[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2590-2595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00780]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket Nos. 22-411, 22-271; FCC 22-95; FR ID 121634]


Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station 
Applications; Space Innovation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on changes to our rules, policies, or 
practices to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and 
earth station applications. We propose to revise a procedural rule to 
formally allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions 
that request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in 
a frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek 
comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications. 
This document will help Commission processing stay apace with the 
unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new 
space age.

DATES: Comments are due March 3, 2023. Reply comments are due April 3, 
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 22-411 
and 22-271, by any of the following methods:
     FCC Website: https://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: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's notice 
of proposed rulemaking, FCC 22-95, adopted December 21, 2022, and 
released December 22, 2022. The full text is available online at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-95A1.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).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by

[[Page 2591]]

accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an 
original and one copy of each filing.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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).

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

    1. The notice of proposed rulemaking, seeks comment on changes to 
the Commission's rules, policies, or practices to facilitate the 
acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station applications under 
47 CFR part 25. We propose to revise a procedural rule to formally 
allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions that 
request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in a 
frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek 
comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications. 
This Notice will help Commission processing stay apace with the 
unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new 
space age.

II. Background

    2. The Commission's rules establish filing criteria for satellite 
and earth station applications submitted under 47 CFR part 25. An 
application that does not meet these criteria will be deemed 
unacceptable for filing and will be dismissed and returned to the 
applicant, with a brief statement identifying the omissions or 
discrepancies, unless the application requests a waiver of any 
conflicting rule or requirement or the Commission grants such a waiver 
on its own motion. A satellite application or petition that has been 
found defective and must be re-submitted will receive a later filing 
date under the Commission's first-come, first-served licensing process 
for geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO)-like satellite applications, or 
in some instances may result in an applicant missing the cut-off date 
of a processing round for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)-like 
satellite applications, both consequences that may negatively affect 
the ultimate spectrum sharing conditions of the satellite system. In 
general, a delay in acceptability for filing may result in a delay in 
action on the application. The Commission also adopted procedural 
safeguards against applications that are considered more likely to be 
speculative or intended to warehouse spectrum resources, including the 
prohibition on multiple NGSO-like applications or unbuilt NGSO system 
licenses in the same frequency band. Commission staff conducts an 
initial review of applications for acceptability for filing and 
compliance with procedural and substantive rules before they are placed 
on public notice for comment. Typical issues that prolong staff review 
and delay acceptance for filing include internal inconsistencies in the 
application, omission of information required by the rules, omission of 
waiver requests, missed filing deadlines, and novel issues being 
raised.

A. Acceptability for Filing

    3. Under the rules, an application filed under 47 CFR part 25 is 
considered unacceptable for filing if:
    (1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of 
answers to questions, informational showings, internal inconsistencies, 
execution, or other matters of a formal character;
    (2) The application does not substantially comply with the 
Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional 
information, or other requirements;
    (3) The application requests authority to operate a satellite in a 
frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such 
operations under the Radio Regulations of the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU), unless the application is a streamlined 
small space station application filed pursuant

[[Page 2592]]

to 47 CFR 25.122 or a streamlined small spacecraft application filed 
pursuant to 47 CFR 25.123; or
    (4) The application is identical to a pending satellite application 
that was timely filed pursuant to the processing round procedure in 47 
CFR 25.157 or the first-come, first-served processing procedure in 47 
CFR 25.158.
    4. Applications found defective under criteria (1) or (2) may be 
accepted for filing if the application requests a waiver, with 
supporting rationale, of any rule or requirement with which the 
application is in conflict or if the Commission grants such a waiver 
upon its own motion. Satellite applications found defective under 
criteria (3) or (4), under current rules, will not be considered.
    5. Under our part 25 rules, the standard for determining whether an 
application is acceptable for filing is not ``letter perfection.'' The 
Commission may place on public notice applications with minor 
inaccuracies that are not material to the Commission's or the public's 
review. However, the rules require all applications under 47 CFR part 
25 to be substantially complete when they are filed. As a practical 
matter, in some recent instances, staff has found it efficient to aid 
applicants to address discrepancies or omissions in their pending 
applications before placing them on public notice, resulting in fewer 
applications being dismissed prior to being accepted for filing.

B. Acceptability for Filing of Satellite Applications Not in 
Conformance With International Frequency Allocations

    6. As noted above, unlike most application defects, an application 
requesting authority to operate a satellite in a frequency band that is 
not allocated internationally for such operation under the ITU Radio 
Regulations is deemed unacceptable for filing regardless of whether a 
waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is requested. When the 
Commission adopted this rule in 2003, it explained that it would 
dismiss satellite applications without prejudice as ``premature'' if 
the application is filed before the ITU adopts a necessary frequency 
allocation because it can take several years for the ITU to adopt a new 
allocation. Furthermore, the Commission reasoned that when an applicant 
files its application ``years before it will be possible to provide 
service,'' it is likely that the application may be a ``place holder.''
    7. Drawing on more recent experience, the Commission has observed 
that, in the context of small satellites, there may be benefits 
associated with operations not consistent with the current 
International Table of Frequency Allocations in certain circumstances. 
Accordingly, in 2019 the Commission modified the acceptability for 
filing rule to provide an exception, so that streamlined small 
satellite applications requesting to operate in bands not allocated 
internationally, and which include an appropriate waiver request, can 
be considered on their merits without being deemed unacceptable for 
filing.
    8. If a waiver is granted for satellite operations not in 
conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations, 
international provisions also apply. Specifically, Article 4.4 of the 
ITU Radio Regulations states that an administration shall not assign 
any frequency in derogation of the International Table of Frequency 
Allocations except on the express condition that the station shall not 
cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from 
harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with 
the provisions of the ITU Constitution, Convention and Radio 
Regulations. In addition, ITU Rule of Procedure 1.6 provides that an 
administration, prior to bringing into use any frequency assignment to 
a transmitting station operating under No. 4.4, shall determine: (a) 
that the intended use of the frequency assignment to the station under 
No. 4.4 will not cause harmful interference into the stations of other 
administrations operating in conformity with the Radio Regulations; and 
(b) what measures it would need to take in order to comply with the 
requirement to immediately eliminate harmful interference.

C. Limit on Unbuilt NGSO Systems

    9. Another provision that may forestall or delay processing of NGSO 
applications is the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems. This rule prevents a 
party from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite system 
license in a particular frequency band if that party already has an 
application for an NGSO-like satellite system license on file or a 
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. The rule 
was adopted, in addition to bond and milestone requirements, as a means 
to restrain speculation without restricting applicants' business plans 
and to give licensees an incentive to turn in licenses for satellite 
systems that they do not intend to build.

D. Application Processing Timelines

    10. In 2015, before the recent surge in applications for NGSO 
systems, the Commission noted the following expected processing periods 
for what it described as ``straightforward'' satellite applications 
that are not contested, barring any complication:
    (1) applications for initial space station authorization or for 
modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within 45 
days of receipt, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the 
comment period; and
    (2) applications for special temporary authority (STA) for a space 
station will be placed on public notice within 14 days of receipt, if 
public notice is required, and acted upon within 30 days after close of 
the comment period. For space-station STA requests that do not require 
public notice, we expect to act within 30 days of receipt.
    11. In 2016, the Satellite Division of the International Bureau 
announced the following expected processing times for straightforward, 
uncontested earth station applications, barring any complication:
    (1) Applications for an initial earth station authorization or for 
a modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within 
45 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 
CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the comment 
period.
    (2) Applications for initial registration of receive-only earth 
stations or for a modification of registration will be placed on public 
notice within 30 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not 
defective per 47 CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 45 days after close 
of the comment period.
    (3) Applications for special temporary authority for earth stations 
will be placed on public notice within 14 days of confirmation of 
receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and if compliant 
with 47 CFR 25.120, and acted upon within 30 days after close of the 
comment period. For such requests that do not require notice to the 
public before action, if they are not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and 
are compliant with 47 CFR 25.120, we expect to act within 30 days of 
receipt subject to confirmation of receipt of payment.

The Commission has not subsequently updated estimates on processing 
times, although the volume and complexity of applications has 
increased.

III. Discussion

    12. As the Commission experiences increasing satellite licensing 
activity we must keep pace with demand and reassess our processes to 
identify opportunities for streamlining. We tentatively conclude that 
it is in the public interest to move quickly on

[[Page 2593]]

license application processing and specifically to begin building a 
public record on applications early in the process of evaluating them. 
In this respect, we note that placing an application on public notice 
as accepted for filing should not be seen as implying that the 
Commission has no questions regarding the application or that the 
application is being looked upon favorably for grant.
    13. We propose one initial action to streamline the acceptability 
for filing of satellite applications. As the Commission concluded in 
the context of small satellites, we believe there are some cases in 
which a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is warranted to 
permit operations not in conformance with current international 
allocations. These may, for example, be operations that can be 
conducted immediately on an unprotected and non-harmful interference 
basis and do not represent a ``placeholder'' for future service after a 
new international allocation is adopted. We believe waiver requests for 
satellite operations not in conformance with the International Table of 
Frequency Allocations, with sufficient supportive reasoning, should be 
considered on their merits rather than being automatically deemed 
unacceptable for filing as under current rules. Therefore, we propose 
to amend the acceptability criteria to place these waiver requests on 
an equal procedural footing with other requests for waiver of 
substantive rules, and allow them to be accepted for filing. We invite 
comment on this proposal, and on any alternatives.
    14. In addition, we seek comment on whether to provide guidance, in 
a rule or otherwise, on the conditions under which a waiver of the 
International Table of Frequency Allocations is more likely. For 
example, we could specify that waiver applicants should provide a 
sufficient electromagnetic compatibility analysis to support a 
Commission finding that the intended use of the frequency assignment 
will not cause harmful interference to all other stations operating in 
conformance with the ITU Radio Regulations. We would indicate that the 
applicant must make a good-faith effort to demonstrate compatibility at 
the time of filing its application, with the understanding that it may 
need to supplement that showing in response to additional information 
about existing operations provided in the record by conforming spectrum 
users. We could also specify that an applicant should state its 
willingness to accept an assignment on a non-interference, unprotected 
basis. We could additionally indicate that waiver is more likely if 
there are ongoing, favorable studies and activities in the relevant ITU 
study group in support of a potential future allocation at a World 
Radiocommunication Conference. We seek comment on these proposals, and 
on whether there is other information applicants should submit in 
support of a waiver request, on other limitations that should be 
adopted, or alternative means to ensure that the Commission has a full 
record on which to evaluate requests for waiver of the Table of 
Frequency Allocations in these instances.
    15. We also seek comment on whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO 
systems rule may be a hinderance to the acceptability of legitimate 
satellite applications and if so, whether it should be amended. For 
example, given that this rule was adopted in the context of processing 
rounds for NGSO applications, should we revise our rules such that it 
will not apply to NGSO applications that are granted outside of a 
processing round? Are there other ways in which the rules limiting 
unbuilt systems should be updated to reflect the current state of 
development of NGSO systems? Are the rationales underlying the rules 
equally relevant today? We seek comment generally on updates to our 
unbuilt NGSO systems rules. Should these rules be revised or eliminated 
altogether?
    16. In the context of overall application processing under 47 CFR 
part 25, in recent years Commission staff have assisted applicants to 
correct certain omissions or inconsistencies in their applications that 
need to be corrected in order for an application to be deemed complete 
and acceptable for filing under our rules. We seek comment on this 
approach in several respects. Would it speed application review and 
ultimately encourage better-prepared applications if we instead dismiss 
applications containing internal inconsistencies or omissions under 47 
CFR 25.112(a)(1)? These applications would be dismissed without 
prejudice to refiling. We note that in those cases where we do dismiss 
applications, our approach has been to issue a decision detailing the 
specific deficiencies in the application. We seek comment on the 
benefits and drawbacks of the alternative approaches. Alternatively, if 
we were to loosen the standards for acceptability for filing, would 
this result in a faster overall processing time for applications? For 
instance, how should we balance the speed of processing with the 
completeness and coherence of an application when it is placed on 
public notice for comment? Is there information that applicants should 
be able to correct or cure during the public notice period, and how 
would such an approach affect the ability of interested parties to 
review and comment on applications? Should we provide additional 
specificity in our acceptability for filing criteria? Given that 
internal inconsistencies and omissions are a source of delay in initial 
application processing, are there any part 25 application rules or 
application filing guidance that would assist applicants in overcoming 
this hurdle? For instance, if applicants were to submit relevant 
technical and other information in only one place in an application, 
would that reduce the risk of inconsistency? Would any such changes 
lower the reliability of information provided to the Commission? Is 
there any technical information currently required to be provided which 
is more likely to be overlooked or omitted from applications, and 
therefore delay their processing, that actually is not necessary for 
Commission or public evaluation of the application? Should certain 
inconsistencies, for example, in the description of frequency bands 
being requested, result in dismissal? Is there additional guidance or 
other assistance we should provide to applicants to avoid required 
information being omitted in their initial filings? Are there 
additional ways to reduce the number of errors, omissions, or 
inconsistencies in application filings, such as by incorporating 
additional completeness and compliance checks directly into the initial 
application process, or by introducing additional certifications in 
place of certain narrative information? Should applications omitting 
necessary waiver requests be dismissed? How well-supported should a 
waiver request need to be to overcome the acceptability for filing 
requirements, including waivers of filing deadlines or waivers that 
raise novel issues? Are there rules, policies, or practices for other 
licensing activities at the Commission that could helpfully be applied 
to satellite or earth station application processing? Are there ways in 
which we can better streamline inter-Bureau reviews in shared spectrum 
bands? Are there other areas where the Commission can streamline 
processing for initial or modification applications including the 
elimination of duplicative processing requirements, for example 
duplicative coordination requirements in satellite and earth station 
licensing? We also seek comment broadly on other process updates, rule 
changes, or policy reforms the Commission could adopt to help 
streamline application processing.

[[Page 2594]]

    17. Finally, we invite comment on the anticipated processing times 
for straightforward, uncontested satellite and earth station 
applications noted above, which types of applications (including 
modification applications) the Commission should consider 
``straightforward,'' and therefore fall under these guidelines, and 
whether, given the rapidly changing environment of operations in space 
and associated requests for Commission satellite authorizations, it 
would make sense to codify or otherwise better highlight our expected 
processing times for such applications. Or, given the pace of change in 
space activities and corresponding number of applications presenting 
unique or complex issues, would identification of a limited number of 
``straightforward'' or ``routine'' applications result in improved 
processing times overall? Or would a more flexible approach to 
processing timeframes allow for the Commission to take into 
consideration other factors such as anticipated launch dates, and 
whether the request is an extension of a previously granted 
application?
    18. Specifically regarding applications to add points of 
communication to existing earth station licenses, should these qualify 
as ``straightforward'' so long as the satellite system to be added is 
either U.S.-licensed or has been granted U.S. market access within the 
parameters requested in the earth station application and the applicant 
identifies either the satellite call sign or the earth station 
license(s) in which the satellite was granted market access? What steps 
can the Commission take to ensure applicants provide enough information 
regarding the requested satellite points of communication to facilitate 
its review, confirm that no additional market access is being sought 
for any non-U.S.-licensed point of communication, and otherwise 
expedite these types of applications? For any ``straightforward'' 
applications to add an earth station point of communication, would it 
be appropriate to automatically deem them granted 60 days after they 
are filed absent other Commission action? To address cases where an 
earth station applicant may wish to be licensed before it identifies 
any specific satellite points of communication, should we make any 
changes to our rules, policies, or practices to permit these cases?
    19. Should we consider creating deadlines for certain satellite or 
earth station applications for making a determination about 
acceptability for filing, with the alternative being dismissal, and 
would this result in overall shorter processing times? If so, what 
deadline might be reasonable? Should the deadline vary depending on the 
type of application (e.g., GSO, NGSO)? Should there be limitations on 
the applicability of this deadline--for example, where an operator 
requests operations not consistent with the International Table of 
Frequency Allocations, or where the application could involve 
initiation of a new NGSO processing round, or for contested 
applications? Would a deadline for making a determination potentially 
result in more dismissals of applications, since a decision would need 
to be made on the acceptability of an application within that specific 
timeframe? Should we adopt broader ``shot clocks'' for ultimate action 
on certain types of satellite or earth station applications?
    20. We seek comment generally on these issues, and on any other 
guidance that may assist applicants and speed application processing.
    21. 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

    22. 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 the policies and rules proposed in this 
Notice. 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 provided on the first page of the Notice and 
as instructed above in paragraph 21. The Commission will send a copy of 
the NPRM, including the 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

    23. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on ways 
to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station 
applications under 47 CFR part 25 to keep pace with growing demand for 
satellite services. The NPRM specifically inquires whether to change 
the acceptability rules regarding satellite applications that request 
to operate a service in a frequency band for which there is no 
international allocation, and whether to alter the limit of one 
unbuilt, non-geostationary system application or license in a 
particular frequency band.

B. Legal Basis

    24. The proposed action is authorized under Sec. Sec.  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 Will Apply

    25. 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).
    26. 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

[[Page 2595]]

estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers 
are small entities.

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

    27. The NPRM invites comment on potential changes to the 
acceptability for filing requirements for satellite and earth station 
applications in order to expedite their processing. Rule changes 
adopted as a result of this inquiry would be likely to decrease, or 
leave unaffected, the compliance requirements for small entities due to 
any streamlining of the Commission's application processing rules.

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

    28. 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.''
    29. The NPRM invites comment on ways to expedite and streamline the 
initial processing of satellite and earth station applications, which 
might also benefit small entities such as earth station operators.

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

    30. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    31. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, and 308(b) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
157(a), 303, 308(b), that the notice of proposed rulemaking is Adopted.
    32. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a 
copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Sec.  603(a) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites, Earth stations.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

    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.  25.112 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3) and 
revising the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.112  Dismissal and return of applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Applications for space station authority found defective under 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section will not be considered. Applications 
for authority found defective under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section may be accepted for filing if:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-00780 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P