[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