[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85553-85561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26700]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 25
[IB Docket Nos. 22-411, 22-271; FCC 23-73; FR ID 188524]
Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station
Applications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) continues its long-standing practice of reviewing its
licensing rules and practices in light of innovation and development in
the satellite industry and seeks further comment on possible further
streamlining and expediting of its rules. Proposals include:
elimination of the procedural requirement to print and maintain a paper
copy of a license; changing the default status of space and earth
station proceedings to permit-but-disclose; allowing earth station
operators to apply for and receive a limited license without an
identified satellite point of communication. The Commission also seeks
comment on: additional minor modifications to be made by operators
without prior authorization from the Commission; whether to provide a
process for market access petitioners to seek the equivalent of a
special temporary authorization (STA); whether to expand the window for
operators to file renewal applications for existing licenses; further
streamlining some of its coordination requirements for earth and space
station operators; expanding the conditions under which earth station
operators could access the new, streamlined ``deemed-granted'' process
for adding points of communications; timeframes for taking action on
license applications; allowing operators to file STA extensions
concurrently with an STA application; and on the creation of a
permitted list that would include NGSO operators.
DATES: Comments are due January 8, 2024. Reply comments are due
February 6, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 22-
411, 22-271, by any of the following methods:
FCC Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Malette, Satellite Programs and
Policy Division, Space Bureau, 202-418-2453 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 23-73, adopted
September 21, 2023, and released September 22, 2023. The full text is
available online 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), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Procedural Matters
Comment Filing Requirements
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments in response to this further notice of proposed rulemaking on
or before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may
be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[[Page 85554]]
[cir] Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
[cir] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Ex Parte Presentations
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law
118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to
post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The
required summary of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
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.'' The Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential
impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the FNPRM. The IRFA
is set forth in Section IV below. Written public comments are requested
on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on
the FNPRM indicated on the DATES section of this document and must have
a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) continues its long-standing practice of reviewing
Commission licensing rules and practices in light of innovation and
development in the satellite industry and seek further comment on
possible further streamlining of Commission rules. Specifically, the
Commission seeks further comment on several proposals raised by
commenters in response to the NPRM, but which require more development
of the record and opportunity for public input.
II. Background
2. 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.
III. Discussion
A. Allowing Additional Minor Modifications Without Prior Authorization
3. The Commission seeks comment on whether to expand upon the list
of minor modifications that can be made
[[Page 85555]]
by operators without prior authorization by the Commission. Currently,
the section of the Commission's part 25 rules addressing minor
modifications provides for various circumstances in which operators can
make minor modifications without prior Commission approval. In response
to the NPRM, numerous commenters suggest additions to this list of
modifications. Intelsat proposes that earth station modifications
including removal of a satellite point of communication or modification
of an earth station's antenna identification should be included as
minor modifications. SpaceX suggests that NGSO system operators should
be able to modify space station antenna parameters without prior
Commission authorization so long as those changes fall within the
authorized parameters of the satellite system, with notice after the
fact. Intelsat also suggests that the Commission consider revising the
existing provision allowing certain relocation of GSO space stations
with prior notification to the Commission to permit operation of
service links during the drift period to the new location, rather than
limiting operations to `tracking, telemetry, and command functions
during the drift period.''
3. The Commission seeks comment on expanding the list of minor
modifications not requiring prior authorization, and if it does expand
this list, what the appropriate notification process should be. Should
the Commission permit earth station operators to remove satellite
points of communication and modify antenna identification without prior
authorization? If so, should the additions be included in the existing
provision allowing earth station licensees to make certain
modifications without prior authorization provided that the licensee
notify the Commission within 30 days of the modification? Or is a
different notification process appropriate? What certifications should
be made in connection with any notification? Should the Commission
consider allowing satellite operators to change antenna parameters
without prior authorization? If so, what notification process might be
appropriate, and if so, what certifications should be required in
connection with this type of modification? The Commission seeks comment
by way of examples, information, and other data that would demonstrate
that such a change would not require Commission prior approval. Are
there types of space station antenna changes or other changes that
should be excluded from potential consideration under this minor
modification rule? For any proposed additions to the list of minor
modifications, the Commission asks commenters to address how such minor
modifications should be handled in the event of a temporary freeze on
applications for new or modified space stations in a particular band.
4. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on Intelsat's proposal
suggesting that operations beyond tracking, telemetry, and command
functions (TT&C) should be able to continue during certain satellite
drifts so long as the operator provides ``certification that operations
are limited to coordinated transmissions during the relocation and
drift transition period.'' The Commission observes that under current
rules addressing certain GSO satellite relocations as minor
modifications, the operators would be able to resume full satellite
operations, including provision of service, once the space station
arrives at its new destination without prior Commission approval, i.e.
it may continue normal operations within the technical parameters
authorized and coordinated for the space station previously assigned to
that location. The Commission seeks comment on whether continued
operations during relocation, provided the operator certifies that
operations are limited to transmissions that have been coordinated with
other potentially affected operators, would result in an important
benefit to licensees? The Commission also seeks comment on any
potential interference concerns that may arise during relocation and
whether the risk of potential interference outweighs any temporary
benefits to allow continued operations during drift. Would it be
sufficient for the operator to conduct such operations on a non-
interference, unprotected basis? Would any additional certifications to
the Commission be required before the operator initiates the drift?
Additionally, The Commission seeks comment on whether it should limit
operations to instances of short drift periods only, e.g. less than 30-
days total duration. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on
additional conditions that might be appropriately placed on any
operations during drift beyond TT&C to protect other operators in the
GSO arc.
B. Market Access and Requests for Special Temporary Authority
5. In an effort to continue its streamlining goals, the Commission
seeks further comment on the suggestion for a type of temporary
authorization that could be sought by U.S. market access grantees whose
operations are authorized through a space station grant. U.S. licensees
may apply for an STA to operate under certain circumstances. Under
current rules, market access grantees may file the equivalent of an
amendment and a modification to petitions for declaratory ruling via
Sec. 25.137(e) and (f) respectively. However, although earth station
licensees may request special temporary authority to reflect changes to
the communications with non-U.S. licensed space stations, there is no
such provision for an STA to be filed as part of the space station
application process for market access grantees. This is consistent with
the distinction between market access grants and licensees.
Nonetheless, since the Commission frequently issues grants of U.S.
market access to space station operators through action on petitions
for declaratory ruling, the Commission seeks further comment on some
type of special temporary grant that could be sought by the space
station operator.
6. Nearly three decades ago the Commission began efforts to
consider how to expand competition and provide opportunities for
foreign entities to deliver satellite services in this country. This
effort coincided with broader U.S. government negotiations through the
World Trade Organization to establish the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement.
In the order establishing rules to implement U.S. commitments to the
WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the Commission explained that ``[e]nhanced
competition in the U.S. market, in turn, will provide users more
alternatives in choosing communications providers and services, as well
as reduce prices and facilitate technological innovation.'' The
Commission further noted that ``in addition to encouraging a more
competitive satellite market in the United States, this new environment
will spur development of broader, more global satellite systems[,]''
and that ``these advancements will foster greater global community
benefits by providing users, ranging from individual consumers and
businesses to schools and hospitals, increased access to people,
places, information, and ideas worldwide.'' The public interest goals
articulated by the Commission at that time are just as relevant today.
Additionally, as the Commission seeks to keep pace with the ever
expanding satellite communications market, is continuously evaluating
whether and where the Commission can streamline rules and procedures to
provide for greater clarity and accessibility for applicants seeking to
engage in satellite operations in the United States.
[[Page 85556]]
7. As such, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is in the
public interest to amend Commission rules to allow for an equivalent to
special temporary authority for space station market access grantees to
communicate with U.S. licensed earth stations. For example, should the
Commission include a new paragraph in Sec. 25.137 to allow market
access space station grantees to seek some type of temporary
authorization related to their grant of market access? If so, would
applications for such authority be subject to the Commission's
application public notice requirements in all cases? Under any new
process the Commission would continue to consider public interest
factors in reviewing requests, and would treat market access applicant
petitions for declaratory ruling the same as a satellite application,
consistent with WTO commitments to treat non-U.S. satellite operators
no less favorably than the Commission treats U.S. satellite operators.
Alternatively, are the current procedures by which STA requests can be
filed by earth station operators sufficient? The Commission invites
comment.
C. Considering STA Extension Requests Concurrently With Initial STA
Applications
8. In response to the NPRM, several commenters suggest that grants
of STA should continue automatically while an underlying application is
being considered. The Commission observed in the accompanying Report
and Order that the Space Bureau's STA process stems from the
Communications Act, which allows the Commission to grant STAs for up to
180 days if they are placed on public notice and to grant up to 30 and
60-day STAs in certain circumstances without public notice. SpaceX
raises an additional proposal to allow operators to request multiple
extensions of an initial 60-day STA as part of the same initial STA
application. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would such
a process conform with statutory requirements under section 309(f)
(e.g., the obligations for operators to file for an extension of an STA
even though they would effectively do so at the same time and in the
same application as the initial STA; authorizing the Commission to
extend authorization of temporary operations for a period not exceeding
180 days and upon making like findings for an extension for additional
periods) and section 309(c)(2)(G) (e.g., allowing the Commission to
grant up to 30 and 60-day STAs in certain circumstances without public
notice)? Are there public interest or policy concerns that are
implicated by allowing automatic extensions of STAs while an underlying
application is being considered? Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether allowing such a process might present conflict or
confusion with regard to the provisions of the Communications Act
regarding STAs and the assessment of filing fees.
D. Expanding Timeframes for Filing License Renewal Applications
9. In response to general streamlining queries in the NPRM, the
Commission received a suggestion to expand or eliminate the current 60-
day window for earth station licensees to submit a renewal application.
Under current Commission rules, earth station license holders may seek
a renewal of their license between 90 and 30 days prior to their
license expiration. Intelsat suggests that the Commission remove this
60-day window, or in the alternative, provide operators a 365-day
window in the year leading up to the license expiration. The Commission
notes that renewal applications must be placed on a 30-day public
notice and tentatively declines to expand the renewal application
period up to the license expiration date, as this change would create a
potentially larger administrative burden for Commission staff reviewing
applications. Nonetheless, the Commission believes that a longer window
for filing renewals could provide more flexibility for operators
without negatively impacting Commission processing. As such, the
Commission proposes to amend its rules to expand the window for earth
station operators to file an application for renewal from no earlier
than 180 days, and no later than 30 days, prior to the expiration of
the existing license. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and
any alternatives.
10. The Commission notes that NGSO space station licensees are
required to file applications for renewal no earlier than 90 days, and
no later than 30 days, prior to the end of the twelfth year of the
existing 15 year license term. The Commission seeks comment on whether
it should consider similarly expanding the filing window within the
twelfth year of the existing term for these space station operators as
another means of providing flexibility and streamlining the application
process. For example, should the Commission amend its rules to include
a window of no earlier than 180 days and no later than 30 days prior to
the end of the twelfth year of the license for filing a renewal? The
Commission seeks comment this proposal as well as any alternatives.
E. Timing for Completion of Application Review
11. In the NPRM, the Commission briefly sought comment on
timeframes for application review, including whether to impose shot
clocks for final action on certain types of satellite or earth station
applications. As noted in the accompanying Report and Order, the record
on this issue was divided on whether the Commission should consider
shot clocks, and if so, for what types of applications and for what
length of time.
12. Given the significant additional volume of space and earth
station applications in today's burgeoning satellite service market and
the Commission's goals of supporting innovation in space, the
Commission believes it is imperative to seek additional comment on this
issue. The Commission also notes that it has considered such timelines
and shot clocks in other contexts, such as for the processing of
applications related to major transactions and state and local review
of applications for siting of wireless facilities, and may consider how
such contexts are applicable or distinct from the needs of satellite
operators and the unique complexities of space and earth station
operation considerations. In support of this inquiry, the Commission
seeks further comment on any relevant comparisons to other forms of
timelines and shot clocks that could shed light on this inquiry.
Additionally, the Commission notes that satellite licensing often
requires coordination with federal entities in order to protect U.S.
national interests, as well as international considerations, to comply
with ITU obligations, for example. The Commission is also subject to
various statutory requirements. The Commission seeks input on these
considerations and how they should affect the consideration of shot
clocks or other specific timeframes. The Commission seeks comment,
data, and information on circumstances, such as the need for operators
to file amendments to their application, that would need to be
considered in developing an appropriate timeline for shot clocks or
other specific timeframes for action on the merits. What events would
warrant pausing the clock? Should the clock run during a public notice
period, for example? In the context of shot clocks, the Commission also
seeks comment on whether applications would be deemed granted at the
close of the relevant time period, or if the Commission should revise
its dismissal criteria or other practices, in
[[Page 85557]]
order to meet potential shot clock obligations. Finally, while the
record on this issue was inconclusive on the appropriate use of shot
clocks, the Commission will continue to gather data on applications and
processing timelines that could inform on the appropriate length of
future shot clocks.
F. Earth Station Licensing Without an Identified Satellite Point of
Communication
13. In the NPRM the Commission asked whether it should consider
allowing earth station operators to receive a license without having
first identified a satellite point of communication. The Commission
received limited, but supportive comments for creating such a
procedure. The Commission seeks to expand the record on this issue,
considering what some operators have described as ``ground stations as
a service'' (GSaaS) operations in particular. The Commission
tentatively concludes that issuing a limited license for earth station
operators who do not yet have an identified point of communication
would align with the Commission's goals to support innovation in the
satellite industry and increase accessibility to services. However, the
Commission envisions that such a license would need to be limited and
include a mechanism for modification once a point of communication has
been established, prior to initiation of operations. In addition, for
frequency bands shared with terrestrial systems (for example, bands
shared with point-to-point microwave stations licensed under Part 101
of the Commission's rules), the Commission is not proposing to confer
first-in-time rights to earth stations without an identified satellite
point of communication on what could effectively be a multi-band, full-
arc basis. Furthermore, in bands shared with UMFUS, earth stations
would need to make a showing under Sec. 25.136 of the Commission's
rules in order to limit their obligation to protect UMFUS or to receive
interference protection. The Commission seeks comment on how this
process may affect coordination processes. The Commission proposes to
create a new provision in Commission rules that would allow earth
station operators to apply for and receive a limited license under the
condition that the license will require modification prior to
operations with a specific point of communication, unless the point of
communication is already on the Permitted List and the operations fit
within the parameters specified therein. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal, as well as on any alternatives to facilitate
licensing where a satellite point of communication has not been
identified, or perhaps a point of communication has been identified but
a space station application has not yet been granted.
G. Feasibility of a Permitted List for NGSO Operators
14. In response to the NPRM, commenters suggested the Commission
consider allowing earth station applicants to specify that they will
communicate with certain authorized NGSO systems, in a procedure
similar to the Permitted List, which is currently available to
routinely granted earth station operators for communications with GSO
space stations that are licensed by the FCC or that have been granted
U.S. market access, and that provide fixed-satellite service in certain
frequency bands where GSO fixed-satellite service has primary status.
The Commission seeks comment on this suggestion.
H. Inter-Bureau and Inter-Agency Review and Coordination Streamlining
15. In the NPRM the Commission sought comment on various
coordination considerations, including how the Commission might better
streamline inter-Bureau reviews in shared-spectrum bands, and how the
Commission might eliminate duplicative coordination requirements.
Although the Commission did not specifically ask about it, multiple
commenters offered suggestions on streamlining the inter-agency
coordination and review process with NTIA. The Commission seeks to
further expand the record on coordination considerations and the
suggestions raised by commenters.
16. With respect to the coordination within the Commission, for
coordination with other bureaus and offices, several commenters
suggested updates to timeframes, or other limitations on inter-bureau
review. Recognizing the establishment of the Space Bureau, the
Commission expects that the Bureau will continue to look at means to
make the inter-bureau and office coordination process more efficient,
taking into consideration certain types of applications and the unique
issues that those applications present from a coordination perspective.
The Commission notes that such improvements to the inter-bureau
coordination process do not require any rule changes. The Commission
will plan, however, to continue the practice of conducting coordination
at the bureau/office level once the draft authorization, including
proposed conditions, is ready to share within the Commission and to
pursue ways to improve the internal coordination processes.
17. Several commenters also offered suggestions to improve the
inter-agency coordination process. Often, applications must be
coordinated with NTIA because the applicant requests use of a frequency
band that is also allocated for use by Federal stations. The Commission
notes as a general matter that broader issues regarding coordination
are addressed through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
Commission and NTIA. At the bureau level, the Space Bureau facilitates
the coordination process by engaging directly with NTIA both for earth
stations and space stations applications, as well as applications for
special temporary authority in certain instances. The bureau-level
coordination process varies slightly depending on the type of
application presented for review.
18. Among the suggestions on the record, SpaceX states that the
Commission could streamline coordination, in particular for earth
station applications, by preparing specific shared databases for
coordination and by adopting a ``green light/yellow light'' system for
coordination with federal users. Similarly, Turion Space argues that
standardized input documents and processing would ease the inter-agency
application coordination process. Intelsat suggests that applications
that have been pre-coordinated between an applicant and federal user
should not require an additional referral from the Commission to NTIA
and otherwise suggests that the Commission consider automating the
referral process and eliminating manual data entry. SIA suggests that
the Commission provide applicants with NTIA contact information or
share specifics of concerns raised by NTIA during the application
review process so that applicants can address any concerns
expeditiously. AWS proposes that the Commission provide applicants with
a template and guidance for the information needed for NTIA
coordination. Some commenters also suggest that coordination and review
would be faster if applications are sent to other reviewers as soon as
they are filed or as soon as they are placed on public notice. To the
extent that such a practice would involve the inter-agency coordination
process, the Commission observes that sending a large amount of
application information for coordination to NTIA without direction from
the Bureau on what the yet-to-be-proposed
[[Page 85558]]
authorization would entail has the potential to encumber review and
slow down deliberations on the application. Therefore, the Commission
will plan to continue the practice of conducting coordination once the
draft authorization, including proposed conditions, is ready to share
with NTIA reviewers.
19. As part of the transparency initiative described above, there
may be opportunities to provide additional information to applicants
regarding processes for the coordination of specific application
requests. The Commission does not seek to unilaterally adopt changes to
the overall inter-agency coordination process. The Commission further
notes the interests of NTIA and appropriate federal stakeholders in the
process and recognize that implementation may not be achievable
considering technological limitations and various agency security
needs. However, the Commission agrees with commenters that providing
increased information regarding federal coordination may aid in
streamlining the application process. Commission staff will continue to
engage in their regular and ongoing dialogue with colleagues at NTIA
and other federal agencies to identify and consider ways to improve the
inter-agency coordination process. In support of such discussions, the
Commission seeks comment on the proposals above made by commenters, as
well as any additional proposals for improvements regarding inter-
agency coordination of space station and earth station applications.
I. Eliminating Potentially Duplicative Coordination Requirements
20. The Commission seeks further comment on whether it can further
streamline some of the coordination requirements for earth and space
station operators in instances in which the earth station and space
station sides must engage in potentially duplicative coordination. In
the NPRM the Commission asked about any duplicative coordination
processes that could be streamlined and received several comments
pointing to areas in which earth and space station applications are
part of separate coordinations related to the same underlying set of
operations. AWS suggests that the Commission could reduce duplicative
coordination in cases where a space station's downlinks have already
been coordinated and the same frequencies and points of communication
corollate with earth station applications and provided an example of
the requirements for EESS operators in the X-band (8025-8400 MHz).
Similarly, Microsoft asserts that authorization process for
communications in the S-, X-, and Ka-bands between EESS space stations
and earth stations requires a space station operator to engage in the
same coordination to add an earth station to its authorized list that
an earth station operator is also required to engage in to add the
space station to its authorized list.
21. The Commission seeks comment on how to expedite the
coordination process where the Commission has already required a space-
station operator to coordinate its communications with each earth
station, for operations where the space station operator has identified
earth stations and where such a list of such earth stations is provided
to NTIA during the space station licensing process or coordinated with
NTIA after licensing. Specifically, the Commission considers whether it
is possible to coordinate the earth station sites and frequencies
utilized with those earth stations once, as part of either just the
space station or earth station coordination with NTIA? Again, the
Commission does not seek to change these processes unilaterally and
note this will involve continued dialogue to assess whether such
changes are feasible given the need to coordinate operations in
frequency bands that are shared with federal users. If the Commission
determines that such streamlining is possible, the Commission seeks
comment on how to ensure that the earth stations have been previously
coordinated. For example, should the Commission allow earth station
applicants to certify that a new satellite point of contact the earth
station operator seeks to add has already been coordinated with NTIA in
the relevant frequency bands in connection with a space station
application? Additionally, the Commission seeks further comment on any
additional situations in which identical coordination is required and
could be eliminated without creating any gaps in coordination and
interference protection.
J. Earth Station Applications Adding a Satellite Point of Communication
22. The Commission also inquires as to how this proposal on
eliminating potentially duplicative coordination may affect the new
streamlined modification procedure for earth station operators adding
points of communication that was adopted in the accompanying Order.
While the Commission has initially determined that this new, deemed-
granted process can move forward in the limited set of circumstances
identified in the Report and Order at this time, the Commission seeks
to expand the record on this issue to determine whether and how it
might be able to broaden the universe of operators that could access
the new process created in Sec. 25.117(i). For example, should the
Commission enable earth station licensees operating in bands shared
with federal users to take advantage of the streamlined modification
procedure to add a new point of communication that has already been
coordinated with federal users through the space station licensing
process? Assuming that the Commission determines that coordinating
certain earth stations with federal users through the space station
process is possible, are there other change to Commission licensing
rules should be considered? Similarly, should the Commission allow
operators in a band shared with non-federal services to take advantage
of this expedited process if they certify, or otherwise demonstrate,
that they have successfully completed coordination with other users
prior filing their application? Are there any other mechanisms that
could be implemented to expand access to this process without creating
new interference concerns or circumventing the need for coordination in
shared bands?
23. Additionally, the Commission seeks further comment on whether
expedited treatment might be appropriate in bands that require
coordination, even without a demonstration of pre-coordination, if
applicants must demonstrate both that the addition of a new point of
communication will not cause earth station transmissions to exceed the
highest equivalent EIRP, EIRP density, and bandwidth prescribed for any
already authorized emission, and that the modification would not cause
earth station to repoint the earth station's antenna beyond any
coordinated range. If so, for what subset of applications subject to
coordination would expedition be appropriate, and would a mechanism of
expedition short of a ``deemed grant'' be better suited to those
applications? Whether such applications are eligible for a ``deemed
grant'' or otherwise expedited, what processing timeframe would be
realistic to ensure any required coordination is completed? With
respect to federal coordination in particular, how can the Commission
ensure that expedition does not unreasonably or unilaterally curtail
the federal coordination review process given the important scientific,
safety, and security-related federal
[[Page 85559]]
operations at play? Finally, if the Commission expands the list of
applicants who could access this deemed-granted process to include
bands that are shared with other services and additional operators, the
Commission seeks comment on whether a notification process rather than
public notice may be appropriate in some circumstances, and on how to
address objections or other comments that may be filed.
K. Eliminating Printed, Hardcopies Requirement
24. Intelsat suggests eliminating a current part 25 rule that
requires operators to keep an original paper copy of an electronically
filed application. The Commission agrees that this requirement, found
in Sec. 25.110(e) of Commission rules, is outdated and unnecessary and
therefore proposes to amend the rules to eliminate this procedural
requirement. Applicants of course are free to continue such practice if
they so choose, but the Commission believes that removal of the
requirement would fit squarely into its application streamlining goals
as well as conform with long-standing broader government initiatives to
reduce reliance on hard copy paper filings. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposed change.
L. Change of Default Ex Parte Status of Space and Earth Station
Applications
25. The Commission proposes to change the default status of all
space and earth station applications from ``restricted'' to ``permit
but disclose'' under Commission rules governing ex parte presentations
and seeks comment on this proposal. Currently, space and earth station
applications are by default classified as ``restricted'' proceedings
under the rules, since they are applications for authority under Title
III of the Communications Act, and ex parte presentations are
prohibited. Commission rules regarding ex parte presentations give
Commission staff discretion to modify applicable ex parte rules, where
it is in the public interest to do so in a particular proceeding, and
Commission staff has frequently done so, sometimes at the request of
parties. The reasons for changing the ex parte status of a particular
application can include, but are not limited to, the fact that the
application covers the same subject area as a related rulemaking
proceeding, or the topic to be discussed in a particular application
has applicability across a wide number of applications. The change of
status of an application from ``restricted'' to ``permit-but-disclose''
requires resources to draft and release an order, letter, or public
notice. Modifying the ex parte status of an application is an ancillary
task that requires Space Bureau resources that could otherwise be spent
on placing applications on public notice or acting on the merits of
applications. In addition, applicants--especially new space industry
entrants or entrants from countries outside the United States--are
often unaware of the Commission's ex parte rules and can inadvertently
make impermissible presentations in restricted proceedings, which
further diverts staff resources from processing applications.
26. The Commission proposes to amend part 1 of the rules by adding
``applications for space and earth station authorizations, including
requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S. licensed space
stations'' to the list of proceedings that are ``permit-but-disclose''
proceedings from the outset. Specifically, the Commission would propose
to amend Sec. 1.1206(a) by adding a new subparagraph. As ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceedings, applications for space and earth station
authorizations would be subject to the disclosure requirements that
apply to ex parte presentations in such proceedings. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposed implementation.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The Commission requests
written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines provided on
the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
28. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented
number of applications for earth and space station licenses. The FNPRM
continues to and will facilitate the application streamlining process
and promote competition and innovation among satellite and earth
station operators, including the market entry of new competitors. The
FNPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the Commission's
rules governing satellite and earth station applications under 47 CFR
part 25. Specifically, the FNPRM proposes to eliminate the procedural
burden of printing and maintaining a paper copy of license applications
by removing and reserving Sec. 25.110(e) and amend Sec. 25.118 of the
Commission's rules, which allows operators to make certain minor
modifications without prior authorization from the Commission. In
addition, the FNPRM proposes to create a new provision in Commission
rules that would allow earth station operators to apply for and receive
a limited license under the condition that the license will require
modification prior to operations with a specific point of
communication, unless the point of communication is already on the
Permitted List and the operations fit within the parameters specified
therein. Further, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to provide an
equivalent to special temporary authority for space station market
access grantees to communicate with U.S. licensed earth stations. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether to expand the window for operators
to file renewal applications for existing licenses. Additionally, the
FNPRM seeks further comment on whether the Commission can further
streamline some of its coordination requirements for earth and space
station operators in instances in which the earth station and space
station sides must engage in potentially duplicative coordination. And,
finally, the FNPRM proposes to change the default status of space and
earth station proceedings to permit-but-disclose as a means of further
streamlining the licensing process.
B. Legal Basis
29. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a),
301, 303, 307, 308(b), 309, 310, 332, of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308(b), 309,
310, 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
30. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act.
[[Page 85560]]
A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
31. 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.
32. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts of
less than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million
to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of
``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by
Commission action can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
33. The FNPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the
Commission's rules governing satellite and earth station applications
under 47 CFR part 25. Specifically, the FNPRM proposes to eliminate the
procedural burden of printing and maintaining a paper copy of license
applications by removing and reserving Sec. 25.110(e) and amend Sec.
25.118 of the Commission's rules, which allows operators to make
certain minor modifications without prior authorization from the
Commission. In addition, the FNPRM proposes to create a new provision
in Commission rules that would allow earth station operators to apply
for and receive a limited license under the condition that the license
will require modification prior to operations with a specific point of
communication, unless the point of communication is already on the
Permitted List and the operations fit within the parameters specified
therein.
34. Further, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to provide an
equivalent to special temporary authority for space station market
access grantees to communicate with U.S. licensed earth stations. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission could allow
operators to file STA extensions concurrently with an STA application.
Additionally, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to consider a
permitted list type process for NGSO operators. The FNPRM also seeks
comment on whether to expand the window for operators to file renewal
applications for existing licenses and asks about establishing
timeframes for action on the merits of applications. Additionally, the
FNPRM seeks further comment on whether the Commission can further
streamline some of its coordination requirements for earth and space
station operators in instances in which the earth station and space
station sides must engage in potentially duplicative coordination and
expand the possibilities for earth station operators to take advantage
of the new, expedited deemed-granted process for adding points of
communication. And, finally, the FNPRM proposes to change the default
status of space and earth station proceedings to permit-but-disclose as
a means of further streamlining the licensing process.
35. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of
the burdens associated with the filing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements can be minimized for small entities. The Commission
therefore expects the information received in comments to include cost
and benefit data, and to help the Commission further identify and
evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including compliance
costs, and other burdens that may result from the proposals and
inquiries the Commission makes in this proceeding.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
36. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
37. In the FNPRM, the proposal to remove and reserve Sec.
25.110(e) should minimize the economic impact for small entities by
eliminating the administrative burdens associated with printing and
maintaining a paper copy of license applications. Likewise amending
Sec. 25.118 of the Commission's rules to allows operators to make
certain minor modifications without prior authorization from the
Commission should reduce administrative costs for small entities. In
addition, small entities should benefit if the proposal to add a
provision allowing earth station operators to apply for and receive a
limited license under the condition that the license will require
modification prior to operations with a specific point of
communication, subject to the limitations described above in section A,
is adopted.
38. An alternative the Commission considered and seeks comment on
involved the elimination of potentially duplicative coordination
requirements. More specifically, the Commission inquired if some of its
coordination requirements for earth and space station operators in
situations where the earth
[[Page 85561]]
station and space station sides must engage in potentially duplicative
coordination can be streamlined. The Commission also considered whether
or not to expand timeframes for filing license renewal applications in
efforts to provide small and other entities flexibility, and further
streamline the application process. The Commission considers whether or
not to expand the renewal filing window of the existing term for earth
and space station operators.
39. The Commission also considers the possibility of allowing
applicants to file STAs concurrently with an initial application, which
may reduce filing burdens on small entities in particular. And the
Commission is considering several possibilities for expanding the
universe of operators who could access a streamlined process for adding
satellite points of communication, which could also provide a benefit
to a greater number of entities. And in considering timelines for
taking action, including possible shot clocks, the Commission asks
several questions to consider whether timeframes, and which timeframes
are appropriate.
40. The Commission projects that the changes considered in the
FNPRM will be cost-neutral or result in lower costs for small entities
and other operators. Additionally, while the Commission believes the
possible rule changes considered in the FNPRM will generally reduce
costs and burdens for the regulated community, the Commission seeks
comment on whether any of the costs associated with any possible rule
changes would have a significant negative economic impact on small
entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small entities based on its review of the
record and any comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this IRFA.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
41. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
42. 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 Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
43. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall
send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the document, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 25 as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.1206 by adding paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1206 Permit-but-disclose proceedings.
(a) * * *
(14) Applications for space and earth station authorizations,
including requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S. licensed
space stations.
* * * * *
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
3. 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.
Sec. 25.110 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.110 by removing and reserving paragraph (e).
[FR Doc. 2023-26700 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P