Transcript Transparency in Communications Regulation: Suggestions for

Transparency in
Communications Regulation:
Suggestions for RATEL
Part II: Internet Implementation and
An Example
Michael J. Marcus, Sc.D., FIEEE
Marcus Spectrum Solutions
Paris France
[email protected]
www.marcus-spectrum.com
Outline
• Internet Implementation of
Transparency
• A Real Example
Internet & Transparency
• Use Internet for
– Posting regulations
– Announcing possible changes and
requesting comments
– Submission and archiving comments
– Announcing rule changes and giving
explanation in view of comments
– Announcing rule enforcement
Internet & Transparency
• Internet use make lack credibility if
archive is subject to tampering
• Suggest designing system with a clear
audit trail that shows all changes and
when they were made and by whom
– Wikipedia “history file” may be good model
FCC Online Systems for
Rulemakings/Consultations
• FCC, and other US agencies, have
online systems that have evolved from
previous paper systems
• Thus there are anachronisms/quirks
that would not be appropriate for a
brand new system at RATEL
FCC Online Systems for
Rulemakings/Consultations
• There are two somewhat redundant online
systems
– EDOCS tracks all FCC-created public documents
including proposals and decisions
– ECFS tracks all rulemakings and other
consultations with both FCC-created documents
and public filings
• Other agencies have similar systems, e.g.
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormAdvanced.cfm
• http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulelist?type=prule
• Unfortunately, no good overall index at FCC
Index of Consultations Helpful
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/docket_comments/
Link to
comments
• Unfortunately,
no FCC-wide
index at
present
• This is a
partial index
from one
office
• Recommend
agency-wide
index
ECFS - Electronic Comment Filing System
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
• Contains
Petitions,
proposed
rules,
comments, &
decisions
Many types of
searches are
possible
Heart of
rulemaking &
consultations
at FCC
Electronic Filing of Comments
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Step 1
• Paper filing
also allowed
• 2 step
process
• Simplified
option for
short
comments
Electronic Filing of Comments
Step 2
Option for files with
long comments
or
Option for direct entry
of short comments
An Real Example
• This is an amateur radio spectrum
rulemaking that is relatively simple
– 3 parallel issues were actually involved, all
examples of text will be from one issue
– Amateur radio is a low priority issues so
timing is not typical
ECFS Record
of Whole
Proceeding
• All FCC documents, ex parte
notices, and comments are in a
common sequential file
– Evolved from previous preInternet system
– Needs better indexing
– Some documents scanned, text
can not be copied
• Physical access also available on
terminals at FCC
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=02-98
Chronology of Example
Petition
22/10/98
Public Notice
requesting comment
23/11/98
30 days for comments
Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
(Consultation)
15/5/02
45 days* for comments
15 days* for reply
comments
Report & Order
(Decision)
14/5/2003
Reconsideration
request
19/5/03
Public Notice
requesting comment
on reconsideration
22/7/03
MO&O (Decision on
reconsideration)
24/3/04
30 days* to request
reconsideration
15 day
comments/opposition
10 days replies
Note: Amateur radio issues are a low priority so timing is not typical
* = days after
Federal Register
publication
Petition for
Rulemaking
• Proceeding
initiated by
outside request
• Many proceedings
also started by
FCC on its own
initiative
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6005542747
FCC Asks for Public Comment
on Petition
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6005545794
Petitions for Rulemaking
• Agency could dismiss without asking for
comment but an explanation is necessary
– For example, similar to a previous request or
forbidden by law
– Dismissal subject to possible reconsideration
request and court appeal
• Agency could go directly to proposing rules
without asking for comment on petition if
need is clear
Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
(NPRM)
• In this case grouped
3 parallel petitions
• Gives background,
summarizes
comments received,
and makes proposal
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-136A1.pdf
NPRM Excerpts
• Petition description
– “On July 24, 2001, ARRL filed a Petition for Rule Making
requesting that we amend Parts 2 and 97 of our Rules to
create a domestic secondary amateur service allocation in
the 5250-5400 kHz band. ARRL claims that there is a current
need for 150 kilohertz of usable spectrum around 5000 kHz
for the amateur service, and that this action is needed to fill
the ionospheric propagation gap between the propagation
paths provided by the amateur service allocations in the
3500-4000 kHz and 7000-7300 kHz bands.”
NPRM Excerpts
• Comment discussion
– “Eighty-seven parties filed comments to the 5000 kHz
Petition; eighty-five of which support the request.78 While not
stating that he opposes the ARRL petition, Taylor indicates
that the Commission should carefully investigate the
allegation that propagation on 3500 kHz and 7000 kHz does
not provide adequate coverage.79 Similarly, Grant asserts
that amateur radio operators should more efficiently manage
their operations, and could thereby alleviate any interference
or overcrowding problems in the existing 3500 kHz or 7000
kHz bands.80”
Footnotes cite
specific comments
NPRM Excerpts
• Decision on what to propose
– “A new allocation in the 5000 kHz frequency range would permit
amateur service operations when other bands cannot be used.
Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the amateur service would
benefit from a secondary allocation in the 5250-5400 kHz band and
propose to establish such an allocation. We request comment on
this proposal.”
• Often specific questions are included for comment
– “We invite comment on whether the power limit and operator
license requirement are sufficient to prevent interference to primary
users, and whether an EIRP limit would also be appropriate for this
frequency band. We also invite comment on other means that will
reduce potential interference.”
NPRM Excerpts
• Proposed Rule Changes - Not strictly
required, but usually done for clarity
States legal authority for
FCC to make this rule
Report & Order/
Decision
• In this case a
relatively simple
amateur radio
issue, but same
process as more
complex issues
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-105A1.pdf
Excerpts from Decision
• Discussion of Comments
– “We received comments concerning the proposals
for the 5250-5400 kHz band from 214 parties and
reply comments from 9 parties. All parties but four
support the proposal for a new secondary
allocation in the 5250-5400 kHz frequency band
for emergency communication and
experimentation when the 3000 kHz and 7000 kHz
bands are not available due to unfavorable
propagation conditions.”
Excerpts from Decision
• Discussion of Comments
– “Several of the commenters oppose an EIRP limit, and no
commenter supports one.44 The commenters are split on whether
the band should be divided according to transmission types.45 The
group supporting sub-banding asserts that Amplitude-Modulated
(AM) Single-side band (SSB) voice transmissions will cause
interference to Continuous Wave (CW) and data transmissions and
therefore these transmission types should be separated into
different sub-bands. Those opposing sub-banding claim that much
of the CW and data sub-bands in other amateur allocations are
underutilized, and that many other nations are eliminating their subbands.”
Excerpts from Decision
• Discussion of Comments
– “The National Telecommunication and Information
Administration (NTIA) objects to the proposed 5250-5400
kHz allocation. NTIA states that this band is extensively used
by federal agencies, and that they need immediate access to
these HF frequencies in times of emergency.52 ”
– “To accommodate some amateur operations in this band,
NTIA subsequently proposed that five specific frequencies,
5332 kHz, 5348 kHz, 5368 kHz, 5373 kHz and 5405 kHz, be
made available to the amateur service on a secondary
basis.53”
Excerpts from Decision
• Decision
– “We believe that frequencies in the 5250-5400 kHz range may be
useful for completing disaster communications links at times when
the 3 and 7 MHz bands are not available due to ionospheric
conditions, and appreciate the desire of the amateur radio
community to assist with disaster communications. At the same
time, since the majority of the affected users are Federal
Government licensees with homeland security responsibilities, we
give considerable weight to the concerns NTIA has expressed
about the potential for interference to these users. Thus, we
conclude that it is not reasonable to grant ARRL’s original request
for the whole of the 5250-5400 kHz band. However, as indicated
above, NTIA has reviewed its assignments and has found that 5
channels are lightly used and could be used on a secondary basis
by amateur stations.”
Excerpts from Decision
• Decision
– “Accordingly, we are amending sections 2.106, and 97.303
of our rules to provide a secondary allocation to the amateur
service on the channels 5332 kHz, 5348 kHz, 5368 kHz,
5373 kHz and 5405 kHz as specified by NTIA…”
– “In addition, because we are permitting amateur stations to
transmit on 5 discrete frequencies and limiting the
transmission mode to single sideband only, dividing the band
into smaller sub-bands to be used for other emission types is
not practical or necessary.”
Excerpts from Decision
• Specific rule change given:
(Full text not included in this presentation)
Basic Points
• As specific a proposal as possible is given in
the consultation
• At each step comments are all reviewed,
often grouped by those with similar
viewpoints
• Explanation is given about why agency
concurs with some and disagrees with others
– All issues raised in comments are addressed
– Agency fear of court review and possible remand
is a major motivation
• Court can order agency to redo rulemaking if it did not
follow due process
Reconsideration
Request
• Reconsideration allows
public to point out errors
on issues not raised in
consultation
– Sometimes agency goes
in new direction to avoid
concerns raised in
comments
• In this case request dealt
with no new issues
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514131421
Requesting Public
Comment on
Reconsideration
Request
• As in most
issues, public
comment is
routinely
requested
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514482209
Reconsideration
Decision
• As before comments
are all reviewed and
agency decision
explained with respect
to them
• In this case, FCC
found that no new
issues were raised and
kept original decision
unchanged
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-71A1.pdf