California’s Justice Department hasn’t submitted final rules implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act to the Office of Administrative Law, an OAL spokesperson emailed hours before a possible Monday deadline to get rules out to the public by July 1 when CCPA enforcement begins. Section 11343.4(b)(3) of California government code says how to request an earlier effective date, noted the agency’s representative. Privacy lawyers said the department would have had to submit rules by Sunday, but because that wasn't a business day, OAL would probably take them Monday. Missing the deadline might mean final rules wait until Oct. 1, three months after Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) says he will enforce them (see 2005210054). However, some attorneys said the statute section referenced by OLA provides potential ways to get rules out by July 1. “The AG could submit the final CCPA regulations late and ask for the July 1 effective date based on ‘good cause,’” Pepper Hamilton’s Sharon Klein emailed Monday. OAL “already has a long list of 55 regulations slated for review, and it is unclear how receptive OAL would be to expediting regulations that (as of the last draft) are nearly 30 pages long,” she said. BakerHostetler attorneys blogged Friday that California law might allow the AG to argue that CCPA is exempt from normal deadline rules because the privacy statute specifies July 1 is the effective date. Wiley’s Joan Stewart emailed us Friday that she doesn’t see how the AG can stay on schedule and expect “enforcement in a vacuum come July 1.” CCPA, which took effect Jan. 1, doesn’t require the AG to adopt rules before enforcement begins, said Media Alliance Executive Director Tracy Rosenberg. A delay’s practical effect is “to prevent AG enforcement of the specific areas of CCPA tied into their rule-making until they complete that rule-making,” she emailed. “While it is unlikely businesses would be reprimanded for highly technical CCPA violations until the rules are finalized, lack of a good faith effort to comply with the CCPA at all will probably be actionable as of July 1 regardless.” Becerra’s office didn’t comment.
The upper end of the estimated replacement C-band satellite costs in the preliminary cost catalog reflects "reasonable and appropriate" variables, Boeing said in an FCC docket 18-122 posting Friday. A significantly accelerated build and launch timeline requires "mission-specific design accommodations, inventory management, factory capacity balancing, and innovative partnerships with key suppliers," all of which comes with a price tag, it said. Boeing opposed prohibiting hybrid satellite use by limiting reimbursements to single-purpose satellites operating solely with a C-band payload and within the continental U.S. Intelsat said it "emphatically" agrees with SES (see 2005220030) that the price catalog needs to be finalized posthaste because it's "a lynchpin" for calculating the scope of work needed. Claro said it's electing for accelerated C-band relocation.
NTIA's petition that the FCC stay its Ligado order (see 2005220055) is "remarkably thin [and] meritless," the company said Friday in a docket 11-109 reply to be posted. The yearslong proceeding gave NTIA ample time to comment so its complaints about the process are groundless, and its arguments about the substance of the approval were "already meticulously considered and rejected," it said. NTIA concedes there's no risk of imminent irreparable injury since the planned L-band terrestrial network is at least 18 months off, so its petition really seeks "a lockdown of the FCC’s process and puts at risk progress on spectrum developments that hinder 5G and destabilize FCC decision making," it said. NTIA didn't comment. Some speculate Ligado could sell some of its spectrum (see 2005290030).
Comments are due June 12, replies June 29 on the FCC FY 2020 budget proposal (see 2005130057), said Thursday's Federal Register.
C-band satellite operators and wireless interests joined in opposition to small satellite operators' ask for a stay of the FCC's C-band order while they challenge it in U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2005180036), according to docket 18-122 postings Thursday. A delay to the C-band repurposing for terrestrial 5G deployments counters FCC goals and the public interest in getting the spectrum to new uses, Intelsat said. CTIA said the SSOs haven't shown irreparable injury absent a stay or that their alleged losses couldn't be remediated. The SSOs also ignore "the massive harm that a stay would cause to CTIA members and other prospective bidders (who have invested significant time and resources to prepare for the auction) and American consumers," it said. The SSOs forfeited their right to challenge the proposed modifications of their licenses by filing what they called "a protest" that lacked the specific allegations of fact and affidavits it needs, Verizon said. Also filing against the SSO stay were SES, Telesat and Eutelsat. Backing SSOs ABS Global, Hispasat and Empresa is PSSI Global Services. PSSI said it and the SSOs will prevail in their opposition to the order based on the "substantial and irreparable" harms it's already causing, and the FCC didn't give adequate notice of the fundamental changes to their licenses. As of Thursday early evening, the SSOs hadn't filed suit with the D.C. Circuit. Eutelsat said it also is opting for accelerated relocation of its C-band operations, as have multiple other C-band operators (see 2005260037).
APCO petitioned for reconsideration Thursday of the FCC's 6 GHz order (see 2004230059), as expected (see 2005270044). The agency “failed its purpose of promoting public safety,” APCO said: “Interference to public safety communications is certain to arise from the approach to expanding unlicensed use of the band. Other than acknowledging that incumbent use includes public safety communications, the Order ignores public safety’s reliance on the 6 GHz band and fails to consider that interference will result in irreparable harm.” APCO asked to revise rules to require automated frequency control for all shared use, indoors and outdoors and “evaluate the impacts to public safety in the cost/benefit analysis.” The group asked for stay until the recon petition is addressed. “Public safety agencies extensively use the 6 GHz band for mission critical systems,” blogged Director-Government Relations Jeff Cohen.
Wireless and satellite interests cited concerns about the FCC C-band order, in docket 18-122 petitions for reconsideration posted Wednesday. Change the technical specifications of telemetry, tracking and command filters because they aren't feasible, or give Intelsat's two remote TT&C/gateway sites protected status to use the entire band, the company petitioned. It said out-of-band protection requirements won't adequately protect all earth stations from post-transition interference and need revision, or at least make clear that as long as Intelsat has done everything it can, it won't be held responsible for terrestrial operations' interference. It urged moving of the December 2021 TT&C/gateway site consolidation deadline to 2023 because an 18-month consolidation window is "simply is not achievable given the many time- and resource-intensive activities." Speaking with FCC staffers, Intelsat officials cited filter and TT&C site concerns and said reimbursements shouldn't be limited to satellites operating solely with a C-band payload, since its satellites are typically configured with multiple spectrum payloads and it was going to seek reimbursement for only the C-band payload costs. The company voiced concerns about cable operators being able to select the compression equipment to be installed at their earth stations, when it should be tied to the satellite transponder. Also posted was Intelsat's accelerated relocation election the company announced Tuesday (see 2005260037). The International Telecommunications Satellite Organization's recon petition cited aspects of the C-band order that could hurt international satellite services by limiting international gateway services in the lower portion of the band to four TT&C sites, and only on a secondary basis. It said design and placement of replacement Intelsat satellites could hurt international satellite services customers outside the U.S. C-band operator Eutelsat had petitioned for recon. Charter asked the FCC to tweak the order to require C band flexible use licensees to make TDD synchronization available to citizens broadband radio service (see 2005220042). “Without such synchronization, C-Band base stations will interfere with, and significantly impede, the ability of CBRS base stations to communicate with CBRS user equipment operating in both the Priority Access License and General Authorized Access spectrum blocks,” Charter said. Aviation interests asked to change the order to protect radio altimeters using 3700-3980 MHz (see 2002200030). "‘No action’ regarding the protection of radio altimeters and seemingly requiring the aviation community to ‘protect thyself’ from harmful interference was not supported by the evidence and sharply contrasts with other actions taken in this very proceeding,” the groups said. The Aerospace Industries Association, Airbus, Aviation Spectrum Resources, Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute, Air Line Pilots Association and Garmin were among signers.
Local government groups asked the FCC to delay a vote on revising wireless infrastructure rules set for the June 9 commissioners’ meeting (see 2005190058). “The proposed Declaratory Ruling, as currently drafted, would dramatically impact the way that local governments across the nation manage their eligible facilities request applications and require major changes to stealth or screening requirements for wireless deployments,” said a filing posted Tuesday in docket 19-250: “Because the item did not arise out of a rulemaking proceeding, the Commission has not had the benefit of local government input.” The letter was addressed to the five commissioners and signed by NATOA, the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Association of Towns and Townships.
A calendar item for a House Communications Subcommittee teleconference with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on COVID-19 incorrectly listed the date. It was held May 19. A Brookings Institution webinar on gaps in federal privacy legislation is June 3. The year of ICANN74 is 2022, on June 13-16.
Commissioner Mike O’Rielly isn’t hopeful the FCC will provide much additional clarity soon on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, he said Tuesday during a Federalist Society teleconference on the aftermath of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants. The case was argued before the Supreme Court this month, with justices indicating they're unlikely to overturn the entire robocalling law (see 2005060051). O’Rielly and then-Commissioner Ajit Pai criticized a 2015 declaratory ruling on how the law should be interpreted (see 1506180046). Now-Chairman Pai “has done yeoman work to try to get at the illegal robocall issue,” O’Rielly said in response to our question. But O’Rielly isn’t “optimistic near term that we’re going to get any resolution.” FCC staff works hard, but COVID-19 makes some work more difficult, he said. What qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA is “already a mess,” he said: “That’s something that’s been our fault for lack of clarity. It’s an overreach from past commissions.” He has "been very protective of good robocalls because there’s so many that benefit society,” O’Rielly said. People want robocalls from their pharmacy saying a prescription is ready or from a school telling them to pick up their kids, he said. Numerous petitions before the FCC deal “with good robocalls” and need to be addressed, he said. The FCC has “spent too much time going after legitimate calls” and not enough on illegal calls, he said: “Just recently, we’ve done a better job of fixing that direction.” If the FCC isn’t going to act on the larger “big ticket” TCPA questions, it needs to at least address the petitions, he said. “The list keeps growing” and “the majority by far” are by companies that want to make robocalls that will benefit the public, he said. O’Rielly said the FCC should act on a petition by the American Bankers Association and other financial groups seeking clarity that banks, credit unions and customer-facing financial service providers can use ATDS, prerecorded messages and artificial voice for calls involving COVID-19 without violating the TCPA (see 2005220035). O’Rielly said he hasn’t received a single complaint from a March ruling allowing public health authorities to make COVID-related calls (see 2003200074). O’Rielly said he listened to the oral argument in the Supreme Court case, which was streamed. Only part of the TCPA is likely in play, he noted: a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared a 2015 government debt collection exemption unconstitutional and severed the provision from the remainder of the TCPA.