[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84737-84754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26699]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket Nos. 22-411; 22-271; FCC 23-73; FR ID 188451]


Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station 
Applications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts changes to its rules aimed at expediting the 
initial license application processing for satellite operators. The 
Commission establishes timeframes for placing satellite and earth 
station applications on public notice, eliminates a procedural rule 
that prevents consideration of requests for waiver of the International 
Table of Frequency Allocations, and removes the prohibition on 
licensed-but-unbuilt systems for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) 
operators. Additionally, the Commission creates a new, streamlined 
processing framework for earth station operators to add satellite 
points of communication under certain circumstances. Finally, the 
Commission lays the groundwork for a broader Transparency Initiative 
led by the Space Bureau to provide clarity and access to applicants 
when interfacing with the Commission's license application processes 
and filing system.

DATES: Effective January 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Malette, Attorney Advisor, 
Satellite Programs and Policy Division, Space Bureau, at 202-418-2453 
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 23-73, adopted September 21, 2023, and released 
September 22, 2023. The document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-73A1.pdf. To request materials 
in accessible formats for people with disabilities, (e.g., Braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), or 202-418-0432 (TTY). A proposed rule relating 
to further expediting satellite and earth station application 
processing is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

[[Page 84738]]

Final 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.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the 
possible impact of the rule changes contained in this document on small 
entities. The FRFA is set forth in Section IV below.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified 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).

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
concurs that this rule is ``non-major'' under the Congressional Review 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and 
Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) advances opportunities for innovation in the new space age 
by taking measures to expedite the application processes for space 
stations and earth stations, consistent with the Commission's objective 
to ``promote a competitive and innovative global telecommunications 
marketplace via space services.'' Applications for space services 
before the Commission continue to increase in complexity and number. 
Concrete measures to expedite the initial processing of applications 
for authority to operate space and earth stations under part 25 of the 
Commission's rules are vital to supporting U.S. leadership in the 
growing space economy. Accordingly, the rule updates and policy changes 
the Commission adopts today will: (1) improve the process that 
Commission staff uses to review space and earth station applications 
for acceptability for filing and to place the applications on public 
notice; (2) eliminate processing rules that are no longer necessary; 
(3) establish timeframes for placing space and earth stations on public 
notice; and (4) advance other initiatives to expedite the processing of 
applications. In addition, as part of the Space Innovation agenda, the 
Space Bureau will undertake a Transparency Initiative. The goal of this 
initiative is to provide information and guidance, in a variety of 
forms, to interested parties so they can understand the Commission's 
procedures and what is needed to obtain authorization for their 
proposed space station and earth station operations. The Commission 
believes that this initiative will reduce administrative burdens on 
both applicants and staff and will further expedite the processing of 
applications.

II. Background

    2. To facilitate application filing and processing, the Commission 
has improved the standard forms for satellite and earth station 
applications (FCC Form 312, 312R, and Schedules A and S) and is 
currently working on improvements to its online filing system for such 
applications, the International Communications Filing System (ICFS). In 
addition, the Commission has regularly taken steps to streamline its 
part 25 rules. As part of previous streamlining efforts, the Commission 
adopted a 45-day expected period for placing on public notice 
applications both for initial space station authorizations and for 
modification of a space station authorization. The Commission also 
adopted an expected time of 60 days for acting on space station 
applications after the close of the comment period. For applications 
for special temporary authority (STA) for a space station, the 
Commission expected the application would be placed on public notice 
within 14 days of receipt (if public notice is required) and acted on 
within 30 days after the close of the comment period, or within 30 days 
of receipt if public notice is not required. In addition, expected 
processing times were also announced for earth station applications. 
These times were 45 days from confirmation of receipt of payment for 
placing applications for initial earth station authorizations or 
modifications on public notice, and 60 days after close of the comment 
period for action; 30 days from confirmation of receipt of payment for 
placing initial registrations of receive-only earth stations or 
modifications on public notice, and 45 days after close of comment 
period for action; and 14 days from confirmation of receipt of payment 
for applications for special temporary authority for earth stations, 
and 30 days after close of comment period for action, unless the 
application does not require public notice before action, in which case 
the expected time for action is 30 days of receipt. In all cases, the 
Commission's expectations applied to ``straightforward applications 
that are not contested'' and were set ``barring any complication.''
    3. As we enter the new space age, applications for space services 
before the Commission continue to increase in complexity and number. In 
response to this unprecedented era of growth in the space industry, the 
Commission launched the Space Bureau on April 11, 2023. Space 
activities are increasing in almost every industry sector. The 
Commission must, therefore, make expediting the processing of 
applications a priority of its Space Innovation Agenda. If the current 
rate of filings for applications continues in 2023, the Commission will 
receive approximately four times the number of space station 
applications and three times the number of earth station applications 
than it received in 2015. In addition, the complexity of applications 
continues to increase as new and novel space technologies are presented 
for consideration. The commercial space industry is evolving at a rapid 
pace, and it is critical that the Commission keeps up with the cadence 
of applications and complexity of regulatory issues presented.
    4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sought comment broadly 
on changes to Commission rules, policies, or practices to facilitate 
the acceptance for filing of space and earth station applications under 
part 25. In particular, the NPRM proposed to remove a procedural rule 
that formally prevents consideration of waiver requests for operations 
not in conformance with the International Table of Frequency 
Allocations. It also sought comment on whether the limits on 
applications for NGSO systems and unbuilt NGSO systems should be 
amended, and whether the Commission should provide greater transparency 
or certainty with respect to its expected application processing 
timelines. In response to the NPRM, 24 comments, 11 reply comments, and 
multiple ex parte notifications were filed.

[[Page 84739]]

III. Discussion

a. Facilitating the Application Process

    5. An essential element of expediting the application process is to 
make it easier for applicants to understand what is required to have an 
application accepted for filing and to avoid the dismissal of an 
application. Accordingly, the Commission discusses the steps it takes 
today, and will take in the future, to provide transparency and 
guidance regarding Commission licensing procedures, as well as to 
reduce the risk of an application being dismissed, without considering 
the merits of the application, due to filing requirements that the 
Commission deems are no longer needed to serve the public interest.
i. Transparency and Guidance
    6. The NPRM sought comment on whether there is additional guidance 
or other assistance that the Commission should provide to applicants to 
avoid required information being omitted in their initial filings. 
Omission of required information can result in delays in processing an 
application, or even in the dismissal of an application. Commenters who 
responded to the Commission's procedural and technical inquiries 
overwhelmingly support the proposal of the Commission issuing guidance 
on the application process.
    7. The Commission believes that the licensing process for space and 
earth station applications can be expedited by making it more 
transparent and providing applicants with further guidance on the 
initial application stages, as several commenters have suggested. The 
Commission agrees with commenters that clarity and guidance on what is 
required for an application to be acceptable for filing will result in 
an increase in complete filings that can be swiftly accepted for 
filing, which will in turn expedite the processing of space and earth 
station applications. Clear and transparent guidance to the applicant 
will aid in expediting application processing for both the applicants 
and staff. Accordingly, the Space Bureau will undertake a Transparency 
Initiative to provide such guidance. The goal of this initiative is to 
provide information and guidance, in a variety of forms, to interested 
parties so they can understand the Commission's procedures and what is 
needed to obtain authorization for their proposed space station and 
earth station operations. The Commission believes that this initiative 
will reduce administrative burdens on both applicants and staff and 
will further expedite the processing of applications. The guidance will 
take a variety of forms, including ``frequently asked questions'' or 
helpful links on the FCC's website. In other cases, public workshops 
may be held to explain certain requirements.
    8. The initiative will cover a variety of topics, for example, 
application completeness and orbital debris requirements. Additionally, 
when the Commission releases the updated International Communications 
Filing System (ICFS), the system will include multiple forms of 
guidance for users, including training videos for the ICFS application 
process and a helpful links page. The Commission believes that this 
Transparency Initiative will address many of the specific requests that 
commenters have identified in this record, facilitate new entrants into 
the space economy, and further expedite the Commission's processes to 
meet the needs of the innovative and expanding space sector.
    9. In addition, the Commission will continue to consider various 
ways in which the Space Bureau can provide more clarity and guidance on 
the application process moving forward, including, for example, various 
methods for increasing transparency around the inter-bureau and inter-
agency coordination process. The Commission expects this to be a 
continuing process and believes that this investment of time and 
resources will pay off in reducing staff time in reviewing and 
correcting incomplete applications and applicant time responding to 
staff requests for missing information, which will in turn expedite the 
processing of space and earth station applications. The Commission 
encourages stakeholders to discuss their needs for information and 
guidance directly with Space Bureau staff in order that they may be 
considered and addressed in ways that do not require a change in 
Commission rules.
    10. The Commission received a wide variety of comments related to 
the NPRM's various procedural and technical streamlining questions 
including suggestions to provide certifications or fill-in template 
forms in lieu of narratives to the extent possible and SpaceX suggests 
this could be done as a way of standardizing orbital debris showings. 
The Commission declines to change showings that require a narrative to 
certifications at this time, noting that the Commission has recently 
taken additional steps to utilize certifications where appropriate, 
such as in the 2020 unified licensing proceeding, which included new 
certification options for earth station operators. Moreover, as 
EchoStar noted in its comments, certain showings require a more 
thorough and nuanced explanation than what could be contained in a 
certification. But the Commission agrees that providing applicants with 
more clarity and guidance on orbital debris plans will aid in 
Commission review, as SpaceX points out, and plans to incorporate such 
guidance into the Commission's Transparency Initiative.
ii. Reducing Risk of Dismissal
    11. The Commission finds that expediting the processing of space 
and earth station applications requires reducing the risk that an 
application will be dismissed before full consideration of the merits 
of the application, thereby necessitating refiling the application and 
restarting the application process anew. The Commission takes several 
actions below to address these issues in light of existing reasons for 
dismissal.
1. Omissions, Inconsistencies, and Errors
    12. Existing rules provide that a space or earth station 
application is considered unacceptable for filing if the application is 
defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, 
informational showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other 
matters of a formal character. The requirement that applications be 
``substantially complete'' when filed has been in place since 1998 and 
ended the practice of reviewing the accuracy or merits of specific 
information in an application before placing it on public notice. Under 
the ``substantially complete'' standard, an application is reviewed to 
ensure that it contains all information required by the Commission's 
rules and, if an application fails to include any of the required 
information, the application is returned without prejudice as being 
unacceptable for filing.
    13. The NPRM noted that in recent years, Commission staff have 
worked with applicants to correct omissions or inconsistencies in their 
applications in order for an application to be deemed acceptable for 
filing under Commission rules. The NPRM sought comment on this practice 
and potential alternatives that might speed up application review, such 
as dismissing applications that contained internal inconsistencies or 
omissions without prejudice to refiling or, conversely, loosening the 
standards for acceptability of filing.
    14. After consideration of the record, the Commission will maintain 
the practice of not immediately dismissing applications that contain 
omissions or internal inconsistencies and instead working with 
applicants to correct such

[[Page 84740]]

omissions or inconsistencies so that the application may be acceptable 
for filing. Most comments encourage the continuation of the practice of 
communicating with applicants and allowing them opportunities to cure 
small mistakes or omissions, instead of issuing dismissals. The 
Commission finds that dismissing space and earth station applications 
for even minor omissions and inconsistencies, without an opportunity to 
correct the deficiencies, is inconsistent with the Commission's goal of 
expediting the processing of space and earth station applications, 
since substantial time is required to dismiss and refile a corrected 
application. The Commission agrees that the same result can be achieved 
in less time by promptly reviewing the application for any deficiencies 
and communicating these deficiencies to the applicant, and by giving a 
limited time for the applicant to make corrections or to provide 
missing information.
    15. In order to achieve the goal of expediting application 
processing, the Commission expects the Space Bureau will provide 
applicants with limited timeframes to respond to requests for 
additional information or to promptly rectify inconsistencies or 
omissions in the application. Limiting the time to respond will 
encourage applicants to file applications that are as complete and 
accurate as possible, with only minor errors or omissions that require 
correction in the limited timeframe for responding and will help ensure 
that a request for information does not result in unnecessary delay of 
processing the application if the applicant does not respond in a 
timely manner. Several comments support time limits for applicants to 
respond to Commission staff with additional information or corrections 
so as to avoid a drawn-out initial review process. Failure to respond 
within those timeframes will risk dismissal of the application under 
existing rules. Although some comments proposed specific deadlines for 
applicants to respond to staff inquiries, the Commission declines to 
adopt specific deadlines at this time. Space and earth station 
applications can vary greatly depending on the nature of the operations 
or whether the activities are novel or involve new technology. As such, 
it is important to allow some flexibility and case-by-case 
determinations on setting time limits for responses from applicants. 
The deadline for response will be communicated clearly to applicants as 
part of requests for additional information or notices to the applicant 
that there are errors, omissions, or inconsistencies that need to be 
resolved before finding the application to be acceptable for filing.
    16. The Commission finds that it is unnecessary to change its rules 
in order to implement this practice. Although the existing rules state 
that an applicant will be dismissed for various omissions or internal 
inconsistencies, it does not preclude staff from allowing applicants 
the opportunity to cure omissions or internal inconsistencies before 
accepting the application for filing. The Commission expects that there 
will be prompt communications between staff and applicants in order to 
expedite the application process.
    17. The Commission also received several comments on whether to 
loosen the standard for accepting applications for filing. AWS and 
OneWeb put forth what they deem to be faster processes for placing 
applications on public notice. AWS suggests that, at least for earth 
station applicants, applications could be automatically placed on 
public notice after a designated period and applicants could work to 
cure any errors or omissions during the public notice period. OneWeb 
advocates for a ``check box'' determination method for placing 
applications on public notice and proposes revisions to Sec.  
25.112(a)(1) to enable quicker determination. Boeing also suggests that 
the Commission could place applications on public notice without 
necessarily first finding them to be acceptable for filing. Conversely, 
Viasat asserts that loosening the acceptability for filing standards 
would not lead to streamlining, but rather, would result in larger 
numbers of deficient or incomplete applications being reviewed by 
Commission staff and third parties, wasting limited resources. 
Similarly, Verizon/AT&T assert that more stringent standards would 
reduce processing times by incentivizing applicants to submit complete 
and accurate applications in the first instance if they believe the 
Commission is more likely to dismiss an application if it is not 
complete. Kuiper asserts that applications should be complete at the 
time of filing to avoid inefficiencies in review and suggests that the 
Commission require applicants to include a checklist table in their 
application demonstrating completeness and compliance with all relevant 
rules. Others do not advocate for strengthening or loosening standards, 
but rather assert that the Commission could streamline the 
acceptability for filing process through guidance, by more clearly 
articulating the Commission's ``substantially complete'' threshold.
    18. The Commission finds that it is not necessary to loosen its 
acceptability for filing standards in order to expedite the processing 
of space and earth station applications. The Commission has previously 
explained what is meant by ``substantially complete,'' and continues to 
hold to this understanding: ``[t]he applications must be complete in 
substance, and must provide all the information required in the 
application form.'' This is a reasonable standard for finding that an 
application is acceptable for filing, and acceptance for filing has 
legal consequences for a GSO-like space station's place in the queue or 
an NGSO-like space station's place in a processing round. As such, the 
Commission continues to find that there is merit to holding 
applications to a ``substantially complete'' standard and to review an 
application to ensure that it complies with this standard before 
accepting the application for filing. The Commission is not convinced 
that looser standards will result in an expedited process, and agrees 
with commenters who note that looser standards on the front end of 
application review will likely lead to a more burdensome review of 
incomplete applications at later stages of the application process. 
Although the Commission recognizes the interest in straightforward 
review, such as via a ``check box'' determination, part 25 applications 
cover many types of operations, which makes it infeasible to capture 
all elements of such diverse operations in a ``check box'' format. The 
Commission is also not convinced that more stringent acceptability for 
filing standards will expedite application processing. Rigidity in the 
initial application review can lead to premature dismissals, which in 
turn will take more of staff and applicants' resources. Instead, the 
Commission believes that the process can be expedited by providing 
applicants at the initial application stages with greater transparency 
and guidance, which applicants will be able to access on the 
Commission's website as part of the Space Bureau's Transparency 
Initiative.
    19. Finally, numerous commenters support changes to the license 
application forms that would reduce duplication and the need to 
manually input technical information in various locations, which would 
reduce the risk of missing or inconsistent information being submitted. 
Likewise, commenters generally support the inclusion of compliance 
checks into the application process. Specifically, numerous commenters 
have suggested that the Commission consider these types of updates to 
specific licensing forms,

[[Page 84741]]

including the Form 312, the Schedule S, and the Schedule B. 
Additionally, although the Commission did not specifically ask about 
updates to ICFS, several commenters suggest that the Commission 
consider updates or a general overhaul of the filing system.
    20. The Commission observes that the electronic filing system used 
for space and earth station applications, ICFS, is already being 
updated in ways that respond to many of the issues that commenters 
raise regarding the technicalities of the application process. As a 
result of these updates, ICFS will have several new features for 
application forms, including automatic error notifications in the Form 
312, data entry alerts to misinformation, and an overall validation 
prior to submitting a filing. There also will be some pre-filled 
sections of the application form based on previously entered data. With 
regard to modification or amendment applications, applicants will be 
presented with a pre-filled form including the information from their 
current authorization or pending application that they seek to modify 
or amend. This pre-filled form can then be adjusted in the areas that 
the applicant seeks to modify or amend. Additionally, the Schedule B 
and Form 312 will allow users to delete or remove sections or data that 
are no longer needed. The Commission is also updating the fields in the 
Schedule S to better align with technical rules. The Commission finds 
that these updates address many, but not all, of the changes 
recommended by the comments. The Space Bureau expects to continue 
dialogue with system users about possible further improvements after 
the initial modifications of ICFS are introduced.
2. Conformance With International Frequency Allocations
    21. Currently, with the exception of applications for streamlined 
small satellite and small spacecraft applications, applications will be 
dismissed if they request authority to operate a space station in a 
frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such 
operations under the Radio Regulations of the International 
Telecommunication Union. The Commission adopted this rule in 2003, with 
the purpose of eliminating premature applications filed prior to the 
ITU adopting a necessary frequency allocation, which can take several 
years. At the time, the Commission had reasoned that applications that 
were filed far in advance of adoption of an ITU allocation had a 
likelihood of being placeholder applications for purposes of 
warehousing spectrum.
    22. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to amend the license 
application acceptability for filing criteria to place waiver requests 
for satellite operations not in conformance with the International 
Table of Frequency Allocations on an equal procedural footing with 
other requests for waiver of substantive Commission rules. Comments 
widely support adoption. Furthermore, the limitation on acceptance of 
applications has caused delay in review of applications for 
acceptability for filing and has complicated review of space station 
applications, which is contrary to the goal of expediting the space 
station application process. In addition, as the Commission observed 
when it adopted streamlined rules for the processing of applications 
for small satellites, there may be benefits associated with operations 
not consistent with the current International Table of Frequency 
Allocations in certain circumstances. Finally, Commission experience 
over the last twenty years since the rule was adopted supports the 
finding that the concerns about warehousing of spectrum and orbital 
resources through placeholder applications have been effectively 
addressed through the Commission's milestone and bond requirements, 
which makes this rule unnecessary. The Commission finds that adoption 
of this proposal will help avoid the dismissal of an application for 
failure to meet a rule that is no longer needed to protect against 
placeholder applications that warehouse spectrum resources.
    23. Accordingly, the Commission amends Sec.  25.112 of Commission 
rules to delete subparagraph (a)(3) and will no longer immediately 
dismiss applications that request authority to operate a space station 
in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such 
operations under the ITU Radio Regulations when the applications 
include a request for waiver of the allocation. Section 25.112(b) also 
is revised accordingly to remove reference to paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  
25.112. The Commission emphasizes that this decision to allow the 
Commission to review such applications is not intended to alter the 
allocation status of these bands. In considering the merits of such 
requests, the Commission recognizes its obligations as a ratifying 
member of the ITU, and as the regulatory body that allocates spectrum 
for commercial use in the United States. Accordingly, any application 
that includes waiver requests for satellite operations not in 
conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations would 
need to demonstrate sufficient justification to support the waiver 
request in light of Article 4.4 of the International Telecommunication 
Union Radio Regulations (ITU R.R.), which states that Administrations 
shall not assign frequencies to a station in derogation of the 
International Table of Frequency Allocations, except on the express 
condition that the station's use of the frequencies shall not cause 
harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful 
interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the ITU 
R.R. For example, the Commission agrees with comments that urge, to the 
extent that there are co-channel operations that might be the subject 
of potential interference, the request for waiver should address those 
operations. The Commission may also consider, on a case-by-case basis, 
as some have suggested, opening rulemaking proceedings and accounting 
for any relevant ITU process to address potential related allocation 
issues if appropriate. Moreover, the Commission expects that such 
applicants would be engaged contemporaneously in activities to work 
toward modification of the International Table of Allocations at the 
ITU, and the applicants should consider describing the status of such 
efforts in their application. The Commission also encourages entities 
that are considering making a request for authorization for a non-
conforming operation to discuss the request with Commission staff prior 
to filing.
    24. A few commenters suggest that the Commission adopt specific 
requirements related to these non-conforming operations beyond the 
Commission's rules for considering waivers, and propose other 
limitations, including for protecting against potential interference to 
operations in the radioastronomy service (RAS) and earth exploration-
satellite service (EESS). Other commenters argue that interference 
concerns to such services can be managed through coordination. The 
Commission declines to adopt such proposals and is not convinced that 
adopting strict engineering protocols is a necessary or appropriate 
means for preventing interference for every operation, or for 
operations in certain services. Further, it will not result in 
expediting the licensing process for applicants or the Commission. 
Instead, the Commission can process such requests on a case-by-case 
basis, taking into account the facts and circumstances of individual 
waiver requests and the potential for harmful interference in

[[Page 84742]]

specific cases. Based on the Commission's experience in instances where 
applicants have been granted limited non-conforming operations, such as 
in the small satellite context, any waivers that the Commission 
determines to grant would include non-interference conditions and 
coordination conditions as necessary.
    25. Furthermore, the Commission is not convinced that caps on the 
number of waivers it grants or on the duration of operations will 
prevent the potential for harmful interference, and such caps will not 
further Commission goals to streamline the licensing process. Rather, 
the Commission emphasizes its review on technical showings of non-
interference and on coordination requirements, which will better 
prevent harmful interference in these circumstances. Similarly, the 
Commission will not exclude entire bands from consideration for non-
conforming use, as some commenters suggested. To preemptively exclude 
certain bands from possible waiver request consideration would undercut 
goals of fostering innovation in the satellite industry since the 
Commission cannot predict what bands will support future development. 
The Commission believes that the requirements for demonstrating non-
interference and coordination, along with the Commission's waiver 
standards, will provide sufficient protections to existing services.
3. Unbuilt NGSO Systems
    26. Commission rules currently contain procedural safeguards 
against applications that are considered more likely to be speculative 
or intended to warehouse spectrum resources, including the prohibition 
on one party having multiple NGSO-like applications or licensed but 
unbuilt NGSO systems in the same frequency band. This prohibition 
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 
Commission adopted the unbuilt systems rule, 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 surrender licenses for satellite systems that they do not 
intend to build. Recognizing that the unbuilt NGSO systems rule can 
lead to delays in processing applications by adding complexity to the 
review in determining whether an applicant has violated the rule, and, 
considering the current rapid state of development of NGSO systems, the 
Commission sought comment on whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems 
may be a hinderance to the acceptability of legitimate satellite 
applications and if so, whether the Commission should amend or 
eliminate such limitation.
    27. After review of the record, the Commission concludes that the 
goal of expediting the initial processing of space station applications 
will be advanced by eliminating the part of the Commission's rules in 
Sec. Sec.  25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5) that prohibits a licensee or 
market access grantee respectively from applying for another NGSO 
license or grant of market access where the party has an already 
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO system for the same frequencies. The 
Commission finds that it is often time consuming to determine whether 
the relevant applicant violates this prohibition, for example when 
there are disputes in the record regarding whether a system is 
``unbuilt,'' and the need to make this determination prior to accepting 
an application for filing can delay placing an application on public 
notice to permit consideration of the application on the merits. In 
situations where it was not clear whether the prohibition has been 
violated by the proposed application, the Space Bureau (and the former 
International Bureau) has accepted the application for filing, without 
prejudice to a determination And the Commission is not convinced, as 
some commenters suggest, that its elimination will lead to speculative 
license applications or spectrum hoarding. The Commission's current 
bond and milestone requirements, which were also put in place to deter 
speculative license applications and spectrum warehousing, remain in 
place, and the Commission agrees with many commenters who note that 
these requirements serve as adequate deterrents. The Commission's 
experience has been that the restriction on unbuilt NGSO systems is 
unnecessary to deter warehousing of spectrum and orbital resources, in 
light of the bond and milestone requirements and other safeguards, and 
the restriction on unbuilt NGSO systems could delay processing times 
without a corresponding benefit to the public. However, the Commission 
retains and revises the portion of the rule that prohibits operators 
from filing multiple applications in the same frequency band where such 
applications are subject to NGSO-like processing round rules, which 
require that in the event there is insufficient spectrum in the 
requested frequency band or there is harmful interference between NGSO 
FSS licensees, the available spectrum is divided equally among 
licensees.
    28. Several commenters suggested that instead of eliminating the 
prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems, the Commission could 
``soften'' the rule, amend it, more broadly interpret the meaning of 
``unbuilt'', or issue waivers on a case-by-case basis. The Commission 
finds that these suggested changes for nuanced, case-by-case approaches 
in interpretation would not result in an expedited review process on 
the whole. Rather additional review, and therefore a more-lengthy 
application processing timeframe, would be required. Kuiper suggests 
that the Commission amend the rule to focus on investment and progress. 
The Commission's current bond and milestone requirements are set up for 
such purpose. When the Commission adopted the bond requirements in 
2003, the Commission reasoned that requiring satellite licensees to 
make a financial commitment to construct and launch their satellites 
would help deter speculative applications and thus prevent valuable 
spectrum resources from lying fallow. When the Commission adopted a 
revised escalating methodology for bond and milestone rules in 2015, 
which increases operators' liability over time, the Commission aimed to 
further incentivize satellite operators to construct and launch 
spacecraft expeditiously or surrender their authorization early. The 
Commission agrees with comments that state that the Commission's bond 
and milestone rules have been effective in deterring speculative 
applications, and the Commission finds that the licensed-but-unbuilt 
NGSO-like systems prohibition on filing an application for another 
NGSO-like satellite system license in that frequency band in Sec.  
25.159(b) has become redundant, while also creating an additional 
hurdle to the application process for NGSO operators. While the 
Commission agrees that a focus on investment and progress towards 
completing a system is prudent, it does not agree that amending the 
unbuilt systems rule to focus on investment is necessary. Rather, the 
most effective method for streamlining the application process is to 
eliminate the prohibition on applying for another NGSO system license 
when an applicant already has a licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like system 
and rely on the Commission's longstanding bond and milestone 
requirements.
    29. Several commenters suggest that at the very least EESS 
operators should

[[Page 84743]]

be exempt from the unbuilt NGSO systems rule given their views that 
EESS operators often have the ability to share spectrum without causing 
interference. This point is moot given the decision to eliminate the 
prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems and therefore there is no 
longer any need to expressly exempt EESS operators from it. However, 
the Commission agrees with commenters that EESS NGSO operators provide 
a relevant example for why the one-size-fits-all unbuilt NGSO systems 
rule did not account for the nuance of certain NGSO satellite 
operations, or the way NGSO systems have developed in the 20 years 
since the rule was implemented. As both Spire and a group of EESS 
operators point out, EESS operations licenses are routinely granted 
outside of processing rounds, which the unbuilt systems rule was 
designed for. Again, the Commission's experience and the record 
demonstrate that eliminating the prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt 
systems is the most efficient method for streamlining, and because of 
the bond and milestone requirements, the Commission can do so without 
jeopardizing its goals to prevent spectrum warehousing and speculative 
applications. Additionally, by revising the remaining language in 
Sec. Sec.  25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5) to clarify that the prohibition 
on filing multiple applications in the same frequency band is tied to 
being subject to the Commission's ``modified processing round rules,'' 
found in Sec.  25.157, EESS operators who are granted licenses or 
market access outside of processing rounds will not be subject to 
Sec. Sec.  25.159(b) or 25.137(d)(5) at all.
    30. Several commenters suggest that the Commission take into 
account how to ensure that elimination of the unbuilt systems rule does 
not result in the potential for interference for other operators and 
ensure that ITU Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits are adhered 
to. ViaSat cautions that, if this rule were eliminated, applicants 
might ``propose to operate multiple NGSO `systems' that would use the 
same frequency bands as a way of circumventing the Commission's 
substantive EPFD limits'' or ``attempt to game the default `band-
splitting' mechanism set forth in Sec.  25.261 of the Commission's 
rules (which divides spectrum equally among the `systems' involved in 
an inline interference event).'' Intelsat raises a similar concern 
regarding EPFD limits and suggests that the Commission clarify that 
NGSO systems must continue to adhere to the EPFD limits incorporated in 
Sec.  25.146(c) of the Commission's rules. This decision to eliminate 
the unbuilt systems rule does not alter Sec.  25.146(c), which remains 
in place. Moreover, applicants will continue to be held to Commission 
and ITU rules on EPFD limits. And, as stated above, the Commission is 
retaining the portion of the rule that prohibits operators from filing 
multiple applications in the same frequency band in specific 
circumstances to avoid the possibility of a single operator receiving 
unequal division of spectrum in cases where band-splitting is required.
    31. SES, while supporting the removal of the unbuilt systems 
prohibition in Sec.  25.159 so long as other protections are in place, 
suggests that the Commission ensure that NGSO operators must be limited 
to one application per processing round. SES argues that ``[p]ermitting 
an applicant to submit two or more system designs in a [processing] 
round would multiply the burden on Commission staff and other round 
participants, who would be forced to evaluate each possible 
configuration, even if it is clear that the applicant only intends to 
build and launch one of its proposed options.'' EchoStar disagrees and 
suggests that applicants might plan to use different NGSO systems for 
different applications, and given the financial commitments that are 
necessary, companies are unlikely to file applications frivolously. 
EchoStar appears to go even further and suggest that the Commission 
eliminate Sec.  25.159(d), which states, among other things, that 
``[i]n the event that a licensee misses three or more milestones within 
any three-year period, the Commission will presume that the licensee 
obtained one or more of those licenses for speculative purposes.'' The 
Commission declines to consider this suggestion further as it is beyond 
the scope of the Commission's queries related to paragraph (b), and the 
Commission finds that paragraph (d) in Sec.  25.159 plays a distinct 
and important role in deterring speculative applications. The 
Commission agrees with SES that there are different considerations 
related to its rules on the number of applications per applicant per 
processing round versus whether the applicant has a licensed-but-
unbuilt system. Although NGSO systems have evolved and an operator may 
have two distinct purposes for seeking multiple applications in the 
same processing round, the Commission is not convinced that doing away 
with this aspect of the rules will expedite the application or review 
process for processing rounds, but rather would require heightened 
review and consideration that might delay the processing of the 
application. Additionally, this aspect of the rule serves to ensure 
that in the event there is insufficient available spectrum in a 
frequency band, the available spectrum will truly be shared equally 
among the licensees, as required by Sec.  25.157(e) of Commission rules 
on NGSO processing rounds. Although commenters state that an applicant 
could have a legitimate reason to apply for separate systems in the 
same processing round, the commenters do not provide any concrete 
examples of what these reasons might be or how, as a general matter, 
the benefits of allowing multiple applications in the same processing 
round outweigh the identified potential harms. As a result, there is no 
basis in the record to determine that the potential harms identified by 
the Commission in adopting the rule, and identified by comments in this 
proceeding, could be outweighed by unspecified potential benefits. In 
sum, the Commission adopts revisions to Sec.  25.159(b) and its 
equivalent for market access grantees in Sec.  25.137(d)(5) by 
eliminating the prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems in these 
rules, but the Commission retains the limitation on the number of 
applications per NGSO operator per processing round. The Commission has 
also clarified the text related to the number of applications to 
demonstrate this limit is tied directly to being subject to the 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  25.157 and 25.261. The Commission notes that 
it has eliminated references to Sec. Sec.  25.122 (small satellites 
streamlined licensing procedure) and 25.123 (small spacecraft 
streamlined licensing procedure) as exceptions to Sec.  25.159(b) and 
Sec.  25.137(d)(5) because licenses granted under these streamlined 
procedures are made outside of a processing round and thus not subject 
to Sec. Sec.  25.157 and 25.261. Additionally, the Commission revises 
Sec.  25.159(c) of the rules for clarification and to reflect these 
changes.
4. Waiver Requests
    32. Current rules state that an application will be unacceptable 
for filing and will be returned to the applicant if it is defective, 
internally inconsistent, or incomplete, or if it does not substantially 
comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for 
additional information, or other requirements. Current rules also, 
however, specifically allow the Commission to accept for filing an 
application that is defective for these reasons if the application 
contains a request for waiver of any rule, regulation, or requirement 
with which the application is in conflict. Alternatively, the 
Commission may

[[Page 84744]]

accept the application if the Commission, upon its own motion, waives 
(or allows an exception to), in whole or in part, any rule, regulation 
or requirement. Thus, the current rules allow an otherwise defective 
application to be accepted for filing if it contains a request for 
waiver of a rule that it is in conflict with, or the Commission waives 
the rule on its own motion.
    33. The NPRM asked whether applications omitting necessary waiver 
requests should be dismissed, and 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. This is an important question, given the risk of an 
application being delayed from being accepted for filing while the 
applicant and opposing parties argue whether an application complies 
with Commission rules, where the application did not explicitly request 
a waiver of the rule in question. As a result of this argument, a 
decision on the merits of the application instead becomes a procedural 
question that inhibits accepting the application for filing and placing 
the application on public notice for comment, which is a prerequisite 
for acting on the application.
    34. The Commission finds that no change to its rules is necessary 
to address the potential delay of an application being accepted for 
filing because of a failure to request a waiver of Commission rules. 
Instead, the Commission encourages applicants to remember to request 
any necessary waivers of Commission rules or policies in order to avoid 
dismissal of applications or delay in accepting applications for 
filing. By filing a waiver request, the applicant removes a potential 
obstacle to accepting the application for filing and placing the 
application on public notice. Likewise, the Commission does not need to 
change any rules in order to answer the question of how well-supported 
a waiver request needs to be to overcome the acceptability for filing 
requirements. The current rules simply state that a defective 
application can be accepted for filing if it is ``accompanied by a 
request which sets forth the reasons in support of a waiver of (or an 
exception to), in whole or in part, any specific rule, regulation, or 
requirement with which the application is in conflict.'' Because the 
waiver request must seek a waiver of a ``specific rule, regulation, or 
requirement,'' an application cannot satisfy Sec.  25.112(b)(1) with a 
blanket request for waiver of any unspecified rule that the Commission 
might find the application in conflict with. The rule does not impose 
any separate requirements on how well-supported the waiver request 
needs to be, so the general requirement for any waiver request to show 
``good cause'' under Commission rules applies.
    35. Some comments suggest that the Commission adopt requirements 
for, or limitations on, requests of waivers of specific rules. The 
Commission finds that these suggestions go beyond the generalized goal 
of expediting the processing of space and earth station applications 
and are better addressed in the context of specific applications and 
rulemakings. Accordingly, the Commission will not address them here.

b. Expediting Public Notice of Acceptability for Filing

    36. The Commission establishes timelines for Space Bureau staff to 
either: (1) determine that an application for authority to operate a 
space or earth station is acceptable for filing and place it on public 
notice; or (2) notify the applicant that staff has identified 
questions, errors, or omissions, and that the application will not be 
placed on public notice until after these questions, errors, or 
omissions are addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the 
Bureau. For all earth stations and GSO space station applications, the 
Commission concludes that a 30-day timeline is appropriate. For all 
NGSO space station applications, the Commission concludes a 60-day 
timeline is appropriate. In all cases, the timeline is measured in 
calendar days, starting on the day after the application is filed in 
ICFS. The Commission finds that expressing clear goals for accepting an 
application for filing or notifying the applicant of deficiencies will 
establish expectations for expedited processing of applications for 
both staff and applicants.
    37. The NPRM asked whether the Commission should have deadlines for 
accepting certain space or earth station license applications for 
filing or dismissing them as unacceptable for filing. It also sought 
comment on what a reasonable deadline might be and whether deadlines 
should depend on the type of application filed. Additionally, it asked 
whether there should be limitations on any acceptability for filing 
deadline the Commission might adopt, such as for applications 
requesting 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. Finally, it queried whether instituting a deadline would 
result in more dismissals.
    38. Most comments welcome the establishment of timeframes for 
placing applications on public notice, however, commenters differ on 
whether the timelines should be definitive deadlines, such as ``shot 
clocks,'' or more flexible goalposts. Commenters are generally wary of 
automatic dismissals. AWS explains that a shot clock resulting in 
automatic dismissal if not approved before the deadline would not 
streamline the process, rather it would require an additional review 
burden on both the applicant and the Commission staff. Instead of an 
automatic dismissal approach, AWS suggests that earth station 
applications could be automatically placed on public notice after 30 
days if the Commission does not deem them acceptable for filing sooner. 
Inmarsat and SIA also suggest a 30-day shot clock for placing earth 
station applications on public notice. Boeing puts forth a similar 
suggestion, proposing that all earth station applications be placed on 
public notice after 30 days of filing and space stations after 90 days 
of filing, except in the event the staff determines that the 
application is incomplete or defective (thus requiring additional time 
for inquiry to the applicant). EchoStar also generally suggests a 30-
day timeline for placing applications on public notice, unless they are 
deemed incomplete. However, EchoStar disagrees with the notion of 
making this timeline a shot clock and suggests that extensions to the 
timeline should be allowed when staff identify genuine issues that 
require more time to address. Globalstar and Viasat also advocate 
against firm shot clocks for placing applications on public notice, 
especially for space station license applications. Globalstar suggests 
that Commission staff will likely require at least 90 days for making 
the necessary technical assessments to find space station licenses 
acceptable for filing. SpaceX advocates for the Commission to adopt the 
anticipated timeframes the Commission contemplated in 2015 and 2016 for 
placing applications on public notice as firm shot clocks.
    39. The Commission believes that establishing specific timeframes 
for finding applications to be acceptable for filing and placing them 
on public notice will aid in expediting the licensing process. 
Additionally, the Commission agrees with those comments that highlight 
the need for the Commission to have sufficient time to review 
applications and notify and engage in dialogue with applicants whose 
applications may require additional communication between Commission

[[Page 84745]]

staff and the applicant due to the novel nature or complexity of the 
application. Given these considerations, the Commission concludes that 
maintaining a level of flexibility for dialogue with applicants is 
necessary when the Space Bureau staff discover errors, omissions, or 
unclear information. In these cases, the Commission includes an 
alternative to the specified timelines for determining acceptability 
for filing. However, in the spirit of transparency, the Commission 
directs the staff to notify applicants regarding their application 
status if those applications will not go on public notice within the 
specified timelines and offer the reasons why the application is not 
acceptable for filing. Applicants can expect, therefore, that they will 
receive some form of application status confirmation within the 
specified timelines, either with the application appearing on an 
accepted for filing public notice, or with a communication notifying 
the applicant that the application requires the submission of missing 
information. The Commission anticipates that the most common form of 
this communication will be a letter to the applicant from Space Bureau 
staff, but does not preclude the use of other forms of communication 
that provide adequate notice to the applicant of the need to submit 
missing information. The Commission also notes that it has a weekly 
schedule for placing applications that are accepted for filing on 
public notice: the earth station public notice is released each 
Wednesday, and the space station public notice is released each Friday. 
Therefore, in some circumstances, Space Bureau staff might determine an 
application is acceptable for filing within the 30- or 60-day 
timeframe, yet the application might not appear on public notice until 
the next possible public notice release date following the 
determination.
    40. Notably, the Commission does not require that an application be 
automatically dismissed if Space Bureau staff does not find it 
acceptable for filing within the specified timelines. Such a 
requirement could result in more applicants having to resubmit 
dismissed applications simply because of expiration of time, which 
would delay, rather than expedite, the earth and space station 
application process. The Commission also does not require automatically 
placing an application on public notice as acceptable for filing if 
Space Bureau staff does not act within the specified timelines. 
Although the Commission expects Space Bureau staff to act on 
applications consistent with the specific timelines established today, 
the Commission recognizes that unusual circumstances may prevent such 
timely action. For example, new information may be placed into the 
record at a very late date that calls into question whether the 
application is acceptable for filing and does not allow time for Space 
Bureau staff to notify the applicant that the application is not 
accepted for filing. It would not serve the public interest to 
automatically accept the application for filing in such circumstances, 
simply because of expiration of time.
    41. The Commission is mindful that different applications have 
different levels of complexity, and Commission rules require various 
considerations depending on the type of application. The Commission 
appreciates observations that space station applications in particular 
can require significant time to review, even for acceptability for 
filing. For NGSO applications, there is often a need for a longer time-
period of initial review to reflect the greater complexity related to 
those applications. For example, deciding whether to accept an 
application as the lead application in a processing round requires a 
more substantive review than GSO applications which are not subject to 
a processing round because opening a new processing round affects not 
only the lead applicant, but also any other applicants that would apply 
in that processing round as well as applicants and grantees from prior 
processing rounds and, potentially, future processing rounds; further, 
potential lead applicants have often requested waiver of the processing 
round requirement altogether, which, if granted, would obviate the need 
to open a new round. Similarly, an application for NGSO space stations 
can include thousands of satellites in a single application, which 
greatly increases the amount of information that Space Bureau staff 
will need to review for acceptability for filing. Additionally, in the 
Commission's experience, NGSO applicants typically request a larger 
range of frequencies and utilize more complex and numerous beam 
patterns than GSO applicants, which again necessitates a longer review 
period than that for GSO and earth station applications.
    42. The Commission also recognizes that the timelines it 
establishes today differ from some previously established, which did 
not distinguish between applications for GSO and NGSO space stations, 
and were for applications considered to be ``straightforward'', ``not 
contested'', and ``barring any complications.'' The Commission finds 
that applying these new timelines across application types will provide 
greater certainty to applicants, and that the initial review timelines 
for GSO space stations of 30 days and initial review timeline for NGSO 
space stations of 60 days, reflects the differences identified above in 
the amount of time required to review the different types of 
applications. By establishing timelines for initial review that the 
Commission believes it can consistently meet, the Commission helps to 
mitigate regulatory uncertainty.
    43. The Commission also finds that it is unnecessary to limit these 
timelines to applications for initial authorizations and for 
modifications. The remaining categories of filings--amendments, 
transfers of control, and assignments--to the extent that they require 
public notice, are not inherently more complex or review intensive than 
applications for initial authorizations and for modification with 
respect to determining acceptability. The Commission also applies these 
timeframes across the board, rather than limiting them to a smaller 
category such as ``straightforward'' applications. The decision to 
accept an application for filing need not consider the underlying 
merits of the application and is generally done prior to receiving 
comments and objections from other parties, which results in a simpler 
process than deciding whether to grant or deny an application. In any 
event, the Commission believes that any staff time spent on determining 
whether an application is straightforward or not, for example, would be 
better spent on reviewing the application for public notice and 
resolving issues that prevent it from being accepted for filing.
    44. Although some commenters suggest that the Commission consider 
longer timeframes for initial space station review, the Commission 
notes that the initial review, while thorough, is focused on an 
acceptability for filing determination, not on the merits of the 
application, and generally does not require the evaluation of comments 
and oppositions to the application, and the Commission believes that 
the revised timelines adopted here can be achieved. These new timelines 
strike a balance between the need to place applications for earth and 
space station operations on public notice expeditiously, and the time 
needed for staff to make the determination of whether an application is 
acceptable for filing under Commission rules.

[[Page 84746]]

c. Action on the Merits

    45. The NPRM sought comment generally on whether the Commission 
should adopt broader shot clocks for ultimate ``action taken'' on 
certain types of space station or earth station applications. The 
Commission received a wide variety of comments and suggestions on this 
issue and the record is divided on support for ``action taken'' shot 
clocks. Some commenters approve of shot clocks for certain types of 
applications (for example, just for earth station applications), while 
others argue that all types of space and earth station applications 
should have shot clocks for Commission action taken. Suggested shot 
clock timeframes range from 45 days after the close of public notice to 
one year for ``action taken'' on an application.
    46. A number of commenters oppose shot clocks for actions taken, 
cautioning that the institution of shot clocks for taking action on 
licenses could jeopardize the thorough review of complex technical 
issues that the Commission's rules require. Some commenters point out 
that considering action taken shot clocks is ``premature'' or that the 
Commission could consider the possibility of shot clocks in the future, 
after the Space Bureau has been well-established and resourced, but 
that implementing them should at least be deferred for the time being. 
As with the acceptability for filing issue, some commenters suggest 
that the Commission issue timelines instead of shot clocks, which would 
serve more as goals than obligations for action taken, or that the 
Commission can toll the shot clocks as needed. Several commenters offer 
specific suggestions for alternatives to action-taken shot clocks. 
Intelsat argues for an ``auto grant'' procedure for straightforward 
applications, and AWS suggests that uncontested earth station 
applications could begin operations on a non-inference basis after six 
months, if action is not yet taken on their application.
    47. Consistent with several of the commenters' views, the 
Commission recognizes the need to process applications promptly after 
accepting them for filing. Nevertheless, the Commission declines at 
this time to adopt a general, one-size-fits-all shot clock for taking 
action on license applications. At this point in the proceeding, the 
record does not show that any timeframe in particular would accommodate 
these complexities while also accelerating action on more 
straightforward applications. However, the Commission is dedicated to 
fostering innovation in the satellite industry and to preserving the 
United States as an attractive and competitive licensing destination 
for satellite services. The Commission believes it is important to 
further consider and address issues raised by commenters regarding 
timelines for taking action on the merits of an application. The 
Commission therefore seeks further comment in the FNPRM on proposals 
regarding action on the merits such as shot clocks and/or timeframes 
for action.
    48. The Commission also finds that certain earth station 
applications are suitable for a more streamlined application review 
process, and the Commission discusses in more detail below its decision 
to expand the category of applications that may be deemed granted after 
a specific period of time.
    49. Within the scope of the inquiry regarding whether the 
Commission should consider adopting any shot clocks or processing 
deadlines, the Commission sought comment on which types of license 
applications the Commission should consider ``straightforward'' and 
whether to implement processing timelines for such applications in 
particular. The Commission pointed to its 2016 public notice that 
identified expected processing timelines for straightforward, 
uncontested earth station applications, barring any complication, and 
asked whether these guidelines should be codified, whether a more 
flexible approach and considerations of other factors was warranted, or 
whether given the pace of change in space activities and corresponding 
number of applications presenting unique or complex issues, the 
Commission should limit the scope of ``straightforward'' applications. 
After considering the record, the Commission declines at this time to 
further identify or otherwise separate out processing timelines for 
``straightforward'' applications.
    50. The record was divided on this issue. Numerous commenters 
generally support the notion of identifying ``straightforward'' 
applications and creating processing timeframes for those applications. 
However, only a few commenters specifically propose examples of 
applications that the Commission consider as ``straightforward.'' RBC 
Signals suggests including: (1) applications for earth stations 
operating with a U.S.-licensed satellite and consistent with standard 
technical characteristics for the relevant bands; (2) earth station 
modification applications when it is an application to add a U.S.-
licensed satellite or market access grantee operating in previously 
authorized bands; and (3) a new earth station license that is at a site 
within a defined distance of similar earth station operations (e.g., 1 
mile) and operating within same parameters as pre-existing earth 
stations within the ``straightforward'' category. Intelsat proposes 
that uncontested earth or space station applications that pose minimal 
interference risk should be considered ``straightforward.'' Boeing, 
TechFreedom, and SpaceX suggest that the Commission should not make 
such a distinction, and rather should apply shot clocks to all types of 
applications, regardless of whether they are ``straightforward.''
    51. The Commission does not believe the divided record supports the 
creation of a category of ``straightforward'' applications at this 
time. The Commission recognizes the potential benefit to creating such 
categories so long as they are well-defined, and so long as their 
development and application in specific cases do not hinder the goal of 
processing applications promptly. At the same time, the Commission 
recognizes the points made by SpaceX and TechFreedom that creating a 
carve-out for only ``easy'' or uncontested applications might 
incentivize the filing of oppositions and increase the number of 
contested applications. In the same vein the Commission agrees with 
commenters that the Commission can streamline its rules to expedite 
processing of routine and novel or complex applications. The Commission 
is currently faced with an unprecedented influx of earth station and 
space station applications. The Commission finds that the other 
concrete steps it is taking today, including removing no longer 
necessary rules that slow down the application process, committing to 
issue numerous forms of guidance for streamlining application filing, 
and creating a 30 and 60-day timeframe for determining acceptability 
for filing, are the types of practical and necessary processing 
improvements that the Commission can quickly implement. Additionally, 
the Commission notes that it will further consider timeframes and/or 
shot clocks for actions taken on the merits of applications in the 
FNPRM. Taking into account the divided record on this issue, the 
Commission concludes that it would not serve the Commission's goals to 
further identify or carve-out certain types of applications as 
``straightforward'' at this time.

[[Page 84747]]

d. Expediting Earth Station Applications To Add Points of Communication

    52. The Commission takes action to expedite the processing of a 
common category of earth station applications: applications to modify 
existing earth station licenses by adding new space stations as points 
of communication. Specifically, the Commission adopts a new rule, under 
which applications to add space station points of communication to 
existing earth station licenses will be deemed granted 35 days after 
being placed on public notice, under certain conditions described below 
and provided that no objection to the application is filed. This rule 
is added as a new paragraph, (i) in Sec.  25.117, which governs 
modifications of station licenses that require Commission 
authorization. While the Commission declines to draw lines based on 
whether to consider this type of application to be ``straightforward,'' 
the Commission finds that, under a specific set of conditions, the 
process of adding space station as additional points of communication 
to existing earth station licenses can be significantly expedited.
    53. Commission rules allow earth stations to transmit to any space 
station in the same radio service that is listed as a point of 
communication in the earth station license, provided that permission 
has been received from the space station operator to access that space 
station. The NPRM specifically asked whether applications to add points 
of communication to existing earth station licenses should qualify as 
``straightforward'' so long as the space station to be added is: (1) 
either U.S.-licensed, or (2) has been granted U.S. market access within 
the parameters requested in the earth station application, and the 
applicant identifies either the call sign of or the earth station 
license(s) in which the space station was granted market access. The 
NPRM sought comment on whether these types of applications should be 
automatically deemed granted 60 days after they are filed, absent other 
Commission action.
    54. Numerous commenters support the consideration of earth station 
operators' applications to add previously authorized space stations as 
points of communication as ``straightforward'' and to allow for 
applications to be deemed granted after 60 days, absent other 
Commission action. AWS suggests that the Commission consider various 
benchmark shot clocks within the 60-day period for placing the 
application on public notice and coordination. Several commenters 
suggest that the Commission go even further and allow the addition of 
previously authorized points of communication through notification, 
such as via Sec.  25.118 of Commission rules, instead of through a 
license application process. SpaceX proposes that notification, instead 
of authorization, should be allowed when a space station operator is 
also the earth station licensee and is requesting to add one of its own 
previously authorized space stations as a point of contact. Microsoft 
suggests that earth station operators could add any space station as a 
point of communication, so long as a certain set of conditions are met. 
EchoStar suggests that the Commission should permit earth station 
operators to specify in their application that they will communicate 
with all FCC-authorized NGSO systems (just as is done with GSO systems 
currently), which will reduce the number of modifications requiring 
filing.
    55. In contrast, several commenters suggest the Commission proceed 
with caution on this proposal. For example, Iridium cautions that in 
the case of earth stations subject to Sec.  25.203(k) of the 
Commission's rules, applicants must either complete coordination or 
demonstrate that they will not cause unacceptable interference and 
therefore proposes that given these requirements, such applications 
should not be considered ``straightforward'' or subject to the proposed 
60-day timeline for being deemed granted. Viasat asserts that adding 
NGSO systems as points of communication could ``upset'' the EPFD limit 
calculations and coordination agreements in NGSO system authorizations. 
Viasat proposes that if the Commission allows for streamlining in 
adding points of communication, earth station operators should be 
required to include a certification that the addition will not result 
in operations or impacts inconsistent with the EPFD analysis or 
coordination agreements of the NGSO operator.
    56. After consideration of the record, the Commission concludes 
that, in a specific set of instances, it is feasible and appropriate to 
adopt a licensing procedure by which an application to add a point of 
communication can be deemed granted 35 days after the application has 
been found acceptable for filing and also placed on public notice if no 
sooner action is taken by the Commission. The Commission notes that in 
some instances an application might be found acceptable for filing 
within 30 days, but might not be placed on public notice exactly within 
30 days due to the weekly schedule of releasing public notices. This 
timeline takes into account the Commission's new timeframe for finding 
earth stations to be acceptable for filing within 30 days (or notifying 
the applicant of the need for further information). Therefore, a 
substantially complete application to add a point of communication 
would be found acceptable for filing and placed on public notice within 
30 days, starting on the day after the application is filed in ICFS, 
and then would be deemed granted 35 days after public notice, a total 
of 65 days for processing. The Commission agrees with commenters that 
applications requiring coordination, including Federal coordination, 
require additional time.
    57. Initially, this expedited process is premised on the following 
conditions, which are necessary to balance faster processing for adding 
points of communication and protecting other spectrum users from 
interference. First, the Commission notes that Commission staff will 
retain discretion to remove the application from the deemed-granted 
process if merited. Additionally, the Commission requires that these 
modifications be limited in nature, and not part of a larger set of 
modifications, which might require more lengthy review. Therefore, the 
modification can be only to add space stations as points of 
communication. Next, applications will need to demonstrate that the 
addition of a new point of communication will not cause earth station 
transmissions to exceed the highest equivalent isotropically radiated 
power (EIRP), EIRP density, and bandwidth prescribed for any already 
authorized emission. Finally, this option will only be available in 
frequency bands that are not shared with Federal or terrestrial 
wireless users and are not subject to coordination requirements with 
other non-Federal satellite services. The Commission does, however, 
seek comment in the FNPRM regarding some additional circumstances in 
which an earth station modification to add a point of communication 
could be expedited.
    58. The Commission is not convinced, as some have suggested, that 
all applications for adding a point of communication are appropriate 
for notification-only consideration. The Commission observes that 
applications to add space stations as points of communication are only 
required for space stations that are not on the Permitted List, and for 
operations that fall outside ``routine'' earth station technical 
parameters. If a GSO space station is licensed by the Commission, or 
has been granted access to the U.S. market, and operates in specified 
frequency bands where GSO FSS has

[[Page 84748]]

primary status, then the space station is a Permitted List space 
station and is automatically included as a point of communication for 
all U.S.-licensed earth stations that list the Permitted List as a 
point of communication, provided that the earth station operations with 
the space station fall within the existing technical parameters and 
conditions of the earth station license. The Permitted List already 
represents the Commission's judgment as to which space stations can be 
added as points of communications to an earth station's license without 
requiring an application and approval by the Commission. Allowing the 
addition of any space station as a point of communication, without 
prior application or approval, in any orbit or service or frequency 
band, and without regard to whether the operations fall within existing 
technical parameters would essentially render the Permitted List 
meaningless, which is an outcome outside the scope of this proceeding 
to expedite the processing of space and earth station applications. The 
Permitted List is limited to GSO space stations providing fixed-
satellite service, and the Commission has not so far determined that it 
is possible to include NGSO space stations within the definition of the 
Permitted List. In the accompanying FNPRM, however, the Commission 
seeks comment on commenter proposals to create a process for allowing 
U.S.-licensed earth stations to have automatic authority to communicate 
with certain approved NGSO space stations, in a manner similar to the 
how the Permitted List functions for approved GSO space stations.

e. Other Suggestions

    59. The NPRM sought comment generally on the issues the Commission 
identified for streamlining and on other guidance that may assist 
applicants and speed application processing. In response to the 
Commission's general questions, some commenters advocate for additional 
rule changes that they believe will reduce the need to file 
modification applications, but which are either outside of the scope of 
this proceeding or which the Commission declines to take action on at 
this time. Additionally, some of the comments and suggestions more 
appropriately align with other ongoing Commission proceedings and, as 
such, are not further considered in this document. Finally, several 
comments can be addressed by clarifying and explaining existing Space 
Bureau practices. The Commission values the input that it received in 
response to the NPRM, and the absence of action today or inclusion in 
the accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in no way 
precludes consideration of these ideas as part of other existing 
proceedings or as part of future rulemaking proceedings.
    64. Suggestions for Modifications without Prior Authorization. 
Spire proposes that the Commission adopt a new provision in Sec.  
25.118 for EESS spacecraft, permitting operators to notify the 
Commission of these set of changes. SpaceX suggests that the Commission 
expand Spire's proposal to include all NGSO systems, not just EESS. The 
Commission declines to adopt Spire's proposal at this time. While the 
Commission believes expanding notification-only modifications could 
have merit, the Commission remains concerned that this proposal in 
particular would leave important determinations, such as the evaluation 
of interference risk, solely to the applicant. The Commission notes 
that it is not creating a new requirement here, rather the Commission 
is declining to adopt a proposal to amend Sec.  25.118 to include 
certain additional changes to satellites. Commission rules on 
modifications remain the same. The Commission notes, however, that some 
satellite design changes may not require Commission review or 
notification at all if they create no change to radio frequency, do not 
affect orbital debris mitigation plans, or otherwise affect the 
parameters or terms and conditions of the station authorization.
    65. Spire additionally proposes that discrepancies related to 
whether an applicant can make a minor modification through notification 
or via prior authorization can be alleviated to some degree if the 
Commission codifies a broad definition of the term ``technically 
identical.'' Spire proposes that ``[t]he Commission should formally 
codify the explanation it provided in the 1994 MSS Order that 
`technically identical' spacecraft are those that have `identical 
satellite antenna footprints and transmission parameters' but which may 
have de minimis variation among them--including the physical structure 
or microelectronics.'' Additionally, Spire suggests that the Commission 
should expressly exempt ``technically identical'' components from 
modification rules. The Commission declines to adopt a specific 
definition of ``technically identical'' in the rules at this time 
because such a definition may become outdated as technology advances. 
The Commission aims to amend its rules in technologically-neutral and 
performance-based ways, and in light of this framework the Commission 
finds it inappropriate to adopt such a definition in the rules based on 
the current record.
    66. Suggested Changes to the Space Bureau's Special Temporary 
Authority Process. Several commenters suggest various approaches to 
further streamline the license application process for STAs. SpaceX 
proposes, and other commenters agree, that STAs with an underlying 
request for full authorization should renew automatically while the 
underlying application is pending. RBC Signals suggests that the Space 
Bureau adopt a procedure which allows STA operations to continue while 
a license application with identical parameters to the STA is under 
review. And Intelsat suggests that the Commission ``adopt the [Sec.  ] 
1.62 policies previously employed'' for Earth station applications 
``wherein operators were not required to file a new STA extension 
request prior to the grant of the previous STA extension request.''
    67. Here the Commission finds that an explanation of the Space 
Bureau's STA process is merited when considering these comments. 
Commission rules for special temporary authorizations under part 25 
allow operators to apply for STAs for various amounts of time, and 
state that STAs expire at the end of those allotted terms. These rules 
stem from the Communications Act, which allows the Commission to grant 
STAs for up to 180 days if they are placed on public notice per section 
309(f) of the Act, and allows the Commission to grant up to 30 and 60-
day STAs in certain circumstances without public notice per section 
309(c)(2)(G) of the Act. The reasoning behind these rules is simple: 
special temporary authorizations are meant to be used under exceptional 
or ``extraordinary'' circumstances, as the Act states and as Commission 
rulemakings have emphasized. The Space Bureau has applied Sec.  1.62 to 
special temporary authorizations in that if an applicant with an STA 
files a new STA application to extend its temporary authorization three 
days prior to the end of its current license term, it may continue its 
temporary operations while the new STA application is pending. As such, 
an operator with an STA may continue its temporary operations while a 
new application to extend the time period for their authorization is 
under review and the Commission acknowledges this in its license 
grants. The Commission notes that the rules allow for STAs for up to 
180 days at a time. Despite this, many applicants still file shorter-
term STA applications for up to 30 days, which the Commission can issue 
without placing on public notice, or 60-day durations, which the 
Commission has the discretion to not

[[Page 84749]]

place on public notice if the applicant plans to file an underlying 
request for regular authority of the service. Additionally, because 
requests for special temporary authority are meant to be granted under 
exceptional circumstances and for relatively short duration, any 
coordination that is needed for the temporary authorization is 
generally limited to the time period requested by the applicant, or no 
more than up to 180 days. Additional requests then require additional 
coordination for the new time period.
    68. For all these reasons, the Commission declines to adopt the 
suggested changes to the STA rules at this time. The Commission 
recognizes that STA applications are often accompanied by an underlying 
license or modification application for regular operations, and it can 
be difficult for applicants to determine the full timeframe for which 
they might require special temporary authorization. However, the 
Commission notes that applicants may consider a variety of time frames 
for their STA needs, including the 180-day STA. The Commission also 
notes that it does not wish to circumvent the 180-day STA requirements, 
which is distinguished by the 30 and 60-day STAs only in so far that 
the Act requires the Commission to place applications for STAs beyond 
60 days and up to 180 days on public notice. Therefore, the Commission 
has discretion to place 30 and 60-day STA applications on public 
notice, and may choose to do so in the event an individual applicant 
files numerous shorter-term STA requests that result in longer than a 
180-day use. Ultimately, the Commission is hopeful that the 
Commission's continued streamlining efforts will lead to faster 
processing of underlying applications and a reduction in the need for 
extensions to STAs.
    69. Additional Suggestions for Streamlining of Modifications. 
SpaceX suggests that the Commission should permit and encourage 
operators to submit a single modification application that applies an 
identical change across multiple Earth station licenses. SpaceX 
proposes, as part of its suggestion, that for any modification that 
would require re-coordination with other commercial or Federal users, 
``the Commission could require the modification application to attach 
coordination information for each separate site.'' TechFreedom suggests 
``a hybrid licensing approach under which the common elements 
(technical parameters, points of communications, etc.) of a network of 
earth stations could be licensed on a network basis under a single 
license with only the individual elements (e.g., location) licensed 
separately.'' Both SpaceX and TechFreedom assert that these types of 
changes would dramatically cut down on the amount of modification 
applications that would require filing and review.
    70. The Commission is conscious of commenters' points regarding 
large numbers of modification applications being filed for common 
changes, and will consider this issue for future updates to the filing 
system, which currently cannot support this modification. In response 
to TechFreedom's suggestion, the Commission notes that it has made 
similar efforts to streamline common changes, such as through C-band 
earth station network licensing in Sec.  25.115(c)(2) of Commission 
rules and the unified licensing system for space stations and blanket 
earth stations adopted in 2020. In the 2020 order creating the unified 
licensing system, the Commission declined to include individually 
licensed earth stations in the process, finding that adding them would 
``create more complexity than its streamlining benefit,'' given the 
need for site-specific information and coordination. This reasoning 
remains valid. However, the Commission may consider similar suggestions 
such as TechFreedom's ``hybrid licensing'' approach as the Commission 
gains more experience with some of the streamlining rules the 
Commission has more recently put in place, such as the unified 
licensing system, that have not yet been widely utilized. The 
Commission may consider further streamlining in a future proceeding.
    71. Emission Designators. Intelsat and SIA both suggest that the 
Commission do away with requiring emission designators in earth station 
applications. SIA asserts that requiring applicants to include emission 
designators causes confusion, delay, and complexity to the application 
process ``without providing any meaningful information.'' The 
Commission declines to consider changes to the emission designator 
requirements. Emission designators provide a variety of necessary 
information to inform the licensing process and to make a determination 
to authorize an operation under Part 25. For example, they provide 
technical information that Commission staff use to verify and calculate 
the power spectral density, occupied bandwidth, whether transmissions 
are analog or digital, etc. Additionally, this information is typically 
requested as part of the Federal coordination process with NTIA. The 
Commission also notes that emission designators are required by OET in 
their license applications as well for similar reasons.
    72. Market Access and Orbital Debris Mitigation Showings. In 
response to the NPRM, a few commenters suggest that the Commission 
ensure market access operators and U.S. licensees are subject to the 
same rules, in particular they suggest the Commission amend its rules 
related to orbital debris showings. TechFreedom asserts that applicants 
for market access are treated more favorably than U.S. licensees in 
part because ``domestic applications are vetted at the acceptance stage 
to determine whether their orbital debris showings are sufficient, 
whereas such showings in market access petitions are not reviewed until 
a later stage.'' Conversely, OneWeb notes that market access applicants 
are effectively required to provide the same orbital debris showings as 
license applicants, but because this is often done through requests for 
information from Commission staff, OneWeb asserts the determination 
process is delayed as compared with the process for U.S. licensees.
    73. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that Sec.  
25.114(d)(14)(v) of the Commission's rules, which addresses orbital 
debris showings for market access grantees, is the subject of a pending 
petition for reconsideration filed by SpaceX for the same reasons 
raised by SpaceX in this proceeding. Therefore, the Commission will 
consider any changes to that rule in the other proceeding. However, the 
Commission takes this opportunity to emphasize that the Commission 
applies the same scrutiny to orbital debris showings for market access 
grantees and U.S.-licensees, and ultimately determines whether to grant 
market access based on the same technical information that a U.S.-
licensee would provide for orbital debris considerations. The 
Commission's current rules allow market access applicants to satisfy 
the requirement to describe the design and operational strategies to 
minimize orbital debris risk by demonstrating that their debris 
mitigation plans are subject to direct and effective regulatory 
oversight by the national authority that licensed their space station 
operations. Such a showing requires market access applicants to provide 
supporting documentation and respond to inquiries from Commission staff 
in order for the staff to compare the foreign rules and determine 
whether there is an effective regulatory regime in place. This includes 
submitting an English language version of the debris mitigation rules 
or regulations of the authority and indicating the current status of 
the

[[Page 84750]]

national licensing authority's review. However, while this provision 
allows the Commission to accept such equivalent regulatory oversight 
showings, it does not preclude applicants from alternatively providing 
the same orbital debris mitigation showings that are detailed elsewhere 
in Sec.  25.114 of the rules. And, except for a few cases, applicants 
have generally found it preferable to just provide the Commission with 
a description of the design and operational strategies for orbital 
debris mitigation instead of presenting all of the showings necessary 
to demonstrate the effective regulatory oversight of another national 
authority.
    74. UMFUS Pre-Application Coordination. Verizon/AT&T assert in 
their comments that the Commission could streamline the license 
application process by requiring earth station operators in bands 
shared with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) to engage 
in additional pre-application coordination and certify conformance with 
Sec.  25.136 of the Commission's rules and Space Bureau guidance in 
addition to the Part 101 coordination requirements. Additionally, they 
suggest that the Commission require earth station operators to provide 
more than visual information about proposed earth station contours, 
including the antenna gain at the horizon or the maximum equivalent 
isotropically radiated power at the horizon to validate how the 
contours were developed. OneWeb, Viasat, Intelsat, and EchoStar 
disagree with this proposal. The Commission agrees with commenters' 
assertions that these proposals fall outside the scope of this 
rulemaking. Similarly, the Commission finds that Viasat's proposal to 
amend the review process under Sec.  25.136 is also beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking. The Commission agrees that operators must fully engage 
in the coordination process identified for specific applications, but 
does not believe this proceeding, which focuses on expediting the 
license application process, is the pertinent forum for considering 
additions to pre-application coordination requirements.
    75. Redefining NGSO systems and EESS Licensing. Spire suggests that 
the Commission consider expanding and altering its NGSO licensing 
framework beyond the streamlined procedure carve out for small 
satellites in Sec.  25.122. The Commission notes that Spire's 
suggestions, which concern the overall licensing framework, operator 
definitions, and NGSO processing rounds, are beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. Similarly, Spire's proposals related to amending the U.S. 
Table of Frequency Allocations for space-to-space transmissions in the 
S-Band and considering other frequencies for intersatellite links is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The Commission may consider these 
suggestions when contemplating future rulemaking proceedings.
    76. Other Ongoing Commission Proceedings. Several other commenters 
raise issues that are beyond the scope of this proceeding but may be 
more appropriate for consideration in other ongoing Commission 
proceedings. For example, Kuiper suggests that the Commission can 
streamline its licensing procedures in part by finishing its rulemaking 
to revise Sec.  25.261 of the Commission's rules. SpaceX asserts these 
issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We agree and we note 
that the Commission adopted new rules for satellite system spectrum 
sharing and issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking on April 20, 
2023. Turion Space proposes that In-space Servicing, Assembly, and 
Manufacturing (ISAM) operations should be authorized by service 
category and the Commission should develop a new framework for space 
stations that deploy third-party payloads. The Commission has issued a 
Notice of Inquiry on ISAM operations and proposals related to these 
novel operations are more appropriate for consideration in that 
proceeding and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Myriota's 
suggestions related to Space-as-a-service (SaaS) and licensing antennas 
hosted at third-party facilities are also beyond the scope of this 
proceeding, however the Commission notes that similar suggestions have 
been raised in response to the Commission's ISAM NOI.
    77. Station-keeping Requirements. Intelsat suggests that the number 
of modification and STA requests could be cut down by revising Sec.  
25.210(j) of the Commissions' rules to permit maintaining GSO 
satellites within 0.1[deg] of their assigned orbital longitude, which 
is consistent with the ITU's east-west station-keeping requirements as 
opposed to the Commission's current rules, which require maintaining 
satellites within 0.05[deg] of their assigned orbital longitude. 
Intelsat suggests that this change would give operators increased 
flexibility for conducting fleet management maneuvers and obviate the 
need for requests for modifications or STAs in that situation. This 
suggestion falls outside the scope of this proceeding, which is focused 
on expediting the application process and not a review of all of the 
Commission's technical rules. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that it 
has amended the rule in the past to allow exceptions for end-of-life 
operations, and has considered waiver requests to this rule for 
applicants in the past. The Commission believes its current rules and 
practice are prudent, while allowing operators to apply for a waiver if 
needed under unique conditions.
    78. Bureau Practices. Several commenters raise issues that can be 
clarified by pointing commenters to current Space Bureau practices, 
procedures, and policies. One commenter suggests that the Commission 
waive, for good cause, NGSO-like processing rules for EESS operators. 
This type of waiver has been granted where justified given the nature 
of EESS operations and the ability for operators to share spectrum. 
Similarly, requests for email notification when licenses are granted 
and contact information for Bureau staff are already a part of Space 
Bureau practice. However, the Commission notes that FCC emails are sent 
to the designated point of contact on applications and, the Commission 
reminds applicants to notify the Commission of any updates to their 
designated point of contact details.
    79. Timing of Orbital Debris Showings. The Swedish Space 
Corporation asserts that the Commission should allow applicants to 
address space debris mitigation plans and deorbiting strategy after a 
license is granted because these matters require obtaining data from 
manufacturers and may cause delay before licensing. The commenter could 
raise this in the Commission's Orbital Debris Mitigation proceeding. 
While orbital debris assessments are a key component in determining 
whether to grant a license or market access, in some instances the 
Commission has authorized licenses on the condition that the applicant 
must submit its orbital debris plan through a modification and meet the 
requirements in the Commission's rules prior to commencing operations.
    80. License Conditions. A number of commenters raise suggestions 
and observations about the Commission's practices related to license 
conditions. Commenters suggest, for example, that the Commission could 
cut down on the license processing time by also limiting the number of 
conditions applied to each license. TechFreedom suggests this could be 
achieved in part by adding a new rule to part 25 ``making clear that 
all licenses are issued subject to any rule changes later adopted.'' 
Similarly, Intelsat asserts that current license grants are more 
lengthy than needed due to restatements of various of FCC rule 
requirements. SpaceX asserts that the Commission should avoid imposing

[[Page 84751]]

any conditions that conflict with Sec.  25.118. SpaceX also asserts 
that the Commission has inconsistently applied conditions to similarly 
situated applicants in the past and suggests that the Commission should 
adopt ``consistent conditions--ideally with identical language--that 
reduce the incentive for operators to claim heightened conditions for 
their competitors and reduce the need for operators to contest their 
competitors' applications to ensure equitable treatment.''
    81. The Commission finds these comments to be outside the scope of 
the queries on expediting application processing, and rather directly 
concern the specifics of license operations. However, the Commission 
recognizes that authorization conditions do at times include 
restatements of Commission rules. As commenters point out, all 
operators are subject to the rules in part 25, unless granted a waiver 
of a specific rule section. Additionally, it is already well 
established that licenses are subject to changes in rules that are the 
result of Commission rulemaking proceedings. Nonetheless, the Space 
Bureau may consider these suggestions when crafting future license 
conditions. Regarding SpaceX's suggestion, the Commission notes that 
certain conditions may apply generally, for example if applications are 
requesting a particular frequency or waiver of a particular section of 
Commission rules. In such instances, effort is made to have 
standardized conditions that are placed in license grants where 
possible, and the Commission expects the Space Bureau will continue to 
review license conditions accordingly. Beyond that, however, the 
Commission notes that each application presents individualized 
circumstances and operations, and conditions will reflect those 
differences. For example, the conditions placed on an applicant 
requesting to launch and operate one NGSO satellite will be different 
from an applicant requesting to launch and operate a fleet of 
satellites. In turn, the number of satellites, the size and location of 
the fleet, and other factors will all play a role in what conditions 
are placed on an operator.
    82. Experimental Licensing. Turion Space suggests that the 
Commission's experimental licensing rules under part 5 of Commission 
rules should be updated and that the Space Bureau, not OET, should 
administer the experimental licenses. OET has delegated authority to 
administer experimental licenses under part 5, in coordination with the 
Space Bureau when necessary. The Commission notes that part 5 rules 
cover all manner of experimental licenses and OET has the delegated 
authority and expertise related to experimental licenses generally. 
When OET receives experimental license applications for satellite 
operations, OET and the Space Bureau coordinate given the Bureau's 
subject-matter expertise on satellite operations.
    83. Physical Characteristics of Spacecraft. SpaceX suggests that 
the Commission should cease requiring operators to provide specific 
dimensions for satellites, claiming requests for such information is 
inconsistent with Commission rules and policy. The Commission disagrees 
with SpaceX's interpretation of Commission rules and policy. In a past 
licensing streamlining proceeding the Commission deleted a specific 
requirement in Sec.  25.114(c)(10) requiring space station applications 
to provide, among other things, specific dimensions and mass because 
the Commission found that the information was either collected 
elsewhere or was unnecessary. In the case of specific dimensions, this 
information is often pertinent to the design and operational strategy 
that operators submit to demonstrate compliance with orbital debris 
mitigation under Sec.  25.114(d)(14). Although the Commission removed 
the blanket requirement under Sec.  25.114(c)(10) in 2013, the 
Commission retains authority under Sec.  25.114(d)(14) to ensure that 
applicants submit sufficient showings to ensure compliance with orbital 
debris mitigation requirements concerns and therefore may request or 
expect operators to provide such information in individual cases.
    84. Public Participation in the Application Process, Informal 
Complaints, and Commission Discretion on Considering Comments. 
TechFreedom and SpaceX suggest that the Commission can further 
streamline the application process by dismissing any late-filed 
informal complaints related to an application. Additionally, 
TechFreedom suggests that the Commission hold informal complaints to 
the standards set forth in Sec.  1.41 of the Commission's rules. Both 
commenters suggest that the informal complaint procedure has been used 
to frustrate and slow down application processing.
    85. As commenters suggest, the Commission's rules offer multiple 
avenues for public participation related to Commission licensing 
actions: for example, through filing objections or petitions to deny 
under Sec.  25.154(a), through informal objections under Sec.  
25.154(b), as well as other avenues such as Sec.  1.1307 (actions that 
may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental 
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared). Formal pleadings, such as 
petitions to deny, must generally be made within the 30-day public 
comment period, however, the Commission has authority to extend the 
opportunity for public comment. Under FCC rules, pleadings that are not 
filed in accordance with Sec.  25.154(a), including those not meeting 
the 30-day deadline, are classified as informal objections under 
subsection (b). The Commission recognizes that allowing informal 
objections that are not subject to the 30-day public notice timeframe 
may slow down the pace of application processing in some instances, 
especially when a significant number of comments are generated due to 
an application for innovative services and novel operations. However, 
allowing public comment under the Commission's existing processes and 
rules benefits the review process, especially when comments are well 
thought out, and factually supported. TechFreedom cites to NetworkIP, 
LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir., 
2008) and proposes that the Commission should extend the court's 
reasoning in that case ``to the informal complaint procedures for 
satellite applications'' and hold ``all parties to strict filing 
deadlines''. The Commission finds the court's decision in NetworkIP to 
be inapposite. In that case, the court found that the FCC's failure to 
apply its six-month filing deadline by granting a waiver was arbitrary 
and capricious. 548 F.3d at 128. Unlike the situation in NetworkIP, 
here, by accepting a filing after the 30-day period and classifying it 
as an informal objection, the Commission is complying with its rules, 
not waiving them. The Commission believes the benefit of robust debate 
and input as part of the record outweighs the concerns about delay, and 
therefore decline to change the informal objection process. However, in 
those cases where parties file frivolous pleadings, or pleadings meant 
solely to delay the process, the Commission reminds them that such 
filings are prohibited under Sec.  1.52 of the Commission's rules.

f. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    60. In the NPRM, the Commission noted its continuing efforts to 
advance digital equity for all, consistent with the Communications Act 
and with Executive Order 13985. Specifically, the Commission asked how 
its streamlining proposals may promote or inhibit advances in 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope 
of

[[Page 84752]]

the Commission's relevant legal authority. Both SIA and EchoStar assert 
that efforts to expedite the licensing process will advance digital 
equity. EchoStar notes that a simpler, more efficient application 
process supports the Commission's digital equity and inclusion goals 
and will make it easier for satellite operators to offer services and 
lower costs to users across the country, including members of 
historically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, EchoStar notes that a 
streamlined process makes it more likely that a wide range of 
applicants will be able to participate in space business. SIA similarly 
emphasizes the effect of satellite broadband services in closing the 
digital divide for rural communities in particular and highlights the 
important role that satellite remote sensing services can play in 
natural and cultural resource management on Tribal lands. SIA also 
urges the Commission to ``continue to adopt rules that remain neutral 
with respect to the business models of the satellite systems that the 
Commission authorizes . . . [which] will ensure that the benefits of 
broadband satellite services will continue to be available to all end 
user groups, including underserved consumers, and the business, 
industries, and government infrastructure that support them and their 
communities.''
    61. The Commission agrees with commenters that its efforts to 
expedite the application process and increase transparency for 
applicants will aid in lowering barriers to new entrants into the 
satellite communications industry. The Commission also agrees that 
supporting efforts to increase connectivity to historically underserved 
communities is in line with the Commission's mandate under the 
Communications Act and Commission efforts to comply with Executive 
Order 13985. With this in mind, the actions the Commission takes today 
to increase transparency and guidance for applicants are aimed at 
increasing accessibility, supporting innovation, and furthering the 
Commission's goal of increasing connectivity for all.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and 
Earth Station Applications Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
released in December 2022. The Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing 
the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to 
the RFA.

a. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rule

    63. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented 
number of applications for earth and space station licenses. The final 
rule facilitates and expedites the acceptance for filing of satellite 
and earth station applications under 47 CFR part 25 and adopts other 
streamlining measure to keep pace with growing demand for satellite 
services and innovative satellite operations. This rulemaking continues 
to and will promote competition and innovation among satellite and 
earth station operators, including the market entry of new competitors 
by removing barriers to applying for licenses.
    64. This document changes to Commission rules aimed at reducing 
barriers and burdens on satellite operators. Specifically, the document 
removes and reserves Sec.  25.112(a)(3) thus allowing operators to seek 
a waiver for operations not in conformance with the international table 
of allocations. Additionally, the document removes the prohibition on 
licensed-but-unbuilt systems for NGSO operators by amending Sec. Sec.  
25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5), and creates a new, streamlined processing 
framework for earth station operators to add satellite points of 
communication under certain circumstances. Finally, the document lays 
the groundwork for a broader transparency initiative led by the Space 
Bureau to provide clarity and access to applicants when interfacing 
with the Commission's license application processes and filing system.

b. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    65. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

c. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business

    66. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
is required to respond to any comments the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration (SBA) filed in this proceeding, 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed 
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any 
comments in response to the proposed rules or policies in this 
proceeding.

d. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    67. 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 rules adopted herein. 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).
    68. Below, the Commission describes and estimate the number of 
small entities that may be affected by the adoption of the final rules.
    69. 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 $38.5 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
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.

[[Page 84753]]

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

    70. The final rule amends rules that are applicable to earth and 
space station operators requesting a license or authorization from the 
Commission, or entities requesting that the Commission grant a request 
for U.S. market access. The changes adopted in the final rule, as 
described below, will decrease the burden for small entities and other 
business operators. Specifically, this final rule eliminates the rule 
requiring automatic dismissal of applications requesting operations not 
in conformance with the international table of allocations, eliminates 
the NGSO unbuilt systems rule, and creates an expedited licensing 
process for certain earth station operators to add points of 
communication. Further, in light of these limited changes and rule 
reductions, the Commission does not believe that small entities will 
have to hire professionals to comply with the final rule.

f. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Alternatives Considered

    71. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact 
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, 
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule 
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was 
rejected.
    72. The final rule amends the Commission's rules governing 
acceptability for filing by removing and reserving Sec.  25.112(a)(3), 
which led to automatic dismissals of applications that proposed 
frequency operations not in conformance with the international table of 
frequency allocations. By removing this barrier, applicants may now 
apply for a waiver of the international table, just as operators 
applying under the small satellite or small spacecraft streamlined 
procedures have been able to do and just as all operators have been 
able to apply for waivers of the U.S. table of frequency allocations.
    73. As an alternative, the Commission could have left 25.112(a)(3) 
in place. This would have potentially created a barrier to innovative 
uses of spectrum and stifled the development of the industry, including 
for small entities. The Commission allowed waivers of the international 
table of frequency allocations for small satellites and small 
spacecraft through its streamlined rulemaking processes, found at 
Sec. Sec.  25.122 and 25.123 respectively. However, small entities as 
defined for purposes of the RFA do not always align with the 
requirements to apply for a license under the small satellite or small 
spacecraft streamlined process. By removing 25.112(a)(3), all 
applicants may now seek a waiver for nonconforming use instead of 
risking automatic dismissal of an application that required time and 
resources to file.
    74. In addition, the final rule removes the prohibition on 
applicants from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite system 
license in a particular frequency band if that party already had a 
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. By 
removing this prohibition the Commission eliminates an additional 
barrier to applicants in moving forward with their satellite operations 
while maintaining safeguards against speculative license applications 
through the Commission's bond and milestone requirements.
    75. As an alternative, the Commission could have allowed applicants 
to seek waivers of the prohibition on a case-by-case basis. This 
alternative would have been more costly to small entities, requiring 
additional resources to craft a request for waiver as part of their 
application or to engage with outside counsel to assist with crafting 
the waiver request. Leaving the rule as is would have potentially 
created a barrier to small entities to apply for a license and expand 
their operations.
    76. The final rule creates a new, streamlined review process under 
Sec.  25.117 (Modification of station licenses) for earth station 
operators to add points of communication under specific circumstances. 
The Commission identified a set of circumstances under which the review 
process can be expedited and applications for this modification can be 
deemed granted 35 days after being placed on public notice. This new 
process will allow applicants to add points of communication to their 
operations at a quicker pace, thus creating an economic benefit to 
operators as well as a benefit to the public who will be able to access 
the services being provided sooner.

g. Report to Congress

    77. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

V. Ordering Clauses

    78. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 
309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 332, that this Report 
and Order is adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed 
herein are adopted, Part 25 of the Commission's rules is amended as set 
forth in Appendix A.
    79. It is further ordered that Part 25 of the Commission's Rules is 
amended as set forth in Appendix A and such rule amendments will become 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    80. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall 
send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, 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.
    81. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, 
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of this Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 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 paragraph (b) introductory text.
    The revision reads as follows:

[[Page 84754]]

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 paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section may be accepted for filing if:
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.117 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.117  Modification of station license.

* * * * *
    (i) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, an application to 
add a space station point of communication to an earth station 
authorization will be deemed granted 35 days after the date of the 
public notice that the application has been accepted for filing, 
provided:
    (1) The license modification is only to add one or more points of 
communication;
    (2) The modification will not cause the earth station transmissions 
to exceed the highest EIRP, EIRP density, and bandwidth prescribed for 
any already authorized emission; and
    (3) The new space station point of communication will operate with 
the earth station only in frequency bands that are not shared with 
Federal or terrestrial wireless users and are not subject to 
coordination requirements with other non-Federal satellite services.

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.137 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.137  Requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S.-licensed 
space stations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Entities that have one market access request on file with the 
Commission for NGSO-like satellite operations in a particular frequency 
band will not be permitted to request access to the U.S. market for 
another NGSO-like satellite system in that frequency band in the same 
processing round subject to the procedures of Sec. Sec.  25.157 and 
25.261.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.159 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  25.159  Limits on pending applications and unbuilt satellite 
systems.

* * * * *
    (b) Applicants with an application for one NGSO-like satellite 
system license on file with the Commission in a particular frequency 
band will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite 
system license in that frequency band in the same processing round 
subject to the procedures of Sec. Sec.  25.157 and 25.261.
    (c) If an applicant has an attributable interest in one or more 
other entities seeking one or more space station licenses or grants of 
U.S. market access, the pending applications and licensed-but-unbuilt 
satellite systems filed by those other entities will be counted as 
filed by the applicant for purposes of the limits on the number of 
pending space station applications or requests for U.S. market access 
and licensed-but-unbuilt satellite systems in this section and in Sec.  
25.137(d)(5). For purposes of this section, an applicant has an 
``attributable interest'' in another entity if:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26699 Filed 12-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P