[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2126-2131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01314]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 06-160; FCC 18-157]


Proposed Amendment of the Commission's Policies and Rules for 
Processing Applications in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes to amend 
its rules to establish a licensing and regulatory framework for space 
stations in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service in the 12.2-12.7 
GHz and 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency bands that would harmonize the rules 
regulating DBS with those regulating geostationary-satellite orbit 
Fixed-Satellite Service systems.

DATES: Comments are due March 25, 2019. Reply comments are due April 
22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-160, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] 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: Sean O'More, International Bureau, 
Satelite Division, 202-418-2453, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM), FCC 18-157, adopted 
November 9, 2018, and released November 13, 2018. The full text of the 
Second NPRM is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-157A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also 
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

Comment Filing Requirements

    Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an 
original and four copies of each filing.
    Filings may 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.
    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for persons with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), or to request reasonable 
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or 
call 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations

    We will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how 
we might

[[Page 2127]]

further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

    In this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM), the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to establish a licensing and 
regulatory framework for DBS satellite systems that would be analogous 
to that which currently exists for geostationary (GSO) Fixed-Satellite 
Service (FSS) systems. First, the Commission seeks comment on 
processing requests for new DBS service on a ``first-come, first-
served'' basis--including an optional, two-step application process--
that governs GSO FSS licensing. Second, the Commission seeks comment on 
applying the milestone and bond requirements for the geostationary 
Fixed-Satellite Service to DBS. Third, the Commission seeks comment on 
extending the license terms of non-broadcast DBS space stations from 10 
to 15 years. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on lifting the 
``freeze'' on new DBS applications that has been in place since 2006, 
when the Commission last proposed changes to the DBS licensing regime 
in a 2006 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006 Notice). Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on clarifying that requests for new DBS at 
orbital locations less than nine degrees apart, but that any new DBS 
systems at such reduced-spacing orbital locations must not increase 
interference to DBS systems at the internationally-planned nine-degree 
orbital locations.

Proposal

    While the Commission currently has no DBS license applications 
before it, clarification of the rules and harmonization of those rules 
with the recently-updated rules governing the licensing of GSO FSS will 
facilitate the licensing of new DBS systems and may encourage interest 
in new DBS systems.
    License Application Processing Procedures. The Commission seeks 
comment on proposed rules for processing requests to provide new DBS 
service to U.S. consumers. These rules would apply to any future 
request to provide DBS service to the United States using the 12.2-12.7 
GHz band (space-to-Earth) and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8 
GHz band (Earth-to-space), including channels not currently licensed at 
orbit locations assigned to the United States under the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2 BSS and feeder-link Plans 
(Region 2 Plan), as well as DBS service from space stations located at 
orbital locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 
BSS and feeder-link Plans.
    Consistent with the Commission's prior proposal in the 2006 Notice, 
the Commission proposes to treat requests to provide DBS using a 
``first-come, first-served'' licensing approach used for GSO-like FSS 
and to eliminate DBS competitive bidding procedures. The 2006 Notice 
specifically sought comment on whether, pursuant to section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act, and in light of the Northpoint case, the 
Commission could design a competitive bidding system, or auction, to 
assign mutually exclusive applications for DBS licenses or spectrum. 
Commenters overwhelmingly supported use of ``first-come, first-
served,'' procedures for DBS and no commenter suggested how the 
Commission could design a competitive bidding system under section 
309(j). Accordingly, based on the court holding in Northpoint and the 
record in response to the 2006 Notice, the Commission concludes that 
DBS licenses cannot be auctioned at this time.
    The Commission seeks further comment on this proposal. DBS is 
similar to GSO FSS, except for certain technical features required to 
protect DBS consumers from interference while using small receive-only 
antennas, and therefore DBS seems well suited to using the same 
processing procedure as used for GSO FSS. Comments received in response 
to the 2006 Notice overwhelmingly supported use of ``first-come, first-
served'' procedures for DBS. The 2006 Notice observed that the 
Commission's experience with the ``first-come, first-served'' approach 
indicates that this procedure would also allow the quick issuance of 
DBS licenses and grants of U.S. market access, while still 
accommodating existing or new competitive systems in the same spectrum, 
and that this procedure would give applicants flexibility to design 
systems that will best serve their targeted customers. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether experience since the 2006 Notice reinforces or 
changes these assessments of the suitability of the proposed ``first-
come, first-served'' procedure for processing requests to provide DBS 
services.
    Application Processing Framework. If the Commission adopts the 
proposal to process requests to provide new DBS service according to a 
``first-come, first-served,'' the Commission proposes to apply the 
streamlined procedures the Commission recently adopted for FSS space 
stations in the part 25 Streamlining Order.
    The Commission proposes that applications for authority to 
construct, deploy and operate a space station to provide DBS service, 
or requests for U.S. market access to provide DBS service to earth 
stations in the United States using a non-U.S. licensed space station 
under section 25.137 of the Commission's rules, must provide the 
technical information required by section 25.114 of the Commission's 
rules. Of particular applicability to DBS service, the following 
technical information must be provided under section 25.114: (1) 
Whether the space station is to be operated on a broadcast or non-
broadcast basis; and (2) information and analyses in the event that the 
technical characteristics of the proposed system differ from those in 
the Appendix 30 BSS Plans, the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans, Annex 5 
to Appendix 30 or Annex 3 to Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations.
    The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether section 
25.114 should be amended to eliminate any of these DBS-specific 
requirements or to require any additional information relevant to the 
provision of DBS service. The Commission also proposes to apply the 
existing provisions of section 25.112 to determine whether a request to 
provide DBS service in the United States is acceptable for filing and 
seek comment on this proposal.
    Milestone and Bond. The Commission proposes to apply sections 
25.164 (Milestones) and 25.165 (Surety Bonds) to authorizations and 
grants of U.S. market access to provide DBS service. The Commission's 
milestone and bond requirements are intended to deter warehousing by 
satellite operators before a proposed space station has been launched 
and begun operations. In this instance, warehousing refers to the 
retention of preemptive rights to use spectrum and orbital resources by 
an entity that does not intend to bear the cost and risk of 
constructing, launching, and operating an authorized space station, is 
not fully committed to doing so, or finds out after accepting the 
license that it is unable to fulfill the associated obligations. Such 
milestone requirements extend not only to U.S. licensees, but also to 
operators of non-U.S. licensed space stations that have been granted 
access to the U.S. market.
    In 2015, the Commission substantially streamlined the milestone and 
bond provisions contained in sections 25.164 and 25.165 of the 
Commission rules. Specifically, the Commission eliminated all of the 
space station construction milestones, except the requirements to bring 
a space station into operation at the assigned location within a 
specified

[[Page 2128]]

period of time. Also, in order to provide better incentives against 
spectrum warehousing, the Commission modified the space station bond 
requirement to increase liability over time.
    The Commission proposes to extend these streamlined milestone and 
bond provisions to DBS services. Currently, the milestone and bond 
provisions of sections 25.164 and 25.165 explicitly do not apply to DBS 
service. Instead, DBS authorizations are subject to analogous, but 
different, due diligence requirements contained in section 25.148(b) of 
the Commission's rules. Because we are proposing to treat requests for 
DBS service in substantially the same manner as the Commission treats 
requests for GSO FSS, the Commission proposes to eliminate the due 
diligence requirements contained in section 25.148(b) and replace them 
with a requirement to comply with the milestone and bond provisions of 
section 25.164 and 25.165. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    License Term. The Commission proposes to extend the license term 
for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities to 15 years 
from the current term of 10 years. Currently, licenses for DBS space 
stations licensed as broadcast facilities are issued for a period of 8 
years, and licenses for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast 
facilities are issued for 10 years. The 8-year term for broadcast 
stations is established by the Communications Act. In 1995, the 
Commission extended the term of non-broadcast DBS licenses from 5 to 10 
years, the maximum term then allowed by the Communications Act, and 
``which better reflect[ed] the useful life of a DBS satellite.'' 
Because all DBS licensees offer subscription services, all existing DBS 
operators are classified as non-broadcast licensees and their license 
terms were extended to 10 years. Subsequently, the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996 granted the Commission authority to establish license terms 
longer than 10 years for non-broadcast stations.
    The Commission believes that issuing non-broadcast DBS space 
station licenses for 15 years would better reflect the useful life of 
new DBS satellites, as our extension of the license term for such DBS 
space stations from 5 to 10 years did in 1995. There are no technical 
or engineering considerations that render the operating life of a DBS 
satellite shorter than the operating life of a non-DBS satellite, such 
as those used to provide GSO FSS, and DBS satellites generally are able 
to provide service beyond their initial 10-year license terms. It would 
also make DBS space station license terms consistent with the terms of 
most other space stations. The Commission requests comment on our 
proposal as well as any alternative license term proposals.
    Optional Two-Step FCC/ITU License Application Process. The 
Commission adopted an optional two-step application process for GSO FSS 
applicants in 2015. Under that two-step application process, an 
applicant for a GSO FSS license using frequencies in ``unplanned'' 
bands must submit a draft Coordination Request filing to the Commission 
using a simplified application form--Form 312 (Main Form)--pay the full 
license application fee and post a $500,000 bond in order to establish 
and perfect a queue position. This first-step application submission 
establishes a place in the space station application processing queue 
as of the time of filing of the simplified Form 312 with the 
Commission. As a second step, the prospective licensee must file a 
complete license application within two years of submission of the 
Coordination Request materials or forfeit the value of the bond and 
lose the queue status gained by the prior Coordination Request filing. 
This two-step application process is completely optional, and, as an 
alternative, applicants may file a full application without first 
submitting a draft Coordination Request or posting the corresponding 
$500,000 bond. The Commission adopted a similar two-step application 
process for GSO FSS operation in ``planned'' frequency bands subject to 
Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations. In contrast, the Commission 
stated that it would treat proponents of satellite operations that are 
subject to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations somewhat 
differently. For these proponents, which include those proposing 
operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz and 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency bands used 
for DBS service, the Commission would still review and forward their 
ITU filings in advance of a license application, but such review and 
forwarding would not afford any licensing status, as applications for 
DBS systems are not eligible for first-come, first-served processing.
    Our proposal to adopt first-come, first-served processing 
procedures for DBS applications changes this situation and ITU filings 
subject to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations will not 
be forwarded to the ITU before a license application is filed with the 
Commission. However, adopting first-come, first-served processing also 
supports extending the optional two-step application process to these 
DBS filings. Thus, the Commission proposes to extend the two-step 
process for GSO FSS operations in unplanned bands to DBS operations in 
planned bands, and, in this respect, will treat ITU filings to modify 
an existing frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan, to include a new 
frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan, or to include a new or 
modified frequency assignment in the List of the Regions 1 and 3 Plan 
in the same manner as a Coordination Request filing for GSO FSS 
operation in non-planned bands.
    Unlike Coordination Requests in non-planned bands, however, the 
Commission proposes to review a proposed filing under Appendices 30 and 
30A prior to forwarding the filing to the ITU to ensure that it is 
compatible with other U.S. filings. This review is necessary to protect 
the rights of existing U.S. filings from being unduly eroded under the 
relevant ITU protection criteria by another U.S. filing. Accordingly, 
the party requesting a planned-band filing must either submit the 
results of an analysis demonstrating that the proposed operation will 
not ``affect'' any other U.S. filing under the relevant ITU criteria 
or, if another filing would be deemed affected, submit a letter signed 
by the affected operator (which may be the same as the operator 
requesting the new filing) that it consents to the new filing. This 
proposed review is consistent with our tentative conclusions above 
regarding the processing of all requests for DBS service. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission likewise 
proposes to require applicants for DBS licenses using the two-step 
procedure to submit the application filing fee and a bond of $500,000 
with their applications and ITU filings. As noted above, in the FSS 
licensing framework, an applicant submission with the Commission under 
the first step of the optional two-step procedure must be accompanied 
by the application fee and a $500,000 bond. The purpose of the 
application-stage bond is to deter speculation during the two-year 
period of queue priority before the applicant must submit a completed 
application. The Commission finds that these considerations also apply 
to DBS licensees. The Commission seek comment on this proposal.
    Non-U.S. Licensed Systems. With the exception of the two-step 
processing procedure discussed above, the Commission proposes that 
procedures and requirements proposed for DBS service license 
applications also apply to requests to access the United States market 
by non-U.S. licensed space stations under our DISCO II framework.

[[Page 2129]]

The Commission notes that the Commission decided in the DISCO II 
proceeding that entities wishing to serve the United States with a non-
U.S. satellite, including DBS satellites, must file the same 
information as applicants for a U.S. space station license, whether or 
not that satellite is already licensed by another administration. 
Consequently, if the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served 
licensing procedure for applicants for a U.S.-licensed DBS space 
station, operators of non-U.S. licensed DBS space station seeking U.S. 
market access and entities filing earth station applications to access 
non-U.S. licensed DBS space stations must file the same information 
required under section 25.114 of the Commission's rules.
    The Commission further notes that the United States took an 
exemption from the World Trade Organization's Basic Telecommunication 
Agreement for ``one-way satellite transmission of DTH and DBS 
television services and digital audio services.'' Thus, in order to 
serve the United States, foreign-licensed DBS systems must be found 
acceptable under the Effective Competitive Opportunities analysis the 
Commission adopted in our DISCO II proceeding in 1997 (ECO-Sat). The 
Commission does not intend to revisit any of these considerations, but 
merely propose that foreign DBS systems requesting market access to 
serve the United States will be considered on the same first-come, 
first-served basis as applications for authority to provide DBS 
services.
    Reduced Spacing for DBS Space Stations. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that the public interest would be served by granting requests 
for new DBS service via space stations at orbital locations less than 
nine degrees apart, but that the public interest would not be served by 
adopting specific rules, different from those contained in Appendices 
30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations, for accommodating requests for 
new DBS systems at reduced-spacing orbital locations. Instead, such 
requests can be processed using the ``first-come, first-served'' 
procedures for DBS service proposed above.
    After review of the comments and pleadings filed in response to the 
2006 Notice, the Commission tentatively concludes that the potential 
benefits of adopting additional rules requiring existing DBS service 
providers to accommodate operations at reduced orbital spacing are 
outweighed by the potential harms to existing subscribers to DBS 
service. As an initial matter, it is not clear that access to 
additional DBS orbital locations is needed to introduce new video 
programming services since DBS subscribership is dropping in the United 
States as the marketplace for the distribution of video programming 
over the internet continues to grow and other opportunities exist to 
provide new video programming services in the United States in several 
frequency bands already allocated for satellite services. These include 
the 17/24 GHz BSS ``reverse'' band, which is specifically allocated for 
the provision of video programming, as well as frequency bands 
allocated for Ka-band GSO FSS. Furthermore, the proposals made by 
proponents for additional rules may require changes to the equipment 
currently used to provide DBS services to subscribers--such as 
requiring larger customer receive antennas and changes to space station 
designs--or would require existing DBS providers and their subscribers 
to accept more interference and service unavailability than is the case 
today.
    However, the record does show that it is possible to accommodate 
the provision of new DBS services at reduced orbital spacings under 
existing rules. Specifically, our rules already allow us to consider 
requests for new DBS service at reduced orbital spacings if entities 
making such a request can coordinate their proposed operations with 
other U.S. DBS operators and secure agreements with other operators 
already having assignments in the ITU Region 2 Plans (or with prior 
requests for Plan modifications). The Commission proposes to address 
such requests under these existing rules rather than adopt new rules.
    This approach protects current DBS consumers from interference and 
degradation of their video reception, while at the same time allowing 
potential new DBS operators to demonstrate--through careful system 
design, advancing technology, and coordination with existing DBS 
systems--that new DBS systems can operate at orbital spacings of less 
than nine degrees without causing harmful interference to existing 
systems and their customers. It will also ensure that operations at 
reduced orbital separations will lead to the same levels of 
interference observed between two DBS systems operating nine degrees 
apart, with co-frequency, co-coverage operation, and nominal Appendix 
30 power density levels. The Commission recognizes that this proposal 
will require mitigation measures by future operators at reduced orbital 
spacings, such as reduced power density levels or non-fully overlapping 
coverages. The Commission tentatively concludes that such measures are 
more easily and appropriately implemented by future entrants than 
retroactively imposed on existing DBS operators and their subscribers.
    The Commission notes that the ITU Appendix 30 and 30A ITU rules do 
not govern the relationship between two DBS systems operating under 
U.S. ITU filings. The Commission proposes that the same ITU criteria be 
used to determine compatibility between a new DBS application with 
respect to a DBS system already in the processing queue or previously 
authorized, even when both systems are or will be operating under U.S. 
ITU filings. If any of the frequency assignments of the system already 
in the queue or previously authorized is affected, according to the ITU 
criteria, the new DBS application can still be considered compatible 
with this system by submission of a letter signed by the affected 
operator indicating that it consents to the new application.
    The Commission seeks comment on this approach. In particular, the 
Commission seeks any updates to the record regarding specific benefits 
or harms arising from adopting rules to require existing DBS service 
providers to accommodate requests to provide DBS service at reduced 
orbital spacings and may consider adopting such rules if the record 
demonstrates that doing so would serve the public interest.
    DBS Licensing ``Freeze''. The Commission imposed a ``freeze'' on 
requests for new DBS systems in 2005. The proposals the Commission 
makes in this Second Notice will, if adopted, resolve the issues that 
caused the Commission to impose that freeze. The Commission therefore 
proposes to lift the freeze and begin accepting new applications for 
DBS licenses after the effective date of rules adopted as a result of 
this Second Notice. The Commission also proposes that new applications 
or requests for U.S. market access be accepted only after a date 
specified in a public notice, which the International Bureau would 
release after the rules have become effective. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals.
    Other Matters. The 2006 Notice also sought comment on other issues 
related to the regulation of DBS service that the Commission do not 
repeat in this Second Notice. These other issues relate to protection 
requirements among terrestrial Multichannel Video Distribution and Data 
Service (MVDDS) licensees and DBS operations at reduced spacings, 
protection of DBS operations at reduced spacings from interference from 
NGSO FSS operations, protection

[[Page 2130]]

of mobile DBS receivers smaller than 45 cm in diameter, and whether to 
establish a spectrum cap on existing DBS licensees. The Commission 
seeks additional comment on these issues in light of developments since 
the 2006 Notice and our tentative conclusions in this Second Notice.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies 
and rules proposed in this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 
We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must 
identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the 
comments by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided above in 
section IV.B. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. In addition, summaries of the NPRM and IRFA will be 
published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The NPRM seeks comment on several proposals relating to the 
Commission's rules and policies for licensing space stations in the 
Digital Broadcasting Satellite (DBS) Service. Adoption of the proposed 
changes would, among other things, provide a licensing system under 
which new licenses for DBS satellites in reduced spacing orbital slots 
would be processed according to the Commission's rules for 
geostationary orbit space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 303, and 316 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 
316.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules May Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected by adoption of proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). Below, we describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees that may be affected by adoption of the proposed 
rules.
    Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. The 
rules proposed in this NPRM would affect some providers of satellite 
telecommunications services, if adopted. Satellite telecommunications 
service providers include satellite and earth station operators. Since 
2007, the SBA has recognized two census categories for satellite 
telecommunications firms: ``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``Other 
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, a business is considered 
small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
    The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point 
telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite 
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
    The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of 
entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million. We anticipate that some of these 
``Other Telecommunications firms,'' which are small entities, are earth 
station applicants/licensees that might be affected if our proposed 
rule changes are adopted.
    We anticipate that our proposed rule changes may have an impact on 
earth station and space station applicants and licensees. Space station 
applicants and licensees, however, rarely qualify under the definition 
of a small entity. Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions 
of dollars to construct, launch, and operate. Consequently, we do not 
anticipate that any space station operators are small entities that 
would be affected by our proposed actions.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on several rule changes that 
would affect compliance requirements for earth station and space 
station operators. Most proposed changes, however, are directed at 
space station applicants and licensees. As noted above, these parties 
rarely qualify as small entities.
    For example, the Commission proposes to allow additional uses of 
certain frequencies within the 17.2-17.7 GHz band, subject to 
compliance with technical limits designed to protect other users of the 
bands. We also seek comment on revised or new technical standards to 
promote sharing among DBS systems in reduced orbital spacings.
    We also propose modified rules for satellite system implementation 
to provide additional flexibility to operators. In total, the proposals 
and questions in the NPRM are designed to achieve the Commission's 
mandate to regulate in the public interest while imposing the lowest 
necessary burden on all affected parties, including small entities.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption

[[Page 2131]]

from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The Commission 
is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact 
small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the 
Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the 
proposals outlined in the NPRM.
    The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in 
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
    In this NPRM, the Commission invites comment on means to minimize 
negative economic impacts on applicants and licensees, including small 
entities, by permitting DBS space stations in orbital locations between 
the currently authorized orbital locations. Overall, the proposals in 
the NPRM seek to increase flexibility for DBS applicants and licensees 
and reduce burdens, while maintaining adequate protections against 
interference.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Earth stations, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

    The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 
25, as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.110 by revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text 
and paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.110   Filing of applications, fees, and number of copies.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A license application for 17/24 GHz BSS space station 
operation, for GSO FSS space station operation, or for GSO space 
station operation subject to the provisions in Appendices 30 and 30A of 
the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  25.108) 
may be submitted in two steps, as follows:
* * * * *
    (iii) An application for GSO space station operation subject to the 
provisions in Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  25.108) may be initiated by 
submitting to the Commission, in accordance with the applicable 
provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter, a draft ITU filing to: 
Modify an existing frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan; to 
include a new frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan; or to include 
a new or modified frequency assignment in the List of the Regions 1 and 
3 Plan, accompanied by a simplified Form 312 and a declaration of 
acceptance of ITU cost-recovery responsibility in accordance with Sec.  
25.111(d). The simplified Form 312, Main Form submission must include 
the information required by items 1-17, 43, 45, and 46. In addition, 
the applicant must submit the results of an analysis demonstrating that 
no U.S. filing under Appendix 30 and 30A would be deemed affected by 
the proposed operation under the relevant ITU criteria or, for any 
affected filings, a letter signed by the affected operator that it 
consents to the new filing.
    (iv) An application initiated pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3)(i), 
(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section will be considered completed 
by the filing of an FCC Form 312 and the remaining information required 
in a complete license application, including the information required 
by Sec.  25.114, within two years of the date of submission of the 
initial application materials.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  25.114 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.114   Applications for space station authorizations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For an application filed pursuant to the two-step procedure in 
Sec.  25.110(b)(3), the filing pursuant to Sec.  25.110(b)(3)(iv) must 
be submitted on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, with attached 
exhibits as required by paragraph (d) of this section, and must 
constitute a comprehensive proposal.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  25.121 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.121   License term and renewals.

    (a) * * * (1) Except for licenses for SDARS space stations and 
terrestrial repeaters and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as 
broadcast facilities, licenses for facilities governed by this part 
will be issued for a period of 15 years.
* * * * *


Sec.  25.140  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.140 by revising the section header and adding new 
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.140  Further requirements for license applications for GSO 
space station operation in the FSS and the 17/24 GHz BSS.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (vi) In addition to the information required by Sec.  25.114, an 
applicant for a GSO space station operating in the frequencies of the 
ITU Appendices 30 and 30A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  25.108) 
must provide a statement that the proposed operation will take into 
account the applicable requirements of these Appendices of the ITU 
Radio Regulations and a demonstration that it is compatible with other 
U.S. ITU filings under Appendices 30 and 30A or, for any affected 
filings, a letter signed by the affected operator indicating that it 
consents to the new application.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  25.148 by removing and reserving paragraphs (b), (d) and 
(e).
0
7. Amend Sec.  25.164 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.164   Milestones.

    (a) The recipient of an initial license for a GSO space station, 
other than a SDARS space station, granted on or after August 27, 2003, 
must launch the space station, position it in its assigned orbital 
location, and operate it in accordance with the station authorization 
no later than five years after the grant of the license, unless a 
different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter I, or the 
Commission.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  25.165 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  25.165  Surety bonds.

    (a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004, 
other than licenses for SDARS space stations and replacement space 
stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, the licensee must 
post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its license. Failure to post 
a bond will render the license null and void automatically.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-01314 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P