******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications) ) ) ) PR Docket No. 92-257 FOURTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: December 11, 2001 Released: December 28, 2001 Comment Date: [60 days after Federal Register publication] Reply Comment Date: [90 days after Federal Register publication] By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Distress Communications 5 B. Frequency Assignments 9 1. Specification of 12.5 kHz Channels 9 2. Use of Additional VHF Channels 12 3. Automatic Identification Systems 15 C. Technical and Operational Matters 18 1. Emission Masks and Designators for Data Services 18 2. Station Identification 20 D. Miscellaneous Issues 21 1. Station Documents 21 2. Filing Requirements 24 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 27 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 27 B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 28 C. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 29 D. Comment Dates 30 E. Ordering Clauses 34 F. Contact for Information 37 Page APPENDICES A-1 APPENDIX A - REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS A-1 APPENDIX B - PROPOSED RULES B-1 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In the Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding, the Commission amended its rules to permit VHF public coast (VPC) licensees to operate on 12.5 kHz offset frequencies where they are authorized to operate on both 25 kHz frequencies adjacent to the offset frequency.1 In this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we address the recommendations filed by VPC licensee Maritel, Inc. (Maritel) and the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) regarding this and other matters regarding VPC operations. Specifically, we seek comment on the following: * Our tentative conclusions not to include the 12.5 kHz offset channels in our table of frequencies for VPC; and not to propose occupied bandwidth, emission mask, and related regulations that would govern the operation of VPC stations that employ 12.5 kHz narrowband channels. * Our tentative conclusion to reject Maritel’s recommendation that geographic area VPC licensees be required to retain a watch only (1) after the licensee’s construction requirement has passed or a licensee has actually constructed facilities in an area; and (2) the licensee receives written notification from the Coast Guard that a watch should be maintained. * Whether Part 90 public safety entities will be adversely affected by the reallocation of nine VHF channel pairs to VPC licensing. * Our proposal to allow the Coast Guard and VPC licensees the additional flexibility to choose non-offset, as well as offset, channel pairs when negotiating an agreement regarding the specification of two narrowband channel pairs that will be used by the Coast Guard for its Ports and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS).2 * Our proposal to expand the types of emission masks and designators permissible under Part 80 of the Commission’s Rules in order to allow VPC licensees to provide a full range of data services. * Whether to eliminate the station identification requirement for geographic area VPC licensees. * Our proposals to allow public coast stations to maintain station documents via electronic means, and to limit the posting requirement for VPC geographic area licensees to a document identifying the licensee and a representative that may be contacted to answer any questions regarding the operation of a particular station transmitter. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Maritime Radio Services provide for the unique distress, operational, and personal communications needs of vessels at sea and on inland waterways.3 There are two types of coast stations: public coast stations and private coast stations. Public coast stations are commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) facilities that allow ships at sea to send and receive messages and to interconnect with the public switched network.4 Each public coast station has exclusive use of one or more public correspondence channels within its service area or region of operation. By contrast, private coast stations operate on shared frequencies to serve vessels' business and operational needs, and licensees may not charge fees for the provision of communications services. Both public and private coast stations may use very high frequency (VHF) band frequencies to serve a port or coastal area; or low frequency (LF), medium frequency (MF), and high frequency (HF) band frequencies to serve vessels on the high seas, often hundreds or even thousands of miles from land. Maritime frequencies are allocated internationally by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to facilitate interoperable radio communications among vessels of all nations and stations on land worldwide. 3. On July 9, 1998, the Commission released a Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Third Report and Order) in this proceeding, in which it adopted rules to utilize a geographic area licensing approach for VPC stations.5 The Commission designated forty-two licensing regions, known as VHF Public Coast Station Areas (VPCSA).6 The new rules provided for a single licensee for all unassigned VHF public correspondence channels in each area to be selected by competitive bidding.7 The Commission permitted the continued operation of incumbents using VPC station spectrum, and required incumbents and geographic area licensees to afford each other interference protection.8 In accordance with the Third Report and Order, the Commission conducted an auction of the forty-two VPC licenses from December 3, 1998, to December 14, 1998.9 On May 19, 1999, twenty-six VPC licenses were granted by the Commission.10 On June 13, 2001, the Commission completed the auction for the remaining sixteen VHF public coast licenses.11 Maritel is the geographic licensee for VPCSAs 1-9, which collectively encompass the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts; the Mississippi River system; and Alaska and Hawaii.12 4. On March 24, 2000, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 00-48 that proposed rule changes that were intended to consolidate, revise and streamline the Commission’s Rules governing maritime communications, pursuant to requests from the National Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS)13 Implementation Task Force and Globe Wireless, Inc.14 These changes were proposed to address new international maritime requirements, improve the operational ability of all users of marine radios and remove unnecessary or duplicative requirements from the Commission’s Rules.15 In response to this NPRM, the Commission received comments from, among others, Maritel and the Coast Guard. To the extent that these comments relate to public coast station issues, rather than GMDSS implementation, we believe that the present proceeding offers the more appropriate forum for their resolution. Consequently, we have incorporated these comments in WT Docket No. 00-48 into the record of PR Docket No. 92-257.16 III. DISCUSSION A. Distress Communications 5. VPC stations are part of an international safety system intended to provide assistance to vessels in distress. Vessel operators use marine VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) in the same manner that landline telephone subscribers dial “911” in an emergency. VPC stations, as well as other nearby vessels, respond to the vessel operators’ distress messages and then relay the messages to local search and rescue authorities. The Coast Guard, which is responsible for search and rescue operations at sea and on inland waterways in the United States, monitors VHF Channel 16 for these distress messages. 6. Currently, the Commission requires site-based as well as geographic area VPC licensees to maintain a continuous safety watch on VHF Channel 16 unless exempted.17 Under Section 80.303(b), a VPC licensee is exempted if a federal, state, or local government station maintains such a watch over 95 percent of the VPC licensee’s service area.18 Maritel suggests that the Commission amend its regulations so that geographic area VPC licensees are required to maintain a Channel 16 safety watch only (1) after the licensee’s construction requirement has passed or a licensee has actually constructed facilities in an area; and (2) the licensee receives written notification from the Coast Guard that a watch should be maintained.19 The Coast Guard opposes Maritel’s proposed amendment, and states that VPC licensees are already relieved of the VHF Channel 16 safety watch requirement to a great extent because of the exemption.20 It believes that once its new VHF National Distress and Response System Modernization Project is implemented, many more VPC licensees will be eligible for the exemption.21 7. We believe that it is unnecessary to propose that a watch be required only after the licensee’s construction requirement has passed or a licensee has actually constructed facilities in an area, because the Commission presently requires that a watch be maintained during a station’s “hours of operation.”22 The phrase “hours of operation” clearly implies that a licensee is subject to watch requirements only when there is a fully constructed station. Furthermore, due to the important purpose of the VHF Channel 16 safety watch (i.e., to ensure that distress calls outside of the service area of a federal, state, or local government station, but within a VPC licensee’s service area, are heard), we believe that the onus should be on the licensee of the public coast station to immediately initiate and maintain the watch, rather than to wait for written notification from the Coast Guard, as Maritel recommends. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to reject Maritel’s recommendation. 8. The Coast Guard recommends that VPC licensees be required to notify it in advance of any station relocation that will affect the licensee’s VHF Channel 16 safety watch responsibility, whether or not the licensee is subject to the exemption.23 In addition, Maritel recommends that when a VPC licensee (both exempted and non-exempted) discontinues service, and such licensee is providing a watch under Section 80.303 of the Commission’s Rules,24 the licensee should be required to notify the Coast Guard thirty days in advance of such discontinuance.25 We do not believe that adoption of the Coast Guard and Maritel’s recommendations is necessary because the Commission already requires that notification be made by the licensee to the nearest district office of the Coast Guard thirty days prior to discontinuing the watch pursuant to the exemption of Section 80.303(b);26 and as soon as practicable when changes occur in the operation of a public coast station, which includes discontinuance, reduction or suspension of a VHF Channel 16 safety watch.27 Neither commenter has indicated that the Coast Guard is getting insufficient notice under the current regulatory framework. For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the recommendations of both Maritel and the Coast Guard are sufficiently satisfied by these existing rules. Nevertheless, we propose that Section 80.302(a) be amended so that it also requires notification to the Coast Guard be made as soon as practicable when a VPC station with VHF Channel 16 safety watch responsibility is relocated. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions. B. Frequency Assignments 1. Specification of 12.5 kHz Channels 9. The basic channelization for VPC spectrum is set forth in the ITU Radio Regulations as 25 kHz.28 However, after the ITU authorized the use of 12.5 kHz (narrowband) channels to relieve local congestion, the Commission decided to permit VPC licensees to operate on 12.5 kHz offset frequencies where their station is authorized to operate on both 25 kHz frequencies adjacent to the offset frequency.29 The Commission, however, did not adopt technical rules to govern 12.5 kHz operation. Maritel states that it wants to conduct narrowband operations, but cannot because of the absence of such technical regulations.30 It recommends that the Commission include the 12.5 kHz offset channels in the VPC table of frequencies.31 It also recommends that the Commission amend Part 80 by adopting the occupied bandwidth, emission mask and related regulations that govern the operation of stations that employ 12.5 kHz narrowband channels from our Part 90 Rules.32 10. The Commission’s intent when it adopted the rule permitting offset operations without also adopting technical rules for narrowband operations was to leave such matters to the licensee’s discretion, provided that the emissions are attenuated at the edge of the licensee’s contiguous 25 kHz channels. Thus, we disagree with Maritel’s conclusion that offset operations are prohibited absent additional technical regulations. We instead believe that the lack of specific regulation in this area affords licensees with greater flexibility to initiate offset operations. Therefore, we conclude that technical flexibility should be maintained and that Maritel’s recommended regulations not be imposed. We note that under the current approach there have been very few complaints regarding interference caused by VPC stations. We believe that as long as VPC licensees remain aware that the transmitted signal needs to be attenuated at the edge of the contiguous channels, the risk of interference should remain slight. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. Commenters who are in agreement with Maritel should address whether any requirements it proposes are consistent with existing international standards.33 11. Although we disagree with Maritel that its recommended regulations are essential to the provision of narrowband operations, we note that Section 80.213(d) of our Rules currently provides that maritime VHF transmitters “must be capable of proper operation with a frequency deviation of +/- 5 kHz when using any emission authorized by § 80.207.”34 To avoid any uncertainty as to whether this provision requires a frequency deviation of +/- 5 kHz, which would not be compatible with 12.5 kHz narrowband operations,35 or instead permits any frequency deviation up to +/- 5 kHz, we propose to revise the rule to provide that the equipment “must be capable of proper operation with a frequency deviation that does not exceed +/- 5 kHz .”36 We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on our proposal to amend our Rules to make clear that offset operations require Canadian coordination whenever operation on either adjoining 25 kHz channel would require Canadian coordination. 2. Use of Additional VHF Channels 12. There are currently ten 25 kHz channel pairs in the 157.200-157.425 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.800-162.025 MHz (coast transmit) bands assignable to VPC stations for public correspondence, though there is no area where all ten are assignable to U.S. VPC stations.37 Maritel proposes that the Commission reallocate nine channel pairs in the 156.0375-156.2375 MHz band and the 160.6375-160.8375 MHz band38 (already designated on an international basis for public correspondence use) for VPC stations on a domestic basis.39 Maritel argues that reallocation is needed because there are currently fewer channels available for VPC operations in the United States than there are in other countries.40 It also argues that a reallocation of the nine channel pairs would harmonize United States allocations with the international community.41 13. Three of Maritel’s recommended frequencies are currently allocated for Part 90 public safety use,42 and three others are currently allocated for Part 90 Industrial/Business use.43 Maritel states that there is extremely light demand for these six frequencies from Part 90 eligibles.44 The remaining twelve frequencies that Maritel requests for maritime use do not have a current Part 90 allocation, but are adjacent to channels that are allocated for Part 90 public safety or Part 90 Industrial/Business use. Maritel suggests that we “grandfather” the incumbents so that their operations are protected from newly authorized VPC licensees, or develop a transition scheme that would conclude with Part 90 incumbent operations becoming secondary to VPC operations.45 Maritel believes that a reallocation will cause minimal impact on Part 90 public safety licensees because the Commission has provided such licensees with additional spectrum in higher frequency bands.46 Finally, Maritel requests that the Commission immediately freeze the further licensing of this spectrum as a prelude to an auction.47 14. Although, as Maritel suggests, some Part 90 public safety licensees will eventually relocate to frequency bands that are higher than the VHF spectrum in order to enjoy the benefits of more sophisticated handsets,48 we note that VHF spectrum is still considered ideal for many public safety entities because its propagation characteristics can ensure coverage to a wide service area. We also note that the higher frequency band referenced by Maritel, 746-806 MHz, is still encumbered by incumbent broadcast television licensees, which do not have to vacate this band until the conclusion of the digital television transition period, December 31, 2006 at the earliest.49 For these reasons, we conclude that we should not propose to adopt Maritel’s recommended reallocation approach with respect to these channel pairs without first assessing the demand for this spectrum from Part 90 public safety eligibles.50 Therefore, we seek comment on whether public safety, as opposed to maritime, has a greater immediate need for this VHF spectrum. We also seek comment on Maritel’s recommended treatment of public safety incumbents if reallocation of these nine channel pairs to VPC is ultimately adopted. Finally, we seek comment on our tentative conclusion that a freeze of this spectrum as a prelude to a VPC auction is not needed to maintain the regulatory landscape because there is no reason to expect any upsurge in licensing activity on these frequencies pending the resolution of this proceeding. 3. Automatic Identification Systems 15. Our Rules currently require that each licensee of VHF Public Coast Service Areas 1-9 enter into an agreement with the Coast Guard to specify two 12.5 kHz offset channel pairs that will be used by the Coast Guard for Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)51 and related systems, in support of PAWSS, which will provide Vessel Traffic Services to facilitate the safe and efficient transit of vessel traffic to prevent collisions, groundings, and environmental damage associated with maritime accidents.52 Maritel requests that Section 80.371(c)(3) of the Commission’s Rules be amended in order to provide VPC licensees and the Coast Guard with the additional flexibility to enter into an agreement that specifies “non-offset,” rather than offset, channel pairs, if the parties so desire.53 16. The Commission chose a method of negotiation for determining the offset channel pairs, rather than pre-selecting channel pairs during the rulemaking proceeding, because it envisioned that such approach would provide both the Coast Guard and the VPC licensee with more flexibility.54 The Commission’s decision to specify that two channel pairs offset 12.5 kHz from the VHF band public correspondence channels be used for PAWSS was premised on the expectation that VPC licensees would prefer to retain all of their non-offset channels. We now agree with Maritel that the parties should be able to specify non-offset channel pairs if it is mutually agreeable. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt Maritel’s recommendation. We also seek comment on whether, given that Maritel and the Coast Guard already have reached an agreement regarding PAWSS channels, the proposed amendment is moot. 17. In addition, we note that the Coast Guard commented on other AIS issues, such as equipment certification and technical rules.55 Specifically, it requested that the Commission develop the necessary regulations to ensure that properly certified AIS equipment tested by an independent test facility is available to meet International Maritime Organization and Coast Guard vessel carriage regulations.56 Therefore, we now seek comment generally on these and any other aspects of AIS implementation. C. Technical and Operational Matters 1. Emission Masks and Designators for Data Services 18. Maritel states that the Commission’s Part 80 rules currently do not permit the full range of possible data services.57 In this regard, it argues that the Commission should adopt emission masks58 and designators for such data services.59 Specifically, Maritel suggests that any emission mode be permitted in Part 80 so long as the applicable mask limits are satisfied.60 Maritel recommends that the Commission adopt, for use under Part 80, the emission mask requirements now applicable to transmitters accepted for use under Part 90.61 19. When formulating emission mask standards, the Commission endeavors to select out-of-band emission limits that will provide acceptable adjacent channel protection.62 The Commission uses designators to identify what emissions are most likely to cause interference and what emissions are most sensitive to interference. However, we also seek to afford licensees with the broadest range of options to provide the services permitted in a particular radio service. We believe that expanding the data emissions permissible under Part 80 is in the public interest. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt emission masks and designators for the full range of possible data services as Part 90 licensees may offer.63 2. Station Identification 20. All maritime stations, including public coast stations, must provide station identification64 at the beginning and end of each radiotelephone communication with any other station, and then once every fifteen minutes in between.65 Maritel notes that the Commission has already eliminated and streamlined the rules governing station identification requirements for other CMRS providers in instances where there is a single licensee operating on a particular channel in a Commission-defined service area, and argues that VPC licensees should receive similar treatment.66 Specifically, it recommends that only incumbent site-specific licensees be required to engage in station identification.67 It contends that the Commission or other competent authority will always be able to assume that the use of a particular VPC channel will occur by the geographic area licensee, unless the site-specific licensee identifies itself.68 Maritel adds that, in the case of any coast station that utilizes digital selective calling (DSC),69 the unique coast station identification will automatically be transmitted,70 so active station identification on the part of the VPC licensee is not necessary for the recipient of the communication to know with what station it is communicating. Finally, Maritel notes that the Commission has decided to forbear from the station identification requirements for AMTS, another Part 80 service.71 We seek comment on Maritel’s request. Commenters are encouraged to address whether issues, such as the current quantity of site-based VPC stations or the differences between the VPC and AMTS services,72 render VPC distinguishable from those services where the Commission no longer requires station identification (e.g., 929-930 MHz nationwide paging licensees or EA-based specialized mobile radio licensees).73 D. Miscellaneous Issues 1. Station Documents 21. Maritel contends that compared to other CMRS providers, public coast stations are overburdened with requirements regarding what station documents need to be maintained and displayed.74 Maritel recommends that, at a minimum, the Commission should allow station documents to be maintained electronically at a licensee’s primary office or available to the Commission via secured access to the licensee’s Internet web site.75 It argues that the Commission’s Rules should recognize that the requirements for data retention can be satisfied by the automatic logging capability of DSC-compatible systems.76 Maritel also contends that the Commission requirement to post a current station authorization or a copy at the principal control point of each station77 is burdensome in its case because it has nine geographic area licenses each of which can cover hundreds of transmitter sites.78 Therefore, it suggests that the posting requirement be limited to a document identifying the licensee, where the license is maintained, and a telephone number of a representative of the licensee that may be contacted to answer any questions regarding the operation of the particular transmitter.79 22. The purpose of the station log requirements is to maintain a steady record of equipment performance and the details of distress communications.80 Logs relating to distress communications must be made available for authorized Commission staff and be retained for a period of three years.81 Electronic record keeping, as Maritel suggests, may offer conveniences for both the VPC licensee and the Commission. We believe that electronic record keeping, particularly when done by DSC-compatible systems, minimizes the risk of inadvertent data entry error.82 Furthermore, provision of such information via secured access to the licensee’s web page would provide the Commission with quick and easy access. For the foregoing reasons, we propose to adopt Maritel’s request that VPC licensees be permitted to maintain records via electronic means.83 To the extent these records are intended to be used only by Commission staff or for other official purposes, we tentatively conclude that questions of accessibility to electronic records to other persons or entities are not raised. We note, however, that other federal agencies have occasion to inspect station logs. For example, the Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board sometimes refer to station logs as part of their accident investigations. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on our proposal, we seek comment on whether electronic record keeping would be sufficient for these purposes. We also seek comment on whether any other entities, including state and local public safety organizations, rely on these records and, if so, whether these entities would find electronic records adequate. 23. The intent of the posting requirement is to provide a means for representatives of the Commission to ensure that a particular station is authorized to use the equipment.84 Because there may be many stations authorized under a single geographic area VPC license, it may be appropriate that VPC licensees be treated slightly different from individual ship station licensees with regard to the posting requirement. For that reason, we propose to adopt Maritel’s recommendation because we believe it will reduce the regulatory burden on VPC licensees while still ensuring that the vital information inherent in the posting requirement (i.e., location of the license, and telephone number of the licensee’s representative) will still be maintained at each particular station. We note that Part 90 private land mobile radio services are already governed by the type of posting requirement that we are proposing here.85 We seek comment on our proposal. 2. Filing Requirements 24. In the CMRS 2nd R&O, the Commission classified all public coast stations as CMRS providers.86 As part of that same action, the Commission exercised forbearance from enforcing the tariff filing obligations of Section 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),87 with respect to most domestic CMRS providers because it viewed CMRS as generally competitive.88 The Commission also exercised its authority to forbear from Section 21489 of the Act with respect to discontinuance of service.90 25. Based on these Commission decisions to forbear, Maritel recommends that Section 80.95(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules (“charges must not be made for service provided by any public coast station unless tariffs for the service are on file with the Commission”91) be amended to provide that public coast licensees should not be required to file tariffs for domestic services and for international services, unless there is an affiliation with a foreign carrier.92 Maritel also recommends the elimination of Section 80.471 of the Commission’s Rules (“a public coast station must not discontinue or impair service unless authorized to do so by the Commission”93).94 Maritel argues that this requirement is inconsistent with the way other CMRS licensees are treated.95 26. We tentatively conclude that we should decline to adopt Maritel’s recommendations for the following reasons. The Commission generally does not revise its service rules to eliminate requirements from which it is forbearing. We note that what Maritel recommends is already in effect. VHF public coast stations are domestic CMRS providers,96 which, under Section 20.15 of the Commission’s Rules, are not required to file tariffs or submit applications for discontinuance of existing facilities.97 Therefore, pursuant to this rule, domestic public coast licensees are being treated in the same manner as other CMRS licensees. Furthermore, the Part 80 rules regarding discontinuance of service must remain in effect because the Commission has not exercised Section 214 forbearance for international CMRS providers, such as high seas public coast stations.98 Consequently, we propose not to adopt Maritel’s recommendations, but instead to add to Sections 80.95 and 80.471 a cross-reference to Section 20.15. IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 27. Appendix A contains an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,99 the Commission has prepared the analysis of the possible impact on small entities of the rules and proposed rules set forth in this document. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 28. This Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains a proposed information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. C. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 29. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.100 D. Comment Dates 30. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments on or before 60 days from date of publication of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register.101 Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.102 Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit an electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message: "get form