        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 95
        [GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 13-144]
        Commission Seeks Comment on Licensing Models and Technical Requirements in the 3550-3650 MHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on some specific variations of the licensing and technical proposals for the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band) originally set forth in Amendment of the Commission's rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before December 5, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 20, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12-354, by any of the following methods:
          ▪ Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          ▪ Mail: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 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: 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:

          Paul Powell, Attorney Advisor, Wireless Bureau—Mobility Division at (202) 418-1613 or Paul.Powell@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 13-144A1, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 1188 (January 8, 2012) (NPRM or 3.5 GHz NPRM), adopted and released November 1, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street  SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street  SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Comment Filing Instructions:

        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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
        ▪ 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 messenger-delivered 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 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 email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Ex Parte Rules

        As noted in the NPRM, this proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        The NPRM included a separate request for comment from the general public and the Office of Management and Budget on the information collection requirements contained therein, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. This Public Notice seeks further comment on some proposals and alternatives initially raised in the NPRM. We invite supplemental comment on these requirements in light of the details and issues raised in the Public Notice.
        Synopsis of the Public Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        I. Introduction

        In December 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on a new Citizens Broadband Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band) for shared, commercial uses, including small cell networks. The NPRM proposed a three-tier, license-by-rule authorization framework that would facilitate rapid broadband deployment while protecting existing incumbent users of the 3.5 GHz Band. See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 78 FR 1188. The NPRM solicited comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the appropriate licensing framework and the potential uses of each service tier and the Commission has received extensive comment from a wide range of stakeholders in response. The Commission also held a workshop on March 14, 2013 to bring together diverse perspectives on the band and foster productive discussion on the NPRM. Based upon our review of the substantial record before us, we have determined that it would be in the public interest to solicit further comment on specific alternative licensing proposals inspired by some of the suggestions made by commenters and workshop participants to facilitate use of the band for a diverse array of applications.
        This proposed rule builds on the NPRM and elaborates on some alternative licensing concepts described in that document. We refer to these elaborated licensing concepts as the Revised Framework. The Revised Framework describes an integrated approach to dynamically authorizing access to the Priority Access and General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers of the 3.5 GHz Band and represents one logical approach towards implementing the next generation of spectrum management systems in light of the proposals and alternative proposals set forth in the NPRM, the presentations made at the workshop, and the record in this proceeding. This proposed rule also includes examples of possible technical specifications, which could enable multiple networks to coexist in the band within a given geographic area. We seek detailed comment on the Revised Framework and the possible technical criteria. We request that commenters provide technical and cost-benefit analyses to support their positions.
        Our goal in seeking comment on the Revised Framework is to supplement the record with focused comment on licensing and authorization concepts for the 3.5 GHz Band. This Public Notice does not discuss issues related to shared operations with incumbent federal and Fixed Satellite System (FSS) users, potential out-of-band interference issues, or any potential geographic restrictions on commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
        II. Discussion

        With this notice of proposed rulemaking, we seek comment on some specific variations of the licensing and technical proposals set forth in the NPRM. The Revised Framework discussed below synthesizes elements from the NPRM and various commenter proposals into an integrated authorization scheme for the 3.5 GHz Band. In doing so, we seek to advance the discussion about how new technologies can facilitate coexistence between different kinds of users with different rights in the band. The Revised Framework retains the three-tier model proposed in the NPRM but, consistent with alternative authorization methods raised in the NPRM, expands the eligibility criteria for the Priority Access tier and explores innovative means of assigning exclusive authorizations within the tier. Like the NPRM's main proposal, the Revised Framework would leverage the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS technologies to enable sharing between users in the Priority Access and GAA tiers. Specifically, the Revised Framework contains the following core concepts: (1) An SAS to dynamically manage frequency assignments and automatically enforce access to the Priority Access and GAA tiers; (2) open eligibility for Priority Access tier use; (3) granular but administratively-streamlined licensing of the Priority Access tier; (4) mutually exclusive spectrum rights for Priority Access subject to licensing by auction, coupled with; (5) a defined “floor” of GAA spectrum availability, to ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent Access tier use); (6) additional GAA access to unused Priority Access bandwidth, as identified and managed by the SAS, to maximize dynamic use of the unutilized portion of the band and ensure productive use of the spectrum; (7) opportunities for critical infrastructure facilities to obtain targeted priority spectrum use within specific facilities (such as a building) that meet certain requirements to mitigate the potential for interference to and from other band users; and (8) a set of baseline technical standards to prevent harmful interference and ensure productive use of the spectrum.
        A. Priority Access Tier
        The Revised Framework further develops some alternative proposals contained in the NPRM with respect to the Priority Access tier. The approach to the Priority Access tier described in the Revised Framework reflects many commenters' desire to open the Priority Access tier to a broader class of potential users. At the same time, the Revised Framework retains a significant amount of spectrum for GAA uses and incorporates innovative features designed to integrate with the unique aspects of the Citizens Broadband Service and the 3.5 GHz Band. The Revised Framework balances the benefits of exclusive licensing and open eligibility with the need to preserve GAA spectrum access and promote productive small cell use of the band. In this section, we describe concepts related to: (1) Licensee qualifications for access to the Priority Access tier; (2) the elements of the Priority Access Licenses (PALs) which could be used to authorize access to the Priority Access tier; and (3) potential methods for assigning access to the Priority Access tier when mutually exclusive applications are received. We seek comment, including costs and benefits, on the revised approach to the Priority Access tier described below.
        The Revised Framework would expand access to the Priority Access tier to a broad class of potential users. The NPRM proposed limiting Priority Access eligibility to certain “mission critical” users. In the alternative, we also proposed a more open eligibility model. In response to the NPRM, many commenters supported the “open” eligibility alternative. Several others endorsed restricted eligibility, tailored to specific users or industries. Under the Revised Framework, any prospective licensee who meets basic FCC qualifications would be eligible to apply for Priority Access licenses. We seek detailed comment on this approach, including the potential range of eligible users and any associated costs and benefits.
        1. Priority Access Licenses
        In the NPRM, we asked for comment on the technical licensing and regulatory ramifications of our proposal for Priority Access users. Under the Revised Framework, a set of PALs would define and control spectrum use in the Priority Access tier. PALs are intended to ensure flexible and efficient use of the Priority Access tier, given the characteristics of small cell networks and advanced capabilities of an SAS. We envision a “building block” approach in which relatively granular PALs could be aggregated—in space, time, and frequency—to meet diverse spectrum needs. We seek specific comment below on the geographical, temporal, and frequency dimensions of potential PALs and on the administrability of PALs in the context of the broader Revised Framework.

          Time. Under the Revised Framework, PALs would have a one year, non-renewable, term but licensees would be able to aggregate multiple consecutive PALs to obtain multi-year rights to spectrum within a given geographic area. PALs would automatically terminate after one year and would not be renewed. While shorter than the 10- or 15-year terms typically associated with area-licensed wireless services, a 1-year term may be more appropriate in this case. First, multiple 1-year terms could be aggregated together to replicate the predictability of a longer-term license while providing much of the flexibility inherent in shorter-term spectrum authorizations. Second, the use of a shorter, non-renewable license term could simplify the administration of the Priority Access tier by obviating the need for some administratively-intensive rules that are common to longer-term licenses. These include renewal, discontinuance, and performance requirements associated with a traditional spectrum license. Third, shorter terms would allow for a wider variety of innovative uses and encourage consistent and efficient use of spectrum resources. Finally, short term licenses could promote greater fungibility and liquidity in the secondary market. In light of these factors, we seek comment on the appropriate duration of PALs and any associated costs and benefits of this or other proposals.

          Geography. Our goal is to establish the geographic component of PALs in a way that allows flexible, micro-targeted network deployments, promoting intensive and efficient use of the spectrum, but also allowing easy aggregation to accommodate a larger network footprint. Due to their low power and small size, small cells can provide broadband coverage and capacity in targeted geographic areas. This applies whether small cells are used to offer independent broadband service, supplemental coverage for a macrocell network, or private network functions.

        We envision that PALs would be authorized in a highly localized fashion, such as at the census tract level. Census tracts may provide an appropriately high level of geographic resolution for small cell deployments, while also presenting a number of other benefits. Currently, there are over 74,000 census tracts in the United States targeted to an optimum population of 4,000. Census tracts vary in size depending on the population density of the region, with tracts as small as one square mile or less in dense urban areas and up to 85,000 square miles in sparsely populated rural regions. They generally nest into counties and other political subdivisions and, in turn, into the standardized license areas commonly used by the Commission (e.g., Cellular Market Areas and Economic Areas). Census tracts could be aggregated into those or other larger areas. Census tracts generally align with the borders of political boundaries (e.g., city lines) and often to natural features, which may affect population density (e.g., rivers). Census tracts, therefore, may naturally mirror key considerations in small cell deployment by service providers, such as tracking existing customers, plant, and permits or rights-of-way. In addition, the inclusion of census tracts in census geospatial databases could ease the incorporation of geographic and demographic data into an SAS.

        We seek comment on considerations regarding the size of the geographic component of the PALs. Are census tracts an appropriate geographic unit for PALs? If not, what standard geographic unit would best promote the Commission's goals? Should other geographic areas (e.g., counties, census block groups) or licensing units (e.g., Cellular Market Areas), be used instead? Would a standardized grid (e.g., 1 kilometer × 1 kilometer or 2 kilometer × 2 kilometer square) overlaid on the United States be a more appropriate geographic unit? Alternately, could a standardized high-resolution grid be “nested” within a larger grid or a political boundary such as a county? Commenters should identify any costs or benefits, including a detailed technical analysis regarding the geographic size of the PALs.

          Frequency/Bandwidth. We identify 10 megahertz unpaired channels as a standard PAL bandwidth that balances several objectives. First, 10 megahertz channels provide a practically deployable and scalable bandwidth for high data rate technologies. Second, 10 megahertz channels divide evenly into either the 100 megahertz (10 channels) available in the 3.5 GHz Band or the 150 megahertz of spectrum (15 channels) that would be available if the supplemental plan is adopted, providing flexibility for either proposal. Third, 10 megahertz channels are sufficiently granular to license multiple Priority Access users in each geographic area, particularly where protection of incumbents limits the amount of spectrum available for commercial use. Fourth, we expect that 10 megahertz licenses would provide useful “building blocks” for licensees that might wish to aggregate larger amounts of spectrum in a given area. We seek comment on the appropriate bandwidth for PALs and, in particular, whether 10 megahertz blocks appropriately balance the needs of potential Priority Access users and the policy objectives identified herein. Commenters should identify any costs or benefits, including a detailed technical analysis of any proposed bandwidth unit.

          License Flexibility and Fungibility. The purpose of the PAL approach is to encourage flexible use of the 3.5 GHz Band for an array of applications and end users. Such applications could include not only small cell commercial broadband use, but private networks, non-line of sight backhaul, and other innovative uses. Spectrum users would need to comply with certain technical criteria, such as those discussed in section III (e) below, to ensure their effective coexistence. These requirements are intended to be minimal to encourage diverse spectrum use. We seek comment on how much technical flexibility is possible in the 3.5 GHz Band given the licensing model proposed in the NPRM and elaborated upon in the Revised Framework.

          Administrability. The PAL concept is intended to reduce the complexity associated with administering and automating licensing processes for a large number of granular licenses by eliminating the need for a number of regulatory requirements associated with longer term licenses. We seek comment on the implications of the PAL concept on existing Commission licensing and authorization processes as well as for the design of an SAS.

        We also seek comment on the amount and type of information that would need to be collected from potential Priority Access licensees. The Communications Act establishes certain categories of eligibility for license applications, while giving the Commission broad discretion to determine specific eligibility criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 308 (b). In the auctions context, the Commission typically requires applicants for spectrum licenses to submit short and long form applications detailing their qualifications and any supplemental information the Commission deems necessary. See 47 CFR 1.2105. The Communications Act also limits foreign ownership of FCC licenses, See 47 U.S.C. 310, and comprehensive ownership information is required for all license applications, whether or not they are subject to competitive bidding. See 47 CFR 1.2112. Certain additional qualifications are prescribed by statute. See 21 U.S.C. 862; 47 CFR 1.2001.
        Given our goal of a more fungible and administratively streamlined licensing regime for the 3.5 GHz Band, we seek comment on the information that must be collected from prospective licensees in an open eligibility environment. What is the minimum amount of licensee data that must be directly collected and maintained by the Commission to meet the requirements of the Communications Act? Are there any legal or other impediments to collection and maintenance of such information by a third party, such as an SAS operator under Commission supervision? What requirements, such as for information security, would need to be imposed on such third parties? What processes and standards, and what Commission review mechanism, should be applied to ensure that licensee information is collected in accordance with Commission rules and all licensees meet appropriate eligibility requirements?
        2. Assignment of Priority Access Licenses

        In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposed license-by-rule authorization regime as well as alternative licensing schemes, including auctions for Priority Access tier use within defined geographic service areas and other assignment methodologies. Under the Revised Framework, the number of applications for Priority Access rights could exceed the number of available PALs in a given area or timeframe and, in that event, we would need to provide for a means of resolving mutually exclusive applications. Section 309(j) of the Communications Act generally requires the Commission to resolve mutually exclusive applications via competitive bidding. See 47 U.S.C. 309 (j)(1). Given the unique nature of the PAL-based licensing framework, we see an opportunity with the 3.5 GHz Band to develop more flexible and dynamic auction mechanisms than we have used thus far for assigning authorizations, consistent with the requirements of section 309(j). Therefore, we seek comment on approaches to spectrum assignment and auction that could be used to productively manage use of the Priority Access tier while allowing SAS authorized opportunistic use of the GAA tier as described in the NPRM.

        One authorization method that could serve the goals of this Revised Framework would be a combination of the license-by-rule approach proposed in the NPRM and a more traditional auction process. Under such an approach, GAA users would be licensed by rule under part 95, requiring registration with the SAS for operation as set forth in the NPRM. Separate licenses would not be required for individual GAA users. For Priority Access users, the Commission would not license use by rule. Instead, on a regular basis (perhaps annually), the Commission would open windows for applications for available PALs. To accommodate the ability of licensees to aggregate consecutive one-year terms, the Commission could offer multiple consecutive years of PAL rights simultaneously. At the close of such a “window,” the Commission would hold an auction to assign PALs where there are mutually exclusive applications pending. Mutual exclusivity would be triggered when more applications are submitted than can be accommodated geographically, temporally, or spectrally.
        We expect that Priority Access authorizations would be issued on a PAL basis, as defined above. Licensees would have no renewal expectancy, would automatically terminate at the end of their one-year terms and would be non-renewable. We do not anticipate adopting construction or service requirements for Priority Access licensees due to the impracticability of enforcing such requirements across 74,000 or more license areas with, potentially, multiple licensees in each area if we base PALs on census tracts. However, to encourage deployment and long term network planning, we anticipate allowing potential licensees to bid for multiple consecutive years of PAL rights in a given geographic area at a single auction, up to a predetermined cap. Payment for each consecutive PAL could be due annually prior to the license start date and a license would terminate automatically if the payment is not made. Additionally, licensees may be permitted to trade future PAL rights via secondary market transactions. As noted below, we anticipate that annual auctions, combined with microtargeted licensing and annual pre-payment requirements would sufficiently incentivize construction of network facilities and intensive spectrum use for a diverse range of uses in the public interest while discouraging warehousing.

        We anticipate that this spectrum assignment process would require a greater degree of automation and, potentially, more third-party participation than the Commission has employed in past auctions. Given the large number of license areas and relatively short license terms envisioned in the Revised Framework, more flexible and dynamic auction mechanisms may be required to effectively manage use of the Priority Access tier. We also foresee an opportunity for third-parties to add value to the auction process by developing tools to help bidders manage their inventory of PALs and structure bids in regular auctions. We seek comment on the degree to which such an auction could be automated and administered by a third party. What kind of auction format would be most appropriate? Should SAS managers be permitted to administer auction process as well or should these functions be kept separate? What level of automation would be required to process the volume of applications and bids that such an auction would entail? To what degree could the Commission assign the responsibility for administering this type of auction to a qualified third party and, if it did so, what safeguards would be required to ensure the integrity of the auction process? What lessons can be drawn from prior Commission reliance on third-parties in auction or other contexts, including selection criteria for and supervision of such third parties? See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(10); 47 CFR 52.12; 47 CFR 54.701.
        We seek comment on the auction and licensing mechanisms discussed above, including their economic and technical viability, whether they are consistent with the requirements of section 309(j), and any other potential legal issues that may arise. Commenters should identify any costs or benefits associated with the proposal. Would such an approach properly incentivize targeted use of the Priority Access tier by a diverse group of users? How many consecutive years of PALs should the Commission offer in a single auction? What, if any, limits should be placed on the aggregation of PALs—in time, location, or frequency—by a single licensee?
        We also seek comment on alternative licensing and authorization mechanisms. For instance, could a license-by-rule regime encompass both the GAA and Priority Access tiers, as they are envisioned in the Revised Framework? Are other models preferable? Commenters advocating alternative assignment models should identify any costs or benefits associated with these approaches and should include a detailed technical analysis.
        B. Band Plan
        We seek comment on a band plan that would balance SAS-authorized opportunistic access to the GAA tier with targeted exclusive access to the Priority Access tier, as described above. Under the Revised Framework, a minimum amount of spectrum would be designated for GAA access in each geographic area, leaving the remaining bandwidth available for assignment to priority access users on a PAL basis. We seek comment on whether a minimum GAA reservation should be defined in terms a proportional ratio that can scale with the quantity of spectrum available in a given location or time after protecting incumbent uses, rather than a fixed (megahertz) bandwidth. Would a ratio assigning a minimum of, for example, 40 or 50 percent of available bandwidth for GAA use further the public interest or would another ratio be more appropriate? We emphasize that such ratio would constitute the “floor” for GAA use. Under the Revised Framework, GAA use would be authorized and managed by the SAS, as proposed in the NPRM. In addition, when Priority Access rights have not been issued (e.g., due to lack of demand) or the spectrum is not actually in use by a Priority Access licensee, the SAS would automatically make that spectrum available for GAA use locally. Therefore, in any given location, the quantity of spectrum available for GAA use could exceed the reserved amount—sometimes by a significant margin. This approach would ensure that the greatest possible portion of the 3.5 GHz Band would be intensively used.
        We seek comment on the public interest benefits of balancing GAA and Priority Access use in the 3.5 GHz Band in the manner described above. We also acknowledge that, if the supplemental proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band is adopted, an even split between Priority Access and GAA use would result in a fractional PAL and seek comment on the appropriate ratio to apply in this situation. We also seek comment on implementation details, including, for example, how the “use-it-or-share-it” concept described above could be implemented. What does “use” mean in this context? How should it be measured? How would such dynamically changing rights be enforced? Commenters should identify any costs and benefits associated with any proposed implementation approach.

        We also envision that, in place of a static channel model, the SAS would dynamically assign specific frequencies within given geographic areas. The SAS would assign GAA users and Priority Access licensees shares of the band but the exact spectral location of a given transmission authorization within the band would not be fixed. For example, a licensee might have Priority Access rights for a single PAL, as defined above, but the specific frequencies assigned to that user would be managed by the SAS and could be reassigned from time to time (e.g., from 3550-3560 MHz to 3630-3640 MHz). The SAS would assign and maintain appropriate frequency assignments and ensure that lower tier users do not interfere with higher tier users and to minimize interference among users in the same tier. Under this approach, we ask whether authorized base stations, handsets, and other user equipment should be required to be capable of operating across the entire 3.5 GHz Band. How would a requirement to include capability to operate across the entire band affect equipment design, performance and cost?
        We acknowledge that there may be benefits for Priority Access tier licensees and GAA users to ensuring that contiguous blocks of spectrum are made available for each tier and even individual licensees with multiple PALs in a given geographic area. We seek comment on whether it would be technologically feasible and in the public interest to ensure that contiguous spectrum is made available on a tier-by-tier and licensee-by-licensee basis.
        We seek comment on this dynamic approach to frequency assignment. We acknowledge that this interactive approach would require the SAS to go well beyond the parameters of the current TV White Spaces databases to manage multiple users on a dynamic, real time or near real time basis. Is this spectrum management approach feasible using current or developing technologies? Are there any technical parameters that would need to be codified in Commission rules? How do the public interest benefits of such an approach compare to a more traditional channel block band plan? Commenters should identify any costs or benefits and include a detailed technical analysis to support their positions on dynamic assignment of frequency bands.
        C. Ensuring Productive Spectrum Use
        The Revised Framework leverages the unique characteristics of small cells and the capabilities of modern database technologies to ensure that the 3.5 GHz Band is used intensively for a wide variety of potential applications. We seek comment on whether the PAL-based allocation model outlined above could, by assigning priority spectrum rights in a targeted and dynamic fashion, help to ensure that Priority Access rights are allocated to the parties that would make the most productive use of quality-assured spectrum within a given geographic area. Moreover, short term licenses with no renewal expectancy would provide licensees with incentives to make actual and consistent use of the spectrum and significantly reduce the risk of spectrum warehousing. This paradigm could also obviate the need for performance and construction requirements that could be especially burdensome and difficult to administer in the small cell context.
        In the Revised Framework, the GAA tier plays an important role in ensuring that the 3.5 GHz Band is used consistently and productively. Ensuring that a significant GAA “floor” is maintained in all geographic areas where commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band is permitted, regardless of the number of Priority Access tier users in the area, should encourage widespread deployment of base stations and handsets that would operate opportunistically in the band under the control of the SAS. Moreover, under the Revised Framework, PALs that are not in actual use would be added to the pool of available GAA spectrum, as determined by the SAS. Thus, the GAA tier could be used to supplement the spectrum available to active Priority Access users and as a source of spectrum for opportunistic users as determined by the SAS. These complementary functions should maximize the utility of the 3.5 GHz Band for a diverse set of applications.
        We seek comment on this approach to promoting productive use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Would the PAL concept provide strong incentives for licensees to productive use their priority rights? What technical metrics are appropriate to measure “use” in a portion of or the entirety of a PAL? How can the SAS effectively monitor actual use of the Priority Access tier to determine whether additional spectrum is available for GAA use?
        D. Localized Critical Access Use

        As explained in the NPRM, a variety of critical services in the United States have urgent current as well as future spectrum needs. While there is currently insufficient spectrum available to efficiently allocate dedicated spectrum bands to all of these users, we continue to believe that the 3.5 GHz Band can be used to provide localized, protected spectrum to entities with a need for reliable, interference protected spectrum access throughout much of the country. Many parties, including Motorola Solutions, UTI, EEI, and Microsoft submitted comments supporting such access to the 3.5 GHz Band for various critical access users. Even as we explore methods for expanding access to the Priority Access tier, we continue to believe that “the high spatial reuse characteristics of low-power 3.5 GHz transmissions, combined with access management facilitated by the SAS, should allow the 3.5 GHz Band to be utilized on a shared, licensed basis by a variety of critical users to provide high quality services to localized facilities.” Under the authorization method described above, critical access users would be eligible to register and, in the case of mutually exclusive applications, bid for access to Priority Access tier PALs. However, many such facilities (e.g., hospitals) generally only need access within specific buildings and therefore may not require exclusive access to even a full census tract of Priority Access tier spectrum. Moreover, these users would likely be unable to outbid well capitalized commercial interests for competitive PALs. As such, we seek comment on whether it would be possible to allow such critical users to receive interference protections, akin to Priority Access users, within a limited portion (e.g., 20 megahertz) of the GAA pool inside the confines of their facilities.
        Under this approach, qualified critical access facilities would be eligible to operate indoor small cell networks on a quality-assured basis. These licensees would be required to register their networks in the SAS and comply with applicable technical rules, including low power limits. In addition, while the SAS could manage GAA use in the area to provide a measure of protection for critical access users, such users might also be required to employ interference mitigation techniques to ensure a properly interference-limited environment. Such techniques could include physical shielding or building modifications around eligible facilities. Alternatively, there may be standard specifications for building efficiency or radio frequency (RF) shielding that go beyond those applicable to normal construction that could provide enough certainty against interference from surrounding Priority Access or GAA use so as to provide an interference “safe harbor” for those seeking critical access protections. We note that some modern building standards may incorporate materials that result in some degree of RF shielding.
        We seek comment on methods to provide quality-assured spectrum for critical access users. Does the Revised Framework adequately address the needs of such critical access users? Would the SAS be able to effectively manage spectrum use by a large number of microtargeted facilities? What interference mitigation techniques should be required to ensure that these facilities do not interfere with or receive interference from other 3.5 GHz Band users? How would compliance with technical rules and interference mitigation requirements be managed? What RF emission limits would be appropriate for a “safe harbor” as described above? Would this plan unacceptably encumber GAA spectrum? We ask that commenters identify any costs and benefits and provide a detailed technical analysis to support their arguments.

        We also ask whether this approach should be limited to “critical access” facilities. Could quality assured, microtargeted indoor networks be employed generally by property owners subject to appropriate technical and interference mitigation requirements? What types of mitigation techniques would such buildings need to employ to effectively prevent exterior interference? Could such buildings coexist in close proximity without unacceptably interfering with one another? Would an SAS be able to effectively manage a large number of these locations?
        E. Technical Issues
        While we expect that the SAS would coordinate much of the interaction between disparate users in the 3.5 GHz Band, some minimal technical requirements will be necessary to ensure that multiple networks can effectively coexist in the band. As such, we seek comment on certain technical issues related to implementing the Revised Framework. In responding to questions in this section, we ask that commenters identify any costs and benefits and provide detailed technical analysis to support their proposals. We also recognize that these issues may need to be explored in greater depth in the future and, to that end, we may seek additional comment on specific technical rules in future notices.
        1. Technical Implementation of the Revised Framework
        The effectiveness of dynamic spectrum sharing depends on the proper application of interference mitigation and spectrum management techniques for operating in the shared band. The Commission addressed some of the technical features of small cells in the NPRM, including allowable power limits for small cell base stations, and solicited comment on these and other potential technical rules. Below, we seek additional comment on technical rules and assumptions appropriate to implementing the Revised Framework or variations supported by commenters. We ask that commenters identify any costs and benefits and provide detailed technical analysis to support their proposals.
        Building on the approach taken in the TV White Space proceeding, we expect that the SAS would manage and configure the use of authorized spectrum and policy related parameters, and communicate updates regarding spectrum availability and operational requirements to existing and new users. The SAS could extend the TV White Spaces paradigm with a greater degree of dynamism—by incorporating information about spectrum utilization from other Citizen's Broadband users to manage access to the band on a real-time or near-real time basis. For example, infrastructure nodes, such as base stations, access points, or core network elements could interact with the SAS and provide end user devices with operational parameters and recent changes. Given these factors, we seek comment on the essential high-level requirements for the SAS and the nature of its interactions with the different technologies and network topologies in the 3.5 GHz Band.
        Compared to typical macrocell deployments, small cell networks are generally characterized by: Lower transmit power, lower local RF transmissions, and an ability to operate in a relatively high interference environment (relative to thermal noise; Interference-over-Thermal (IoT)). In addition, recent advancements in network self-organization and interference management technologies are expected to allow for new spectrum sharing paradigms, which are difficult to implement or impractical in traditional noise-limited environments. Given the variety of possible network deployments and the wide range of potential network parameters and RF configurations, we anticipate that many of the parameters of systems operating in the 3.5 GHz Band will be managed by the SAS. However, some preliminary estimated values for transmission power levels, whether field strength or power flux density (PFD) limits should be imposed. With regard to the Revised Framework, the key technical considerations include: (1) Base station transmit power; (2) acceptable interference environment; and (3) technical flexibility. In light of the Revised Framework described here and additional staff analysis, we seek comment on some preliminary values defining some of these technical parameters and criteria.

          Base Station Transmit Power. As a baseline, we seek comment on limiting small cell base stations operating in the 3.5 GHz Band to a maximum 24dBm transmit power along with maximum antenna gain of 6dBi. These values are consistent with the 30dBm EiRP commonly assumed in various studies for small cell base stations. The maximum operational EiRP of individual base stations might be reduced by the SAS to prevent interference and promote efficient network operation. In addition, we assume end user devices to have configurable maximum power levels below typical 23dBm values and support for some form of power control to ensure effective spectrum sharing.

        We seek comment on the power levels which should be considered as a baseline for spectrum sharing evaluation and if the SAS can regulate the use of such power levels. We also seek comment on the degree to which power levels in excess of 24 dBm may be appropriate to enable other use cases, such as the rural coverage case contemplated in our NPRM. Should we consider additional higher and lower base station (e.g., eNodeB or Access Point) power classes for operation in the 3.5 GHz Band to address different network deployments? What values should be assumed for EIRP? Should power control function and capability at the base station and user device be service rule requirements?

          Acceptable Interference Environment. Another key factor to consider is the acceptable interference environment in which multiple small cell networks would be able to coexist. The acceptable interference rise over thermal noise for small deployments has been studied with operational values around 20dB for picocells and even higher (e.g., greater than 40dB) for femtocells. A common understanding of tolerable IoT levels and extending them to estimate maximum acceptable intersystem co-channel interference and adjacent channel interference appear key to realizing and quantifying the potential in spectrum sharing. What are appropriate values for IoT given the Revised Framework we envision for the 3.5 GHz Band? In addressing this question, commenters should focus not only on interference issues between similar type systems (e.g., LTE to LTE), but also on coexistence issues between disparate systems (e.g., LTE to Wi-Fi). Are different considerations necessary for each of these situations? Can such an approach be integrated with the imposition of some minimal receiver standards on equipment in the band? How could such policies be implemented and enforced at licensees' geographic boundary for a single PAL or a collection of aggregated PALs? Similarly, one can estimate the maximum signal level received from each system in adjacent channels. We seek comment on noise figures, aggregate and intra and inter-system IoT thresholds, and receiver desensitization with focus on 3.5 GHz Band small cells. In addition, we seek comment on whether an approach based on field strength or PFD would be more appropriate and easier to administer and comply with. If so, at what location(s) should such limits be imposed (e.g., at ground level, at some height above ground)? What additional consideration is needed if two adjacent systems use different radio access technologies or have no or poor synchronization?

          Technical Flexibility. The Revised Framework is designed to flexibly accommodate different types of end users and a variety of use cases. To what extent could technical rules facilitate the effective coexistence of disparate technologies and network topologies in the band? Should we also accommodate point to multipoint radios for wireless backhaul and WISP applications as suggested by some commenters? If so, how would their coexistence with small cells in nearby locations or adjacent channels be managed? Could spectrum coordination between different networks and technologies be automated in whole or in part and managed by the SAS? How can the SAS facilitate coexistence of disparate systems?
        2. Additional Technical Considerations
        We acknowledge that there may be additional technical considerations beyond those addressed in the NPRM and this Public Notice that would need to be incorporated into any technical rules adopted in this proceeding. We seek comment on what additional technical issues may need to be addressed in this proceeding to promote efficiency and intensive use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We encourage commenters to address these issues as thoroughly as possible. To the extent we see commenters identify common issues that require further discussion, we may seek additional comment as appropriate. As noted above, we envision holding a workshop on the technical aspects of the SAS in the near future. The Bureaus will solicit further input on SAS requirements in conjunction with that event.
        We note that the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been studying spectrum interference policy and receiver standards in general, and it recommends that the Commission consider forming one or more multi-stakeholder groups to study such standards and interference limits policy at suitable service boundaries, such as those related to the 3.5 GHz band. Should the Commission encourage the formation of one or more groups to investigate interference limit policy for the 3.5 GHz band? If so, what should be the scope of such a group or groups?
        F. Extension of Revised Framework to the 3650-3700 MHz Band
        The NPRM described the possibility of extending the proposed licensing framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band. Although our primary objective here is to describe how the Revised Framework would operate in the context of the 3.5 GHz Band, we also seek comment on whether and how it could be extended to the 3650-3700 MHz band. What, if any, additional considerations would apply if the Revised Framework were to be applied to the 3650-3700 MHz band? What provisions would need to be made for incumbent operators? How much transition time would be required?

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2013-28254 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 101003E]
        Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); announcement of public scoping period; request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, in cooperation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), announces its intention to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts of the 2005-2006 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures on the human environment.

          DATES:

          A public scoping meeting for the 2005-2006 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures EIS is scheduled for Sunday, November 2, 2003, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in conjunction with the Council's November 3-7, 2003, meeting (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).  Written comments will be accepted at the Council office through November 14, 2003.  After this date, a scoping responsiveness summary document summarizing the public's issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS, will be drafted and made available on the Council's website (www.pcouncil.org) or by request from the address below.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential impacts should be sent to Dr. Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 503-820-2299 or via e-mail (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov and write “2005-2006 groundfish specifications EIS” in subject line).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery Management Coordinator; phone:  503-820-2280 and e-mail: John.DeVore@noaa.gov or Matthew Harrington, NMFS Northwest Region NEPA Coordinator; phone:  206-526-4742 and email: Matthew.Harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Need For Agency Action
        There are more than 80 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP), nine of which have been declared overfished. The groundfish stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and Indian tribal fishing interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. In addition, groundfish are also harvested incidentally in nongroundfish fisheries, most notably, the trawl fisheries for pink shrimp, spot/ridgeback prawns, California halibut, and sea cucumber.
        The proposed action is needed to establish commercial and recreational harvests levels in 2005-2006 that will ensure groundfish stocks are maintained at, or restored to, sizes and structures that will produce the highest net benefit to the nation, while balancing environmental and social values.
        The Proposed Action
        The proposed action is to implement management measures consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) that constrain total fishing mortality during 2005-2006 within limits that maintain fish stocks at, or rebuild them to, a level capable of producing maximum sustained yield , or to a stock size less than this if such stock size results in long-term net benefit to the nation.
        These fishing mortality limits are harvest specifications that include acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and optimum yields (OYs) for groundfish species or species groups in need of particular protection; OYs may be represented by harvest guidelines or quotas for species that need individual management. Separate sets of ABCs and OYs will be specified for 2005 and 2006 as part of the multi-year management cycle for groundfish. The allocation of commercial OYs between the open access and limited entry segments of the fishery is also part of the proposed action.

        Beginning with the 2005-2006 fishing years, the FMP, as amended by Amendment 17, requires that the groundfish specifications be evaluated and revised as necessary every two years, with separate ABCs and OYs established for each of the two years in the biennial period.  Management measures designed to achieve the OYs will be established for each year and, as in the past, may vary from period to period within any one year. These specifications and management measures will be published in the Federal Register and made effective by January 1 of the first fishing year in the biennium.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the groundfish FMP also require that NMFS implement actions to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks.  These specifications include fish caught in state ocean waters (zero to three nautical miles [nm] offshore) as well as fish caught in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (3 to 200 nm offshore).
        Alternatives
        NEPA requires that agencies evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS.  The purpose and need for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives. A preliminary set of alternatives will be developed during the November 3-7, 2003, Council meeting.  Alternatives will be structured around a range of ABCs/OYs for assessed groundfish species.  This range of ABCs/OYs is based on stock assessments, including new assessments for cabezon and lingcod completed since 2004 harvest specifications were finalized at the Council's September 2003 meeting.  (Seven additional assessments, and rebuilding analyses for overfished species based on these assessments, were completed in 2003 and used to establish 2004 harvest specifications.  Since the most recent approved assessment is used to identify ABCs and OYs for an assessed stock, these recent assessments will also contribute to the 2005-2006 specifications process).

        For some species, ABC/OY ranges that would be used to develop alternatives may be based on consultations by the Council with state and Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the affected public on the allocation of harvest opportunity between sectors. Allocation decisions can affect OYs because different sectors may catch fish of different ages, allowing different sustainable harvest levels.
        For each set of ABCs/OYs used in a given alternative, a set of management measures will be identified that will constrain total harvest mortality (across all fisheries intercepting groundfish).  Restrictive management measures intended to rebuild overfished species have been adopted and implemented over the past several years for most commercial and recreational fishing sectors.  Management measures intended to control the rate at which different groundfish species or species groups are taken in the fisheries include trip limits, bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, and gear restrictions.  Large area closures, called Groundfish Conservation Areas (GCAs), intended to reduce bycatch of overfished species, were first implemented in late 2002.  These closed areas will continue to be a key feature of alternatives considered in the EIS to manage groundfish fisheries in 2005-2006. A second important type of measure used to manage groundfish is the cumulative landing limit.  These restrict the total weight of fish by species or species group that any one vessel may land during the limit period, which is normally two months.  Different cumulative landing limits are established for areas north and south of 40°10′ N. lat. (near Cape Mendocino, CA) and for limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and open access fishery participants.
        Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
        A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. The EIS evaluates a range of feasible alternatives (described above) to determine their likely impacts on the human environment and identify significant impacts.  Council and NMFS staff conducted initial screening to identify the potentially significant impacts of the range of alternatives that will be developed. Issues considered in the EIS for 2004 harvest specifications, currently in preparation, are likely to be relevant to the EIS for 2005-2006 harvest specifications.  (These include the effects of fishing on essential fish habitat, protected species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, the sustainability of overfished and non-overfished groundfish stocks, and socioeconomic impacts to individuals and communities involved in the use of groundfish resources).  The transition from annually specifying harvest levels and management measures to this 2-year management cycle may also raise issues that will be considered in the EIS.
        Public Scoping Process

        A public scoping meeting is scheduled for Sunday, November 2, 2003 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.  This scoping session will coincide with the Council meeting and will occur at the same location, the Hilton San Diego/Del Mar, 15575 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, California 92014-1901 (858-792-5200).  The primary purpose of the scoping meeting is to focus the analysis on the real issues and concerns of the public (see 40 CFR 1500.5(d) and 40 CFR 1501.7).  Public comment also may be made during the November Council meeting (November 3-7), under the agendum when the Council will consider the proposed action. The agenda for this meeting will be available from the Council website or by request from Council offices in advance of the meeting (see ADDRESSES).  The agenda will also identify the room in which the Sunday scoping meeting will occur.  Written comments on the scope of issues and alternatives may be submitted as described under ADDRESSES.
        NMFS invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).  The scope includes the range of alternatives to be considered and potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be evaluated in the DEIS.  In addition, NMFS is notifying the public that, in conjunction with the Council, it is beginning a full environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposal, so interested or affected people may know how they can participate in the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision.

        A DEIS will be prepared for comment later on in the process. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at that time. To be the most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or merits of the alternatives discussed.  It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the DEIS.  Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the DEIS.  (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).  Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 8, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-26075 Filed 10-14-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-P-7693]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

          DATES:
          The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.

          ADDRESSES:
          The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

          National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

          Regulatory Classification. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

          Executive Order 12612, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

          Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]
            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                Source of flooding and location of referenced elevation

                  ◆Elevation in feet (NAVD)
                Existing
                Modified
                Communities affected

                Artichoke Creek:

                At County Highway 27
                None

                  ◆1,085
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 6,800 feet upstream of County Highway 27
                None

                  ◆1,085

                Big Stone Lake:

                Approximately 1,056 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 12

                  ◆971

                  ◆972
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Ortonville.

                At the confluence of the Little Minnesota River

                  ◆971

                  ◆972

                County Ditch No. 2:

                At the confluence with Five Mile Creek
                None

                  ◆1,002
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 3,190 feet upstream of County Highway 81
                None

                  ◆1,115

                County Ditch No. 4:

                At the confluence with the Minnesota River Tailwaters

                  ◆949

                  ◆950
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Odessa.

                Approximately 1,170 feet upstream of County Highway 21
                None

                  ◆961

                County Ditch No. 4 Diversion Channel:

                At the confluence with County Ditch No. 4
                None

                  ◆950
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Odessa.

                At the divergence from County Ditch No. 4
                None

                  ◆958

                Fish Creek:

                At the confluence with Big Stone Lake

                  ◆971

                  ◆972
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 3,550 feet upstream of State Highway 28
                None

                  ◆1,108

                Five Mile Creek:

                At the confluence with Marsh Lake

                  ◆946

                  ◆948
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                At the confluence of County Ditch No. 2
                None

                  ◆1,002

                Golf Lake: Entire shoreline
                None

                  ◆1,095
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Graceville.

                Lannon Lake: Entire shoreline
                None

                  ◆1,097
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas) City of Graceville

                Little Minnesota River:

                At the confluence with Big Stone Lake

                  ◆971

                  ◆972
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 680 feet upstream of northeastern county boundary

                  ◆971

                  ◆972

                Meadow Brook:

                At the confluence with Big Stone Lake

                  ◆971

                  ◆972
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 830 feet upstream of County Highway 6
                None

                  ◆1,143

                Minnesota River:

                Approximately 1.8 miles downstream of the confluence with Five Mile Creek

                  ◆946

                  ◆948
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Odessa.
                  City of Ortonville.

                At the confluence of the Little Minnesota River

                  ◆971

                  ◆972

                Minnesota River Tailwaters:

                At the confluence with the Minnesota River

                  ◆948

                  ◆949
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 430 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 75

                  ◆949

                  ◆950

                Stony Run:

                At the confluence with the Minnesota River

                  ◆958

                  ◆959
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas). City of Odessa.

                Approximately 20,520 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 75/State Highway 7
                None

                  ◆1,017

                Unnamed Tributary:

                At the confluence with Big Stone Lake

                  ◆971

                  ◆972
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 18,030 feet upstream of State Highway 7
                None

                  ◆1,056

                West Toqua Lake
                None

                  ◆1,089
                Big Stone County (Unincorporated Areas).

                  Addresses

                  Unincorporated Areas of Big Stone County, Minnesota.

                Maps are available for inspection at the Planning and Zoning Office, 20 Southeast 2nd Street, Ortonville, Minnesota.

                Send comments to The Honorable David Torgerson, Chairman, Big Stone County Board of Commissioners, 20 Southeast 2nd Street, Ortonville, Minnesota 56278.

                  City of Graceville, Big Stone County, Minnesota.

                Maps are available for inspection at 415 Studdart Avenue, Graceville, Minnesota.

                Send comments to The Honorable Audrey Rahlien, Mayor, City of Graceville, 415 Studdart Avenue, Graceville, Minnesota 56240.

                  City of Odessa, Big Stone County, Minnesota.

                Maps are available for inspection at 214 Bloomington Avenue South, Odessa, Minnesota.

                Send comments to The Honorable Catherine Teske, Mayor, City of Odessa, 214 Bloomington Avenue South, Odessa, Minnesota 56276.

                  City of Ortonville, Big Stone County, Minnesota.

                Maps are available for inspection at the Ortonville City office, 315 Madison Avenue, Ortonville, Minnesota.

                Send comments to The Honorable David Dinnel, Mayor, City of Ortonville, 315 Madison Avenue, Ortonville, Minnesota 56278.

                Ohio River (Vicinity of the Village of Powhatan Point):

                Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of the confluence of Captina Creek

                  ◆646

                  ◆645
                Village of Powhatan Point.

                Approximately 0.17 mile upstream of the confluence of Captina Creek

                  ◆647

                  ◆646

                Ohio River (Vicinity of the Village of Shadyside):

                Approximately 0.15 mile upstream of the confluence of Wegee Creek

                  ◆654

                  ◆653
                Village of Shadyside Belmont County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 0.37 mile upstream of the confluence of Wegee Creek.

                  ◆654

                  ◆653

                Ohio River (Vicinity of the City of Martins Ferry):

                Approximately 0.25 mile upstream of the Aetnaville Highway

                  ◆659

                  ◆658
                City of Martins Ferry. Belmont County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 0.12 mile upstream of the confluence of Glenn's Run

                  ◆661

                  ◆660

                  Addresses

                  Unincorporated Areas of Belmont County, Ohio

                Maps are available for inspection at the Belmont County Courthouse, 101 Main Street, St. Clairesville, Ohio 43906.

                Send comments to Mr. Mark Thomas, President, County Board of Commissioners, 101 Main Street, Clairesville, OH 43906.

                  City of Martin's Ferry, Belmont County, Ohio

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 35 South 5th Street, Martins Ferry, Ohio.

                Send comments to The Honorable Lloyd L. Shrodes, Mayor, City of Martins Ferry, 35 South 5th Street, Martins Ferry, Ohio 43935.

                  Village of Powhatan Point, Belmont County, Ohio.

                Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 104 Mellott Street, Powhatan Point, Ohio.

                Send comments to The Honorable William Anthony Pratt, Mayor, Village of Powhatan Point, 104 Mellott Street, Powhatan Point, Ohio 43942.

                  Village of Shadyside, Belmont County, Ohio.

                Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 50 East 39th Street, Shadyside, Ohio.

                Send comments to The Honorable Edward L. Marling, Mayor, Village of Shadyside, 50 East 39th Street, Shadyside, Ohio 43947.

                Permars Run:

                Approximately 740 feet downstream of Cliff Avenue
                None

                  ◆708
                Village of Steubenville. Jefferson County (Unincorporated Areas).

                Approximately 8,095 feet upstream of Cliff Avenue
                None

                  ◆892

                  Addresses

                  Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County, Ohio.

                Maps are available for inspection at the Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission, 500 Market Street, Room 614, Steubenville, Ohio.

                Send comments to Dr. Thomas E. Graham, President, Board of Commissioners, County Courthouse, 500 Market Street, Steubenville, Ohio 43952.

                  City of Steubenville, Jefferson County, Ohio.

                Maps are available for inspection at 238 South Lake Erie, Steubenville, Ohio.

                Send comments to The Honorable Domenick Mucci, Jr. Mayor, City of Steubenville, 300 Market Street, Steubenville, Ohio 43952.

            (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”)

            Dated: June 22, 2005.
            David I. Maurstad,
            Acting Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

      [FR Doc. 05-12682 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-BA05
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are extending the comment period for our October 7, 2014, proposed rule to list the West Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This action ensures the public has an additional opportunity to comment on the proposal.

          DATES:

          Submit your comments on the proposal on or before February 4, 2015. 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.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Comment submission: 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-R8-ES-2014-0041, which is the docket number for the rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate the document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 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 the Information Requested section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530-842-5763; or facsimile 530-842-4517. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On October 7, 2014, we published a proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
        At the November 17, 2014, public hearing in Redding, California, we received multiple requests to extend the 90-day public comment period on the proposed rule beyond the January 5, 2015, closing date. In order to provide all interested parties an additional opportunity to review and comment on our proposed rule, we are extending the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days, until February 4, 2015.
        Information Requested
        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party concerning the proposed listing rule. Please see the Information Requested section of the proposed listing rule (79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014) for a list of the comments and information that we particularly seek.

        For more background on our proposed listing rule, see the October 7, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 60419). The ADDRESSES section, above, provides information about how to obtain a copy of the proposed rule.
        If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final rulemaking. Our final determination concerning the proposed rulemaking will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
        Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, which directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed listing rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed listing rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office and the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: December 15, 2014.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-29979 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 02-123; DA 17-76]
        Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau or CGB) seeks comment on the scope of application of the technical standard for user equipment and software used with video relay service (VRS) and the extent to which such a rule is necessary and appropriate for functionally equivalent communication.

          DATES:
          Comments are due June 12, 2017. Reply Comments are due July 11, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
          • 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.

          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:

          Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (202) 418-0996, email Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov, or Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2235, email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section. Comments may be filed using the Commission's ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 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.
        This is a summary of document DA 17-76, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document DA 17-76, adopted on January 17, 2017 and released on January 17, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Report and Order, DA 17-76, is published elsewhere in this issue. The full text of document DA 17-76 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 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.

        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), (844) 432-2272 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        Document DA 17-76 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).

        Synopsis
        1. The Commission's TRS interoperability and portability rules are intended, among other things, to allow VRS users to make and receive calls through any VRS provider, and to choose a different default provider, without changing the VRS access technology they use to place calls. The Relay User Equipment (RUE) Profile addresses this problem by specifying a basic interface that is intended to enable a user to use the same equipment and software with any default provider without experiencing any inconvenience or disruption of basic communications functions.

        2. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau pursuant to authority delegated by the Commission in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, et. al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, seeks additional comment on the extent to which adoption of a rule applying the RUE Profile to provider-distributed VRS user equipment and software is necessary and appropriate for functionally equivalent communication.
        3. First, the Bureau seeks additional comment on the user experience with provider-supplied user equipment and software. To what extent can users currently use the features and functions of provider-supplied equipment and software when making and receiving calls through other providers, or after switching to another default provider? To the extent that user equipment and software supplied by one provider performs less effectively with other providers, which functions are most problematic? Do the answers to these questions vary depending on the specific user equipment and software used by a consumer, and if so, how? How feasible is it currently for third parties, including open source and academic institutions, to innovate in providing new relay user equipment or to provide relay user equipment tailored to specific user groups or application scenarios, such as customer service or government call centers or public safety answering points (PSAPs)?

        4. Second, the Bureau seeks comment on the appropriate scope of application of the RUE Profile. There are a number of possible approaches. One possible approach could be to require RUE compliance for all user equipment and software, including equipment and software provided prior to the designated compliance deadline. As an alternative, to avoid imposing retrofitting costs on VRS providers, the Commission could require RUE compliance only for new user equipment and for new versions of user software. Under a third, more limited alternative, the Commission could require VRS providers to make RUE-Profile-compliant user equipment or software available to those users affirmatively requesting such equipment or software, as well as to provide information on their Web sites indicating how to obtain such user equipment and software. Which operating system platforms should be supported under this alternative? Under a fourth alternative, the Commission could make no further changes to its VRS interoperability and portability requirements. The Bureau seeks comments on the relative costs and benefits of these alternatives. In this regard, CGB invites commenters to submit additional specific cost information quantifying the costs of the three alternatives outlined above. The Bureau also seeks comment on the providers' claim that “forcing provider endpoints to adhere to the RUE Profile would require that providers remove any innovative or useful features of their endpoints that are not specified in the RUE Profile and subject their networks to lower security than they employ today.” What specific aspects of the RUE Profile would require removal of innovative or useful features, and what kinds of innovative or useful features would need to be removed? What specific aspects of the RUE Profile would subject networks to lower security?
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), the Bureau 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 document DA 17-76. 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 specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of document DA 17-76, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        6. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the scope of application of the RUE Profile should be expanded beyond the interface between provider networks and user equipment employing ACE software, to apply more generally to the interface between provider networks and provider-supplied user equipment and software. Comment is sought on a variety of alternatives, including the alternative of leaving the rule as is.
        Legal Basis
        7. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 225, 251, 255, 303, 316, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, and section 106 of the CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225, 255, 303, 316, 615a-1, 615c, 617.
        Listing of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        8. The proposals in document DA 17-76 will affect obligations of VRS providers, who are classified by the Census Bureau as “all other telecommunications.”
        • All Other Telecommunications.
        • VRS Providers, which are generally classified within the broad category of “All Other Telecommunications.”
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        9. Document DA 17-76 does not include new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, except for compliance with a potentially broader application of the RUE Profile technical standard, to apply more generally to the interface between a VRS provider and provider-supplied user equipment and software.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        10. Regarding the possible broadening of the application of the RUE Profile, document DA 17-76 seeks comment on a variety of alternative approaches, including alternatives with minimal or no impact on small entities.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals
        11. None.
        Ordering Clauses

        Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 303(r), and the authority delegated by the Commission in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program et al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, document DA 17-76 is adopted.

        The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document DA 17-76, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Karen Peltz Strauss,
          Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2017-08487 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P