[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3481-3487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01204]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 21-456; RM-11855; FCC 21-123; FR ID 66659]


Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-
Satellite Service Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) 
proposes to revise its rules governing spectrum sharing among non-
geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) 
systems. The FCC proposes that its existing spectrum sharing mechanism 
for NGSO FSS systems will be limited to those systems approved in the 
same processing round. The FCC also proposes to adopt a rule providing 
that later-round NGSO FSS systems will have to protect earlier-round 
systems, and invites comment on how to define such protection. In 
addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether to sunset, after a period of 
time, the interference protection afforded to an NGSO FSS system 
because of its processing round status.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 25, 2022; reply comments are 
due on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 21-456, 
by any of the following methods:

[[Page 3482]]

     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 one copy of each filing.
    Filings may be sent 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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 21-123, adopted December 14, 2021, and 
released December 15, 2021. The full text is available online at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-123A1.pdf. The document 
is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, 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).

Ex Parte Presentations

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method 
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not contain proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission builds 
upon its efforts to update rules governing a new generation of non-
geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) 
systems. In an accompanying Order, we grant in part a petition for 
rulemaking filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX). In the 
NPRM, we seek comment on further revisions to the spectrum sharing 
requirements among NGSO FSS systems. We propose that the Commission's 
existing spectrum sharing mechanism for NGSO FSS systems will be 
limited to those systems approved in the same processing round. We also 
propose to adopt a rule providing that later-round NGSO FSS systems 
will have to protect earlier-round systems, and invite comment on how 
to define such protection. In addition, we seek comment on whether to 
sunset, after a period of time, the interference protection afforded to 
an NGSO FSS system because of its processing round status. This 
rulemaking will continue to facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS 
systems capable of providing broadband and other services on a global 
basis, and will promote competition among NGSO FSS system proponents, 
including the market entry of new competitors.

II. Background

    In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented 
number of applications for NGSO space station licenses, including for 
NGSO FSS systems.
    Applications for NGSO FSS system licenses are considered in groups 
based on filing date, under a processing round procedure. The 
Commission reviews each application in the processing round and all the 
pleadings filed in response to each application. Based upon this review 
and consideration of such other matters as it may officially notice, 
the Commission will grant all the applications for which the Commission 
finds that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise 
qualified, that the proposed facilities and operations comply with all 
applicable rules, regulations, and policies, and that grant of the 
application will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.

[[Page 3483]]

    The Commission has adopted rules for spectrum sharing among NGSO 
FSS systems. NGSO FSS operators must coordinate with one another in 
good faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies. Absent a 
coordination agreement between two or more NGSO FSS satellite systems, 
a default spectrum-splitting procedure applies. Under the default 
spectrum-splitting procedure, whenever the increase in system noise 
temperature of an earth station receiver, or a space station receiver 
for a satellite with on-board processing, of either system, [Delta]T/T, 
exceeds 6 percent due to interference from emissions originating in the 
other system in a commonly authorized frequency band, such frequency 
band will be divided among the affected satellite networks in 
accordance with the following: (1) Each of n (number of) satellite 
networks involved must select 1/n of the assigned spectrum available in 
each of these frequency bands; (2) the affected station(s) of the 
respective satellite systems may operate in only the selected (1/n) 
spectrum associated with its satellite system while the [Delta]T/T of 6 
percent threshold is exceeded; and (3) all affected station(s) may 
resume operations throughout the assigned frequency bands once the 
threshold is no longer exceeded.
    In the NGSO FSS Report and Order, the Commission stated that it 
will ``initially limit'' sharing under the [Delta]T/T of 6 percent 
threshold to qualified applicants in a processing round. The Commission 
explained that treatment of later applicants must necessarily be case-
by-case based on the situation at the time, and considering both the 
need to protect existing expectations and investments and provide for 
additional entry as well as any comments filed by incumbent operators 
and reasoning presented by the new applicant.
    On April 30, 2020, SpaceX filed a petition for rulemaking to revise 
and clarify the Commission's spectrum sharing rules for NGSO FSS 
systems. SpaceX proposes that the Commission codify protection rights 
for NGSO FSS systems from those systems authorized through a later 
processing round.

III. Discussion

    After review of the SpaceX Petition and the comments and opposition 
filed, we conclude that the record on the Petition discloses sufficient 
reasons to justify the institution of a rulemaking proceeding seeking 
further comment on such a proposal. Indeed, the Petition raises 
fundamental issues affecting the spectrum access rights of NGSO FSS 
systems. When the Commission recently considered and revised several 
important elements of NGSO FSS licensing, it left to ``case-by-case'' 
evaluations how NGSO FSS applications filed after a processing round 
would be treated. Since then, the Commission has initiated second NGSO 
FSS processing rounds in frequency bands subject to a prior processing 
round and gained further experience implementing a case-by-case 
approach to NGSO FSS applications filed after a relevant processing 
round. The time is ripe to consider updating the Commission's rules 
concerning these issues.
    We therefore initiate a notice of proposed rulemaking to consider 
revisions to the treatment of NGSO FSS systems authorized through 
different processing rounds. We also seek comment on the application of 
any rule changes in this proceeding to existing licensees, grantees, 
applicants, and market access petitioners. Further consideration of 
these issues is appropriate because of the strong interest shown not 
only in multiple NGSO FSS applications, but also in the comments on the 
Petition. Given the Commission's 2017 rulemaking on NGSO FSS issues and 
the ideas already submitted in response to the petition for rulemaking, 
we believe that proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking at this 
stage will allow for fulsome comment of the issues without forcing the 
delay associated with an initial notice of inquiry.
    In its Petition, SpaceX requests that the Commission revise or 
clarify the spectrum sharing obligations that apply among co-frequency 
NGSO FSS systems authorized through different processing rounds. SpaceX 
proposes that the default spectrum-splitting procedure be expressly 
limited to those NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same processing 
round. Among systems authorized through different processing rounds, 
SpaceX proposes that later-round NGSO FSS systems protect earlier-round 
systems up to a specified interference-to-noise (I/N) level to be 
developed and adopted by the Commission, but that this protection 
should sunset after a period of time. SpaceX also argues that sharing 
of beam-pointing information should be explicitly required among NGSO 
FSS operators to facilitate interference analyses. We address and 
invite comment on these proposals, and also seek comment on alternative 
proposals raised in the comments, below.

A. Limiting the Default Spectrum-Splitting Procedure to Systems 
Authorized Through the Same Processing Round

    While the Commission stated in the NGSO FSS Report and Order that 
it will ``initially limit'' the spectrum-splitting procedure to 
qualified NGSO FSS applicants in a processing round, there is no such 
limitation in the relevant rule text. SpaceX contends that NGSO FSS 
operators have planned, invested, and begun deploying based on their 
assessment of the specific characteristics of other participants in 
their processing round, and that these characteristics allow licensees 
to estimate the amount of spectrum likely to be available during a 
situation governed by the spectrum-splitting procedure. To provide 
greater certainty to NGSO FSS operators as to their future sharing 
environment, SpaceX proposes that the Commission adopt a rule providing 
that the existing spectrum-splitting procedure applies only to NGSO FSS 
systems authorized within the same processing round.
    This proposal is consistent with Commission licensing decisions. In 
each recent NGSO FSS system license and grant of market access, the 
requirement to apply the default spectrum-splitting procedure has been 
limited to among NGSO FSS systems filed within the same processing 
round. We believe that adopting a rule limiting the existing spectrum-
splitting procedure to only NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same 
processing round will provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty 
to NGSO FSS system licensees and market access recipients, and 
therefore propose to adopt it. We invite comment on this proposal. This 
approach, if adopted, would eliminate the ``case-by-case'' 
consideration of how to treat later applicants relative to approved 
systems, which the Commission previously explained would take into 
account various factors, including the potential for additional entry. 
We seek comment on how limiting the existing spectrum-splitting 
procedure to NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same processing 
round will impact later applicants, including the potential for 
additional entry.

B. Protection of Earlier-Round Systems From Later-Round Systems

    For an NGSO FSS licensee to invest potentially billions of dollars 
in a new system, SpaceX argues it must have some certainty that its 
spectrum rights will be maintained as later-filed NGSO FSS applications 
are considered. SpaceX therefore proposes that NGSO

[[Page 3484]]

FSS systems filed in a later processing round be required to protect 
NGSO FSS systems authorized through an earlier processing round.
    We believe that adopting this principle in our rules would clarify 
the rights and obligations of NGSO FSS system grantees. The protection 
of an NGSO FSS system from systems authorized through a subsequent 
processing round goes to the heart of the stability of interference 
environment the Commission intended to create through use of the 
processing round procedure. Indeed, the Commission's licensing of a 
later-round NGSO FSS system has confirmed that it must protect earlier-
round systems from harmful interference.
    We therefore propose to adopt a rule that NGSO FSS licensees and 
market access recipients are entitled to protection from NGSO FSS 
systems authorized through later processing rounds. Specifically, we 
propose to adopt a rule providing that, prior to commencing operations, 
an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either certify 
that it has completed a coordination agreement with any operational 
NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in an earlier 
processing round, or demonstrate that it will not cause harmful 
interference to any such system with which coordination has not been 
completed. We also discuss below alternative, specific protection 
criteria that could be developed for this proposed rule. 
Notwithstanding a requirement to protect earlier-round NGSO FSS 
systems, we expect that coordination among NGSO FSS operators, 
including those authorized through different processing rounds, offers 
the best opportunity for efficient spectrum sharing. Accordingly, we 
also propose to adopt a rule providing that the good-faith coordination 
requirement applies among all NGSO FSS grantees, including those 
authorized through different processing rounds. We invite comment on 
these proposals, including on the burdens associated with any technical 
demonstrations of compatibility. In particular, we invite comment on 
how best to establish the protection of authorized NGSO FSS systems 
under deployment while encouraging competition and new entrants into 
the market.

C. Level of Protection for Earlier-Round Systems

    To quantify the level to which a later-round NGSO FSS system would 
have to protect an earlier-round system, SpaceX recommends the 
Commission develop and adopt an appropriate interference-to-noise (I/N) 
limit. While not proposing a specific I/N value, SpaceX suggests that 
such a limit incorporate a standard reference antenna mask and standard 
noise temperature. Applicants in a later processing round would be 
required to demonstrate that their proposed systems could comply with 
the I/N limit based on a probabilistic analysis. In addition, such an 
I/N limit could specify a percentage of time during which the limit may 
be exceeded.
    Beyond the initial difficulty of developing such an I/N limit for 
protection of NGSO FSS systems, commenters raise potential shortcomings 
of an I/N approach. Because the I/N limit would reflect generic NGSO 
system parameters and not the parameters of the NGSO system to be 
protected, it could provide insufficient protection to an NGSO system 
with especially sensitive antennas. Adoption of an I/N limit could also 
discourage coordination if either the earlier-round licensee or later-
round licensee preferred to operate within the I/N limit rather than a 
negotiated alternative. Requiring applicants to perform interference 
analyses for the potentially thousands of satellites authorized through 
previous processing rounds, many of which may never be launched, could 
also place undue burdens on new entrants, especially those with limited 
resources.
    Commenters propose alternatives to an I/N limit that would provide 
for the protection of earlier-round NGSO FSS systems from later-round 
systems. ViaSat suggests the use of network performance degradation as 
an interference criterium. AST recommends the Commission consider an 
approach that is harmonized with Recommendation ITU-R S.1323-2 or RR 
No. 22.5L of the ITU Radio Regulations, which use for a protection 
criterion the increase of the percentage of the time allowance for the 
carrier-to-noise (C/N) value associated with the shortest percentage of 
time specified in the short-term performance objective of the system to 
be protected. O3b proposes that NGSO FSS systems authorized through 
different processing rounds make use of the existing spectrum-splitting 
mechanism, but that the earlier-round system be entitled to use 75% of 
the available spectrum and the later-round system be entitled to use 
25% of the available spectrum, instead of the equal split applicable to 
NGSO FSS systems authorized through the same processing round.
    We believe that quantifying a level of protection for earlier-round 
systems would clarify the rights and obligations of NGSO FSS licensees 
in different processing rounds. We invite specific comment on what an 
appropriate I/N limit would be to protect NGSO FSS systems, what an 
appropriate percentage of time would be during which the I/N limit may 
be exceeded, and what the standard reference antenna mask and noise 
temperature should be in developing an appropriate I/N value or other 
criteria. In addition, we invite comment on the alternative proposals 
above and on any other appropriate means to ensure protection of 
earlier-round NGSO FSS systems from later-round systems, while allowing 
meaningful new entry and encouraging operator-to-operator coordination 
as the first resort.
    In particular, we invite comment on whether to adopt criteria based 
upon the percentage of degraded throughput experienced by the NGSO FSS 
system. Considering the degraded throughput may be appropriate because 
most, if not all, modern NGSO systems will use adaptive coding and 
modulation (ACM) to allow maintaining a satellite connection in spite 
of signal degradation, but at lower throughput rates. Such criteria 
could be developed consistent with Recommendation ITU-R S.2131-0, 
``Method for the determination of performance objectives for satellite 
hypothetical reference digital paths using adaptive coding and 
modulation.'' That recommendation suggests that satellite systems using 
ACM should be designed to meet performance objectives stated as either 
the packet error ratio or the spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz) as a 
function of C/N. While this Recommendation does not provide specific 
values for the percentage of degraded throughput that should not be 
exceeded, we invite comment on establishing a limit under such a 
criteria. We also seek comment on specific values and on the 
suitability of this approach in general, including on the burdens of 
computing any limit that may be adopted under the alternatives set 
forth above. Should a degraded throughput analysis consider 
unavailability as well?

D. Sharing Beam-Pointing Information

    The Commission's rules require NGSO FSS operators to coordinate in 
good faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies. Beyond this 
general requirement, SpaceX proposes that earlier-round NGSO FSS system 
operators be specifically required to share data on their beam 
locations with later-round NGSO FSS system operators to facilitate 
analysis of and compliance with its proposed I/N metric. SpaceX argues 
that confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements could ensure that

[[Page 3485]]

data is not used by competitors for any purpose other than avoiding 
interference, such as marketing. Several commenters raise concerns that 
a requirement to share beam data may be inefficient, impractical, or 
overly competitively sensitive in certain cases. One commenter also 
suggests the Commission adopt broader information sharing requirements 
for operator-to-operator coordination.
    We believe that information sharing among NGSO FSS operators is 
essential to their efficient use of spectrum. Beyond our existing, 
flexible, good-faith coordination requirement, we invite comment on 
whether to specify sharing of certain types of information, such as 
beam-pointing information, that may be necessary for the implementation 
of any spectrum-sharing solution or protection criteria between NGSO 
FSS systems. Such information sharing requirements could involve NGSO 
FSS systems authorized through the same processing round or different 
processing rounds. We also seek comment on any practical concerns 
associated with such information sharing, and how best to address any 
associated, potential, competitive harms. For example, should the 
Commission adopt rules or mechanisms, for example, a protective order, 
to facilitate the sharing of the information? More broadly, should we 
add a definition of ``good faith'' coordination in our rules? If so, 
what elements should it include? For example, should NGSO FSS operators 
specifically be required to share all necessary technical information 
to perform an interference analysis, and do so in a timely fashion upon 
request, to meet the ``good faith'' coordination standard? We also seek 
comment on how the Commission might encourage NGSO FSS operators to 
build and deploy systems capable of sharing beam-pointing data and 
enabling other methods of spectrum sharing through coordination. How 
could the Commission encourage the development and deployment of 
systems that are more spectrally efficient? How might the Commission 
modify its NGSO sharing rules to incentivize flexible and efficient 
deployment?

E. Sunsetting of Protection

    SpaceX proposes that the protection of earlier-round systems from 
later-round systems sunset after a period of time. SpaceX argues that a 
sunsetting provision would encourage earlier-round licensees to 
coordinate with later-round licensees, and avoid entrenching incumbents 
and stymieing future innovation. One commenter similarly argues that 
processing rounds may be ``condensed'' and protections sunset over 
time. Sunsetting could occur, for example, six years after licensing to 
coincide with the first NGSO system deployment milestone, ten years 
after licensing, or fifteen years after licensing. Other commenters 
argue that any sunsetting provision would be arbitrary, premature, or 
unnecessary given the Commission's existing good-faith coordination 
requirement.
    We invite comment on sunsetting of protections applied to NGSO FSS 
systems, including the timing of such sunsetting. In particular, we 
seek comment on whether sunsetting protection for NGSO FSS systems 
under deployment would unduly disrupt their operations. Should we 
consider sunsetting protections for an NGSO FSS system before the 
expiration of its 15-year license term? Would a shorter sunset period 
better promote competition? If so, when should the trigger/start date 
for sunsetting begin? At the date of the license grant, the beginning 
of the license period, or some other time? Should we expect that 
advances in technology for second-generation NGSO FSS systems will make 
sharing with new entrants easier? Or, conversely, would allowing new 
entrants to take advantage of technological enhancements in incumbent 
systems dull the incentives for incumbents to invest in such upgrades? 
What protection should apply to an NGSO FSS system after any 
sunsetting? How would sunsetting of protections affect the willingness 
to invest in NGSO FSS system development, and the likelihood of robust 
services being deployed to the public by such systems? Would a 
sunsetting provision promote competition, including the market entry of 
new competitors? Are there other ways to fashion a sunsetting provision 
that would maintain the reasonable expectations of earlier licensees 
and at the same time further the goal of promoting competition?

F. Application of Rule Changes

    NGSO FSS systems and system proposals currently have a variety of 
Commission approval statuses, including pending applications for new 
systems and authorizations for systems that were filed for in a 
previous processing round. Because of the large investments already 
made and planned for these novel and ambitious systems, we seek comment 
on whether to apply all, or some, of the rule changes adopted in this 
proceeding, including changes to the good-faith coordination 
requirement, only to new license applications, license modification 
applications, application amendments, and market access petitions filed 
after the new rules go into effect. Maintaining the expectations of 
current licensees, market access recipients, applicants, and market 
access petitioners may serve the public interest by providing 
regulatory stability upon which these systems may continue to develop. 
However, we invite comment on whether applying rule changes to existing 
grantees or pending applicants would advance competition and encourage 
new entry into the market. If we did apply new rules to existing grants 
or pending applications, should we allow the grantees and applicants a 
period of time to request modification of their authorizations or to 
amend their applications before the new rule changes take effect? To 
the extent that we apply the revised rules to existing grants or 
pending applications, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of 
applying the rule changes to existing grantees or pending applicants 
that are part of already-closed processing rounds. How would this 
affect expectations of existing grantees or applicants who have filed 
by specific deadlines to gain entry into a particular processing round? 
If we decide not to apply new rules to existing grantees, what impact, 
if any, would that have on existing grant conditions already 
incorporated into NGSO FSS system authorizations, including those 
grants conditioned on compliance with rules or policies adopted by the 
Commission in the future?

G. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as 
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

IV. 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 a substantial number of small 
entities by

[[Page 3486]]

the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. We request written public 
comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as 
responses to the IRFA and must file the comments on or before the dates 
indicated in the DATES section above and in accordance with the comment 
filing requirements. 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, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented 
number of applications for NGSO space station licenses, including for 
NGSO FSS systems. Traveling closer to the Earth than a traditional GSO 
satellite, low- and medium-orbit NGSO FSS satellite constellations are 
capable of providing broadband services to industry, enterprise, and 
residential customers with lower latency and wider coverage than was 
previously available via satellite. This rulemaking will continue to 
facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS systems capable of providing 
broadband and other services on a global basis, and will promote 
competition among NGSO FSS system proponents, including the market 
entry of new competitors.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on proposed 
revisions to the Commission's rules governing the treatment of NGSO FSS 
systems filed in different processing rounds. In particular, the NPRM 
proposes that the Commission's existing spectrum sharing mechanism for 
NGSO FSS systems will be limited to those systems approved in the same 
processing round. The NPRM also proposes to adopt a rule providing that 
later-round NGSO FSS systems will have to protect earlier-round 
systems, and invites comment on how to define such protection. In 
addition, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to sunset, after a period 
of time, the interference protection afforded to an NGSO FSS system 
because of its processing round status.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, 
308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 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 the proposed rules, if adopted. 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).
    Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing 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.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of 
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a 
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers 
are small entities.

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

    The NPRM invites comment on potential changes to the spectrum 
sharing requirements among NGSO FSS satellite systems. Because of the 
costs involved in developing and deploying an NGSO FSS satellite 
constellation, we anticipate that few NGSO FSS operators affected by 
this rulemaking would qualify under the definition of ``small entity.''

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 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    The NPRM invites comment on different means to protect NGSO FSS 
systems licensed through the Commission's processing round framework, 
including, as one option, whether those NGSO FSS systems authorized 
through a later processing round should be required to submit technical 
demonstrations that they will not interfere with NGSO FSS systems 
authorized through an earlier processing round. The NPRM invites 
specific comment on the burdens associated with such submissions, and 
also seeks comment on alternative means of protection of NGSO FSS 
systems.

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

    None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.407, that the 
petition for rulemaking filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, 
Revision of Section 25.261 of the Commission's Rules to Increase 
Certainty in Spectrum Sharing Obligations Among Non-Geostationary Orbit 
Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, RM-11855, is granted in part and 
deferred in part, the opposition filed by WorldVu Satellites Limited is 
denied in part and deferred in part, and the opposition filed by Theia 
Holdings A, Inc. is deferred.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 
308(b), 316, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a 
copy of this Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with 
Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

[[Page 3487]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 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.  25.261 by revising paragraph (b), revising the first 
sentence in paragraph (c)(1), and adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.261   Sharing among NGSO FSS space stations.

* * * * *
    (b) Coordination. NGSO FSS licensees and market access recipients 
must coordinate in good faith the use of commonly authorized 
frequencies regardless of their processing round status, unless 
otherwise provided by the Commission.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Each of n (number of) satellite networks involved that were 
licensed or granted market access through the same processing round 
must select 1/n of the assigned spectrum available in each of these 
frequency bands. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Protection of earlier-round systems. Prior to commencing 
operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either 
certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any 
operational NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in 
an earlier processing round, or demonstrate that it will not cause 
harmful interference to any such system with which coordination has not 
been completed.

[FR Doc. 2022-01204 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P