal numbers where 

such data or arguments can be found) in 

lieu of summarizing them in the 

memorandum. Documents shown or 

given to Commission staff during ex 

parte meetings are deemed to be written 

ex parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. In proceedings 

governed by § 1.49(f) of the rules or for 

which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. As required by Section 8416 of the 

William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021, we initiate this rulemaking 

proceeding to explore whether to 

authorize devices that can be used to 

mark fishing equipment for use on 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

channels without undermining the core 

purpose of AIS to prevent maritime 

accidents. AIS is a maritime navigation 

safety and domain awareness 

communication system that has been 

successfully relied upon both 

domestically and internationally to 

provide pertinent navigation safety 

information among vessels, aircraft, and 

maritime authorities. The Commission’s 

existing rules limit the use of AIS 

channels to devices needed for safety 

and do not authorize the use on AIS 

channels of devices used to mark fishing 

equipment or the marketing of such 

devices. This NPRM seeks comment on 

both the issue raised in Section 8416 of 

the NDAA21 and on the use of 

alternative spectrum (other than AIS 

channels) for these types of devices. 

II. Background 

2. Automatic Identification System. 

Under Commission rules, AIS is defined 

as a ‘‘maritime navigation safety 

communications system . . . that 

provides vessel information, including 

the vessel’s identity, type, position, 

course, speed, navigational status and 

other safety-related information 

automatically to appropriately equipped 

shore stations, other ships, and aircraft; 

receives automatically such information 

from similarly fitted ships; monitors and 

tracks ships; and exchanges data with 

shore-based facilities.’’ The 

Commission’s rules codify the 

international standards for AIS to 

ensure AIS devices meet the 

requirements of the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO), which 

imposes obligations on vessels traveling 

in international waters. The IMO 

established those requirements to 

‘‘improve the safety of navigation by 

assisting in the efficient navigation of 

ships, protection of the environment, 

and operation of Vessel Traffic 

Services.’’ An AIS device allows users 

to receive data related to the locations 

of other vessels in the area, additional 

objects like navigational aids, and 

maritime-related messages. The IMO 

adopted a requirement for AIS to be 

fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross 

tonnage or more engaged on 

international voyages, cargo ships of 500 

gross tonnage or more not engaged on 

international voyages, and all passenger 

ships carrying more than 12 passengers. 

The United States Coast Guard (Coast 

Guard), acting pursuant to statutory 

directive, expanded the AIS carriage 

requirement to most commercial vessels 

in U.S. navigable waters. 

3. The Commission has incorporated 

by reference, in part 80 of its rules, an 

International Telecommunication Union 

(ITU) international standard for AIS 

equipment and several other 

international standards for AIS, as the 

basis for certifying compulsory and 

voluntary AIS equipment. The only AIS 

equipment types currently authorized 

under part 80 of the Commission’s rules 

are Class A and B shipborne equipment, 

AIS Search and Rescue Transponders 

(AIS–SARTs), and Maritime Survivor 

Locating Devices (MSLDs). Class A AIS 

devices are typically used by sea-going 

vessels to comply with international 

and Coast Guard carriage requirements, 

and have a much greater transmit power 

and provide more information than 

Class B devices. Class B AIS devices 

may be used for voluntary carriage by 

recreational and other non-compulsory 

vessels and a select segment of 

mandatory AIS users in lieu of a Class 

A device. AIS–SARTs are carried on 

board survival craft for use during a 

distress situation to assist search and 

rescue personnel in locating those in 

distress. An AIS–SART is used to locate 

a survival craft or distressed vessel by 

transmitting a unique identification 

code and GPS coordinates to all AISenabled vessels in VHF range. MSLDs 

are devices intended to aid in locating 

persons in the water. The Commission 

has also granted temporary waiver of its 

rules to permit certification and use of 

AIS Aid to Navigation (AtoN) stations. 

4. In 2006, the Commission 

implemented the international AIS 

allocation domestically by designating 

VHF maritime Channels 87B (161.975 

MHz) and 88B (162.025 MHz) for AIS. 

These channels are denominated AIS 1 

and AIS 2, respectively, and are 

authorized for use only by Class A and 

B AIS devices, AIS–SARTs, AIS AtoNs, 

and MSLDs. The Commission does not 

authorize non-AIS use of the AIS 

channels or certification of non-AIS 

VHF radios that include the AIS 

frequencies. 

5. As more vessels become equipped 

with authorized AIS equipment and 

usage increases, AIS 1 and 2 have the 

potential to become overloaded in areas 

with high vessel traffic. A consequence 

of overloading is an impact on mariner 

situational awareness, including 

reduction in the navigational range of 

the AIS system, effectively limiting the 

number of vessels that can be observed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35702 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

within the system. As discussed below, 

the ITU has sought to address this 

problem by defining the types of 

navigation safety AIS uses that are 

permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by 

recommending the use of 160.900 MHz 

for non-navigation and non-safety AIS 

operations on a non-interference basis. 

6. Unauthorized Use of Devices on 

AIS Channels. In 2018, the 

Commission’s Enforcement Bureau 

issued an advisory stating that it had 

observed a ‘‘proliferation in the use and 

marketing of noncompliant devices that 

operate on radio frequencies assigned to 

Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), 

which are authorized exclusively for 

marine navigation safety 

communications.’’ One particular 

unauthorized operation is the use of AIS 

frequencies in the marking of fishing 

equipment, which can ‘‘disrupt 

important maritime communications, 

increasing the risk of accidents by 

creating confusion about whether an 

AIS signal represents a vessel that must 

be avoided.’’ Such noncompliant AIS 

devices are often advertised as ‘‘AIS 

Fishing Net Buoys,’’ and the devices can 

transmit a vessel identification signal 

without essential navigational safety 

information. According to the 

Enforcement Bureau, in addition to 

being illegal, the use of devices to mark 

fishing nets on AIS channels ‘‘can have 

a serious detrimental effect on maritime 

safety, hampering the situational 

awareness of maritime operators and 

endangering ships relying on AIS to 

avoid collisions and allisions at sea.’’ 

The Enforcement Bureau warned that 

violations of the Commission’s 

marketing or operating rules would be 

subject to substantial monetary 

penalties. As the legal alternative, the 

advisory pointed to compliant maritime 

equipment intended for tracking fishing 

nets that is authorized to operate in the 

1900–2000 kHz band. 

7. Statutory Mandate. Section 8416 of 

the NDAA21 mandates that we initiate 

a rulemaking proceeding by June 30, 

2021 to consider whether to authorize 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

in radio frequencies assigned for AIS. 

Congress further instructed the 

Commission to ‘‘consider whether 

imposing requirements with respect to 

the manner in which [AIS] devices are 

deployed and used would enable the 

authorization of [devices used to mark 

fishing equipment] to operate in radio 

frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations 

consistent with the core purpose of the 

[AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.’’ 

III. Discussion 

8. Pursuant to Section 8416 of the 

NDAA21, we seek comment on whether 

to permit devices capable of marking 

fishing equipment to operate on 

channels currently assigned in the 

United States and internationally for 

AIS operation, specifically AIS 1 and 2, 

and on related operational issues. As 

stated, in the United States, AIS 1 and 

2 currently are authorized only for 

maritime navigation safety purposes, 

and Congress directed the Commission 

to ensure that any changes to permitted 

operations in AIS spectrum are 

consistent with the core purpose of AIS 

to prevent maritime accidents. 

9. We seek comment below on the 

current types and usages of such 

devices. We seek comment on whether 

such devices could operate on AIS 1 

and 2 consistent with the purpose of 

AIS and, if so, under what conditions. 

We also seek comment on the costs and 

benefits of permitting operation of these 

devices on AIS 1 and 2, including the 

risks to maritime safety. In addition, we 

seek comment on the costs and benefits 

of facilitating use of such devices on 

alternative spectrum, specifically, by 

encouraging more robust use of 

frequencies in the 1900–2000 kHz band 

(which is currently authorized for radio 

buoy operations under certain ship 

station licenses held by commercial 

fishing vessels) and/or by permitting 

such use on 160.900 MHz (consistent 

with ITU recommendations). We further 

seek comment on how best to categorize 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

and protect incumbents through 

technical and operational limitations. 

Finally, we seek comment on a 

consumer labeling approach to provide 

consumers guidance on whether the 

equipment being purchased complies 

with the Coast Guard’s rules and the 

Commission’s rules. 

A. Current Environment for Devices 

Used To Mark Fishing Equipment 

10. We seek comment generally on the 

current usage of spectrum to operate 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment. We consider two 

general types of fishing equipment; 

those attached to vessels during fishing 

activities, such as long-lines, trawl nets 

or drift nets, and those deployed for 

later retrieval, such as fixed fishing nets, 

pots, traps or other fishing equipment. 

What is the volume of usage of any of 

these devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment? How many mobile 

and/or fixed devices are typically used 

by an individual vessel or fleet? To what 

extent does usage of these devices vary 

based on the body of water where 

deployed? Are there other types of 

fishing nets that we should consider? 

We recognize that fishing seasons are 

time limited and vary by location, and 

we seek data to determine the most 

trafficked locations during high fishing 

season. Approximately how many 

devices are typically used to mark 

fishing equipment in a given area during 

high season? Are the devices used yearround, or only during the fishing 

season? If they are used year-round, are 

the full complement of devices always 

in use, or does the number of devices in 

use vary based on the time of year? Over 

how large an area are these devices 

used? What types of technical 

developments have occurred to facilitate 

the use of these devices? Are these 

devices also used to mark the location 

of other types of marine equipment? We 

seek extensive data input into our 

record in this proceeding as part of our 

consideration of whether to authorize 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2. 

11. 1900–2000 kHz Operations. We 

note that the Commission currently 

authorizes radio buoy operations under 

a ship station license for commercial 

fishing operations on the open sea and 

the Great Lakes in the 1900–2000 kHz 

band. Under Commission rules, the 

output power is limited to 8 watts and 

the station antenna height is limited to 

4.6 meters above sea level for a buoy 

station, or 6 meters above the mast of 

the ship for ship installations. We seek 

comment on the extent to which this 

band is used in support of fishing 

operations. We ask that commenters 

provide specific details regarding use 

cases to provide a clearer understanding 

of the scope of the use of the 1900–2000 

kHz band in support of fishing 

operations. What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of using the 1900–2000 

kHz band in support of such operations? 

How many devices currently used to 

mark fishing equipment employ this 

band? What is the anticipated rate of 

increase in the number of devices used 

to mark fishing equipment in this band? 

Is there sufficient equipment available 

in this band for use in marking devices 

for fishing operations? Would the 

current technical limits hinder the use 

of this band for devices that can be used 

to mark fishing equipment, or fail to 

incentivize equipment development? 

Given the current power limits, what is 

the estimated number of devices in a 

given area that this band can support 

without harmful interference? What 

advantages or disadvantages are there to 

using equipment in this band as 

compared to AIS equipment, 

specifically as related to any differences 

in functionality, performance, and cost? 

We also seek information, especially 

quantitative estimates, on the economic 

value of improved safety and more 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35703 

efficient commercial fishing operations 

from the use of these radio buoys in the 

1900–2000 kHz band. 

12. Unauthorized Use of AIS 

Channels. We seek comment on 

whether entities currently using AIS 1 

and 2 for navigation safety and domain 

awareness communication systems are 

experiencing problems from 

unauthorized use of AIS 1 and 2. If so, 

how and to what extent does such 

unauthorized use impact legitimate 

operations on AIS 1 and 2? We seek 

specific comment on the types and 

quantity of devices used, or marketed 

for use, to illegally operate on AIS 1 and 

2 to mark fishing equipment. Since the 

issuance of the 2018 Enforcement 

Bureau Advisory, is there evidence of 

the continued proliferation of the 

unauthorized deployment of devices 

used to mark fishing equipment using 

AIS channels 1 and 2, and if so, at what 

rate? Is any such proliferation largely 

limited to certain bodies of water? How 

are such unauthorized uses typically 

deployed—i.e., at what power levels 

and antenna heights—and are there 

differences between fixed deployments 

and mobile deployments (e.g., trawl use 

cases)? 

13. As noted above, there is a concern 

that, in some areas, AIS 1 and 2 may 

become compromised. The 

Commission’s Enforcement Bureau 

Advisory stated that non-certified 

devices used to track or mark fishing 

equipment ‘‘can have a serious 

detrimental effect on maritime safety, 

hampering the situational awareness of 

maritime operators and endangering 

ships relying on AIS to avoid collisions 

and allisions at sea.’’ Further, an ITU 

Radiocommunication Bureau 

Recommendation indicates that, to 

avoid confusion or an overload of 

information on the bridge of a vessel, 

devices that do not enhance the safety 

of navigation should not be permitted to 

use designated frequencies AIS 1 and 2. 

Do commenters agree with the ITU 

Recommendation? We seek specific 

comment and data on the extent the use 

of unauthorized devices is 

compromising the use of AIS 1 and 2 

and any resulting impact on the state of 

maritime safety. 

B. Exploring Additional Spectrum for 

Devices That Could Be Used To Mark 

Fishing Equipment 

14. AIS Channels 1 and 2. Consistent 

with the Congressional directive in 

Section 8416 of the NDAA21, we seek 

specific comment on whether 

requirements could be imposed to 

enable authorization of devices that are 

designed to mark fishing equipment to 

operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with 

the core purpose of AIS to prevent 

maritime accidents. How would the 

introduction of such devices impact the 

availability and utility of the AIS 1 and 

2 channels, especially in light of 

concerns about potential overloading? 

Would the authorization of devices used 

to mark fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 

2 result in substantial further channel 

overloading? If low power/low-latency 

requirements were utilized for operation 

of devices used to mark fishing 

equipment on AIS 1 and 2, would this 

alleviate concerns regarding channel 

overloading? Are modifications or 

retrofits required for existing devices to 

become compliant to the low-power/ 

low-latency requirements? If so, what is 

the likely unit cost to make existing 

devices compliant with the low-power/ 

low-latency requirements? How many 

existing devices are estimated to be 

affected by any new requirements? We 

seek comment on the overall costs and 

benefits of potentially allowing devices 

that could be used to mark fishing 

equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2, 

including the risks to maritime safety. 

15. We also seek comment on whether 

we could authorize devices that could 

be used to mark fishing equipment to 

operate on AIS 1 and 2 without 

diminishing navigation safety in 

domestic and international waters and 

impeding the efficiency of marine 

transportation systems. If so, what is the 

likely cost? If the Commission were to 

permit such devices to operate on AIS 

1 and AIS 2, to what extent would we 

need to amend our current AIS 

equipment authorization rules? If the 

Commission were to permit devices 

used to mark fishing equipment to 

operate on AIS 1 and 2, what 

coordination procedures would be 

needed between the Commission, the 

Coast Guard, and others to certify 

equipment and ensure safe operation? 

Are there restrictions or requirements 

the Commission could impose to 

mitigate against a negative impact on 

existing uses? For example, should we 

limit the types of devices used to mark 

fishing equipment that would be 

permitted to operate on AIS 1 and 2? 

Should we authorize devices for 

operation only in certain areas? If so, is 

there any practical way to enforce such 

limitations? Are there any technical 

parameters or other limits the 

Commission might impose to ensure 

that any new uses do not undermine the 

core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime 

accidents? We note that, during the 

pendency of this rulemaking, we will 

continue to enforce our rules that limit 

the use of AIS channels to devices 

needed for safety and that do not 

authorize use on AIS channels of 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

or the marketing of such devices. 

16. Particularly in the maritime 

context, the Commission considers 

international ramifications in 

determining whether its actions are in 

the public interest. We therefore note 

that at WRC–19, the ITU updated its 

Radio Regulations, to establish a new 

class of AIS devices, Group A and 

Group B autonomous maritime radio 

devices (AMRD), and state that an 

AMRD is a ‘‘mobile station operating at 

sea and transmitting independently of a 

ship station or a coast station.’’ The ITU 

defined AMRD Group A as devices that 

‘‘enhance the safety of navigation.’’ In 

contrast, the ITU defined AMRD Group 

B as ‘‘[devices] that do not enhance the 

safety of navigation (AMRD which 

deliver signals or information which do 

not concern the navigation of the vessel 

or do not complement vessel traffic 

safety in waterways).’’ Should we 

consider a similar categorization of AIS 

devices? Would this type of 

categorization be consistent with the 

core purpose of AIS to prevent maritime 

accidents? To the extent that the ITU 

categories might inform our approach in 

this proceeding, and recognizing that 

the distinction between devices in 

AMRD Groups A and B may be 

somewhat unclear and can vary by use 

case, we request comment on the types 

of devices that should be categorized as 

AMRD Group A verses Group B. Should 

the two general categories of fishing nets 

mentioned above (and their associated 

devices used for marking) be separately 

considered for AMRD Group A or B? 

Are there other categories of fishing 

nets/devices that should also be 

considered? What are the appropriate 

factors to consider in categorizing 

various devices, and should those 

factors differ depending on the use case? 

For example, should nets attached to a 

vessel be considered for AMRD Group A 

since approaching vessels will need to 

be aware of their location for navigation 

safety? Should static nets be considered 

for Group B due to their static nature, 

or do they remain a navigation hazard 

for approaching vessels? We also seek 

comment on the international 

ramifications if we were to authorize 

operation of devices used to mark 

fishing equipment on AIS 1 and 2, 

including the ramifications for 

international technical and 

intergovernmental organizations. For 

example, would revisions to existing 

technical standards, recommendations, 

or mandates be required at IEC, IMO, 

ITU or elsewhere? 

17. While we are concerned about the 

proliferation of devices that use AIS 1 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35704 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and 2 to mark fishing equipment, and 

their potential overall effect on maritime 

safety, we also seek comment on any 

potential safety-related reasons to 

integrate such devices on AIS 1 and 2, 

including whether they might enhance 

the safety of navigation (e.g., by helping 

ships to avoid collision with fishing 

nets). Are there use or deployment 

restrictions on devices intended to mark 

fishing equipment that we could impose 

to potentially accommodate the addition 

of such devices on AIS 1 and 2, while 

not undermining the core safety purpose 

of AIS? Would allowing devices that 

could be used to mark fishing 

equipment to operate on AIS 1 and 2 

help maritime operators and ships 

relying on AIS to avoid collisions? Do 

concerns about AIS 1 and 2 overloading 

or traffic congestion generally vary 

depending on the type of fishing areas— 

e.g., fishing areas near ports or fishing 

lanes versus deep sea fishing areas? 

What other devices and/or applications 

are being considered for AMRD Group 

A and B? If the potential for new types 

of devices and/or applications for Group 

A is limited, could this provide an 

opportunity for devices that could be 

used to mark fishing equipment to 

operate as Group A devices on AIS 1 

and 2 and not impact the AIS network 

and its core maritime safety purpose? 

Could the impact be further reduced if 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment utilized a carriersense time-division multiple-access 

(CSTDMA) system used by Class B AIS 

transceivers, as opposed to random 

access time-division multiple access 

(RATDMA) used by other AIS devices? 

18. Operation on 160.900 MHz by 

Devices that Could be Used to Mark 

Fishing Equipment. In order to assess 

the relative costs and benefits of 

permitting the use of AIS 1 and 2 by 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment, we explore whether 

other frequencies could be allocated to 

such uses, in particular 160.900 MHz. 

The ITU, in amending its Radio 

Regulations to permit certain devices 

categorized as AMRD Group B to use 

AIS technology, specifically identified 

160.900 MHz for purposes other than 

safety on a non-interference basis to 

existing primary incumbents. We note, 

however, that the Commission has 

issued a substantial number of licenses 

authorizing primary operations within a 

25 kHz bandwidth of 160.900 MHz. Our 

Universal Licensing System (ULS) 

reflects 579 incumbent licensees on 

these channels, mostly railroad entities 

authorized across the nation, including 

near port cities, for uses such as 

dispatch, track maintenance, car 

maintenance, and safety-related 

communications. ULS records also 

reflect three licenses near 160.900 MHz 

issued to public safety entities for land 

mobile operation under Part 90 of the 

Commission’s rules, and 44 fixed and 

mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Remote 

Pickup under Part 74 of the 

Commission’s rules. Remote pickup 

channels can be used by a mobile 

transmitter to relay signals from a 

remote location back to the studio, or 

between two points, such as a main 

studio and an auxiliary studio. 

19. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission should maintain 

consistency with the international 

maritime approach regarding devices 

used to mark fishing equipment and 

authorize operation of these devices on 

160.900 MHz. As stated, we recognize 

that incumbents currently operate near 

this frequency and seek comment on the 

specific level of incumbent deployments 

near 160.900 MHz, including geographic 

locations and technical parameters. We 

also seek comment on whether there are 

protective measures that could be 

employed to minimize the potential for 

harmful interference to incumbents 

while still accommodating new 

maritime uses on or near 160.900 MHz. 

If stakeholders support 160.900 MHz as 

the appropriate frequency for devices 

that could be used to mark fishing 

equipment in lieu of AIS 1 and 2, we 

seek comment on how the Commission 

should specifically protect incumbents, 

including many U.S. rail entities, and 

any incumbents that might operate near 

waterways, such as ports. To what 

extent can the Commission 

accommodate operation of devices that 

could be used to mark fishing 

equipment and incumbents on or near 

this frequency? We also note that the 

three public safety incumbent systems 

near 160.900 MHz are operated by 

governmental jurisdictions. Should 

public safety systems be provided the 

same protection as non-public safety 

systems operating on or near 160.900 

MHz or does their status as public safety 

entities requiring reliable 

communications dictate more stringent 

protective measures? If so, what 

protective measures are necessary? 

20. We recognize that the ITU 

established power level limits for 

AMRD Group B operation on 160.900 

MHz not to exceed 100 mW and antenna 

height limits not to exceed 1 m above 

the surface of the sea. If we were to 

authorize operation of devices that 

could be used to mark fishing 

equipment on 160.900 MHz, we seek 

comment on whether the ITU 

established power/height limitations are 

sufficient to protect U.S. licensed 

incumbents operating near 160.900 

MHz. If not, what alternative technical 

and operational limitations would be 

appropriate to mitigate the likelihood of 

harmful interference to incumbent 

licensees? Should we consider creating 

exclusion areas where devices that 

could be used to mark fishing 

equipment cannot be deployed if 

operating on 160.900 MHz? Commenters 

supporting domestic use of 160.900 

MHz for such devices should address 

these and any other issues, including 

the existence of appropriate technical 

and operational standards, necessary for 

such devices to successfully operate 

without causing harmful interference to 

incumbent licensees. If co-existence is 

not technically feasible, should we 

consider requiring incumbents to 

relocate to new spectrum, and if so, 

what are the available and appropriate 

spectrum alternatives for incumbents? 

We also recognize that any new 

authorized uses of 160.900 MHz may 

impact existing operations near the 

Canadian and Mexican borders and 

therefore seek comment on what 

measures might be necessary to protect 

use of the 160.900 MHz spectrum 

outside of the United States, consistent 

with applicable treaties or 

arrangements. 

21. Consumer Labeling. We seek 

comment on whether to establish 

labeling requirements on authorized 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment to provide consumers 

guidance on whether the equipment 

being purchased complies with the 

Coast Guard’s rules and the 

Commission’s rules. By requiring 

labeling on devices approved for use in 

marking fishing equipment, consumers 

would be on notice not to purchase 

devices that do not contain the 

approved label. For example, if we 

adopted such an approach, 

unauthorized devices used in marking 

fishing equipment that operate on AIS 1 

and 2, currently illegally marketed as 

‘‘AIS Fishing Net Buoys,’’ would not 

contain the label of approval. We seek 

comment on requiring consumer 

labeling for devices that could be used 

to mark fishing equipment, including 

the costs and benefits of such an 

approach. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

22. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice-and-comment rulemaking 

proceedings, unless the agency certifies 

that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated, 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35705 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning 

potential rule and policy changes 

contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set 

forth in Appendix A. 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

23. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the potential policy and rule changes 

that the Commission seeks comment on 

in the NPRM. Written public comments 

are requested on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments as specified in the NPRM. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

24. As required by Section 8416 of the 

William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding to explore whether to 

authorize devices used to mark fishing 

equipment for use on Automatic 

Identification System (AIS) channels. 

Section 8416 of the NDAA21 mandates 

that the Commission initiate a 

proceeding by June 30, 2021 to consider 

whether to authorize devices use to 

mark fishing equipment in radio 

frequencies assigned for AIS. Congress 

further instructs the Commission to 

‘‘consider whether imposing 

requirements with respect to the manner 

in which [AIS] devices are deployed 

and used would enable the 

authorization of [devices used to mark 

fishing equipment] to operate in radio 

frequencies assigned for [AIS] stations 

consistent with the core purpose of the 

[AIS] to prevent maritime accidents.’’ 

25. Pursuant to the mandates of 

Section 8416 of the NDAA21, the NPRM 

raises germane technical, operational 

and economic issues that could result in 

rules changes in its request for 

comments on whether to permit devices 

that could be used to mark fishing 

equipment to operate on channels 

currently assigned for AIS operation in 

the United States and internationally, 

specifically AIS channels 1 and 2. The 

NPRM seeks comment on the current 

types and usages of such devices. The 

NPRM inquires whether requirements 

could be adopted by the Commission to 

enable authorization of devices that are 

designed to mark fishing equipment to 

operate in AIS 1 and 2 consistent with 

the core purpose of AIS to prevent 

maritime accidents and seeks comment 

on this issue. The Commission also 

requests input on the overall costs and 

benefits of potentially allowing devices 

used to mark fishing equipment to 

operate on AIS 1 and 2, including the 

risks to maritime safety. Further, to the 

extent that the Commission were to 

permit devices used to mark fishing 

equipment on AIS 1 and AIS 2, the 

NPRM seeks input on the certification 

procedures that should be required, and 

whether, and to what extent the current 

Commission AIS equipment 

certification rules would need to be 

amended. Additionally, the NPRM seeks 

input on whether there are restrictions 

or requirements such as technical 

parameters, and use or deployment 

restrictions on devices intended to mark 

fishing equipment, that the Commission 

could impose to mitigate against a 

negative impact on existing uses 

without undermining the core safety 

purpose of AIS technology. 

26. As part of the Commission’s 

assessment of the relative costs and 

benefits of permitting the use of AIS 1 

and 2 by devices that could be used to 

mark fishing equipment, the NPRM 

seeks comment on whether to, in the 

alternative, authorize devices that could 

be used to mark fishing equipment for 

operation on 160.900 MHz pursuant to 

a relevant International 

Telecommunications Union (ITU) 

recommendation. As more vessels 

become equipped with authorized AIS 

equipment and as its use increases, AIS 

channels have the potential to become 

overloaded in areas with high vessel 

traffic. In addition to the other impacts, 

one consequence of overloading is a 

reduction in the range of the AIS system 

which reduces situational awareness for 

mariners. The ITU has sought to address 

this problem by defining the types of 

navigation safety AIS uses that are 

permitted on AIS 1 and 2, and by 

identifying 160.900 MHz for nonnavigation and non-safety AIS uses. In 

addition to the ITU’s recommendation, 

the NPRM seeks comment on how best 

to categorize devices used to mark 

fishing equipment. Further, the 

Commission requests input on the 

appropriate technical and operational 

limitations and protective measures that 

could be adopted to best protect existing 

incumbents with deployments on the 

160.900 MHz frequency from 

interference while still accommodating 

new maritime uses. 

27. Finally, the NPRM inquires 

whether a consumer labeling 

requirement should be adopted to 

provide consumers guidance on 

whether the equipment being purchased 

complies with both the Coast Guard’s 

and the Commission’s rules. By 

requiring labeling on devices approved 

for use in marking fishing equipment, 

consumers would be on notice not to 

purchase devices that do not contain the 

approved label. The Commission 

requests information on the costs and 

benefits of imposing such a labeling 

requirement. 

B. Legal Basis 

28. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r), 

308, 309, and 384 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(r), 

308, 309, and 384, and pursuant to 

Section 8416 of the William M. (Mac) 

Thornberry National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

29. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

30. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

phone services, paging services, 

wireless internet access, and wireless 

video services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is that such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35706 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) are small entities. 

31. Marine Radio Services. Small 

businesses in the aviation and marine 

radio services use a marine very high 

frequency (VHF), medium frequency 

(MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any 

type of emergency position indicating 

radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an 

aircraft radio, and/or any type of 

emergency locator transmitter (ELT). 

The Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a size standard applicable to 

these small businesses. For purposes of 

this analysis, the Commission uses the 

SBA small business size standard for the 

category Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite), which is 

1,500 or fewer employees. For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 967 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 955 firms employed fewer than 

1,000 employees and 12 firms employed 

of 1000 employees or more. Thus under 

this category and the Marine Radio 

Services. Small businesses in the 

aviation and marine radio services use 

a marine very high frequency (VHF), 

medium frequency (MF), or high 

frequency (HF) radio, any type of 

emergency position indicating radio 

beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft 

radio, and/or any type of emergency 

locator transmitter (ELT). The 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a size standard applicable to 

these small businesses. For purposes of 

this analysis, the Commission uses the 

SBA small business size standard for the 

category Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite), which is 

1,500 or fewer employees. For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 967 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 955 firms employed fewer than 

1,000 employees and 12 firms employed 

of 1000 employees or more. Thus under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the Commission 

estimates that the majority firms in this 

industry are small entities. 

32. Based on Commission data most 

applicants for recreational licenses are 

individuals. Approximately 581,000 

ship station licensees and 131,000 

aircraft station licensees operate 

domestically and are not subject to the 

radio carriage requirements of any 

statute or treaty. For purposes of our 

evaluations in this analysis, we estimate 

that there are up to approximately 

712,000 licensees that are small 

businesses (or individuals) under the 

SBA standard. In addition, between 

December 3, 1998 and December 14, 

1998, the Commission held an auction 

of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 

157.1875–157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) 

and 161.775–162.0125 MHz (coast 

transmit) bands. For purposes of the 

auction, the Commission defined a 

‘‘small’’ business as an entity that, 

together with controlling interests and 

affiliates, has average gross revenues for 

the preceding three years not to exceed 

$15 million dollars. In addition, a ‘‘very 

small’’ business is one that, together 

with controlling interests and affiliates, 

has average gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not to exceed $3 

million dollars. There are approximately 

10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast 

Service, and the Commission estimates 

that almost all of them qualify as 

‘‘small’’ businesses under the above 

special small business size standards. 

33. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing radio and television 

broadcast and wireless communications 

equipment. Examples of products made 

by these establishments are: 

transmitting and receiving antennas, 

cable television equipment, GPS 

equipment, pagers, cellular phones, 

mobile communications equipment, and 

radio and television studio and 

broadcasting equipment. The SBA has 

established a size standard for this 

industry of 1,250 employees or less. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that 841 establishments operated in this 

industry in that year. Of that number, 

828 establishments operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments 

operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 

employees and 6 establishments 

operated with 2,500 or more employees. 

Based on this data, we conclude that a 

majority of manufacturers in this 

industry are small. 

34. Private Land Mobile Radio 

Licensees. Private land mobile radio 

(PLMR) systems serve an essential role 

in a vast range of industrial, business, 

land transportation, and public safety 

activities. Companies of all sizes 

operating in all U.S. business categories 

use these radios. Because of the vast 

array of PLMR users, the Commission 

has not developed a small business size 

standard specifically applicable to 

PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA 

category is Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) which encompasses business 

entities engaged in radiotelephone 

communications. The appropriate size 

standard for this category under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 shows that there were 967 firms 

that operate for the entire year. Of this 

total, 955 firms has employment of 999 

or fewer employees and 12 had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus under this category and the 

associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of PLMR licensees are small entities. 

35. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, at the outset, 

three broad groups of small entities that 

could be directly affected herein. First, 

while there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

Office of Advocacy, in general a small 

business is an independent business 

having fewer than 500 employees. These 

types of small businesses represent 

99.9% of all businesses in the United 

States, which translates to 30.7 million 

businesses. 

36. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2018, there were approximately 

571,709 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

37. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35707 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

38. Broadcast Auxiliary Services 

(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) Licensees 

(TV Stations). Only licensees of 

broadcast stations, broadcast networks, 

and cable networks can hold RPU 

licenses. BAS involves a variety of 

transmitters, generally used to relay 

broadcast programming to the public 

(through translator and booster stations) 

or within the program distribution chain 

(from a remote news gathering unit to 

the studio or from the studio to the 

transmitter). The Commission nor the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary 

Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) 

licensees. The closest applicable SBA 

small business size standard for Remote 

pickup BAS when used by a TV station 

is for Television Broadcasting and such 

a business is small if it has $41.5 

million or less in annual receipts. The 

2012 Economic Census reports that 751 

firms in this category operated for the 

entire year. Of that number, 656 had 

annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 

and 25 had annual receipts between 

$25,000,000 and $49,999,999. Based on 

this data we estimate that the majority 

of firms are small entities under the 

applicable SBA size standard. 

39. Broadcast Auxiliary Services 

(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) Licensees 

(Radio Stations). Only licensees of 

broadcast stations, broadcast networks, 

and cable networks can hold RPU 

licenses. BAS involves a variety of 

transmitters, generally used to relay 

broadcast programming to the public 

(through translator and booster stations) 

or within the program distribution chain 

(from a remote news gathering unit to 

the studio or from the studio to the 

transmitter). The Commission nor the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary 

Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) 

licensees. The closest applicable SBA 

small business size standard for Remote 

pickup BAS when used by a radio 

station is for Radio Stations and such a 

business is small if it has $41.5 million 

or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849 

firms operated for the entire year. Of 

that number, 2,806 firms operated with 

annual receipts of less than $25 million 

per year and 17 firms operated with 

annual receipts between $25 million 

and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, 

based on the SBA’s size standard the 

majority of firms are small entities. 

40. Broadcast Auxiliary Services 

(BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) (Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing). Only licensees of 

broadcast stations, broadcast networks, 

and cable networks can hold RPU 

licenses. BAS involves a variety of 

transmitters, generally used to relay 

broadcast programming to the public 

(through translator and booster stations) 

or within the program distribution chain 

(from a remote news gathering unit to 

the studio or from the studio to the 

transmitter). The Commission nor the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary 

Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) 

licensees. The closest applicable SBA 

small business size standard for Remote 

pickup BAS involving BAS equipment 

manufacturers is for Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing and such a business is 

small if it has 1,250 employees or less. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that 841 establishments operated in this 

industry for the entire year. Of that 

number, 828 establishments operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 

establishments operated with between 

1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 

establishments operated with 2,500 or 

more employees. Based on this data, we 

conclude that a majority of 

manufacturers in this industry are 

small. 

41. Boat Dealers. This U.S. industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in (1) retailing new and/or used 

boats or retailing new boats in 

combination with activities, such as 

repair services and selling replacement 

parts and accessories, and/or (2) 

retailing new and/or used outboard 

motors, boat trailers, marine supplies, 

parts, and accessories. The SBA has 

established a size standard for this 

industry, which is having annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. 2012 U.S. 

Census Bureau data indicate that 3,338 

firms operated in this industry 

throughout the entire year. Of that 

number, 3,328 operated with annual 

receipts of less than $25 million, while 

17 firms had annual receipts between 

$25 million and $49,999,999. Based on 

this data, we conclude that a majority of 

the firms in this industry are small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

42. The inquiries raised for comment 

in the NPRM may create new or 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

and/or other compliance obligations on 

small entities, if adopted. The NPRM 

seeks comment on potentially allowing 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

on to AIS channels 1 and 2 pursuant to 

a statutory mandate and requests 

information on potential rule changes 

that can be made to facilitate this action. 

Following the Congressional directive in 

the NDAA21, the Commission is seeking 

comment on multiple alternatives for 

devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment that could result in 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements for small 

entities. More specifically, in its request 

for comment, the Commission seeks 

information on the type of use or 

deployment restrictions on devices 

intended to mark fishing equipment it 

could impose to potentially 

accommodate the addition of such 

devices on AIS channels 1 and 2, while 

not undermining the core safety purpose 

of AIS technology. The NPRM also seeks 

input on what the certification 

procedures should be implemented if 

the Commission decides to allow 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

on AIS channels 1 and 2 and whether 

to amend the current AIS equipment 

certification rules. 

43. In the alternative, the Commission 

is seeking comment on whether 

alternative frequencies could provide a 

viable option for devices that could be 

used to mark fishing equipment, in 

particular 160.900 MHz. If the 

Commission decides that relocating 

existing incumbents from the 160.900 

MHz band is a feasible course of action, 

those incumbents may face new 

requirements. Further, if the 

Commission adopts rules for devices 

that could be used to mark fishing 

equipment to protect incumbents on 

160.900 MHz, entities deploying such 

devices would need to conform to 

technical and operational standards and 

requirements. In addition, to the extent 

the Commission established a consumer 

labeling requirement pursuant to the 

inquiry raised in the NPRM compliance 

with a labeling requirement would be 

applicable to device manufacturers. 

44. At this time, the Commission is 

not currently in a position to determine 

whether, if adopted, the potential rule 

changes that could result from questions 

raised and issues discussed in the 

NPRM will require small entities to hire 

attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals, and cannot quantify 

the cost of compliance with any the 

potential rule changes that may be 

adopted. In the discussion of these 

issues relevant to whether to authorize 

devices used to mark fishing equipment 

for use on AIS channels or other 

frequencies, the Commission has sought 

comments from parties in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35708 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

proceeding, including seeking cost and 

benefit analyses. This information may 

help the Commission identify and 

evaluate other relevant matters, 

including compliance costs and burdens 

on small entities that may result from 

the matters explored in the NPRM. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

45. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

46. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks to identify the appropriate band 

for devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment and how to best 

protect maritime safety and incumbents. 

The Commission has raised three 

possible for approaches for 

consideration. As discussed above, the 

first approach looks at use of the current 

1900–2000 kHz band and whether it 

remains appropriate for use in support 

of fishing operations. Pursuant to the 

NDAA21 statutory mandate, the NPRM 

seeks comment on whether imposing 

requirements with respect to the manner 

in which devices that could be used to 

mark fishing equipment are deployed 

would enable them to be authorized to 

operate in radio frequencies assigned for 

AIS consistent with the core AIS 

purpose to prevent maritime accidents. 

In the alternative, the Commission 

raised for consideration whether 

alternative frequencies could provide a 

viable option for devices that could be 

used to mark fishing equipment, in 

particular 160.900 MHz. To understand 

the technical, operational, and 

economic impact of each of these 

alternatives the Commission has 

provided small entities and others the 

opportunity to provide information, 

including cost and benefit analyses on 

issues identified in the NPRM as well as 

information on any other issues relevant 

to this matter. 

47. The Commission expects to 

consider more fully the economic 

impact on small entities following its 

review of comments filed in response to 

the NPRM, including costs and benefits 

analyses, and this IFRA. The 

Commission’s evaluation of the 

comments filed in this proceeding will 

shape the final conclusions it reaches, 

the final alternatives it considers, and 

the actions it ultimately takes in this 

proceeding to minimize any significant 

economic impact that may occur on 

small entities. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

48. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

49. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r), 

308, 309, and 384 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, 

and pursuant to Section 8416 of the 

William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021, that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

50. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14362 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] 

RIN 1018–BE07 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Razorback Sucker From Endangered 

to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify the razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

proposed downlisting is based on our 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which indicates that the species’ status 

has improved due to conservation 

actions and partnerships, and the 

threats to the razorback sucker 

identified at the time of listing in 1991 

have been eliminated or reduced to the 

point that the species is no longer 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but it is still likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future without 

current active and intensive 

management. We also propose a rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act that 

provides for the conservation of the 

razorback sucker. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 7, 2021. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for a 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: Supporting 

documentation used to prepare this 

proposed rule, including the 5-year 

review and the species status 

assessment (SSA) report, are available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS