[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40142-40146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12802]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 21-456; FCC 23-29; FR ID 147722]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or we) seeks comment on revisions to its rules governing 
spectrum sharing among a new generation of broadband satellite 
constellations to promote market entry, regulatory certainty, and 
spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on 
which metrics should be used to define the protection afforded to a 
non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) 
system authorized through an earlier processing round from an NGSO FSS 
system authorized through a later processing round, including the 
implementation of a degraded throughput methodology.

DATES: Comments are due August 7, 2023. Reply comments are due 
September 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 21-456, 
by any of the following methods:
     FCC 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: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 23-29, adopted April 
20, 2023, and released April 21, 2023. The full text is available 
online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-29A1.pdf. 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).

Procedural Matters

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 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

[[Page 40143]]

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.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and 
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will 
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' We have prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of the rule and policy changes contained in the FNPRM. The IRFA is set 
forth in Section IV below. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM 
indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate 
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains proposed 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, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this document, we seek comment on revisions to the 
Commission's rules governing spectrum sharing among a new generation of 
broadband satellite constellations to promote market entry, regulatory 
certainty, and spectrum efficiency through good-faith coordination. 
Specifically, we seek comment on which metrics should be used to define 
the protection afforded to an earlier-round NGSO FSS system from a 
later-round system, including the implementation of a degraded 
throughput methodology. This document will continue the Commission's 
efforts to promote development and competition in broadband NGSO 
satellite services made possible by the new space age.

II. Background

    2. This proceeding continues the Commission's recent efforts to 
update and refine its rules governing NGSO FSS systems. Constellations 
of NGSO FSS satellites traveling in low- and medium-Earth orbit may 
provide broadband services to industry, enterprise, and residential 
customers with lower latency and wider coverage than has previously 
been available via satellite. The number of applications filed in 
recent years for NGSO FSS system authorizations, and the number of 
satellites launched, are unprecedented.
    3. Processing Round Procedure Overview. Applications for NGSO FSS 
system licenses and petitions for declaratory ruling seeking U.S. 
market access for non-U.S.-licensed NGSO FSS systems are considered in 
groups based on filing date, under a processing round procedure. 
Pursuant to the Commission's rules, a license application for ``NGSO-
like'' satellite operation, including operation of an NGSO FSS system, 
that satisfies the acceptability for filing requirements is reviewed to 
determine whether it is a ``competing application'' or a ``lead 
application.'' A competing application is one filed in response to a 
public notice initiating a processing round. Any other application is a 
lead application. Competing applications are placed on public notice to 
provide interested parties an opportunity to file pleadings in response 
to the application. Lead applications are also placed on public notice. 
The public notice for a lead application initiates a processing round, 
establishes a cut-off date for competing NGSO-like satellite system 
applications, and provides interested parties an opportunity to file 
pleadings in response to the application.
    4. 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

[[Page 40144]]

operations comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and policies, 
and that grant of the application will serve the public interest, 
convenience and necessity. The Commission will deny the other 
applications.

III. Discussion

    5. In the Report and Order in FCC 23-29, we adopt a requirement 
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 submit a 
showing for Commission approval that it will not cause harmful 
interference to any such system with which coordination has not been 
completed using a degraded throughput methodology. In this FNPRM, we 
propose to finalize the details of the degraded throughput methodology 
and invite specific comment on the appropriate values and assumptions 
to be used in this requirement and whether we should adopt a rule 
limiting aggregate interference from later-round NGSO FSS systems into 
earlier-round systems.
    6. We expect that the degraded throughput analysis should consist 
of three steps. The first step is to establish a baseline of 
performance. To do this, an operator models the earlier-round NGSO 
system's performance without any additional interference by computing 
the earlier-round NGSO system's probabilistic C/N level using its 
published system parameters and a rain-attenuation model. This provides 
the baseline in terms of: (1) the earlier-round system's time-weighted 
average throughput (derived by computing the spectral efficiency from 
the C/N results), and (2) the earlier-round system's link 
unavailability time percentage (i.e., the percentage of time when the 
earlier-round system's expected C/N will fall below its minimum usable 
level). The second step is to repeat the analysis above, adding in the 
effect of the later-round system's interference into the earlier-round 
system. This produces a second measurement of time-weighted average 
throughput and link unavailability time-percentage. The third step is 
to compare these two sets of figures to measure the effect of any 
additional interference. If the resulting performance impact exceeds 
the permissible limits, then the later-round system must adjust its 
operations to mitigate interference to a permissible level. We seek 
comment on this process.
    7. Specifically, noting that 3% has been suggested as an 
appropriate value for several aspects of the degraded throughput 
analysis, we invite comment on the appropriate values for these limits, 
including their technical justification. What is the appropriate 
baseline to consider for the earlier-round system, and should it 
include existing sources of interference, such as interference from GSO 
networks or intra-system interference? Should a degraded throughput 
methodology compare an incumbent's baseline level of performance given 
only natural degradation to that same incumbent's expected performance 
given a single new entrant's operations? Should we use standardized 
antenna patterns and noise temperatures for the computation of C/(I+N) 
in a degraded throughput method? A degraded throughput methodology 
would rely on detailed technical data about the relevant NGSO FSS 
systems. How many locations should be evaluated in the methodology, and 
should the locations include sites outside the United States? How 
should rain fade conditions in different locations be incorporated into 
the degraded throughput analysis? What other technical data is needed 
to appropriately evaluate degraded throughput effects, and how can the 
Commission ensure that any degraded throughput analysis appropriately 
protects the specific characteristics of an NGSO system's operations? 
What role should Schedule S information play in the analysis? Are 
additional means needed to protect earlier-round systems against loss 
of synchronization due to potentially high levels of short term 
interference? Should the earlier-round operator be able to specify two 
C/N objectives--one relative to the C/N level below which the victim 
modem would lose lock and another relative to the C/N level below which 
the victim link would become unavailable because it is not able to 
offer the minimum wanted throughput? What mitigation techniques would 
be appropriate if degraded throughput thresholds were not otherwise 
satisfied?
    8. We also note concerns on the record about aggregate interference 
from multiple NGSO systems. What is a permissible aggregate 
interference level for protecting priority NGSO systems in a frequency 
band, as part of an earlier processing round? Should we expect that 
there will be a maximum number of NGSO FSS systems that can be 
accommodated in a given frequency band and if so, how should that 
affect any inter-round protection criteria and the opening of 
additional processing rounds? How does this methodology accommodate 
multiple NGSO systems that span multiple processing rounds?
    9. Additionally, we seek comment on what criteria should be applied 
among NGSO systems after the sunset period. We recognize that our 
default spectrum splitting process is intended to encourage negotiation 
between systems in the same processing round. Should that also be the 
default procedure applicable between systems after the sunsetting of 
interference protection in order to facilitate coordination, or is 
there an alternative better suited to systems that may be at different 
stages of deployment? We seek comment on the fit of the default 
spectrum splitting process to the post-sunset environment. What does 
co-equal mean when there are established operators on a co-equal basis 
with newer entrants?
    10. 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

    11. 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 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The Commission requests 
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 in the DATES section above and as instructed under 
Comment Filing Requirements above. The Commission will send a copy of 
the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 40145]]

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

    12. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented 
number of applications for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) 
space station licenses, including for NGSO fixed-satellite service 
(FSS) systems. Traveling closer to the Earth than a traditional 
geostationary-satellite orbit (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 continues 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.
    13. This FNPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the 
Commission's rules governing the treatment NGSO FSS systems filed in 
different space station processing rounds. Specifically, this FNPRM 
seeks comment on details regarding the implementation of a degraded 
throughput methodology. It also seeks comment on what criteria should 
be applied among NGSO systems after the sunset period.

B. Legal Basis

    14. 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 Rulemaking Will Apply

    15. 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 and policies, 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 
SBA.
    16. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry 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 SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    17. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments 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. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49, 999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.

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

    18. The Commission seeks comment on potential changes to the 
spectrum sharing requirements among NGSO FSS satellite systems. 
Specifically, comment is sought on how to implement the degraded 
throughput methodology. 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

    19. 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.''
    20. The Commission adopted a requirement 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 submit a showing for Commission 
approval that it will not cause harmful interference to any such system 
with which coordination has not been completed using a degraded 
throughput methodology. This FNPRM invites comment on which specific 
metrics should be used to define the protection afforded to an earlier-
round NGSO FSS system from a later-round system.
    21. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate values and 
assumptions to be used with the degraded throughput requirement. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt a rule limiting 
aggregate interference from NGSO FSS systems that were authorized in a 
later processing round into NGSO FSS systems authorized in an earlier 
processing round. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative 
means of

[[Page 40146]]

protection of earlier-round NGSO FSS systems.
    22. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
expect that there will be a maximum number of NGSO FSS systems that can 
be accommodated in a given frequency band and if so, how should that 
affect any inter-round protection criteria and the opening of 
additional processing rounds. The FNPRM also seeks comment on how the 
degraded throughput methodology accommodates multiple NGSO systems that 
span multiple processing rounds.
    23. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in 
the FNPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated with 
the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above 
can be minimized for small entities. Additionally, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether any of the costs associated with any of the proposed 
requirements to eliminate unlawful robocalls can be alleviated for 
small entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the 
economic impact and alternatives for small entities based on its review 
of the record and any comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this 
IRFA.

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

    24. None

V. Ordering Clauses

    25. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 10, 303, 
308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 160, 303, 308(b), 316, that this Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a 
copy of this Further 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12802 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P