Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 52869 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 16–408; FCC 17–122] 

Updates Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service 

Systems and Related Matters 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to remove the 

domestic coverage requirement for nongeostationary-satellite orbit (NGSO), 

fixed-satellite service (FSS) satellite 

systems. 

DATES: Comments are due January 2, 

2018. Reply comments are due January 

29, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket No. 16–408, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

apps.fcc.gov/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 email: 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: Clay 

DeCell, Clay.DeCell@fcc.gov, 202–418– 

0803. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 17–122, adopted 

September 26, 2017, and released 

September 27, 2017. The full text of the 

FNPRM is available at https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ 

FCC-17-122A1.pdf. The FNPRM is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities, send an email 

to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

& Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Comment Filing Requirements 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

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 the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). 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://apps.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 hand or 

messenger delivery, 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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes 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 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• 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 email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Ex Parte Presentations 

The proceeding this FNPRM initiates 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules, 

47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 paragraph 

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 rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

we seek specific comment on how we 

might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Synopsis 

The Commission requires NGSO FSS 

systems to provide continuous coverage 

of the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Systems with more 

localized coverages are prohibited. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
52870 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

requirement stems from a similar 

requirement placed on NGSO MSS 

systems which are, as a general matter, 

unable to share spectrum without 

causing harmful interference. 

The domestic coverage requirement 

for NGSO FSS systems could be 

unnecessary or counterproductive, 

however. For example, among the 

several pending applications that 

request waivers of this requirement, one 

operator seeks to provide service in 

remote areas of Alaska as part of an 

‘‘Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission.’’ 

Its satellite system would operate in a 

highly elliptical orbit chosen to 

maximize service to the Arctic region, 

but which prevents coverage of the 

lower United States. Another operator is 

currently providing low-latency satellite 

service to Americans at sea. The 

equatorial orbit of its system, however, 

precludes U.S. coverage at high 

latitudes. Such specialized systems may 

be authorized by foreign administrations 

and intended to serve only part of the 

United States. We do not believe it 

would serve the public interest to block 

access to these systems solely because of 

their specialized coverage areas, given 

that multiple NGSO FSS systems can 

share the same frequency bands. Rather, 

we expect that the most efficient way to 

encourage widespread service offerings 

by NGSO FSS systems, including in 

remote and underserved areas of the 

United States, would be to allow both 

general and specialized coverage 

systems. 

We therefore propose to remove the 

domestic coverage requirement for 

NGSO FSS systems operating in all 

permitted spectrum bands, which we 

believe will afford operators greater 

flexibility in their system designs. We 

invite comment on this proposal. Given 

that this requirement applies to NGSO 

FSS systems by default, is it appropriate 

to deny access to every concerned 

frequency band if a system design does 

not allow for continuous U.S. coverage? 

What are the advantages of retaining, or 

removing, this coverage requirement? 

For parties that support retaining the 

domestic coverage requirement, are 

there particular considerations we 

should take into account when deciding 

whether or not to waive it in a particular 

case? 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 policies and rules proposed in this 

FNPRM. We request written public 

comments on this IRFA. Commenters 

must identify their comments as 

responses to the IRFA and must file the 

comments by the deadlines for 

comments on the FNPRM provided 

above in DATES. The Commission will 

send a copy of the FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. In addition, the FNPRM 

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

The FNPRM proposes to delete the 

requirement that non-geostationary, 

fixed-satellite service systems provide 

continuous coverage of the fifty United 

States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, in order to afford operators 

greater design flexibility. 

B. Legal Basis 

The proposed action is authorized 

under Sections 4(i), 7(a), 10, 303, 308(b), 

and 316 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

157(a), 160, 303, 308(b), 316. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules May Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of, and, where feasible, an 

estimate of, the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. 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 Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

Satellite Telecommunications. This 

category comprises firms ‘‘primarily 

engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ The category has 

a small business size standard of $32.5 

million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. For this 

category, Census Bureau data for 2012 

show that there were a total of 333 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

The FNPRM proposes to delete a 

requirement that non-geostationary, 

fixed-satellite service systems 

demonstrate that they will provide 

continuous domestic coverage. This 

would reduce paperwork costs for such 

satellite operators. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

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 and reporting requirements 

under the rules 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.’’ 

The FNPRM proposes to delete a 

requirement to demonstrate coverage of 

the United States. This would wholly 

eliminate the economic and other 

impacts of this rule. However, the 

Commission invites comment on this 

change and any alternatives. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 

Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 25 as follows: 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 

154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 

605, and 721, unless otherwise noted. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 52871 

§ 25.146 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 25.146, remove paragraph (b) 

and redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), and 

(e) as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). 

■ 3. In § 25.217 revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 25.217 Default service rules. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite 

licenses for which the application was 

filed pursuant to the procedures set 

forth in § 25.157 after August 27, 2003, 

authorizing operations in a frequency 

band for which the Commission has not 

adopted frequency band-specific service 

rules at the time the license is granted, 

the licensee will be required to comply 

with the following technical 

requirements, notwithstanding the 

frequency bands specified in these rule 

provisions: §§ 25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except 

NGSO FSS systems), (iii) (except NGSO 

FSS systems), 25.204(e), 25.210(f), (i). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–24726 Filed 11–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 697 

[Docket No. 150401332–7999–01] 

RIN 0648–BF01 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act Provisions; American 

Lobster Fishery; Control Date for 

Lobster Conservation Management 

Areas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR); request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that NMFS is considering changes to the 

lobster management program and may 

select a control date to restrict the 

number of permits or traps an 

individual or business entity may own, 

with specific emphasis on Lobster 

Conservation Management Areas 

(LCMAs) 2 and 3. NMFS may use the 

existing control date of January 27, 

2014, which was published in the 

Federal Register, the publication date of 

this present ANPR, or another date for 

this purpose, pending public comment 

and further input by the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission 

(Commission). This action may be 

necessary to control effort in the 

American lobster fishery and mitigate 

impacts on the depleted Southern New 

England (SNE) lobster stock. NMFS 

intends for this document to promote 

awareness of possible rulemaking and 

notify the public that actions taken to 

acquire lobster trap allocation and 

permits after the control date may not be 

recognized in the future. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before December 15, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 

NOAA–NMFS–2013–0169 by any of 

the following methods: 

D Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2013-0169, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

D Mail: Submit written comments to 

John K. Bullard, Regional 

Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the 

outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on 

Lobster Control Date.’’ 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. We may not consider 

comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). We accept attachments to 

electronic comments only in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9144. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS works cooperatively with the 

states to conserve the American lobster 

resource within the framework of the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for American Lobster 

(ISFMP). Through the ISFMP, the 

Commission adopts fishery conservation 

and management strategies for the 

American lobster resource and 

coordinates the efforts of the states and 

NMFS to implement these strategies. 

The Commission, NMFS, and the 

affected states have worked to develop 

a strategy to address the declining SNE 

stock and control effort in the American 

lobster fishery. That strategy, which 

took shape in several addenda to 

Amendment 3 of the Commission’s 

ISFMP, attempted to achieve this goal 

while maintaining the historic character 

of the lobster fishery, which has 

traditionally been comprised of small 

owner-operator businesses. As the 

Commission’s ISFMP limited access to 

the fishery, the Commission was 

concerned that lobster permits might 

consolidate among a concentrated 

number of larger conglomerates. As a 

result, the Commission’s ISFMP 

introduced the concept of permit 

restrictions in 2003 in Addendum IV 

and again in 2005 in Addendum VII. 

These two addenda contemplated 

limiting the aggregate number of permits 

an individual or entity may own in 

LCMAs 2 and 3. 

Concern about fishery consolidation 

and conglomeration intensified with the 

advent of the Commission’s Trap 

Transfer Program in 2014. The Trap 

Transfer Program allows lobster 

fishermen to buy or sell partial trap 

allocations up to, but not exceeding, any 

applicable LCMA trap cap. Attrition in 

the fishery from the SNE stock decline 

resulted in a relatively high amount of 

latent trap effort in the SNE LCMAs. 

The Commission became concerned that 

businesses could cheaply purchase and 

combine latent permits and then 

activate them by transferring the trap 

allocation onto the permit or by 

activating traps that were already 

associated with a permit under the trap 

banking provisions of Addendum XVIII. 

Accordingly, the Commission revisited 

permit and effort restriction strategies in 

Addendum XXI in August 2013 and 

Addendum XXII in October 2013. These 

addenda limit the number of traps that 

any one individual or entity may own 

in LCMAs 2 and 3 and are the focus of 

this rulemaking action. Under these 

addenda, permit holders may also 

purchase traps in excess of the active 

permit cap and ‘‘bank’’ them. The 

banked allocation may be used in the 

future to offset the economic impacts 

associated with a multi-year schedule of 

annual trap reductions in LCMAs 2 and 

3 that were adopted in Addendum XVIII 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS