[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56338-56435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22019]
[[Page 56337]]
Vol. 90
Friday,
No. 232
December 5, 2025
Part III
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 25
Space Modernization for the 21st Century; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 232 / Friday, December 5, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56338]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[SB Docket No. 25-306; FCC 25-69; FR ID 319249]
Space Modernization for the 21st Century
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission or we) proposes to overhaul and
modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process to
help ``ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration
capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America
rather than by our adversaries.'' In particular, the NPRM proposes to
develop a ``licensing assembly line'' designed so applications can be
routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific
aspects of a request. This new process would set the stage for ongoing
efficiency gains and would provide greater predictability and
flexibility for applicants. In this way, we expect--like actual
assembly lines--that the space review processes can be dramatically
accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's space
licensing work.
DATES: Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are due
January 20, 2026. Reply Comments are due February 18, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-306,
by any of the following methods:
[ballot] FCC Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
[ballot] 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: Carolyn Mahoney, 202-418-7168,
[email protected] or Brandon Padgett, 202-418-1377,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM,
FCC 25-69, adopted October 28, 2025, and released October 29, 2025. The
document is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf. The document is also
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an
email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Procedural Matters
Comment Filing Requirements
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People 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)
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Ex Parte Presentations
Pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
[[Page 56339]]
concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained
in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of
the Commission document, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf. The Commission invites the general public, in particular
small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of this document and
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The NPRM may contain new or proposed modified information
collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collections
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
OPEN Government Data Act
The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make ``public
data assets'' available under an open license and as ``open Government
data assets,'' i.e., in machine readable, open format, unencumbered by
use restrictions other than intellectual property rights, and based on
an open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. This
requirement is to be implemented ``in accordance with guidance by the
Director'' of the OMB. The term ``public data asset'' means ``a data
asset, or part thereof, maintained by the federal government that has
been, or may be, released to the public, including any data asset, or
part thereof, subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).'' A ``data asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or
data sets that may be grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded
information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is
recorded.''
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency
Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on
https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Across the United States, the space economy is booming and
American companies are building to ensure our nation leads into the
final frontier. To assure our nation's continued space leadership, the
United States must be the place where the world's space industry
builds, operates, and licenses. In a recent Executive Order, the
President set our nation on a course ``to ensure that new space-based
industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense
systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries.'' And
the Administration has called for investments in space as a key
priority to ``assure America's continued space dominance.''
2. To achieve these goals and to be the nation of choice for space
excellence, the United States must also have a modern, efficient space
licensing system that enables innovation and exploration. That is why
with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) we are launching a
proceeding to modernize the Commission's space and earth station
licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy for today and
tomorrow. We expect that modernizing our rules will support the vibrant
space economy so that the United States can achieve what the President
called for in his 2025 Address to Joint Session of Congress when he
said, ``We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we
are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on
the planet Mars and even far beyond. And through it all, we are going
to rediscover the unstoppable power of the American spirit, and we are
going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.''
3. With these goals in view, our proposal in the NPRM designs a
``licensing assembly line'' to process space and earth station
applications with great efficiency and at the speed and scale required
by the 21st century space economy. Like a physical assembly line, we
seek to move standardized application materials in direct paths from
one stage of the review process to the next in a highly predictable
way. Given the nature of our licensing duties, our assembly line will
be designed so applications can be routed along different paths and
segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. By
modernizing processes in our rules, we aim to set the stage for
increasing automation over time. In this way, we expect--like actual
assembly lines--that the space review processes can become more
efficient and dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of
the Commission's licensing work for the American people.
II. Background and Objectives
4. In the early years of the Commission's work licensing space-
based communications, the industry encompassed a small number of
entities, many of which were quasi-governmental and largely focused on
geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) deployments. In the 1990s and 2000s,
there were cycles of investment and excitement, including increased
interest in non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, but many of these
proposals met financial or technical challenges. The idea of a
satellite broadband service that could fully connect rural areas and
even compete with terrestrial offerings seemed impossible. However, in
the last decade, the number of satellites launched into orbit,
particularly by private companies, has increased dramatically, seeing a
more than 10-fold increase in a decade. As a result of this increased
launch cadence and growth in satellite technology, the Commission found
that last year, the ``. . . availability data indicate that satellite
service offering 100/20 Mbps speeds is available to almost 100% of the
U.S. population.'' And beyond delivering high-speed internet service,
the commercial space industry now includes a varied array of companies
providing direct-to-device cell service, resilient enterprise and
military connectivity, Earth observation services, and novel space
activities. Innovators and explorers are embarking on lunar and
interplanetary missions and considering how to use the resources of
outer space for the good of humanity. This change and rapid growth in
the space industry has created new demands on the Commission's
resources and raised new questions about how to apply the existing
licensing framework to new satellite and earth station technologies.
5. The expansion of the space economy has resulted in significantly
more licensing activity at the Commission. The Commission received 295
space station applications and 2,684 earth station applications in
2024. In contrast, the Commission received only 124 space station
applications and 974 earth station applications in 2016. During this
time, the complexity, size, and variety of license applications has
also changed. Such rapid change in the space economy--and the resulting
demands on the Commission's existing licensing system--means our rules
and operations must be modernized to
[[Page 56340]]
match the realities of the space economy. In the face of greater
application volume and highly complex, non-traditional systems, the
Commission's framework has resulted in slow decision timelines and
unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, the time has come for the Commission
to overhaul its space licensing processes. While the Commission has
updated some of its licensing rules in recent years in response to
these changes, today we initiate the NPRM to avoid piecemeal reforms
going forward and to make the licensing process of the future fast,
predictable, and flexible.
A. Rationale for Modernizing Space Licensing
6. As we modernize the Commission's space and earth station
licensing process, we aim to align our rules with the pace, growth, and
innovation in the space economy while upholding our statutory duties.
Unnecessary regulatory burden imposed on a dynamic, early growth
industry can have substantial costs. Inefficient, slow, and costly
license processing thwarts innovation and reduces competition. Complex
and prescriptive regulation can support incumbents' lobbying against
new innovators, and highly discretionary regulation can enable
regulators to arrogate their power at the expense of the public. If
regulation prevents deployment of new space systems, consumers and
businesses must wait to realize the tangible benefits of new
innovations and services flowing from the space economy. Many satellite
systems also combine commercial and national security components, and
the costs of inefficient regulation may hinder America's defenses or
put us at a strategic disadvantage with our adversaries.
7. With the NPRM, we have four main goals: (1) to increase license
processing speed; (2) to provide more predictability to applicants and
licensees; (3) to provide more flexibility for innovation and for
licensees' operations; and (4) to faithfully meet our responsibilities.
Pursuit of these goals guides each element of our proposal as we aim to
design a system which can efficiently scale with the space economy.
These goals flow directly from the mandates in the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (Act), directing the Commission ``to make
available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . .
. world-wide wire and radio communications service'' and to ``encourage
the provision of new technologies and services to the public.''
Additionally, the Act provides for the regulation and licensing of
radio communications, including satellite communications, for the
purpose of national defense and in service of the ``public convenience,
interest, or necessity.'' We believe these statutory mandates strongly
support our goals of greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in
the space and earth station licensing process to promote the wide
availability and proliferation of communications and new technologies
for the public.
8. Therefore, we direct our space licensing review toward a clear
and limited set of concerns when determining if granting a license will
serve the ``public convenience, interest, or necessity.'' In
particular, these areas are (1) harmful interference, (2) spectrum
efficiency, (3) space safety, and (4) foreign ownership. As we re-
design the Commission's space licensing processes to increase speed,
predictability, and flexibility we must do so in a way that guides our
determination as to whether a license for space-based communications is
in the public interest based on evaluation in these areas. We recognize
that a process which efficiently and effectively reviews license
applications for these factors will promote the wide availability of
communications delivered by a thriving space economy employing new
technologies. In addition, it is our intention that by simplifying and
modernizing our space licensing procedures we will ensure that the use
of part 5 experimental licenses will again be for the testing and
development of truly novel space concepts.
9. Increasing Processing Speed. The Commission must increase the
speed of application processing to ensure that space innovation is not
limited by unnecessary delay, which entails more quickly licensing
qualified applicants and dismissing unqualified requests. In burgeoning
sectors like space, progress stems from a chain of iterative
innovations. This means that seemingly small delays in authorizing
beneficial new services--such as a few months extra to process an
application--could result in a cascading chain of delays over time.
Delay in innovation today means delay in the next step, and then the
next, and so on in the iterative innovation process. Over time there
will be less advancement, slower economic gains, and a weaker national
defense. The Commission's licensing process should foster and support
innovation and not be an additional source of delay and uncertainty.
The volume and variety of space and earth station applications have
been increasing and will continue to do so. Large amounts of staff
resources go to sifting through non-standardized application materials
to determine whether an application is complete and is in alignment
with the Commission's rules. Application review frequently entails
excessive, time-consuming back-and-forth between the Commission and
applicants, with the Commission having to make a large number of non-
routine decisions, which can cause delays. The application process
should incentivize applicants to submit clear, high-quality, and
complete applications so that Commission staff can focus on whether
applicants are technically and financially qualified to deploy their
systems rather than manage administrative hurdles unrelated to the
quality of the application. Applicants should also have clarity as to
the timing under which their applications will be processed so they can
plan accordingly when designing and implementing their systems.
10. Providing More Predictability. Our goal is for both applicants
and the public to be able to generally understand how a request will be
handled in terms of process, timeframes, and requirements based on the
Commission's rules. In a dynamic, capital-intensive sector like space
where funding sources often depend on quick execution and demonstrated
progress, it is critical that applicants know what to expect when
seeking Commission authorizations. Applicants must be able to plan.
Engineers need to know what requirements their systems must meet.
Additionally, it is important for licensees to know the rules they must
follow after receiving a grant and the consequences for rule violations
or non-compliance. Furthermore, in a situation where an entity's
actions can have considerable impact on others--for example, one
satellite operator causing another harmful interference--it is
important that there is predictability in how the regulator will
approach a request so that parties can find private agreements with
mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, part 25 of the
Commission's rules does not always afford a high level of
predictability for applicants. Timelines for acting on some license
applications can be years. The sometimes-subjective nature of certain
application requirements means that applications receive unpredictable
levels of review. The Commission's proposals in the NPRM seek to remedy
these issues by providing applicants with predictability in how
applications will be processed.
11. Expanding Flexibility for Operations. The satellite industry is
developing systems, services, and operations that were not envisioned
[[Page 56341]]
when the Commission adopted its current rules. The industry has evolved
from GSO systems operating within a clear set of parameters to large
NGSO constellations and multi-orbit systems. Recently, the Commission
has received applications for a highly varied set of operations,
including ISAM and lunar missions, without specification on exactly
what activities these spacecrafts may undertake in the future. At the
same time, existing licensees are looking to upgrade and modify their
systems as technology develops. Allowing satellite operators the
freedom to find the best and most efficient ways to operate and build
complex systems of space-based operations, while upholding the
Commission's responsibilities, is critical to the long-term economic
development of the industry and our nation's ability to compete with
global operators. However, the Commission's existing licensing process
was not designed with the scope of the current satellite industry in
mind. Certain activities that are unobjectionable and beneficial still
require potentially slow review by the Commission. Many requirements
can be replaced and made more efficient with the use of modern
technology rather than paperwork. Over-regulation not only creates a
burden on industry and the Commission but can make operations less
efficient. While in the past the Commission noted that broad, somewhat
subjective rules could provide flexibility for innovation, experience
has shown that they sometimes leave applicants and staff struggling to
figure out how a proposal should be evaluated, leading to extended
back-and-forth between applicants and staff. Through this modernization
effort, the Commission seeks to provide more certainty for applicants
to avoid unnecessary delays and allow operators the ability to innovate
and provide Americans with the best satellite services technology can
offer.
12. Lastly, in addition to our key goals, we also take this as an
opportunity to propose clearing out regulatory underbrush. In crafting
the proposals in the NPRM, we heavily incorporate suggestions from the
Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding and seek comment on additional
reforms that should be undertaken in light of these proposals to
overhaul our approach to regulation. We see our proposals in the NPRM
as aligning with the President's Executive Order Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation to remove ``. . . unnecessary regulatory
burdens.''
B. Three Pivots Towards Modernization
13. To modernize our licensing process so it can scale to meet the
needs of the space economy, we propose three pivots away from the
current framework in our part 25 rules. First, we propose a review
process to facilitate permissionless innovation. Second, we propose an
overhaul of the application materials for more efficient processing.
Third, we propose expanding the freedom applicants and licensees have
for designing and operating their systems. We believe these pivots are
the conceptual path to achieving greater speed, predictability, and
flexibility in space and earth station licensing.
14. Presumed Acceptable Criteria. The core of our proposal is an
approach to facilitate permissionless innovation which sets forth a set
of system features which the Commission generally presumes to be
acceptable. Our proposed framework looks to the outcomes and
performance of a proposed space system rather than trying to
prescriptively regulate how a system must be designed to obtain
authorization. The notion behind our proposed framework is that the
Commission should set bright-line performance measures and
characteristics of systems that it finds are presumed to be in the
public interest. That is, the Commission will default toward allowing
proposals that fall within these bright-line standards and
characteristics. In its review, the Commission can then compare a
particular applicant's proposal against such bright-line criteria. This
change should allow applicants greater freedom to design systems that
meet performance standards rather than the Commission providing
detailed direction on how to reach a performance standard. While we
recognize some applicants may find it difficult to not have
prescriptive rules around how to design their system, we believe this
can be mitigated by defining a clear set of boundaries as a kind of
safe harbor that companies can build within.
15. Our aim is for this approach to support expedited review of any
portions of an application that meet bright-line rules. Doing so then
allows for targeted review of any elements which do not meet the
bright-line criteria, essentially allowing the Commission to make
decisions about systems once in a rulemaking (for all applicants) and
taking a posture of defaulting toward permitting any requests meeting
the criteria. Space companies will then be incentivized to design their
systems to meet these standards that the Commission has found are in
the public interest while still allowing for deviation as necessary.
16. One key element of this approach that we propose is an
expedited processing pathway. We propose that an application will be
placed on public notice for seven days and then be granted quickly in
most circumstances if it: (1) meets certain presumed acceptable
criteria that the Commission has found to be in the public interest;
(2) does not request waivers; and (3) is not subject to certain limited
``exceptions'' to expedited processing. Our expectation is that
operators will see expedited processing as a highly desirable way to
obtain a license and will design their systems and organize their
licensing requests to take advantage of this path. Such an approach
with expedited processing delivers by providing faster processing
speeds, more predictability as to what features of a system are
unobjectionable, and greater flexibility to design systems within the
performance parameters presumed to be in the public interest.
17. For applications that do not qualify for expedited processing,
our proposal still postures toward granting a license application. We
recognize that many applications may not meet all the bright-line
standards or that may seek a waiver of the Commission's rules. There
also are situations where the Commission will need to consider issues
beyond the performance of a particular proposed system, such as how
that proposed system will impact other operators' ability to use
spectrum. To handle these situations, we propose to adopt a limited set
of ``exceptions'' to the expedited processing pathway. We envision
using these exceptions as a clear way to identify specific aspects of
applications that require targeted review, like off-shoots from an
assembly line.
18. Identified exceptions for a given application would serve as
the basis for targeted review. That is, the Commission will focus on
review and consideration of any identified exceptions in determining
whether granting an application is in the public interest. However,
existence of an exception should not necessarily mean an extensive or
delayed process. For most applications with an identified exception, we
propose to place complete applications on public notice for 15 days.
After the public comment period ends, we expect the Commission will
work quickly through the areas needing focused review. To facilitate
timely review and to increase transparency, we also propose the
Commission will notify applicants of any or all exceptions still
undergoing
[[Page 56342]]
Commission review if full action has not been taken within 60 days
after the close of the public comment window. This notification will
inform the applicant and the public of any areas which still stand as
barriers to grant and promote quicker resolution of any outstanding
issues. Our expectation is that applications can be granted well before
the 60-day window closes if we implement an overhauled process designed
to focus attention on the areas that cannot be presumed to be in the
public interest. Lastly, to provide transparency and accountability we
also propose that the Space Bureau release regular updates tracking the
efficiency of the modernized application framework.
19. Enhanced Application Design. Our proposed framework also seeks
to dramatically increase processing speeds and lower burdens on
applicants by using modularity, standardization, and certifications.
With such reforms we seek to reduce unnecessary burden on applicants
while also facilitating application routing as part of the licensing
assembly line. Our vision is that the application itself will be
designed so that the Commission can easily determine completeness and
then appropriately route the request to expedited processing or for
focused review of one or more elements. Further, a modular design will
also support future changes to application requirements.
20. Over time, we expect that our standardized and modular
application design will allow for increasing automation of licensing.
We envision applicants being able to submit requests into an FCC system
where, based on responses, the application form dynamically adjusts.
Applicants would be able to quickly see which rules apply to their
proposal and make certifications alongside such information. The system
would also then be able to conduct validation checks, identify
incomplete elements, and then route the application to Commission staff
with any exceptions already identified. With standardized, machine-
readable application materials organized by design, an FCC system could
automatically generate public notices and draft grant materials. During
the public notice period, commenters could respond to particular
elements of a proposal in a system, so that when the comment period
closes, all application materials and public comments are already
organized by issue so that staff does not have to do such sorting. With
time, artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used to assist,
automating parts of the review so that staff can focus on more complex
policy questions. While our proposal does not take these steps, our
enhanced application design anticipates such developments. Further,
section 8(a) of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission
assess and collect application fees based on the Commission's costs to
process applications. Section 8(c) also requires the Commission to
amend the application fee schedule if the Commission determines that
the schedule requires amendment to ensure that: (1) such fees reflect
increases or decreases in the costs of processing applications at the
Commission or (2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition
of new categories of applications. Thus, as we make changes to our
application process, we will also consider as necessary, any changes to
the Commission's schedule of application fees that result from a more
standardized and modular application design.
21. Under our proposal, applicants would be able to flexibly select
the application modules relevant to the system's frequency bands,
orbital characteristics (e.g., GSO, NGSO) and services (e.g., fixed-
satellite service (FSS); mobile-satellite service (MSS); telemetry,
tracking, and command (TT&C)). Applicants would only need to complete
the application materials needed for their request and could even
choose to segment requests for more efficient processing. This modular
approach de-couples in the application the orbital characteristics from
the frequency and service elements so there is flexibility in how
systems can be licensed. Over time, licensees could use these
``licensing building blocks'' to add to their systems with additional
satellites or frequencies or make changes to improve efficiency.
22. One particular example of the flexibility and reduced burden
afforded by the modular license approach that we propose is that
entities be able to complete the FCC Form 312--Main Form with basic
contact and ownership information without immediately seeking an
authorization request. Then, all future license requests from one
applicant could be associated with the single FCC Form 312--Main Form
so applicants only need to submit this information once (and keep one
form updated) and so all requests and licenses associated with an
entity can easily be identified. We also propose to eliminate
unnecessary narratives as these impose burden on applicants and can
require significant unpacking by staff when reviewing a proposal.
23. Perhaps most important to enhancing the application process,
our proposal introduces a series of certifications concerning the
bright-line elements that carry a public interest presumption. These
certifications are specific to the type of proposed system, such as GSO
or NGSO, and applicants will certify affirmatively or negatively as to
whether their proposed system meets these prespecified elements. Not
only do these certifications allow us to relieve applicants of certain
showings, but these certifications can be used to quickly identify
specific areas where targeted review is needed. Applicants who provide
a negative certification--that is, applicants who certify that their
system will not meet a bright-line standard that the Commission has
determined to be in the public interest--will be required to submit
additional information so the Commission may make a determination as to
whether the application is in the public interest. But in the case of
an affirmative certification, applicants generally will only need to
submit system design information collected in non-narrative form.
24. Increased Freedom for Applicants and Licensees. Our proposals
also seek to increase licensees' freedom to design, build, and operate
systems. Our view is that licensees should be able to easily create and
authorize systems and then continuously upgrade these systems for
greater capability and efficiency. It is economically inefficient for
the Commission to require approvals for activities which create no harm
or to over-prescribe system design features. To allow operators to have
the flexibility to operate and compete in the market, our proposals
would both remove the burdens of handling requests for unobjectionable
activity and allow operators to improve systems over time.
25. Our proposal allows for freedom and flexibility in numerous
respects so that applicants can seek authorizations that work best for
their operations and so that licensees can operate as necessary. As a
general matter, we follow the principle that if a request or activity
does not trigger one of the specific exceptions then it is presumed to
be in the public interest and requires minimal review. We also seek to
allow entities, in some instances, to evaluate tradeoffs within the
licensing process and then choose how to proceed with an application.
Here, we note key elements of our proposal intended to offer
flexibility to applicants and licensees. First, we propose to expand
the set of modifications to a license which would be permitted through
only a simple notification and/or certification. This means that
licensees will be able to operate more freely and only have to
[[Page 56343]]
seek additional authorization when requesting a change which falls
outside prespecified boundaries set by the Commission. Second, we
propose to update our rules to provide the opportunity for applicants
to request conditional grants in situations where such flexibility will
fit better with the applicant's planning and design process. For
example, we are proposing to grant authorizations conditioned on the
applicant submitting a future satisfactory orbital debris showing prior
to launch. This change would provide applicants more flexibility as to
when they can submit their application to the Commission while still
finalizing their system design. Third, our modularized application
proposal means applicants can choose to segment their requests. If
desired, an applicant could send some requests that will not trigger an
exception through expedited processing while segmenting others that
will take longer into a different request. In addition, over time,
licensees could add satellites or frequencies to their systems
incrementally at the pace needed. Fourth, we propose that applicants
can request any license term shorter than the default term. Fifth, we
propose to allow applicants that are not automatically subject to
processing rounds to opt-in to a new processing round approach for
certain bands to receive priority if needed. In exchange, the applicant
would be required to maintain a surety bond on file with the
Commission. This allows entities to decide whether to take on a bond in
exchange for priority or whether to operate without priority and not
have a bonding requirement. Lastly, for licensees with a bonding
requirement, we propose a deescalating surety bond formula that
declines with deployment so that licensees can control how quickly and
granularly to reduce the bond.
26. A final important element of flexibility in our proposal
considers new areas of space and satellite innovation that do not fit
neatly into the traditional GSO or NGSO categories. In particular, we
propose to create a new category of Variable Trajectory Spacecraft
System (VTSS). This proposed category would provide a new licensing
pathway for applicants seeking to operate space stations on spacecraft
that may not follow predictable trajectories. For example, we believe
that the VTSS category would include certain ISAM operations, as well
as lunar missions, or missions to other celestial bodies. We recognize
these systems need greater flexibility in their operations and
therefore propose to update our licensing process and rules to
accommodate these operations. One particular way we do this is by
proposing to allow VTSS licensees to file propagated ephemeris and
engage in collision avoidance rather than having to generally
prespecify all activities over the license term.
III. Discussion
27. The NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal and
alternative possibilities. We have organized the discussion in the NPRM
around four main threads: (1) the licensing assembly line in which we
describe our proposals related to the application process for space and
earth stations, including application materials, handling, and decision
processing; (2) additional reforms for licensing efficiency where we
describe proposals related to space and earth station licenses, such as
milestones and surety bonds, and the transition to part 100; (3)
operational and technical requirements where we describe our proposals
related to operational and technical rules for licensees; and (4)
compliance where we describe our proposals for rules addressing
violations. In each, we seek to explain how our proposals support the
overall goals of the modernization process.
28. We propose to adopt a new part 100 of the Commission's rules
that would replace the existing part 25 rules. We believe that creating
a new rule part altogether would provide a better organized and
improved framework for applicants and industry stakeholders, rather
than extensively revising the current rules and potentially creating
unnecessary confusion. We therefore propose to create part 100 and
sunset part 25. Part 100, which is Reserved, is contained in 47 CFR
Subchapter D--Safety and Special Radio Services which is preferrable to
the current placement of part 25 in Subchapter B--Common Carrier
Services. We make this proposal because, while not all our licensees or
market access grantees provide common carrier services, all use radio
services. We also propose titling part 100 as ``Space and Earth Station
Services'' rather than the current part 25 title, ``Satellite
Communications.'' Satellite communications is a subset that does not
include communications with earth stations or spacecraft that are not
satellites, and as such is limited. The new proposed title encompasses
a broader set of communications operations that reflect the current
space industry. We seek comment on implementing the new part 100 and on
the overall structure of the proposed modernized rules. Are there
benefits to retaining part 25, or are there alternative solutions that
the Commission should consider in restructuring the rules?
29. Appendix A to the NPRM contains the largely complete proposed
part 100. By providing a largely complete text of proposed rules, we
aim to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the overall framework and detailed, specific rule sections. There are
instances where we do not propose specific regulatory text and instead
describe a proposal in the text of the NPRM and seek comment on
appropriate additional regulatory text. We also propose alternatives to
the proposed rule text and seek comment on both the proposed rules in
Appendix A and any alternative proposals in the NPRM. In addition,
other parts of the Commission's rules contain cross-references to part
25, or specific sections within it, that would need to be updated if
part 100 replaces part 25. We also seek comment on the necessary
revision of these cross-references, including whether any would involve
substantive changes to those rule parts.
30. We propose to organize the new part 100 into four subparts:
Subpart A--General. This would include the legal basis for the
rules, authorization requirements, definitions, ownership, references,
and preemption of local zoning.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses. This would include
application materials and application processing for space and earth
station licenses.
Subpart C--Operational Rules. This would include rules general to
all licensees and specific to operations, services, or frequencies.
Subpart D--Compliance. This would include consequences for rule
violations.
31. Two of the main goals of this modernization effort are to make
the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules easier to
understand and to make the application process easier for incumbent and
new operators alike. In this regard, an overhaul of certain aspects of
our rules could bring more clarity to regulated entities, such as
removing redundant portions and separating application requirements
from operational rules to clarify for applicants what is required in
the application process versus after grant. We believe that the
proposed organization of part 100 will help applicants and licensees to
more easily understand the application requirements, the application
process, the rules applicable to a licensee, and the consequences for
non-compliance of the rules and requirements. We seek
[[Page 56344]]
comment on this proposed organization of the new part 100.
Additionally, we seek comment on whether certain proposed rule sections
should be moved to a different subpart.
32. Another fundamental way in which we seek to provide greater
clarity as part of our modernization efforts concerns the Commission's
use of terms regarding the physical objects in space to which our rules
and regulations apply. In the past, the Commission has at times used
the terms ``space station,'' ``satellite,'' and ``spacecraft''
interchangeably despite the different definition of each term in the
rules. However, such ambiguity does not support a predictable
regulatory environment where defined terms carry precise meaning so
that the public can understand the rules. Therefore, throughout our
proposed revisions, we aim to more carefully apply and delineate these
terms. The Commission's statutory authority is rooted in regulating the
``apparatus,'' which in this context includes the ``space station,'' or
antenna, as a radiocommunication transmitting device. The space
stations in a satellite system that the Commission licenses and
regulates are often combined with a ``satellite'' or ``spacecraft''
such that interchangeability of these two terms is not a problem.
However, as the Commission anticipates that it will continue to receive
more new and novel licensing requests, it is important to clearly
distinguish these terms to promote clarity in our rules and in matters
of statutory authority. Therefore, we propose to incorporate the
definitions of ``space station,'' ``satellite,'' and ``spacecraft''
from parts 2 and 25 into part 100, and use these proposed definitions
throughout the NPRM. We broadly seek comment on these definitions and
these concepts. We also seek comment on the use of each term throughout
the proposed rules and ask whether there are instances where a
different term or definition may be more appropriate.
A. Licensing Assembly Line
33. Our proposed ``licensing assembly line'' is designed so
applicants can efficiently prepare applications which can be routed so
that applications are identified for quick review (i.e., expedited
processing) or targeted review (i.e., exceptions to expedited
processing). Like an assembly line, the proposed approach aims to
standardize the review process and route the review of each application
on a predictable and ever-moving track. We seek comment on this
proposed approach.
34. The licensing assembly line proposes three key phases. First,
the modular application phase where applicants submit applications or
other requests to the Commission. Second, the application processing
phase where the request is prepared for a decision in a timely fashion
by establishing completeness, seeking public comment, and requesting or
receiving any additional information or amendments. Third, the
application decision phase in which the Commission applies a structured
review process to decide on the request in accordance with the rules.
The particulars of these three phases are embodied by the rules
proposed in Appendix A and are discussed below.
35. Within the proposed part 100, ``Subpart B--Applications and
Licenses'' is where we propose rules for accepting and processing
applications. In subpart B, we propose to organize the rule sections
covering the space and earth station application requirements as well
as rules for application review. Our expectation is that subpart B
would be the primary portion of our rules that the public and regulated
entities would reference to understand how to apply for a space station
or earth station license and the application review process. We seek
comment on the general organization of part 100 proposed below and in
Appendix A, as well as on the specific proposals for each section.
1. Application Modularity; Required Forms
36. We propose to require applicants to submit their space and
earth station applications by completing one or more application pieces
depending on the nature of the request. Relying on modularity will mean
applicants only need to complete relevant portions of the application
and the Commission can efficiently design and update internal review
processes for applications. We intend for this approach to apply to any
type of application, including initial space and earth stations
applications, petitions for market access, amendments, modifications,
requests for special temporary authority (STA), and any other
applications. The key modular pieces of the application materials under
our proposal for space station applications include General and
Ownership Information on FCC Form 312--Main Form, Orbital Elements on
Schedule O to the FCC Form 312, and Frequency Elements on Schedule F to
the FCC Form 312. Earth station applicants would file FCC Form 312--
Main Form and Schedule B to FCC Form 312. Additional information would
be required for applications to provide Supplemental Coverage from
Space (SCS) and petitions for U.S. market access.
37. We propose to modularize the information that space station
applicants must provide in the new part 100. Specifically, we propose
to condense the information required for space station applications
into three rule sections in part 100: one section for general applicant
information; one section that contains the orbital information for a
proposed system; and one section that contains the frequency
information for a proposed system. Many of the information requirements
that we propose in these sections are similar to the current part 25
rules, though we have sought to significantly reduce what is required.
We also propose in many of these information requirements to shift away
from requiring narratives and demonstrations and shift to requiring
more straightforward pieces of information. In making these changes we
propose to replace the current Schedule S and much of the narrative
required for space station applicants with two new schedules to the FCC
Form 312: Schedule O and Schedule F. Schedule O would contain the
orbital information and Schedule F would contain the frequency
information related to the space station application. We propose to
still require earth station applicants to submit Schedule B but propose
streamlined revisions.
38. Applicants would only need to complete the portions of the
forms that pertain to their requested operations. We propose to still
require a description of the proposed system in the application but
seek to substantially reduce the narratives required. Experience with
part 25 application requirements shows that lengthy narratives and non-
standard submissions can slow the review process as the Commission must
spend time parsing the narrative and reconciling inconsistencies with
other parts of the application. Additionally, we believe that this
approach could facilitate intake of application data in standardized
formats for improved review over time. By modularizing the orbital and
frequency information, we seek to provide a wide range of flexibility
for applicants. For instance, we envision this modularity facilitating
simpler approval of hosted space stations and space-as-a-service
systems by only requiring the information needed for their proposal. We
seek comment on how our proposed application design could support such
flexibility. Are there any changes we should make to our proposal for
these
[[Page 56345]]
kinds of requests? We also want the application process to be flexible
enough to accommodate novel proposals. For instance, how can the
application process accommodate an operator who seeks to transfer a
hosted space station from one spacecraft to another? We seek comment on
the types of systems that need flexibility and how our application
materials can support such requests in line with our goals.
39. We also propose to continue to require electronic submission of
applications via ICFS or another successor system and propose
delegating to the Space Bureau the ability to designate the specific
application filing system. In addition, we propose to codify that
waiver requests are not necessary for submission of supplements or
exhibits filed contemporaneously with applications due to technical
limitations of the designated forms. We also propose that, consistent
with Commission precedent and practice, applicants would not be
entitled to refund of application filing fees once an application is
reviewed. We seek comment on these proposed changes and generally on
whether any changes related to the application fee rules in part 1,
subpart G, or the ICFS rules in part 1, subpart Y would be required as
a result of the proposals in the NPRM.
40. While the proposed rules set forth the requirements for
application materials, we expect the form and format will need to be
carefully designed to support our goals. Furthermore, we anticipate the
need for the form and format of applications to evolve over time.
Therefore, we plan to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to
determine and revise the form and format for filing application
materials and for designating the system for the intake of those
materials. In particular, we plan to delegate to the Space Bureau the
authority to announce through public notice any changes to the form and
format of required application materials. This delegated authority
would allow the Space Bureau to modernize and streamline the
application process as necessary through improved technology and other
process design improvements. We also propose to delegate authority to
the Space Bureau to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking in making
these changes if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable.
Delegating authority to the Space Bureau as set forth above will allow
it to effectuate improvements as quickly as possible. Since these
delegations of authority, if made, might be of a continuing nature, we
seek comment on whether corresponding rule changes should be made to
Section 0.51 or other parts of our regulations. We seek comment on this
approach.
a. FCC Form 312--Main Form
41. Section 25.114(a) directs applicants for NGSO and GSO space
station authorizations to submit applications via FCC Form 312--Main
Form, with the required exhibits attached. The FCC Form 312--Main Form
also prompts applicants to respond to a number of questions relating to
the applicant's compliance with the Commission's environmental policy
rules, basic qualifications, and ownership, and requires certifications
to the accuracy of the information provided therein. We propose to
create a new rule section entitled ``Application Requirements of the
FCC Form 312--Main Form'' that aggregates the required information for
space or earth station license applications with the FCC Form 312--Main
Form. Specifically, this section would continue to require applicants
to submit contact information, management and ownership information,
and attest to certifications that are included in the existing
application forms. We propose to connect the requirements with the FCC
Form 312--Main Form in the rules so that it is clear what information
applicants must provide in applications. We seek comment on these
proposals. Does this proposal provide predictability for applicants? Is
there additional information that should be included in this form?
42. We propose to retain the FCC Form 312--Main Form existing
requirement that the applicant include an attestation, made under
penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on FCC Form 312--
Main Form and any associated forms has been verified for accuracy and
is believed to be complete and accurate at the time of submission
similar to what is currently required by our forms. The Commission
often receives applications with incomplete, inconsistent, and
inaccurate information, and staff have generally engaged in a time-
consuming process of guiding applicants on how to correct and amend
applications so that they are acceptable for filing. Should an
additional requirement be added so that the attestation be made by an
officer of the applicant filing the FCC Form 312--Main Form to better
ensure that the information is complete, consistent, and accurate since
the submission might be taken more seriously by leadership of the
entity filing the authorization if an officer has to attest? Currently,
all applications are subject to the requirements outlined in part 1 of
the Commission's rules to maintain the ongoing accuracy of its
materials.
43. We also seek to reduce the need for applicants to fill out the
same form multiple times with identical information when applying for
additional space or earth station authorizations. Under the current
rules, applicants must re-file the same information required by FCC
Form 312, Main Form for every request. We propose to allow applicants
to certify that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC
Form 312--Main Form rather than requiring them to submit a new FCC Form
312--Main Form with each request. We seek comment on this proposal
generally and invite suggestions on how to operationalize this
requirement. Specifically, should the Commission allow applicants to
certify that no information has changed from a previously submitted FCC
Form 312--Main Form and provide the corresponding file number? Would
this proposal relieve any significant burdens on applicants such that
it would justify the operational changes that may need to be made to
ICFS?
44. We also propose an avenue that would bifurcate the FCC Form
312--Main Form from the associated application schedules so that
applicants could elect to file the FCC Form 312--Main Form independent
of an application for space or earth station authorization. We believe
that independent filing of the FCC Form 312--Main Form would allow the
Commission to make a preliminary determination as to whether an
applicant is qualified to hold a space station or earth station license
before they actually apply for a license. Since the FCC Form 312--Main
Form collects ownership information, we propose to allow entities to
seek preliminary-clearance to hold a license which could facilitate
accelerated review for transfers of control or assignments.
Specifically, this would allow an applicant seeking to obtain a space
station or earth station authorization to submit an FCC Form 312--Main
Form in advance of a transfer of control or assignment and have the
Commission review the ownership and legal qualifications of the
applicant in advance of any transfer or assignment. It could also be a
way for entities who do not typically operate space or earth stations
to be pre-cleared to hold a license if that would facilitate a
contractual arrangement. We seek comment on this proposal and any
potential alternatives. Would this proposal facilitate a more efficient
review of basic licensee qualifications
[[Page 56346]]
and promote investment and capital formation in the space sector? If we
were to adopt this proposal, should the Commission adopt a new
application fee for reviewing an FCC Form 312--Main Form application
that is not associated with an underlying application, consistent with
section 8 of the Act? We believe the Act provides authority for
creating a process that bifurcates preliminary review of applicant
qualifications from the final review of all elements of an application
to achieve permissible policy objectives, such as facilitating
efficient capital formation to promote investment in communications
facilities. What rules, if any, need to be added to carry out this
proposal? Are there any legal barriers to the Commission providing
preliminary review of applicant qualifications, subject to review of
any new information that may be provided in connection with a complete
application for authorization?
b. Ownership Information
45. The Commission also proposes to codify in part 100 the long-
standing requirement that space station applicants include a disclosure
of certain management and ownership information in FCC Form 312--Main
Form, and to expand this requirement to every applicant filing an FCC
Form 312--Main Form, including all earth station applicants. This
information has been required to ensure that applicants meet the basic
qualifications to hold satellite licenses and grants of market access.
While this information is already required by the current FCC Form
312--Main Form for space station applicants, we propose to include a
reportable ownership requirement in part 100 that all applicants
disclose information about individuals or entities holding a 10% or
more direct or indirect (equity and/or voting interest) in the
applicant or a controlling interest, as well as the names, citizenship,
and address of each officer and director in the applicant. These
requirements would also allow the Commission to identify domestic and
foreign persons, governments, or entities that hold 10% or more
interest, consistent with current practice. We believe that such
information allows the Commission to assess whether grant of an
application will serve the public interest, including consideration of
any national security concerns and a determination of whether to refer
an application to the Executive Branch for review to assess any
national security or law enforcement issues presented by foreign
ownership. We seek comment on how these proposed regulations interact
with 47 CFR 1.5000 et. seq., which apply to satellite or earth station
common carriers, and how to enable a single set of ownership rules with
a uniform 10% reportable ownership threshold that apply to all
satellite and earth station licensees and recipients of market access
grants.
46. The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May
2025 proposing foreign adversary ownership certification and
information collection requirements for all entities holding covered
Commission licenses or authorizations (Foreign Adversary NPRM).
Specifically, the Foreign Adversary NPRM proposes to require such
entities to affirmatively certify whether the entity is or is not
directly or indirectly owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary, and if so, to submit
any additional information on foreign adversary control including
identities, citizenships, and descriptions of any held control. The
Foreign Adversary NPRM proposes to require foreign adversary
certification and reporting for satellite networks, specifically
seeking comment on whether to modify FCC Form 312--Main Form, along
with other categories of satellite licensing, to include a
certification on an applicant's foreign adversary ownership. We propose
to align our final rules in this proceeding with the final rules
established in the Foreign Adversary NPRM, including the final decision
on whether those requirements should be incorporated into existing
licensing rules or whether the Commission should create a single set of
new rules that apply to all regulated entities and whether the
requirements should be reflected in FCC Form 312--Main Form.
47. Finally, we propose to incorporate the current requirement that
applicants submit an ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's
vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect
ownership interests with 10% or more ownership interest or controlling
interest. This chart should clearly indicate the non-U.S. citizenship
entities. As ownership and control structure of companies in the space
industry have become increasingly complex, Commission staff have
routinely requested that applicants provide information in this format
to facilitate their analysis. We propose requiring this submission with
the FCC Form 312--Main Form at the initial stage of the application
process to avoid delays. We seek comment on whether this proposal
should be included in final rules and any alternative methods for
collecting ownership information.
c. General Space Station Application Requirements
48. We propose to create a rule section that would aggregate many
of the space station application requirements currently found in
separate sections of part 25 and that apply to all space station
applicants. This rule section would consolidate certain part 25 rules
into one rule section requiring applicants to provide the type of
authorization requested, contact information for the applicant, a
comprehensive description describing the satellite system, a brief
public interest statement, and ITU filings and cost recovery materials.
These proposed requirements are similar to the current requirements
found in part 25, but we seek comment on whether certain information
should be added, eliminated, or modified.
49. The FCC Form 312--Main Form requires space station applicants
to submit contact information for the applicant and a point of contact
if different from the applicant. We propose to retain this information
and include contact information for the person or entity capable of and
responsible for ceasing transmissions directly on the FCC Form 312--
Main Form, which applicants are already required to submit to the
Commission under the Sec. 25.271 point of contact filing requirement.
This section would also require applicants to submit a comprehensive
statement that includes a description of the satellite system,
detailing its services, orbits, and planned operations. While we
propose to require applicants to submit most technical elements of
their applications on one or more schedules to the FCC Form 312, we
view the comprehensive statement as the portion of the application that
describes in relatively plain language the overall design and
operations of the proposed system. We see this as a valuable element
that puts the rest of the information in the application into context
and makes it easier for the public to understand and comment on
applications when they are placed on public notice. However, we would
also like to reduce the burden of unnecessary requirements.
Accordingly, we propose that applicants provide a comprehensive
statement rather than the currently required ``comprehensive proposal''
in Sec. 25.114, which refers to the application in its entirety. We
tentatively conclude that a statement will result in a reduced burden
on applicants while still giving the public and the Commission an
opportunity to scrutinize any planned operations. Should we issue
additional guidance
[[Page 56347]]
regarding what entails a comprehensive statement to ensure that
applications contain sufficient information for Commission review while
preventing applicants from having to expend resources on unnecessary
showings? Are there more effective or efficient ways to collect the
required information within the overall application? We seek comment on
whether the comprehensive statement element of an application is
necessary for public review of applications. Is the statement at all
redundant to any other proposed requirement?
50. We also propose in Appendix A to retain the required public
interest statement supporting grant of the proposed operations.
However, we seek comment on whether a public interest statement is
necessary. Our proposed modified application process is designed to
identify parts of an application where either a public interest
presumption cannot be made ex ante or where a more focused review of
the merits is needed. In those situations, the applicant would provide
information to support a grant of authorization. Therefore, is it
necessary to require a separate public interest statement? If we do
retain this requirement in the new proposed rules, are there ways to
limit the burden on applicants in preparing public interest statements?
51. We also propose to codify that an operator may file an
application requesting authority for multiple GSO satellites under a
single call sign as long as the necessary information is provided for
each specific GSO satellite listed in the application. Historically,
the Commission has licensed single GSO satellites for a single location
on the geostationary arc. This is largely due to the distance from
Earth, which requires high power and large GSO satellites that are
expensive to construct, launch, and operate. But that is beginning to
change. As satellite systems are becoming more advanced with increased
technical capabilities, we anticipate that applicants may seek to
operate multiple satellites at one location on the geostationary arc.
We therefore propose to modify our rules to allow applicants to file
for and receive a GSO space station license for multiple GSO
satellites. We seek comment on this proposal. Should applicants only be
allowed to file a single application for multiple GSO satellites if
those satellites will be located at the same location on the GSO arc?
Should there be a maximum number of GSO satellites allowed to operate
under one license? Should existing operators be allowed to combine
multiple GSO satellites under one license?
52. Finally, are there any additional requirements that generally
pertain to space station applicants that should be included here? Are
there elements we propose which should be removed or changed?
d. Space Station Orbital Requirements; Schedule O
53. We propose to create a new schedule to the FCC Form 312,
Schedule O, as part of the application requirements for space station
applicants to submit the corresponding orbital information for proposed
systems. Applicants seeking license authorizations for GSO satellite
systems, NGSO satellite systems, VTSS, and Multi-Orbit Satellite
Systems (MOSS) would be required to submit Schedule O as part of their
initial application.
54. In the proposed Schedule O, applicants would provide the
system's orbital information, such as the number of satellites and
orbital planes. Applicants would also certify whether a proposed system
would meet a set of bright-line orbital criteria. These certification
criteria, including collision risk and human casualty risk, would
define the contours of the orbital criteria that the Commission
presumes to be in the public interest. We want the part 100 application
materials to clearly define what applicants must submit and we believe
that the proposed Schedule O will help to reduce uncertainty on the
orbital information required. Certain current part 25 rules require
statements or technical disclosures demonstrating how the applicant
meets the orbital criteria. Under our proposal, we seek to allow
applicants to certify affirmatively or negatively that their system
will meet the criteria, instead of preparing statements describing in
detail how their system will meet a certain standard, and the
Commission can verify this certification via the technical information
included in the submitted orbital debris mitigation plan. In the case
of a negative certification, the applicant would then submit additional
information to justify why the request is in the public interest. We
have largely transferred from part 25 to part 100 the same required
orbital showings, but have sought to revise these showings into bright-
line standards to support our certification approach where possible. In
this way, applicants can have clarity on what exactly the Commission
will consider and then need only submit a public interest justification
for a request outside of the presumed acceptable orbital debris
criteria.
55. The proposed Schedule O would aggregate some of the
requirements located in part 100 to help applicants easily determine
and certify whether the orbital components of their proposed system are
in compliance with the Commission's rules. Additionally, Commission
staff would be able to review an applicant's Schedule O to quickly
determine whether the application meets the orbital requirements or
requires further review. With this proposed Schedule O, we seek to
clearly organize the information required under the proposed rules and
provide Commission staff with an easy way to identify applications that
require closer review, thereby making the licensing process more
efficient. In cases where the applicant cannot certify compliance in
the affirmative, then the applicant would be permitted to submit a
justification for Commission review to determine if granting the
license is in the public interest. In this way, the application
materials would, by design, assist with routing an application along
the licensing assembly line. We seek comment on this as well as the
general proposal outlined here. Are the proposed Schedule O and orbital
certifications therein sufficient for the Commission and the public to
analyze space station applications?
56. As part of providing the orbital information for a system,
under our proposal applicants will need to identify their proposal as a
GSO satellite system, an NGSO satellite system, a VTSS, or a MOSS.
Depending on the type of request, we propose specific application
requirements. The proposed definitions and application requirements for
each type of system are discussed below.
e. GSO Satellite Systems
57. The Commission's rules currently define a ``Geostationary-orbit
satellite'' as ``[a] geosynchronous satellite whose circular and direct
orbit lies in the plane of the Earth's equator and which thus remains
fixed relative to the Earth; by extension, a geosynchronous satellite
which remains approximately fixed relative to the Earth.'' This
definition is included in both parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's
rules, and we therefore propose to forgo its inclusion in part 100 as
unnecessary and retain the definition in part 2. We do, however,
propose to adopt a definition of ``GSO satellite system'' to help
applicants and operators determine when a defined GSO satellite would
be classified as part of a larger GSO system in the context of the
Commission's regulations. We propose to define a ``GSO satellite
system'' as, ``a system composed of one
[[Page 56348]]
or more geostationary-orbit satellites operating together at a single
location and under a single call sign.'' We seek comment on this
proposed definition. Should we expand this definition to include
multiple GSO satellites operating at different locations as part of the
same call sign? Are there other defining traits of a GSO satellite
system that should be included in this definition? Should the
definition require that the multiple GSO satellites be controlled by a
single network control center?
58. We propose to significantly reduce the amount of information
required for applicants for GSO space stations and satellite systems.
Specifically, we propose to require the requested orbital location,
certifications as to whether the satellite(s) will comply with the two-
degree spacing requirements on the U.S. arc and the orbital debris
mitigation rules we propose in subpart C. We also propose to require
materials be provided to explain orbital debris mitigation plans and
end-of-life disposal plans in support of the certification. We seek
comment on this proposal. Is there any additional information the
Commission should include in this section? Are the rules proposed in
Appendix A clear so that applicants understand what is required?
f. NGSO Satellite Systems
59. We propose to codify a definition of ``NGSO satellite system.''
We think that this will make it easier for Commission staff and
applicants to refer to applications and discrete satellite systems,
particularly if certain applicants apply for multiple satellite
systems. Specifically, we propose to define ``NGSO satellite system''
as ``[a] system of one or more non-geostationary orbit satellites
operating together under one space station call sign.'' We seek comment
on the proposed definition and whether it will facilitate flexibility
for operators over time. Does this definition support flexibility and
efficiency in how operators organize their systems? As operators build
and modify their systems through the licensing process, there may be
value in allowing an operator to consolidate multiple call signs so
that changes to the operator's deployed system only require a change to
one call sign. Should we limit the proposed ``NGSO satellite system''
definition or make clear that licensees cannot consolidate satellites
that would otherwise be viewed as separate systems into a single system
with a single call sign? How should we determine whether satellites are
``operating together''? Should we allow applicants to define the limits
of their own satellite systems for purposes of deciding whether a
separate license and/or call sign is necessary?
60. We propose to divide the information that NGSO space station
applicants must provide into three parts: technical information,
certifications, and additional information. The technical information
that we propose to require is similar to current part 25 requirements.
We propose rules in Appendix A that include information such as the
number of satellites in a constellation, the requested orbital planes,
inclinations, and apogee and perigee, among others. We seek comment on
this proposal. Does the information we propose to require provide
enough flexibility for modern systems to be described?
61. Is there any additional information that the Commission should
require for both the Commission and the public to better evaluate
applications, or information we do not need to require? For NGSO
satellite systems, are there different aspects of a system design we
should collect, or aspects we should collect differently, to ensure
applicants can request the type of flexibility needed for their
proposed operations? For example, do the requirements afford the
opportunity for requests involving flexibility in adjusting systems
across orbits or shells? Do we need to specify that the information
provided only needs to reflect an applicant's initial deployment but
that the system can operate flexibly as long as it is done within our
rules and subject to any license conditions? Are there other areas we
can build in flexibility so that applicants may request to operate
within certain envelopes? If so, how would we incorporate this into our
application requirements and the forms?
62. The list of proposed certifications for NGSO satellite system
applicants is set forth in Appendix A. These proposed certifications
include bright-line criteria that applicants must certify whether or
not their requested system will meet. Many of these criteria are taken
from the current streamlined small space station authorization process
in part 25. For example, we propose to require applicants to certify
whether their satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest
dimension. We believe that these bright-line criteria, drawn largely
from current information requirements in part 25, will make the
application review process more efficient because it will remove
subjective elements from the review. We seek comment on this proposal,
including on the specifics of each certification we propose. Are the
certifications clear enough so that applicants can make accurate
certifications? Is the way we propose to rely on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Debris Assessment Software
appropriate? Do we need to provide additional guidance as to how
collision probabilities should be calculated? Do we need to provide
guidance on what it means for a satellite to be able to be ``maneuvered
effectively'' under proposed rule Sec. 100.111(c)(2)(vi)? Are there
additional certifications that should be added, or proposed
certifications that should be deleted? Are there other proposed rules
or requirements that could be turned into certifications?
63. Similar to our current application process, we propose to
require that applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan that
details their end-of-life disposal plan and demonstrates how the
applicant will comply with the orbital debris rules and required
certifications in subpart C of the proposed new part 100. Additionally,
for applicants who may request a waiver of any orbital debris rules or
certify that they will not comply with one of the bright-line rules we
propose that they would provide the necessary technical information to
supporting the specific waiver request. We seek comment on this
proposal. Would it be helpful for the Commission to release guidance
documents with examples for newer applicants to use as a model? Our
goal is for the orbital debris mitigation plans to create as little
burden as possible while supporting the certifications made in the
application. Therefore, what steps can the Commission take to reduce
the burden of these plans? Given that ensuring compliance with the
orbital debris certifications will require running orbital debris
models, is requiring submission of the report any more burdensome?
64. We also propose to require NGSO satellite system applicants
whose requested operations trigger certain information requirements to
submit additional information. We believe that these situations will
arise in two cases. First, when an applicant certifies that it will not
meet one of the proposed bright-line criteria, that applicant would
need to provide additional justification to support a grant by the
Commission. For example, an application for an NGSO satellite system
with a human casualty risk that is greater than 1 in 10,000 would not
fit within the criteria that the Commission presumes ex ante to be in
the public interest. Accordingly, the applicant would need to justify
why it is in the public interest for the Commission to grant the
application despite having a higher casualty risk.
[[Page 56349]]
The second case is when an applicant proposes specific system
operations where the Commission has identified that such operations
require additional information. For example, we propose to require
applicants whose space stations will transit through orbits used by
inhabitable spacecraft to provide a description of the design and
operational strategies they would employ to minimize the risk of
collision with any inhabitable spacecraft. An applicant who falls
within this category would then provide additional information to the
Commission when they submit their application so that the Commission
can determine whether granting the application is in the public
interest. Under this proposal, applicants would submit additional
information where necessary either in a text box on Schedule O or by
filing a supplement to Schedule O. We believe including specific
circumstances that require applicants to submit additional information
in the ``Additional Information'' section will make it easier for
applicants to identify whether they need to submit the required
information. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other
information requirements that would pertain to many NGSO satellite
systems--but not all--that should be included in this section? Should
we place any limits on the information or its form or format to reduce
burden or promote efficient review?
g. Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems
65. Increasingly, the Commission is receiving applications for
systems that do not fit neatly into the construct of a traditional NGSO
or GSO system. These applications instead seek authority for operating
space stations on spacecraft with variable orbital parameters in order
to conduct novel space activities. Additionally, the Commission has
already issued licenses and continues to receive numerous applications
for lunar landers and operations. In line with the Commission's
modernization goals, we propose to add a new type of license for space
stations on a ``Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System'' or VTSS.
Specifically, we propose to define VTSS as, ``[o]ne or more spacecraft
either operating beyond the geosynchronous orbit or operating without
fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course of its lifetime
and operating under one space station call sign.'' We intend for this
defined category of operations to capture applications for systems that
do not fit within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite
system which have generally predictable and stable orbits.
Specifically, under our proposal we expect VTSS would encompass
applications for many ISAM systems, orbital transfer vehicles, lunar
operations, other novel space activities and operations beyond
geosynchronous orbit to asteroids and other planets, and applications
for space stations that do not fit neatly within the traditional idea
of an NGSO or GSO satellite or satellite system. These operations are
often unique in their orbital parameters because satellites or
spacecraft may move around to service different spacecraft in orbit, or
they may move between NGSO and GSO orbits, or because they transit to
or orbit around the moon or other celestial bodies. Our expectation is
that VTSS license requests will be distinct from GSO or NGSO requests
because of the variability in the orbital parameters of the spacecraft
over the course of the license term. We seek comment on this definition
and whether it will provide the clarity and distinction needed so that
applicants are able to clearly determine whether they need to file an
application for a VTSS or a different system type.
66. We seek comment on the proposed definition of VTSS and on the
category more broadly. We believe there is a need to have a definition
and licensing category for space stations that encompasses the wide
range of applications the Commission has received and will continue to
receive as companies innovate and seek authorizations for
radiocommunications to support novel space activities. Does our
proposal for the VTSS definition and licensing category adequately
encompass the types of novel operations at the forefront of the
industry? Is it sufficiently future-looking and distinct from our
proposed definitions of GSO satellite system and NGSO satellite system?
Would it make more sense to separate the definition so that space
stations traveling beyond the geosynchronous orbit are separate from
space stations operating in NGSO or GSO with variable orbits? While we
propose to define VTSS (and NGSO and GSO) with respect to the orbital
parameters of the system containing the space station(s) being
licensed, would it make more sense to define this category based on
spectrum use, with a focus on space stations that seek authority for
communications not to provide services directly to consumers on Earth,
but to operate spacecraft that will provide services in or beyond
Earth's orbit? To provide modularity and flexibility, our proposal
seeks to separate in the application process the orbital parameters of
a system from the frequencies and spectrum use but we welcome
suggestions for other approaches. Should we permit operators to file
separate Schedule O and Schedule F for propulsion, sensor, or
communications payloads that evolve over time? Furthermore, are there
alternative names that would fit this definition better? Would Dynamic
Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, Non-Standard Orbital Operations,
Flexible Space Activities, Non-Conventional Satellite (or Spacecraft)
System, or Mission Infrastructure Support Communications (MISC) be
better names? Or should the Commission select a more colloquial name
like Weird Space Stuff (WSS) to describe this class of applications?
67. We propose to separately specify the information that VTSS
applicants must submit when filing an application under the proposed
part 100 to make it easier for applicants to know which information is
required of them and as a recognition that review of VTSS applications
will differ from review of NGSO or GSO applications due to the unique
nature of the system. Specifically, we propose to require VTSS
applicants to submit information about the number of spacecraft they
seek authority for as part of the system, the range of altitudes at
which those space stations will operate, and the anticipated amount of
time the space station(s) are expected to operate in any particular
phase of a mission. These proposed requirements are similar to the
proposed requirements for NGSO satellite systems, but differ slightly
because we believe they will give operators flexibility in designing
systems that do not follow traditional NGSO or GSO operations, while
allowing the Commission to collect the information necessary to
evaluate a system's potential to cause interference to other operators.
We seek comment on these proposed requirements. Are there additional
information requirements that should be included? Should they be
further subdivided so that certain requirements only apply to certain
sub-categories of VTSS, like lunar missions?
68. We also propose to include certifications for VTSS applicants
similar to the certifications we propose for GSO and NGSO applicants.
We propose fewer certifications for VTSS applicants than NGSO
applicants to account for the added flexibility that we seek to provide
these operators. Some certifications are unique to the types of
operations anticipated under a VTSS application. Specifically, we
propose to require applicants who plan to conduct
[[Page 56350]]
servicing missions to certify that operations will only happen with the
consent of the client and that the applicant will consult with other
relevant federal agencies. Additionally, we propose to require
operators to certify that they will comply with the relevant end-of-
life disposal rules for the orbit at which they will terminate
operations. For example, an operator that plans to conduct servicing in
medium Earth orbit (MEO) and then move to service a satellite in GEO
would have to certify that they will comply with the end-of-life
disposal rules for GSO satellites. We seek comment on these proposals.
Additionally, is there anything specific the Commission should require
from applicants seeking to provide servicing as evidence of client
consent? Will the proposed information requirements for VTSS applicants
provide operators with flexibility to design and operate novel space
stations for novel services?
69. We currently propose adding a rule that requires all space
station licensees to share ephemeris data more broadly, which is
discussed further below. Is that proposed rule sufficient for VTSS
applicants who will be moving spacecraft around more variably and
interacting with other satellites on orbit? Should the rule be modified
or changed to effectuate the goals outlined above for VTSS applicants
and licensees? Should the Commission encourage or require standardized
telemetry formats for conjunction assessment and covariance data? What
sources might be used to set such standards?
70. In addition to the rule requiring space station licensees to
share ephemeris data, we propose to require VTSS applicants to certify
whether they will share propagated ephemeris and covariance data prior
to and during any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and proximity
operations. We believe that for operators planning to move their
spacecraft over the course of their lifetime and perform RPO maneuvers,
sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data is in the public
interest so the Commission and public may have information on the
location of the licensed space station(s) attached to the spacecraft.
Having VTSS operators share propagated ephemeris could allow licensees
the flexibility to move between orbits while maintaining transparency
as to where a licensed space station is. Additionally, this will
support space safety and help other operators protect their satellites
as well. We therefore propose adding this certification to encourage
applicants to file ephemeris and to assist the Commission in quickly
identifying VTSS applications that need further review if the applicant
is not willing or able to share ephemeris information. We seek comment
on this proposal.
71. We also seek comment on whether we should allow VTSS operators
who decline to share their propagated ephemeris and covariance data to
instead submit a completed agreement with another government agency
approving the applicant's space safety plan. Given that some operators
work closely with federal agencies, would it be feasible to rely on
another federal agency to review and coordinate a VTSS applicant's
plans consistent with our obligations under the statute? Could allowing
applicants to work with other government agencies for operations that
are unique like those we envision under the VTSS framework and submit a
coordinated agreement for consideration by the Commission be a
substitute for sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data? Are
there other possible ways that operators could meet the needs we
identify as in the public interest if they cannot or will not certify
to submitting their ephemeris data? Should operators ever be allowed to
refuse to submit this data if they are planning on performing maneuvers
and RPO? Should we let VTSS applicants submit an orbital debris
mitigation plan and certifications to the requirements for NGSO
satellite systems or GSO satellite systems, depending on the proposed
operations?
72. We also propose to require that VTSS applicants submit certain
additional information depending on the specific requested operations.
In this section for additional information, we propose to require VTSS
applicants whose space stations will travel beyond the geosynchronous
orbit to submit a description of any instruments or rovers onboard that
will engage in radiofrequency communications with the spacecraft as
well as a description of coordination with government entities such as
the National Science Foundation We seek comment on this proposal. These
information requirements come from the Commission's experience with
lunar applications. Are there additional information requirements that
the Commission should seek for these missions? We also propose to
require applicants who plan to engage in servicing or otherwise
interact with other spacecraft on-orbit to submit the following
information: a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for applications
or grants related to the operations, including for client space
stations; a list of ITU filings or United Nations (U.N.) registration
information, or the expected State of Registry with the U.N., for any
space stations not licensed by the FCC or without market access that
will be client spacecraft or related to the proposed operations; and a
statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing any
debris generation. Since many VTSS operators may not likely know at the
application stage the particulars of this information, should we
instead set this as a notification requirement unless the information
is already known? Could the Commission, working with others in the
United States government, create pre-cleared lists of nations for which
operations need not be specifically disclosed? Or potentially a list of
only spacecraft overseen by certain administrations? We seek comment on
these proposals. Is there any additional information that the
Commission should request?
h. Space Station Frequency Requirements; Schedule F
73. We propose to adopt a new Schedule F to the FCC Form 312--Main
Form on Space Station Frequency Information Requirements as the other
main schedule for information that applicants must provide to the
Commission. Schedule F would replace the current Schedule S but contain
much of the same required frequency information. We believe that
including all required frequency information in one section will make
it easier in the future for the Commission to update both the Schedule
F and the Commission's rules as industry and technologies evolve. In
addition, we seek to reduce the number of technical showings that
applicants must submit. For example, if the Commission were to use an
electronic filing system that auto-populated information based on an
applicant's requested services, orbital locations, and frequencies, we
would not need to change the rules to accommodate that system. We seek
comment on this proposal.
74. Similar to the space station orbital information requirements
in the proposed Schedule O, we also propose to include certifications
in the space station frequency information requirements section.
Specifically, we propose to include the following certifications in
Schedule F: the space station(s) will comply with all applicable
technical rules; the space station(s) will operate under ITU
coordinated procedures and agreements; and the space station(s) can be
commanded to immediately cease transmissions to eliminate harmful
interference. We believe that these certifications will help the
Commission quickly identify applications that are in
[[Page 56351]]
compliance with the rules and can therefore be processed quickly,
distinguishing from applications that request a waiver and therefore
require further review. We seek comment on these certifications. Are
there additional certifications specific to frequency information that
we should include in Schedule F? We also propose to include a
subsection that points applicants who seek to operate in specific
frequency bands or to provide specific services to the appropriate rule
sections in subpart C where additional application materials can be
found. We believe that this will be more efficient and reduce the
overall length of part 100. We seek comment on this proposal. Does it
give applicants sufficient notice of what information is required of
them? Are there proposed requirements we should not adopt?
75. The specific frequency information we propose to require is set
forth in Appendix A. We seek comment on this proposed rule and the
information and certifications. Are there any frequency information
requirements that are no longer needed or relevant, either because they
are not used in practice by space station operators to assess
interference or because technology has evolved? Are there additional
frequency or technical requirements or data that we should require
applicants to provide? Are there alternative methods for collecting the
relevant frequency information from applicants that the Commission
should consider?
i. Requirements of Supplemental Coverage From Space Applications
76. Because SCS is a developing service, we do not at this time
propose to make any substantive changes to our rules from what is
currently required in part 25. We generally believe that making
substantive changes to the requirements for SCS at this juncture would
be premature and may risk derailing efforts by the industry to build
systems that comply with the current rules, with one exception where we
propose to eliminate a current requirement.
77. As has been pointed out in other proceedings, and as we have
seen in applications before the Commission, although we had endeavored
to create a flexible and low burden approach to licensing devices for
SCS, there may be some areas which can be further improved. We think
this proceeding serves as an opportunity to potentially revise our SCS
equipment rules in a targeted manner. As such, we seek comment on
whether to remove the requirements for equipment authorization
certifications under part 25 and omit them from new part 100 for SCS
earth stations. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is
unnecessary because all devices used for the provision of SCS must be
certified under other rule parts and, the way the rule is structured,
the certification under part 25 mirrors the certifications under other
rule parts without requiring anything new. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Is there a reason to keep this requirement? If we
do adopt our proposal, would a rule in the new part 100 making all
equipment that meets the equipment authorization requirements of parts
22, 24, or 27, SCS earth stations by default be sufficient to classify
the devices as earth stations for allocation purposes? Alternatively,
is there a way that we can incentivize manufacturers who are
responsible for equipment certifications to certify their equipment to
be SCS compliant? We do not seek comment on any other matters related
to SCS or the other rules previously adopted.
j. U.S. Market Access
78. The Commission permits satellite systems that are licensed by
jurisdictions other than the United States to access the U.S. market.
Our current rules require a demonstration that U.S. licensed space
stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous
services in the country in which the non-U.S. licensed space station is
licensed. The Commission currently allows this access to the U.S.
market via either a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the space
station operator or a request to access the foreign satellite by a
Commission-licensed earth station operator. We propose to continue to
review market access applications to ensure U.S. licensed space
stations have effective competitive opportunities to access other
markets.
79. Additionally, we propose a change to our request for market
access procedures to prohibit U.S. market access via earth station
licensing. We seek comment on whether to prohibit companies that seek
U.S. registration for a space station or system pursuant to the
Registration Convention from receiving an FCC authorization for U.S.
market access.
80. Current Sec. 25.137 allows earth station applicants to request
authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space stations via a
petition for declaratory ruling under requirements that are equivalent
to those currently outlined in Sec. 25.137 which governs access via
satellites. In practice, however, we have found that this process
creates confusion among operators since this rule provision only allows
for communication with the specific earth station for which the
petition for declaratory ruling was made and not broader access to the
U.S. market. The current process also creates unnecessary burdens on
the Commission to process multiple earth station market access
applications rather than a single market access application for a non-
U.S. licensed satellite or satellite system. Therefore, we propose to
eliminate this option in our rules and only permit market access for
non-U.S. licensed satellites pursuant to petitions for declaratory
ruling for satellites and no longer via earth stations. We seek comment
on this proposal.
81. We seek comment on whether to change our market access rules to
prohibit applicants who seek registration by the United States under
the processes defined in the Registration Convention from receiving
authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory
ruling and instead require those entities to hold an FCC space station
license. We seek comment on whether to require entities that seek
registration from the United States to hold a U.S. space station
license pursuant to our licensing authority under section 301(f) of the
Act, the stated purpose of which is ``to maintain the control of the
United States over all the channels of radio transmission,'' and
section 303(r) of the Act, which directs the Commission to make such
rules and prescribe such restrictions to carry out the provisions of
the Act and ``any international radio [ ] communications treaty or
convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or
convention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the
United States is or may hereafter become a party.'' We seek comment on
whether this change in our licensing process is necessary to fulfill
the statutory objectives expressly stated in section 301, and to assist
the United States as a party to the Outer Space Treaty, pursuant to the
express requirements of section 303(r) of the Act. Under the
Registration Convention, States register space objects in a registry
maintained by each State in order to provide information regarding each
space object to the U.N. We also seek comment on whether there are
other sound reasons to make this change.
82. When entities seek authorization for space stations from non-
U.S. administrations, in many cases, the authorization is of limited
scope. For example, the authorization may only involve ITU filings for
some, but not all,
[[Page 56352]]
of the operational frequencies, or it may be only one of several
authorizations for space activities that the country's national
legislation provides. Given that the non-U.S. authorization may be
incomplete, we seek comment on whether an FCC license should be
required when an applicant seeks to have its satellites registered by
the United States under the processes defined by the Registration
Convention. Is this requirement necessary so that the United States can
maintain ``authorization and continuing supervision'' over the space
object? We therefore seek comment on how the U.S. space station
licensing process can better align with the registration process.
Additionally, we seek comment on how to implement any new rule if
adopted, recognizing the complexity of issues that could arise between
the licensing administration, the ITU filing, and the U.N.
registration. Should any operator that seeks or obtains registration by
the United States under the Registration Convention be required to
obtain a FCC space station license as of the effective date of any new
rule? Should a condition be added on any grant of U.S. market access,
providing that authorization would be automatically terminated without
further action by the Commission if, after grant, the grantee seeks or
receives registration by the United States for any of the authorized
satellites and if so, what effect would that have on existing services?
If any new requirement only applies on a going-forward basis, should
the requirement for a U.S. license attach if current operators who
received market access and were registered by the United States apply
for renewal, if a renewal period is established, or a major
modification and what effect would that have on existing services? We
seek comment on how real-world scenarios should be addressed as well as
any alternative suggestions.
83. Finally, it is our intention to ensure that operators who are
granted authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for
declaratory ruling do not receive an advantage over entities holding a
U.S. satellite license. Do our proposed rules meet that goal, and if
not, how can they be improved? We note that the European Union (EU)
recently proposed a comprehensive EU Space Law which includes
additional requirements for non-EU entities to gain access to the EU
market, such as appointing an EU legal representative. Under the EU
proposal, some of these requirements may be waived if the European
Commission determines the non-EU jurisdiction's regulatory framework is
sufficiently equivalent to its own. Are there additional requirements,
including requirements like those proposed by the EU, that should be
incorporated into the Commission's rules for market access entities to
establish a level playing field for U.S. operators? For example, there
is no license term for U.S. satellite market access grants, and instead
we rely on the review of the licensing administration, which
establishes the term, if any, on the original license. Therefore, we
propose to establish a 15- or 20-year license term for these
authorizations, as discussed below. Are there additional requirements
that should be imposed on the grantees of market access? For example,
should the Commission require a periodic certification that grantees
continue to hold a license from their authorizing administration, and/
or the ITU and continue to provide service to end-users in the U.S.
market? If so, when should such a certification be required? Commenters
should describe proposals with specificity, including whether the
requirement can be waived upon a showing of sufficiency of the
regulation in the country in which the operator holds its original
license.
k. Small Satellite Systems
84. We believe the Commission's small satellite and small
spacecraft rules in Sec. Sec. 25.122 and 25.123 have generally been
successful despite applicants facing some of the same challenges as
other applicants for part 25 licenses. In addition to the more
straightforward criteria to qualify as a small satellite system (akin
to our proposed approach to prespecify acceptable criteria), the
current rules for small satellite systems afford applicants relaxed
surety bond and milestone requirements. Accordingly, we do not propose
separate rules for small satellite systems. Instead, under the proposed
part 100, we expect that applications for all space stations will be
reviewed against a prespecified set of standards for expedited
processing, as described in the NPRM. Our proposed framework
essentially expands the existing small satellite authorization process
to encompass a broader range of systems eligible for faster processing.
In addition, as proposed herein, small systems would not be required to
post a surety bond. We therefore believe that applications that are
currently eligible for small satellite or small spacecraft processing
will receive the same benefits--no surety bond, exemption from
processing rounds, faster processing--under the proposed part 100
rules. Further, our proposal expands the class of applications that
would receive these benefits. We seek comment on this approach and
alternatives.
85. First, we seek comment on whether we should eliminate the
streamlined small space station and small spacecraft authorization
processes entirely if we adopt the proposed processing rules in the
NPRM. Specifically, because the rules we propose aim to optimize all
application processing and would only require larger systems to post a
surety bond, as discussed below, would these changes effectively negate
the need for a process specific to small satellite systems? We do not
propose to address any regulatory fee issues in the NPRM but seek
comment on any alternatives the Commission should consider as far as
designating certain systems as ``small satellite systems.''
86. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should continue to
distinguish a small satellite system from an NGSO satellite system.
Could we revise the definition to be any NGSO satellite system of ten
or fewer satellites under a certain mass limit? Would it then make
sense to retain the shorter six-year license term? Should we change the
current mass requirement by increasing it? We seek comment on this
proposal and how to define ``small satellite'' or ``small satellite
system'' if we retain these categories. Is there any benefit to having
this specific carve out and definition? What benefits, if any, would a
small satellite system get given our proposed streamlined approach to
application processing and the proposed changes to the surety bond
requirement for applicants and licensees? Is this proposed definition
too restrictive or not restrictive enough? We seek comment on these
questions and proposals generally.
l. Earth Station Licensing Application Requirements
87. We propose to streamline the earth station application
requirements by shifting to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site
License approach, and modularize the application so that applicants
only provide information that is necessary for the license sought. We
believe that this will be more efficient than the current approach,
where the Commission requires certain information that it typically
does not review. We propose to require additional specific information
be submitted based upon the type of application. For instance, rather
than applying radiofrequency exposure requirements to all applicants,
we propose to only require the information for user terminal and Earth
Stations in
[[Page 56353]]
Motion (ESIMs) applications. We believe that the changes we make to the
requirements for earth station applications will streamline the process
for most applicants and promote more efficient Commission processes.
88. Our current rules regarding earth station application
requirements are overly burdensome and outdated. Experience indicates
our earth station rules often confuse applicants. Much of what the
Commission currently requires an applicant to provide is information
that is redundant or unnecessary to the Commission's review. In
addition, we generally require separate applications for earth stations
with the same operating or technical parameters, requiring multiple and
redundant reviews. The current approach by the Commission to reviewing
earth station applications requires applicants and the Commission to
engage in time-consuming submissions and tedious reviews. In addition,
the current rules do not take into account advances in technology since
the rules were written. To modernize our process, similarly to how we
propose reviewing space station applications, we propose to shift to a
certification-based approach for earth station applications. Under this
approach, applicants who do not operate in accordance with the
certifications that they make in the application will assume the risk
of an enforcement action for falsely certifying, including the
possibility of forfeitures and revocation. So, while the proposed
approach may increase speed and efficiency for applicants, it comes
with more responsibility on the applicants to ensure they are meeting
the Commission's requirements. We seek comment on our proposals. We
note that some of the proposals may impact earth stations that operate
in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). We do not propose
any substantive changes to the UMFUS regulations in this proceeding and
do not seek comment on changes to the UMFUS rules here, instead leaving
any such substantive discussion to other proceedings.
89. In addition, we also seek comment on a number of specific
questions that may inform the Commission on how our proposed approach
will impact industry and the public. Specifically, if an applicant
provides all of the certifications in the application, is that
sufficient, or does the Commission need to require additional
information or review before placing an application on public notice?
What additional information, if any, should an applicant be required to
provide? For instance, we propose to require applicants to provide
their power levels, out-of-band emissions (OOBE), and other power
information and also to certify that they are operating within the
rules we have established. Is this redundant? Should we instead only
require the certification? If we should require both the technical data
and the certifications, what is the benefit to doing so? What should
the Commission do if an applicant does not certify that they have
completed coordination but states they are in the coordination process?
Should this be deemed an incomplete application? For operations in
shared bands, should we request different or additional information? We
tentatively conclude that an applicant, for operations other than those
for Immovable earth station Nationwide, Non-Site License, will likely
have coordinated applicable operations before submitting an application
with the Commission and that such coordination would be reflected in
the coordination report. We seek comment on this conclusion. Instead of
requiring applicants to provide their coordination reports, should we
require licensees to certify that they will complete coordination prior
to operation but have available at the request of the Commission
evidence of having completed that coordination? Would a coordination
report be appropriate evidence or something else? Is there any
particular benefit to having a coordination report in a license file
instead of simply requiring licensees to produce evidence of
coordination at the request of the Commission? Should applicants
provide a description of their operations? Is that information relevant
for Commission review and licensing? For instance, if an applicant
applies for a user terminal authorization, should they be required to
tell us what the intended use is, or should they be allowed to use the
devices as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Commission's
rules? For an applicant who fails to certify in the affirmative or who
requests a waiver of the Commission's rules, what information should we
require from them? Should we be more specific as to what showings
(e.g., interference analysis) should be included with particular types
of waiver requests? Is any of the information proposed to be requested
unnecessary? Are there sufficient similarities between ESIMs and user
terminals so that an applicant can apply for both ESIM and user
terminal authorization in the same application if the technical
information provided meets applicable requirements specific to each
service? Further, we seek comment generally on any potential impacts
our proposed changes to earth station licensing could have on services
in shared spectrum bands. In addition, should we exclude spectrum bands
that are subject to freezes or other limitations--such as C-band--from
the proposed licensing rules?
m. Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing With Registration for Immovable Earth
Stations
90. We propose to shift our earth station licensing from the
current, burdensome site-by-site approach to a predominately
Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing approach. While the site-by-site
approach will still be available, the dramatic increase in the number
of earth stations required by the space industry necessitates a much
more streamlined approach that can scale licensing earth stations. We
envision a framework involving two steps: first, obtaining a
Nationwide, Non-Site License; and second registering earth station
sites and completing coordination before operations. Under this two-
step process, an operator would only need to go through a full
licensing process once but could then register earth station sites as
needed. Under this proposal, either at the time of registration or
after registration but prior to operation the licensee would certify
and/or demonstrate compliance with any location- or frequency-specific
rules that might apply. Our intention is for the proposed two-step
framework to apply to all frequency bands. However, given that there
are specific rules related to different frequency band usage and that
we do not propose to change them here, we see this approach as setting
the framework for licensing and registering earth stations so we
progressively make registration more efficient in various bands. While
initially some bands or locations may vary in how registration takes
place, it is our goal to progressively move toward simpler, data-based
enabled registration of earth stations under this Nationwide, Non-Site
Licensing model. For example, similar to what the Commission has
adopted for the 70/80/90 GHz band, such an approach could be applied to
other frequency bands used for earth station operations.
91. We propose to adopt a new class of earth station, the Immovable
earth station. We propose to define ``Immovable earth station'' as,
``[a]n earth station licensed under either a Nationwide, Non-Site
License or a single location authorization that is located at a single
fixed location that must be registered and coordinated before
operating.'' We propose this definition to distinguish from the
[[Page 56354]]
Commission's definition of fixed earth station (which operate in the
FSS) from other types of earth stations. Additionally, we propose to
only allow applicants who do not require any exceptions or waivers to
apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site License for Immovable earth stations
and then register locations. We believe that this new type of earth
station and definition, one that makes clear that an earth station must
be registered at a location, will provide flexibility to applicants and
avoid confusion with the definition for fixed earth stations that
currently exists in our rules. In addition, under the current rules,
the Commission requires, generally, that every new earth station at a
different location goes through the entire licensing process, even
where new earth stations are technically identical. Although currently
the part 25 rules allow for blanket licensing in certain frequency
bands, those bands are limited and do not account for technical
advancements or more efficient use of spectrum in the future.
Accordingly, we believe that creating this new class of Immovable earth
station, and permitting nationwide, non-site licensing with
registration requirements, is a more efficient way to license earth
stations.
92. We do not wish to allow licensees to circumvent coordination or
other requirements that are meant to protect against harmful
interference. We therefore propose that applications requiring a waiver
or an exception, other than for federal coordination, will be required
to file a site-specific license application for the earth station that
requires the exception or waiver. In addition, while we propose
allowing applicants to register their sites instead of needing to go
through a full licensing approach, we still will require proof that
coordination has occurred prior to the earth station operating at the
newly registered site. In this case, we propose to require applicants
to file a certification prior to beginning operations affirming that
all required frequency and site-specific coordination has been
completed. To be clear, what we propose is a two-step process. An
applicant can first be licensed for the use of a specific frequency
without the need to coordinate but would then have to coordinate with
all required commercial and federal entities prior to operating at a
site registered under the Nationwide, Non-Site License. What we propose
still requires that coordination occurs between operators prior to
operations--although registration may occur prior to certifying to
meeting coordination. We envision this approach to be used in all
frequency bands. We tentatively believe that our coordination before
operation but after registration proposal would ensure protection and
that the criteria of any frequency specific rules, such as those for
the UMFUS bands, are met. Although we propose to allow an applicant to
receive a license, this proposal does not allow a licensee to begin
operations prior to both registering their sites and certifying that
coordination has been completed at those sites and completing all
coordination requirements. We believe this two-step approach--licensing
first then site specific registration and coordination prior to
operations--would allow for a streamlined licensing regime wherein
operators would only need to come to the Commission for a license once
and then register sites pursuant to the Nationwide, Non-Site License
and begin operations after certifying to completing all required
coordination without having to seek additional Commission approval.
93. Alternatively, rather than requiring filed coordination reports
prior to operations, would self-coordination amongst operators as the
default approach in all frequency bands achieve the same objectives?
Specifically, should we allow earth station operators to assess the
risk of harmful interference to incumbent users prior to operation and
require them to take steps to proactively prevent harmful interference
to earlier-in-time users? Would this approach better allow for
licensee's to begin their operations quickly while still ensuring that
other users are protected? Are there any drawbacks to this approach?
What benefits are there to this approach over what we propose above?
Alternatively, is there a way to combine the two approaches that would
still allow for quickly deploying and operating while ensuring there is
no harmful interference to incumbent operations? We note that the
proposal above does allow for licensees to register sites prior to
coordination, but must coordinate and certify to meeting all
coordination requirements before operating. Would instead allowing
operations on an unprotected/non-interference basis while coordination
is occurring but still require a coordination report or certification
be filed upon completion of coordination be a suitable alternative to
what we propose? Should we instead adopt this self-certification
approach for certain bands and exclude others? Alternatively, would
allowing licensees at the time of registration to certify that they
will complete coordination prior to beginning operations but rather
than file a coordination report only require that they be able to
provide evidence of completed coordination at the request of the
Commission achieve the same goals with a reduced administrative burden?
94. We are cognizant, however, that a one size fits all approach
for every frequency band is unlikely to be possible in the immediate
future. Many bands have certain restrictions or limitations that likely
need to be addressed in separate rulemakings. However, we tentatively
believe that the new predominately nationwide, non-site licensing
approach we propose here can be applied broadly nonetheless. We invite
comment on whether there are any spectrum bands today that are suitable
for a lighter approach than what is proposed. For instance, are there
any where we can require only to supplement their license file with the
locations at which they seek to operate rather than officially
registering the sites? Are there any other approaches that should be
considered for certain frequency bands that do not have coordination
concerns or use limitations?
95. While we tentatively conclude that adopting a nationwide, non-
site licensing approach would best serve the dual needs of ensuring
growth in the industry while protecting other spectrum users, we
recognize that there are issues that may still need to be addressed.
Accordingly, we seek comment on specific questions and proposals.
First, as part of this approach, should we establish any sort of first
in time right? For instance, if two licensees want to register at the
same location, should the one that files first have protection over the
one that files second? Should it be based on who begins operations
first? Are such rules even necessary, or does the coordination process
coupled with the requirements to only operate within the Commission's
rules without the need for waiver or exceptions resolve most of these
issues? We note that under our current rules, coordination is only
required for operational sites. Does that address these issues? In that
same regard, how should site-specific licenses be treated when
determining priority? Should there be different operational limits for
different frequency bands or do the proposed operational limits in
Appendix A sufficiently protect other spectrum users? Similarly, are
there bands that should be excluded from our proposed Nationwide, Non-
Site License with registration approach? Is there a benefit to allowing
for registration prior to certifying to coordination if it means that
the earth station cannot operate until the certifications are also
filed?
[[Page 56355]]
Could this result in warehousing of locations for a year at a time?
Should we establish a mechanism where multiple parties can register at
a site, so that if the party that registers first is unable to meet the
365 day deadline, the applicant that is next in line will have a chance
to begin operations at the site?
96. Further, should the Commission establish a database for
registering the sites? We note that no database currently exists, but
licensees are currently able to file supplements in their license files
in ICFS. Does the filing of supplements achieve the same purpose as a
database? If so, how would the public be made aware that the
registration has been filed without causing unnecessary burdens on
Commission resources? We also ask whether we should have different
registration systems generally for different frequency bands or if they
should all be uniform? For instance, UMFUS bands have specific
requirements that must be met before a licensee can begin operating,
but S- and X-band frequencies do not have those same requirements. Does
this warrant establishing different registration systems or rules for
registration for specific frequency bands? Could establishing a
database similar to what the Commission has established for the 70/80/
90 GHz bands be a solution that would allow for a single database?
Should the Commission instead delegate to the Space Bureau
responsibility to find the best approach for registering sites at a
later date? Should the Commission establish a new database that is more
easily searchable and tailored specifically to just these proposed
registrations?
97. In addition to the questions above, we seek comment on general
questions related to this approach. Specifically, what possible issues
exist with adopting a Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there
specific bands where this proposal would not work, and if so, why not?
How would this impact coordination between operators or with the
federal government? Is there a benefit to this approach, or will
applicants primarily only seek site specific licenses? Should we permit
applicants that seek a waiver of certain rules, such as the U.S. Table
of Frequency Allocations, to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License
approach? Are there any drawbacks or benefits to allowing an applicant
who requests a waiver to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License
approach?
2. Application Handling
98. We propose to revise the Commission's rules guiding how a filed
application will be processed prior to a final action by the
Commission. The proposed rules in this portion of subpart B would
establish certain processing timelines, a standard of completeness,
public comment processes and guidelines for information requests to
applicants. As part of the licensing assembly line, application
processing is designed to gather and organize all the information
needed in preparation for the Commission to consider the application.
We believe that these proposed rules will increase processing speed and
reduce burden on applicants and the Commission. Our proposed rules
would function as follows:
Within 30 days of filing and confirmation of fee payment,
the Commission must either place an application on public notice or, if
the application is incomplete, ask for all information needed to
establish completeness.
Once an incomplete application is supplemented and deemed
complete, the application will be placed on public notice as soon as
practicable.
If an application is complete, and the applicant certifies
in the affirmative to meeting all the bright-line criteria for their
system, does not request a waiver, and is not subject to any
``exceptions'' to expedited processing, the application will be placed
on seven-day public notice (i.e., expedited processing).
Applications not eligible for expedited processing will be
placed on 15-day public notice.
Applications subject to section 309(b) of the Act will be
placed on 30-day public notice.
If no action is taken on the space station application
within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, the
Commission will inform the applicant of the reasons preventing a
license grant with specific reference to any exceptions.
We seek comment on the specific revisions to the application
processing phase detailed below and in Appendix A.
a. Completeness
99. Before an application is placed on public notice, the
Commission must determine that the application is complete. It is
longstanding Commission precedent that applications must be
``substantially complete'' before they are accepted for filing, meaning
that ``applications must be complete in substance, and must provide all
the information required in the application form.'' The substantially
complete standard does not refer to a determination on the merits of
the application, nor does it imply that the Commission does not have
further questions for an applicant after an application is placed on
public notice. Rather, it is designed to ensure that an application
includes all of the information required by the Commission's rules and
helps to deter against the filing of speculative applications.
100. The Commission's rules state that an application will be
unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if ``the
application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to
questions, informal showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or
other matters of a formal character.'' Further, Sec. 25.112 of the
Commission's rules states, in part, that an application will be
unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if the
application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules,
regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other
requirements. In adopting this rule, the Commission clarified that
``[w]hile in some instances it is efficient for staff to help parties
address discrepancies in their pending applications, we require all
applications under part 25 to be substantially complete when they are
filed.'' The current requirements for space station applications
additionally require that an applicant provide a ``comprehensive
proposal.'' The Commission has previously noted that a ``comprehensive
proposal'' must describe ``in detail all pertinent technical,
operational and ownership aspects of the system and its ability to
proceed expeditiously with construction and launch.''
101. Our experience is that these overlapping and subjective
standards have not served to promote expediency in placing applications
on public notice or in making applicants aware of what comprises a
complete application. We believe that establishing a clearer standard
for what determines ``completeness'' as a precursor to the application
review process will be an important and beneficial addition to the
rules if we adopt our proposal to determine whether an application
qualifies for expedited processing prior to the public notice period.
This proposed rule section would codify the existing process for
determining whether an application is complete and the process by which
an applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in the application.
To provide applicants with clarity and a more predictable standard, we
propose to clearly articulate the
[[Page 56356]]
standard for completeness before an application can be accepted for
filing and placed on public notice. Accordingly, we propose to include
a new rule section in part 100 defining the standard for completeness,
stating, ``An application will be considered complete if, under the
relevant rule section(s), all required information, forms,
certifications, and showings are included in the application.'' We
believe this definition focuses on whether all required materials have
been provided rather than involving a determination on the merits of an
application. In addition, the application certifications and processing
framework to identify exceptions to expedited processing as proposed
herein aim to allow for a more objective determination of whether all
information required has been provided and an application can be deemed
complete. We also clarify that applications with negative
certifications or waiver requests must provide additional information
to be complete, which will assist the Commission as it informs
applicants of any deficiencies in an application within 30 days of
filing. We seek comment on the proposed definition and standard for
completeness. Are there alternative proposals or methods the Commission
should consider in determining that an application is ``complete''?
Does the proposed standard provide the intended benefit and guidance to
applicants in stating a more clear standard on when applications can be
accepted for filing? We believe that 30 days will give the Commission
sufficient time to review space station applications and either place
them on public notice or contact applicants to inform them of any
missing information or other deficiencies. Should the initial timeline
be longer to encourage more intensive review prior to public notice to
identify any missing application requirements or exceptions that might
delay grant so that the Commission can proceed with grant more quickly
following the end of the public notice period?
b. Public Notices and Oppositions to Applications
102. We propose to overhaul our current public notice procedures
for all applications not subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act.
For most applications that are determined to be acceptable for filing,
we propose a shortened public notice period of either seven or fifteen
days. Applications that do not have any enumerated exceptions would be
subject to expedited processing and placed on a seven-day public notice
period. All other applications would be placed on a 15-day public
notice period. Applications subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the
Act would continue to be placed on public notice for a 30-day comment
period.
103. We propose that oppositions to applications, including
petitions to deny and other pleadings (collectively ``oppositions''),
would need to be received by the Commission within seven days after
public notice for applications. Any replies responding to oppositions
must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for
filing oppositions, consistent with the current rules. We note that the
Commission currently accepts informal objections filed outside of the
established public notice window or outside of conformance with Sec.
25.154(a). To encourage timely filings, we propose to include in part
100 the requirement that any commenter, petitioner, or filer request a
waiver of the rules when filing outside of a designated filing window.
Finally, we propose allowing the Commission to shorten or extend a
public notice period on its own motion.
104. We seek comment on these proposals. It is our goal to provide
certainty to process applications quickly while still guaranteeing
opportunity for public comment. Do these comment periods provide enough
time for the public to understand and comment on applications,
particularly given our proposed revisions to the application
requirements so the request may be more quickly understood? Is the rule
language sufficiently clear to inform applicants of the relevant public
notice period? Does this proposed rule section include all pleadings
that are subject to public notice requirements, or should additional
classes of pleadings be added? The proposed rules only allow reply
comments to be filed by the party that filed a petition to deny. Would
a more robust record result if that constraint were eliminated and the
public at large allowed to participate at this stage of the proceeding?
Would expanding the process in such a manner complicate the proceeding
or cause delay in resolution? We seek comment on the full range of
options available for expediting public notice procedures, consistent
with the goals of this proceeding.
c. Processing Timelines for Space Stations
105. We propose to adopt timelines for space station application
processing in order to achieve our goals of speed and predictability.
We propose that if no action is taken on a space station application
within 60 days following the end of the public notice period,
Commission staff will inform the applicant and public of the reasons
preventing a license grant with particular note to any exceptions. We
believe this approach will foster accountability and transparency which
in turn will facilitate resolution of outstanding issues as the
applicant will be better able to understand the Commission's view on
its license request. We seek comment on these proposals. Are these
timelines appropriate? In what manner should the Commission notify the
applicant of any issues or deficiencies? Would a letter filed in ICFS
(or successor system) be sufficient?
d. Processing for Earth Station Applications
106. We also propose to adopt processing timelines for earth
stations that mirror those for space stations. Under our current
policies, earth station license applications are placed on public
notice within 30 days of filing. However, the Commission has not
generally adopted strict timelines for taking action on an earth
station application, other than in the case of renewals. While this
approach has drastically increased the speed of earth station
application processing, it leaves applicants with a lack of clarity on
status once the public notice period ends. Accordingly, we propose to
adopt rules that specify for applicants how their applications will be
processed. We seek comment on our proposals.
107. As a general matter, we acknowledge that while earth station
processing has seen dramatic increases in speed over the last year,
there is still plenty of opportunity for improvement to the process.
With that in mind, we propose to overhaul the processing of earth
station applications to be more streamlined so that applicants can
start providing services faster. Under our current rules, when staff
processes applications, no differentiation is made between applications
that conform to the Commission's rules and those that seek waivers.
This results in all of the applications being processed in the order in
which they are received rather than creating a way for those
applications that comply with Commission rules to move through the
process faster. Accordingly, we propose to create two separate
processes for earth station applications. Specifically, we propose a
process where applications that conform to the Commission's rules can
begin temporary pre-grant operations on a non-interference, unprotected
basis once the application is placed on public notice,
[[Page 56357]]
similar to the current process for STA. Applications that do not
conform with the Commission's rules--for example, if they request a
waiver or do not certify in the affirmative to requested
certifications--will not be afforded this status. We seek comment on
these proposals.
108. While we are cognizant of concerns of harmful interference
when allowing operations to begin before the completion of a public
notice period, we note that what we propose allowing is similar to what
the Commission currently allows via STA, only without the extra step of
submitting another application. Specifically, earth station operators
often file for STA operations while their underlying applications are
being processed so that they may begin operations, even if it is on a
non-interference and unprotected basis. We seek comment on whether our
proposal of permitting operations to commence prior to grant without
requiring the submission of another application would be consistent
with statutory requirements.
109. In addition, we seek comment on whether the industry has
matured to a point where users in shared frequency bands or adjacent
bands are able to coordinate amongst themselves to prevent interference
such that allowing operations while an application is on public notice
would cause little to no harm. Should there be restrictions on specific
bands or operations? For instance, should this approach be limited to
non-Federal bands only? If so, why? And if not, is it because the
coordination and interference protection is band agnostic? Do there
need to be any other restrictions? Given that we only propose to allow
the operations beginning at public notice in specific circumstances, do
the proposed rules offer sufficient protection and afford operators a
sense of predictability? Does the differentiation even matter, or
should the Commission allow operations for all applicants, regardless
of whether they require any waivers or exceptions? What are the
benefits or drawbacks to this approach? Should we allow operations
while an application is on public notice when the applicant requests
waiver of certain rules? Are there common waivers the Commission grants
regularly that we should consider as part of this approach such as
waivers of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations or location
restrictions?
e. Information Requests
110. Applicants need predictability, whether in terms of launch
timing, regulatory requirements, or the kind of questions that can be
expected during the licensing process. At the same time, it is critical
that the Commission receive clear, complete, and factually accurate
applications. Accordingly, we propose specifying the scope of
information the Commission may request from applicants. We propose that
information requests must be targeted at obtaining information directly
material to a determination of whether the requested authorization is
in the public interest, or to resolve inconsistencies, technical
issues, or other matters of concern that have a direct bearing on the
decision. We believe that by requiring the Commission to identify all
issues with an application in the initial information request and
explain why the information is necessary, we will not only increase the
level of predictability for applicants, but also increase the speed at
which applications can be processed. We seek comment on our proposal
generally.
111. We propose that the Commission may request information from
applicants to: (1) determine completeness of the application; (2)
understand the facts of informational showings, inconsistencies,
execution, or other technical matters when the factual issue is
directly material to the review; (3) determine if an exception applies
to the application; (4) resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings,
objections, or comments in response to an application; (5) evaluate
compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations or other
requirements; and (6) consider issues that are directly material and
necessary for the Commission to evaluate the merits of the application
under the Commission's rules. Our objective is to limit information
requests to only those showings that are directly material to the
Commission's review of the application under our rules and regulations.
Do these categories sufficiently cover such areas? Are there any ways
in which the information requests allowed should be narrowed to prevent
unnecessary or tangential inquiry?
112. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the Commission's
ability to speak with applicants to discuss the status of an
application or as part of ex parte presentations outside of a formal
information request to address issues or deficiencies with
applications. We believe that the proposed rule strikes the right
balance of speed and predictability but also provides applicants the
opportunity to engage with Commission staff to address any issues or
concerns within the application that may risk delay in the licensing
process. We seek comment on this proposal. Further, is there value in
expressly outlining guidance by which the Commission may ask for
additional information from an applicant? Do our proposed rules provide
enough flexibility for the Commission to be able to get all the
information necessary to make a final determination on the merits?
3. Review of Applications for Decision
113. We propose to apply a standardized decision framework to
determine whether grant of a space or earth station application would
be in the public interest. We propose rules that would standardize the
Commission's review process by using the information received in the
application materials and through public comment. Our proposal seeks to
focus review of the application primarily on areas where the Commission
needs to consider an issue that is not presumed to be in the public
interest. If there are no issues, then the application will receive
expedited processing. If there is one or more identified ``exception''
to expedited processing, then the Commission will consider the issue(s)
triggering the exception in light of the record. We detail our
proposals and seek comment on each below.
114. Expedited Processing. We propose that an application which
does not trigger one or more specific ``exceptions'' following the
public comment period will generally be presumed to be in the public
interest and thus granted as soon as practicable. For applications
placed on seven-day public notice (based on the Commission's initial
review not identifying any exceptions to expedited processing), we
propose to allow a conditional grant by rule upon completion of the
public notice period if no comments are received. Not only would this
allow operators to more quickly begin operations prior to a license
being issued, but we expect this would reduce the number of requests
for STAs. As discussed in more detail below, operations under a
conditional grant would be at the operator's risk and would not
guarantee a final grant, though we would expect in most instances that
the Commission would issue a license soon after. We seek comment on
this proposal.
115. Exceptions to Expedited Processing for Applications. For
applications where the Commission identifies one or more exceptions to
expedited processing--for example, a waiver request or negative
certification--then the Commission would focus its review on the
element(s)
[[Page 56358]]
of the application triggering the exception. The logic behind our
proposal is that the portions of an application that do not result in
an exception may generally be considered to be in the public interest
and therefore would not need additional review. Therefore, the
Commission can focus attention on the smaller set of issues needing an
individualized public interest determination. We seek comment on this
proposed approach and on any alternative frameworks.
116. To operationalize this framework, we propose to adopt rules
that clearly identify the instances when an application would be
removed from expedited processing. We propose to refer to these
instances as ``exceptions'' to the expedited processing timeline. We
believe that by including a specified list of scenarios that would
qualify an application for an exception to expedited processing and how
the Commission will process and review such applications, applicants
will be provided more regulatory predictability.
117. We describe the proposed exceptions to expedited processing
below, and seek comment on each:
Negative Certification. If an applicant is not able to
affirmatively certify a particular element on the relevant application
materials then we will consider that to be a ``negative
certification,'' requiring review. In some instances, a negative
certification would require a waiver of one or more rules, but it may
simply require a review of additional information supplied by the
applicant. Applicants would be able to provide additional information
to support a public interest finding for negative certifications.
Request for Waiver. If an applicant requests a waiver of
any of the Commission's rules, the waiver request would require review
on the merits to determine if it is in the public interest.
Foreign Ownership. Reportable foreign ownership above a
threshold and control information, including foreign adversary
ownership or control, will need to be carefully reviewed.
Processing Round. Applications requesting to operate in
certain identified frequency bands that have been designated for a
processing round would be considered as part of that processing round
and thus excepted from expedited processing.
Spectral Constraints. A proposed system also may require
the use of frequencies which may be subject to limitations prescribed
by rule or that relate to existing users or international arrangements.
The Commission would need to review such proposals.
Federal Coordination. Applications involving frequency
bands subject to federal coordination would not be eligible for
expedited processing.
Market Access. Requests for market access would need to be
reviewed in light of market access rules addressing whether applicants'
home administrations have opened access to U.S. companies.
118. Our goal is to provide applicants with a high degree of
predictability as to whether an exception to expedited processing would
apply to an application. Relying on our proposed design of the
application materials and required certifications, we believe the
Negative Certification exception can be clearly identified. We also
believe it will generally be clear to applicants whether the Waiver
Request, Foreign Ownership, Federal Coordination, and Market Access
exceptions will apply. Under our proposal for processing rounds, we
also believe clarity can be provided as to whether a processing round
exception would apply. We expect the most ambiguous exception may be
Spectral Constraints, and we seek comment on how we might provide
clarity as to when such an exception would apply. What criteria could
be elaborated upon to make it clear when such an exception is likely to
be applicable? Is there a need for delegation to the Space Bureau to
provide continuing clarity around the Spectral Constraint exception or
any other exceptions? We also seek comment on each of the exceptions
and whether they could be applied in a straightforward and predictable
manner.
119. As part of reviewing exceptions related to an application, we
expect there will be situations where information is needed beyond what
is required by the application sections. For instance, under the
Spectral Constraint exception there may be a need for interference
analyses from the applicant so that the Commission can determine
whether it is technically feasible for a system to operate in certain
frequency bands in accordance with our rules while protecting other
operators. Under our proposed application design, we have sought to
limit such showings and technical narratives for all applicants so we
can narrow the scope of situations where such submissions must be made.
To ensure the Commission can request the information needed to review
any of the exceptions, we propose to allow for such information
requests for the purpose of making a decision related to any
exceptions. While supplemental information may need to be requested,
our hope is that, by providing clarity in the rules as to which
exceptions are likely to apply, the Commission can help applicants
predict what will be needed so they can supply that information with
the initial application. We seek comment on this approach. Are there
ways we can provide further clarity so that applicants know what
information will eventually be requested as part of reviewing
exceptions? Will this approach reduce the amount of unnecessary
information requests pertaining to areas of an application which
require more focused review (e.g., exceptions)?
120. Do these exceptions from expedited processing sufficiently
encompass all instances where the Commission may need to conduct a more
thorough review of an application to determine if it is both in
conformance with the rules and in the public interest? As discussed
above, we propose to place applications not triggering any exceptions
and not requiring a thirty-day public notice, on seven-day public
notice with the potential for a conditional grant by rule if no
comments are filed in response to the application. In that context, are
these exceptions appropriate? Are the proposed classes of exceptions
too subjective? Are there any other classes of exception that should be
added? Or should any of the classes be removed? Are there approaches to
federal coordination that we might adopt and which we discuss elsewhere
that would allow us to remove the exception for federal coordination?
We ask commenters to provide examples of possible additional exceptions
to expedited processing with justification as to why an exception
should be added or removed. In particular, we ask that proposed
exceptions be able to function within the framework we have set out
such that whether an exception applies may be quickly and clearly
determined.
121. We also seek comment on the factors the Commission should
consider when determining whether a request is in the public interest
if an application includes one of the listed exceptions. We seek
comment on how we may better operationalize application of these rules
during the review and decision-making periods. In particular, we seek
comment on how decisions around Negative Certifications, Waiver
Requests, Foreign Ownership, and Spectral Constraints should be made.
Given that we expect many applications for new and novel operations
would have one or more negative certifications or waiver requests, how
or should we provide additional guidance on any additional information
that applicants should provide? How can we make sure triggering an
exception would not result in longer review timelines? Given our
[[Page 56359]]
desire and statutory responsibility to promote the proliferation of new
technology, how might we implement decision-making processes that
support innovative and novel technologies? To seek specific comment, we
propose that system designs resulting in negative certifications would
be in the public interest if the expected benefits of the system design
with the negative certification exceed the expected costs to society.
This approach would allow for applicants to submit information
demonstrating the net positive benefits to society and would give the
Commission a basis for making a decision. We would expect such showings
in most instances to be limited to a basic set of calculations with
reasonable assumptions. We seek comment on this proposal, as well as
alternatives, and ways the process could be made as straightforward as
possible. Should this approach be applied to review of other exceptions
besides Negative Certification?
122. Both applicants and the Commission often have struggled to
figure out how a new technology or innovative proposal fits into the
Commission's rules. Since we seek to provide predictability and
flexibility, we seek comment as to how our proposed licensing approach
can address and anticipate new technologies in the Commission's rules.
Our expectation is that the exceptions framework will route the novel
portions of an application for focused review. Within that focused
review, an expectation of grant in situations where the net benefits
are positive can greatly facilitate approval for proposals that fall
outside the bounds of the presumed acceptable framework. In this way,
applicants can have some predictability in seeking a potential license
grant. Is this a workable way to provide for innovation and
technological development over time? We seek comment on this approach
and alternatives that will assist the Commission in making sure the
Commission's space licensing rules are able to continuously accommodate
in a structured and predictable way new innovations which cannot
necessarily be foreseen.
123. In addition, we seek comment on the proposed timelines and the
requirements on the Commission to communicate to applicants why no
action has been taken on an application. Specifically, is the fact that
the Commission must either act on an application within 60 days or
notify applicants and the public of the reasons for not processing an
application sufficient? We seek comment on what impact, if any, that
might have on the proposed process. Regarding applications for shared
Federal bands, would it assist the process if the Commission were to
provide a point of contact at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) as part of the notice to an applicant
if the reason the application has not been acted upon is due to federal
coordination? Alternatively, in shared terrestrial bands where an
applicant is unable to coordinate with a terrestrial operator and that
is preventing action on the application, should we require the
terrestrial operator to justify why they cannot complete coordination
with the applicant? Ultimately these are issues that may be primarily
outside the Commission's control but that can still prevent action on
an application. How can the Commission ensure transparency for these or
other instances that are outside the Commission's control? We seek
comment on these questions and welcome comment on other situations or
proposals for how the Commission can achieve its goals.
124. To further guide decisions on applications, we propose a
section articulating the standards under which requests will be judged.
A portion of this section is similar to Sec. 25.156(a) and explains
circumstances generally under which a request ``will be granted.''
However, we further propose to make clear in our rules that any request
which demonstrates compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations,
and policies is in the public interest. We believe these clear
statements will provide greater predictability to applicants as they
seek to understand how a request will be reviewed. Furthermore, such a
public interest presumption reinforces our desire to take a permissive
posture toward innovation by allowing flexibility within the rules the
Commission has adopted.
4. Conditional Grants
125. We propose to add an option for a conditional grant of
authority for certain types of applications. We believe that the option
for a conditional grant will help alleviate delays in the application
grant process caused by one or more specific requests in an applicant's
proposal that might prevent the applicant from beginning operations in
other frequency bands or with certain satellites that are not affected
by the issue. Specifically, we propose to allow conditional grants by
rule in the scenarios discussed below.
126. Expedited Processing Conditional Grant. We propose to permit
conditional grants for applications that are eligible for expedited
processing. Specifically, we propose that an application that is not
subject to any of the exceptions described herein, that is deemed
complete and placed on public notice, and that receives no objections,
comments, or other petitions during the public notice period would be
conditionally granted upon the expiration of the seven-day public
notice period. We propose that this conditional grant would apply to
all proposed operations and will authorize operations only on an
unprotected, non-interference basis. Commencement of operations
following a conditional grant would be at the operator's own risk,
including adverse final action on the application or conditions imposed
on the authorization following completion of staff review. We seek
comment on this proposal and whether it provides sufficient oversight
of satellite operations consistent with our rules and treaty
commitments. Should there be a specified process for moving to a full
grant after the conditional grant? If so, what should it be? Should the
Commission adopt a rule that it will issue a final decision within a
certain number of days after the public notice period? If so, how many
days should that be? We specifically believe that conditional grants
would be particularly beneficial in situations where applicants file an
application for a license modification and then file multiple STAs
covering the same request while the modification application is
pending. Under this proposed rule, an applicant who files an
application for license modification that fits within the parameters of
this conditional grant would not need to file for STA during
application review and would instead be able to operate under the
conditional grant.
127. Should conditional grants be allowed for expedited processing
even if comments or petitions to deny or other filings are made on the
underlying application? Would the requirement that all operations be on
a non-interference, unprotected basis be sufficient to protect other
operators? Would the rule that all operations are at the applicant's
own risk--and therefore the Commission could deny the application and
the applicant would be forced to immediately cease operations--be
sufficient to ensure applicants are operating within our rules? Are
there other guardrails that we should put in place to ensure that no
harmful interference results from
[[Page 56360]]
operations under this proposed conditional grant mechanism?
128. Orbital Debris Deferral Conditional Grant. We also propose to
allow a conditional grant for applicants who are not sufficiently
advanced in the critical design review phase to be able to submit the
orbital debris mitigation plan (ODMP) when they submit their space
station license application. In recent years, the Commission has
received requests for waiver of the orbital debris showings which are
handled on an ad hoc basis. We believe our proposal will create a
standard approach so applicants can flexibly plan their system design
and application filing. Applicants could elect when they initially file
their application to receive a conditional grant without providing
certifications and supporting materials related to orbital debris.
Under this proposal, an applicant may file for a conditional grant with
the requirement that at least six months prior to integration with a
launch vehicle, the applicant must submit an ODMP for Commission review
and approval. Additionally, we propose to require applicants who seek
this conditional grant to meet the following requirements: (1) provide
all information required by the space station information requirement
sections in the proposed rules, and any additional information
required; (2) certify that the finished and operational satellite
system will comply with all the requirements in the orbital debris
rules adopted by the Commission as well as all of the showings required
by the proposed ``Space Station Orbital Information'' section; (3) file
an ODMP that demonstrates compliance with all relevant orbital debris
rules and certifications at least six months prior to integration of
any satellites with a launch vehicle. We propose that if an applicant
is unable to follow these requirements, they would be directed to file
an application for license modification and the conditional grant would
be revoked. We believe this approach would incentivize applicants to
provide an ODMP as soon as practicable while still having much more
flexibility during the design process. Additionally, we believe this
would incentivize applicants to design satellite systems that comply
with the bright-line criteria rather than request a modification. We
seek comment on this proposal. Is there additional information that we
should require at the time of the application? Is six months prior to
integration with a launch vehicle sufficient time to allow the
Commission to review the ODMP?
129. Commercial Coordination Conditional Grant. Finally, we propose
allowing applicants to receive a conditional grant in situations where
an applicant is coordinating with other operators in specific frequency
bands. Specifically, we propose to allow a conditional grant for
operations in the frequency bands or portions of the frequency bands
that are not subject to coordination with other commercial operators.
We further propose to condition the operations in shared frequency
bands or bands that require coordination with other operators on the
applicant providing notice to the Commission of successful coordination
with other commercial operators. Does this proposal provide sufficient
flexibility for operators to use frequencies not subject to
coordination? If not, how should this proposal be modified? Would it
instead be more efficient to allow operations in the bands subject to
coordination on a non-interference, unprotected basis to incentivize
coordination? What are the risks and benefits to this approach? What
exactly should the applicant be required to submit to the Commission to
show successful coordination--a coordination report that becomes part
of the grant?
130. In addition, we seek comment on specific questions related to
conditional grants. Specifically, should there be a maximum timeline
for how long a conditional grant can last? Should the Commission update
a conditional grant to reflect that the condition has been met or
should the licensee's notification suffice? Further, we propose to
allow operators to launch while subject to a conditional grant, but
only with an express launch authorization from the Commission. Should
the Commission allow operators to launch new satellites under only a
conditional grant? Or should the conditional grant only be allowed for
modifications or for operators who must satisfy the condition before
launching? What ramifications should there be if an applicant launches
without approval from the Commission while only conditionally licensed?
Similarly, how should the Commission address instances where the
Commission approves launching the satellite while it is conditionally
licensed, but subsequently the licensee does not meet the condition of
the license? We expect that the commercial coordination conditional
grant will be particularly beneficial for earth station operators and
especially those that request multiple frequency bands because it will
allow them to begin operations in bands without coordination issues
while addressing necessary coordination for the other bands.
131. Federal Coordination Conditional Grant. We seek comment on
whether we should allow for conditional grant of a license in a
frequency band that is subject to federal coordination. Specifically,
what are the benefits or drawbacks to allowing conditional grant for
licenses that are subject to federal coordination? If we adopt this
approach, should we allow for conditional grant for all requested
frequencies--including those subject to federal coordination--or only
allow it for the bands not subject to the federal coordination, similar
to what we propose for commercial coordination conditional grants? Do
existing rules and coordination requirements for shared bands mitigate
the risks of allowing for conditional grants in bands subject to
federal coordination requirements? Should applicants be required to
demonstrate that coordination with the federal government is complete?
Or instead, should applicants only be required to certify that they
will complete coordination prior to operating and be able to provide
evidence of completed coordination upon request by the Commission or
any impacted federal agency? What type of certification or
documentation is sufficient to demonstrate this? Alternatively, would a
certification from the applicant be sufficient, or should the
Commission require some other indication that federal coordination is
complete? Further should we instead adopt a framework in our rules that
outlines specific license conditions for operations in shared federal
bands rather than any bespoke license conditions for federal
coordination? Should this framework also establish a mechanism for
licensees to quickly determine what shared frequency bands with federal
operations may be subject to more stringent coordination reviews?
Alternatively, rather than a framework for federal coordination
conditions, would adoption of a conditional grant subject to federal
coordination in our rules, rather than bespoke conditions or a
framework, achieve the same goals? Is there any reason to tailor the
criteria for meeting this federal coordination requirement under a
conditional grant on the basis of which coordinating agencies, or
categories of agencies are involved? If this approach is adopted,
should the Commission be required to provide a point of contact at NTIA
as part of the conditional grant to an applicant? If we condition grant
on
[[Page 56361]]
federal coordination, should we remove federal coordination as one of
the listed exceptions to expedited processing?
5. Processing Rounds
132. Processing Rounds for NGSO Applications. The Commission
currently considers applications for NGSO system licenses in groups
based on filing dates under a processing round framework. Under the
current rules, a processing round is initiated when an application for
NGSO-like satellite operation is placed on public notice as a ``lead
application,'' establishing a cut-off date for applications filed in
response, or ``competing applications.'' The Commission then reviews
each application filed in the processing round and any pleadings filed
in response, and grants applications for which the Commission finds
that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise qualified,
and that the proposed facilities and operations will comply with all
applicable rules and policies and will serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. The rules also detail the spectrum sharing
procedures for applications granted within a processing round.
133. We propose to revise the processing round framework for NGSO
FSS applications, both in terms of the general structure of processing
rounds and of which applications would be included in a processing
round. Considering the significant evolution in NGSO system technology
and increase in applications in recent years, we seek comment on
whether the traditional processing round framework still provides both
applicants and the Commission with the same functionality or advantages
as originally intended. When an application is designated as a lead
application and a processing round is opened, interested entities have
a limited window of time to prepare and file these competing
applications before the cut-off date. As a result, competing
applications often lack significant technical, operational, or other
fundamental system details to demonstrate a proposal for a viable
system, consequently leading to extended review timelines and leaving
other applicants in the same processing round unable to fully assess
and plan for their own operations and coordination obligations.
Furthermore, the decision to open a processing round is discretionary
based on designation of a lead application and therefore there is
little predictability as to whether an application will initiate a
processing round. As part of our modernization efforts, we aim to
revise the NGSO processing framework to limit regulatory obstacles and
provide a clearer and more reliable path to authorization and
operation.
134. Instead of the existing approach, we propose that the
Commission would pre-determine specific frequency bands (``processing
round-eligible bands'') and applications for authorization in those
bands would accordingly be processed in a processing round. For each of
these designated frequency bands, by rule, a processing round would
automatically open on January 1 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time and close on
October 31 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the same year, eliminating the
cut-off date for applications. This way, the licensing assembly line
would automatically determine when and into which processing round(s) a
license application would be considered. Thus, regardless of the
existence of any actual applications, there would be an annual
processing round open for each of the designated bands (i.e.,
``synthetic processing round'').
135. Under this proposal, applicants would file applications for
inclusion in a processing round at any time, with priority status based
on the date of grant, rather than the date of filing. Applications
granted during the same band-specific processing round in a given year
would have the same priority status. For example, applications granted
for a specific band between January 1, 2027, and October 31, 2027,
would be part of the 2027 processing round. We note that the NPRM does
not propose any changes to the spectrum sharing procedures in part 25
and we propose to incorporate the relevant rule sections into proposed
part 100. With this approach, we intend to allow applicants enough time
to prepare comprehensive applications and request authorization for
realistic NGSO systems, rather than provide applicants and industry
with a limited window of time and opportunity to prepare an application
for a system that may or may not be viable for operation. This would
also negate the need to designate a lead application as the requisite
first step in the framework, allowing applicants to plan and prepare
for a processing round to open annually for specific frequency bands,
rather than file in response to the Commission's determination of a
lead application. Further, the pre-designated annual processing round
window would provide applicants with a significant amount of time to
prepare applications with the necessary level of detail to be
considered ``complete'' under our proposed completeness standard.
Additionally, since processing rounds are band-specific, if a request
to operate in one frequency band could be granted more quickly than a
request for a different frequency band in the same application, then
the earlier-granted band would hold an earlier year priority in one
processing round than a band granted in the following year. We intend
that this revised timeline for review would benefit all applicants by
creating the necessary structure to both encourage complete
applications and provide predictability in timing and spectrum
availability. Overall, we see this proposal as a way to process
applications for certain bands in a way that retains the benefits and
intent of processing rounds while mitigating the delays that result
from the current processing round framework.
136. We seek comment on this proposed processing round structure
for NGSO systems and ask for industry input as to which bands the
Commission should designate for processing rounds and how the
Commission should make these determinations. For example, the
Commission envisions this structure being useful for frequency bands
that are optimal for NGSO FSS operations, including the Ka-, Ku-, V-,
and Q-bands. Should the Commission delegate to the Space Bureau to
announce which frequency bands are subject to a processing round for
the following year, prior to the January 1 opening date or should this
determination be made by the Commission? Should this announcement be
made by a certain date in the prior year to allow possible applicants
enough time to plan? For example, if the Commission were to adopt a
cut-off date of October 31 for the annual processing round, should the
announcement of the following year's frequency band be made by then as
well, to give applicants several months to plan applications? Should
the yearly processing round be established with reference to the fiscal
year running from October 1 to September 30, rather than the calendar
year, to align with the period for assessment of regulatory fees?
Should the Commission seek comment on which bands it should open for a
processing round for the following year, or should the Commission make
this decision without seeking comment? How should the Commission inform
potential applicants as to which bands are subject to the processing
rounds? Does the shift from a 30-day filing window to a full calendar
year processing window provide applicants with the intended benefits of
increased predictability and flexibility? Should the Commission
consider an alternative or additional process to open a
[[Page 56362]]
processing round based on a request or petition to do so? Should the
window for a processing round be three or six months instead of the ten
months currently proposed to minimize the risk that less qualified
applicants submit strategically upon seeing other submissions rather
than because they are ready to submit on their own merits? If
processing round windows are shorter, should there be multiple
processing rounds in a calendar year? Should the annual processing
round end on a date other than October 31st? If processing rounds run
from January 1 to October 31, should the Commission freeze grants for
any pending processing round applications until January 1 of the
following year, so that all applications granted for a single
processing round are granted in the same calendar year? Or should
applications granted between November 1 and December 31 be considered
part of the following year's processing round? What other structures or
methodologies would provide applicants with the best opportunity to
maximize the benefits of processing rounds? Are there potential
consequences or complications that may result from the proposed annual
processing round framework? We also ask for input on whether
applications should be placed into a processing round based on the date
of filing, rather than the date of grant, or by another classification.
What are the benefits or disadvantages of determining processing round
by grant date? Does this provide applicants and earlier-round operators
with enough predictability to successfully coordinate with new or other
operators in the band?
137. Specific to eligibility for inclusion in a processing round,
we propose that an NGSO application would be placed by rule into a
processing round if the application meets two criteria: (1) the
application proposes operations in one or more frequency band(s) that
the Commission has pre-designated as a processing round-eligible band;
and (2) the applicant's system proposed for operation includes 200 or
more satellites. We note that under the revised proposals to the surety
bond rules discussed below, an NGSO satellite system seeking
authorization for 200 or more satellites would be required to post a
surety bond to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a default, in
accordance with the surety bond requirements and calculation proposed
in the NPRM. Our logic behind such a proposal is that applicants
seeking priority in a processing round should be held to a bonding
requirement. We seek comment on these proposals. Do the proposed
criteria justify inclusion in a processing round? Are there other
factors or alternative methods the Commission should consider in
determining whether and how an application should be included in a
processing round? We additionally ask for input on whether a system
with 200 or more satellites would be an effective benchmark for
determining that an application should be considered in a processing
round and therefore required to post a surety bond.
138. We also, however, propose that applicants who do not meet the
surety bond criteria (i.e., fewer than 200 satellites) but seek to
operate in a processing round-eligible band may request for an
application to be included in that processing round to receive priority
status. In that case, the requesting applicant would be required to
comply with the surety bond requirements and post the required bond
within 30 days of the license grant. We see this as a way for operators
to have the flexibility to seek priority in a processing round if that
is worth the cost of taking on the bond. We seek comment on this
approach, proposed eligibility via surety bond, and alternative methods
in greater detail in the section of the NPRM discussing proposed
reforms to surety bonds. Relatedly, we discuss the intersection of the
processing rounds and milestone deployment requirements in the
milestone section below.
139. Under the proposed annual processing round framework, NGSO
system applicants that request to operate in multiple frequency bands
would be placed in the corresponding processing round for each
frequency band and the remainder of the frequency bands requested
(i.e., those not subject to a processing round) would be considered
under the expedited processing procedures detailed herein, unless
another exception to expedited processing applies. This could lead to a
scenario where a single operator of a large satellite system that
operates in multiple frequency bands could hold a different priority
status for each band in which it is authorized, depending on when
authority to operate in each requested band is granted. How should we
handle these cases? Would this annual processing round structure
disincentivize satellite operators from upgrading their systems and
instead encourage them to design new systems and file new applications?
Should we grant priority based on when the first communications for the
system are initially authorized? We seek comment on these questions and
any other proposals that could help inform the Commission on how to
address these issues.
140. NGSO FSS Spectrum Sharing. NGSO FSS operators who are granted
authority to operate in certain frequency bands through a processing
round would be still subject to the Commission's spectrum sharing rules
among NGSO FSS systems. For these systems, the Commission has recently
adopted specific protection criteria and other sharing obligations
developed with the benefit of a substantial technical record.
Specifically, NGSO FSS systems authorized in a later processing round
are required to either certify that they have reached a coordination
agreement with any earlier-round, operational NGSO FSS system or
demonstrate that they will satisfy the dual protection criteria of: (1)
causing no more than 3% degraded throughput to the earlier-round
system; and (2) causing no more than 0.4% absolute change in
availability to the earlier-round system. In this proceeding, we do not
propose to make any substantive changes to the NGSO FSS sharing
criteria currently in Sec. 25.261, including the requirement that NGSO
FSS licensees and market access recipients must coordinate in good
faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies regardless of their
processing round status. We also propose to carry over the provision
currently in Sec. 25.157(b)(2) that NGSO FSS space station license
applications granted within a processing round are exempt from the
frequency band segmentation procedures that otherwise apply to
applications for NGSO operations.
141. The Commission currently applies a default spectrum-splitting
procedure for systems approved in the same processing round, absent a
coordination agreement, and requires later round-systems to either
coordinate with or otherwise demonstrate they will protect earlier-
round systems, subject to the sunsetting provision. NGSO FSS systems
authorized in the same processing round share spectrum on an equal
basis under a [Delta]T/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule, and this equal
treatment is also extended to later-round NGSO FSS systems following a
10-year sunset period. We propose to incorporate these procedures as is
into the new proposed part 100 and do not intend to consider any
substantive revisions to the NGSO FSS sharing requirements, including
the 10-year sunset period, currently in Sec. 25.261 as part of this
rulemaking. Considering the
[[Page 56363]]
proposed processing round framework, we seek comment on any changes
that should be made to better adapt processing rounds to the existing
NGSO FSS spectrum sharing criteria.
142. What are the benefits and costs of each processing round
approach? How does a processing round framework help or harm innovation
for NGSO operators? Do processing rounds place a burden on operators
who are able to launch, deploy, and operate systems quickly while
simultaneously encouraging hastily submitted applications for systems
that may not be viable? Does our proposed approach address these
problems? Alternatively, should we instead maintain the existing
processing round approach and address these issues in a separate
proceeding? What other changes might we consider to improve the
processing round framework?
143. Mutually Exclusive Applications. We propose to delete the
Commission's rule on mutual exclusivity in Sec. 25.155. Given that
satellite and earth station operators share spectrum, this requirement
is no longer needed. In particular, our proposed rules account for the
compatible operations of different licensees through first-come, first-
served application processing, processing rounds, and various technical
requirements on space station and earth station operation. In light of
these, we believe the concept of mutually exclusive applications is
unnecessary in part 100. We seek comment on this proposal and
alternatives, including whether, in light of the proposed yearly
processing rounds for NGSO systems and first-come, first-served
processing for GSO networks we need to include a mechanism for deciding
priority for orbital or spectrum resources between applications
received at exactly the same time, or whether such rare instances, if
they ever occur, could be sufficiently resolved on a case-by-case basis
within the Commission's licensing discretion or potentially through a
prescribed resolution criteria.
144. Compatibility of Systems Authorized Outside of a Processing
Round. For NGSO licensees authorized to operate in frequency bands that
are not granted in a processing round, we propose to require
compatibility with existing or future operations in those bands.
Specifically, we propose that ``the NGSO satellite system must be
compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s)
and must not materially constrain future space station entrants from
using the authorized frequency band(s).'' This is similar to how small
satellite systems currently operate under Sec. 25.122(c)(9), and we
believe this could be appropriate for a broader range of operations. We
seek comment on this proposal. Is the fact that we are requiring
licensees to not materially constrain future space station entrants
from using the frequency band sufficient to protect future entrants, or
should we require additional information from licensees? Does this
proposal provide enough certainty to licensees and future applicants
that they will be able to design their systems to be sufficiently
flexible to accommodate future users?
6. First-Come, First-Served Processing
145. GSO Systems. We propose to maintain the current first-come,
first-served application processing for GSO FSS and GSO broadcasting-
satellite service (BSS) systems in the new part 100. This process,
currently described in Sec. 25.158, is generally reflected in the
proposed new Sec. 100.142. Similarly, we propose to carry over the
technical requirements for two-degree orbital spacing of GSO FSS
networks in the U.S. arc, the requirements for four-degree spacing of
17/24 GHz BSS networks, and other technical rules underpinning the
first-come, first-served processing of GSO system license applications.
We invite comment, however, on any improvements to our first-come,
first-served procedures as they apply to GSO systems.
146. NGSO Systems. The Commission currently licenses certain NGSO
satellite systems outside of a processing round when they are shown to
be compatible with existing operations and will not materially
constrain future entrants. In the context of NGSO FSS satellite
systems, as described above, the Commission has adopted specific
technical criteria to ensure their compatible operation. These
criteria, applied in the processing round context, could readily be
used to create a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for NGSO
FSS systems. For example, a new applicant could either coordinate with
each earlier-filed NGSO FSS system operating in the same frequency
bands or demonstrate that it will meet the dual protection criteria of
causing no greater than 3% average degraded throughput or 0.4% absolute
change in unavailability for any system with which coordination is
outstanding, in order to be licensed. Additionally, 10 years after
licensing of a new system, we could apply the current sunset period and
afford that system equal spectrum sharing with earlier-filed systems
under the [Delta]T/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule. We invite comment on
whether to authorize NGSO FSS systems on a first-come, first-served
basis and, if so, how best to adapt our current sharing criteria to
such an approach. We also invite comment on whether, and how, to
authorize any additional NGSO systems on a first-come, first-served
basis, including whether any applications that qualify for such
processing should be considered for expedited processing as outlined
above.
B. Additional Reforms for Licensing Efficiency
147. In addition to the proposed processes discussed above, we also
propose rules to improve the efficiency of the licensing process. We
expect these proposals to further enhance the proposed licensing
process by alleviating burdens on the licensing system and aligning
parties' incentives to act in more efficient ways. For example, in
addition to allowing greater freedom for entities to operate and
upgrade their systems, some of our proposals for modifications will
mean that fewer requests will need to be processed. We also seek
comment on how the Commission can reduce the complexity of requirements
and the cost of licensing in the United States.
1. Dismissal and Return of Applications
148. Sec. 25.112 of the Commission's rules details the procedures
for dismissal and return of applications. To better harmonize the
proposed rules, and in consideration of the proposed completeness
standard discussed above, we propose to clarify the Sec. 25.112
requirements in part 100. The Commission proposes that, unless
otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an application would be
without prejudice. An application would be deemed unacceptable for
filing and may be dismissed with a brief statement if the application
is determined not to meet the standard for complete applications under
proposed Sec. 100.131. Additionally, an application would be dismissed
if an application requests authority for a specific type of system that
does not align with the proposed operations. Applications would also be
subject to dismissal if the application does not comply with relevant
application requirements, is duplicative of a pending application on
file with the Commission, or if there is clear indication that the
application contains materially false information. We also propose to
include a new section clarifying that application fees are due upon
filing and that applications filed without the corresponding
application fee will be dismissed by the Commission. We believe that a
deviation from the existing part 1 rule,
[[Page 56364]]
which allows applicants a 14-day window after filing to pay the
associated application fee, is warranted to effectuate the processing
timelines we propose here. We seek comment on the proposed revisions.
Are there other scenarios the Commission should include in the proposed
rules to provide applicants with a clear framework for dismissal or
return of applications?
149. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address
applications where the applicant does not sufficiently address any
additional questions asked by staff in their review of the application.
Should the Commission establish a default standard of how to address
applications where the applicant does not sufficiently answer
additional information requests? Should the Commission immediately
dismiss those applications? Should we only allow for a single follow-up
request for the same questions? We invite comment on these proposals
and any other commenters may have.
2. Other Application Filings
a. Amendments to Applications
150. We propose to adopt new procedures for the filing and
processing of amendments to applications and expand the scope of the
term ``major amendment,'' as a means of preventing abuses of the
amendment system while also streamlining the process. Under the current
rules, a pending application generally may be amended until the
Commission adopts a final order on the application. An amendment is
deemed to be a ``major amendment'' if it increases the potential for
interference or changes the proposed frequencies or orbital locations
to be used, or the amendment, or its effect, is determined to be
substantial under section 309 of the Act. Major amendments are also
subject to the public notice requirements under Sec. 25.151 of the
Commission's rules.
151. We propose to adjust the scope of requests or changes to an
application that would qualify an amendment as a major amendment. We
propose that if an amendment would result in the application falling
within one of the proposed exceptions to expedited processing, it would
be categorized as a major amendment. Additionally, we propose that an
amendment would be deemed a major amendment if the amendment: would
result in the application qualifying under an exception to expedited
processing; adds frequencies to the proposed operations; proposes to
increase power, power density, or OOBE beyond what is permitted in the
Commission's rules; modifies the antenna pattern(s) or antenna gain
characteristics; requests operations outside of already coordinated
ranges or would require re-coordination with federal agencies; would
cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to humans; or would
otherwise be determined substantial under section 309 of the Act. For
non-blanket licensed earth stations, an amendment would be classified
as a major amendment if the amendment proposes a change of more than 10
seconds from the location requested in the application. We seek comment
on the proposed list of major amendments. Is this list sufficient, or
is it too broad or not broad enough? Are there other circumstances that
the Commission should consider in categorizing major amendments?
152. We propose to continue considering major amendments as newly
filed applications, regardless of the type of service in which the
applicant requests to operate. Consistent with the current rules, we
propose to place major amendments on public notice after a
determination of completeness. In addition, we tentatively conclude
that it is in the public interest to limit when an applicant can file a
major amendment to prevent applicants from filing speculative
applications and then strategically waiting months or years to amend
that application. Specifically, we propose that major amendments may
not be filed more than 45 days after the date of filing of an initial
application, unless as otherwise directed by the Commission. Given the
Commission's goal of rapidly increasing application processing speed,
allowing applicants to file major amendments too late in the review
process risks delay. It could also help the Commission to avoid
directing resources to review of an application that is later
significantly amended. In addition, we propose to automatically dismiss
major amendments filed after the 45-day window. We seek comment on this
proposal. Does a 45-day window give applicants sufficient time to file
any major amendments? Should we limit the permissible timeframe for the
filing of major amendments to the period before an application is
placed on public notice?
b. Applications for License Modifications
153. Currently, if an applicant wants to make a change to its
systems or operations, the applicant typically must file either an
application for modification or a notice of modification with the
Commission. While the Commission previously revised the modification
rules in part 25 based on the record we had before us, we believe that
the structural overhauls proposed in this rulemaking present an
opportune time to propose larger changes to what types of modifications
require notice or application.
154. Under the current rules as recently amended, any modification
not specifically categorized as a ``minor modification'' must be
treated as major modification. While the recent changes the Commission
made are an improvement, an operator must still file an application and
wait for Commission approval to begin operations even for modifications
that would have little to no risk of harm to people or the radio
frequency environment. In turn, licensees often seek STA to operate
under a revised set of parameters while modification applications are
pending, or in lieu of seeking a modification at all. We believe that
by allowing applicants to make a broader range of changes to their
systems without needing to notify the Commission or seek prior
approval, we can alleviate the need for STAs and allow staff to
prioritize reviewing license applications while ensuring no harmful
interference and that the public interest is served. We also hope to
give licensees the flexibility to test and modify systems as needed to
determine the most effective and efficient system equipment or
operational parameters as quickly as reasonably possible.
155. Once a license has been granted, the licensee can make changes
through modifications. As a general principle, our proposal would
permissively allow operators to make changes to their authorized system
and operations if the change(s) do not explicitly fall into the
categories of a major or minor modification. We propose to clarify that
unless a modification is considered a major or minor modification as
defined in the proposed rules, a licensee could freely make changes to
their system and operations without notifying or seeking approval from
the Commission. We propose to divide modifications into three classes:
(1) modifications not requiring notice to the Commission; (2) minor
modifications, that is, those that an applicant can make subject to
notifying the Commission either before or after the modifying event
occurs; and (3) major modifications, meaning any modification that
requires express prior Commission approval to modify the license
authorization.
156. We recognize that there are modifications that risk creating
harmful interference to other licensed operations and warrant public
review and comment. Therefore, what we are
[[Page 56365]]
proposing, while giving maximum flexibility to licensees, still
requires that licensees either seek prior Commission approval for
certain modifications or notify the Commission either before or after
the modification in certain instances. We believe that this careful
balancing act that started in the Streamlining Second Report and Order
and that we propose to expand upon here is necessary to ensure we are
maintaining our obligation to protect against harmful interference and
ensure the public interest is met. We seek comment on our proposal
generally.
157. We seek comment on the proposed categories of major and minor
modifications in part 100 and the types of operations included in each.
Are these categories sufficiently clear in outlining which types of
activities would require approval rather than notification, or no
notice at all? We also seek comment on other potential changes or
operations the Commission should consider in categorizing the types of
modifications and any corresponding needs for notice or approval by the
Commission. For example, we generally want operators to be able to
increase transmission capacity and improve spectral efficiency with
minimal regulatory barriers. Do the proposed rules herein provide
enough leeway for licensees to make such improvements with minimal
burden or delay? Are there ways we can make clearer the type of changes
that are permissible without approval? Additionally, although the
Commission recently modified the part 25 rules to make adding a point
of communication or changing certain satellite equipment minor
modifications (requiring only prior notification to the Commission), we
did so based on the record before us in that proceeding. We seek
comment on whether we should instead change those minor modification
requirements so that the Commission may be notified after the change is
made. Are there any benefits to this?
158. As licensees deploy and operate their systems, we generally
want to permit them to simplify the number of licenses that must be
maintained. Could this be accomplished through modifications that only
require notification? For instance, should we allow for modifications
to merge call signs or combine multiple licenses? Will licensees wish
to combine licenses in such a way as to align license terms, and could
this be accomplished with modifications? We seek comment on these
questions.
159. We also seek comment on whether a licensee's decision to host
other space stations could be accommodated through a license
modification. If a satellite is already licensed and would like to host
a space station that is separately licensed, should this be allowed
without the need for a modification? Or should we require a
notification, and if so, from which licensee? Should the notification
requirements differ if the space station is U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-
licensed? How should we handle situations where the hosted space
station and the host satellite are licensed by different
administrations? If a hosted space station is licensed by the U.S.,
should that licensee be required to file for a license modification to
attach to a satellite?
160. Finally, could we use modifications to handle situations where
one spacecraft transfers a hosted space station to another spacecraft?
Anticipating such requests in the future, is a modification the most
straightforward approach to handling such requests? For example, should
the Commission review requests to transfer a hosted space station that
would remove the hosted space station from one license and add it to
another license via modification? In that situation, could the
``offloading'' modification be a notification while the ``onloading''
modification would require a major modification if adding a space
station to a separate system? If multiple spacecraft are joining,
should licenses be modified? Should we add to the rules a specific type
of modification to handle such situations or can it be handled by our
proposed modification framework? What are the orbital debris and
radiofrequency implications involved? We broadly seek comment on what
type of activities and scenarios this may involve and how the proposed
modification framework could accommodate these situations in a flexible
and predictable way with minimal burden on operators and the
Commission.
c. Special Temporary Authorizations
161. We propose to significantly overhaul and limit the way in
which STAs may be used in part because we believe that the changes
proposed in the NPRM for license modifications and conditional grants
will greatly alleviate the need for STAs. Specifically, we propose to
only allow for two types of STAs--60 day and 180 day--and limit
requests for extension without public notice. In addition, we propose
to deem granted earth station STA requests for 60 days or fewer upon
the filing and payment of fees. We seek comment on these proposals more
fully below. As the Commission recently recognized, the current STA
process is ``generally in need of reexamination.'' The current STA
application process for space and earth stations has created
administrative burdens and a loophole for applicants and operators to
secure prolonged temporary authorizations as a substitute for the
proper licensing or to initiate prolonged temporary operations before
the conclusion of a public notice period. This is neither the principle
behind nor the intended effect of the STA process.
162. We recognize that there are instances where an STA is
necessary in lieu of a permanent license authorization. For instance,
during natural disasters, emergencies, or other anomalies, STAs are
vital to quickly ensure continued operations. Thus, we are not
proposing to eliminate STAs. Rather, we propose to limit the types of
STAs available to licensees, shorten the processing timelines, and
incentivize applications for STAs only when necessary, rather than when
convenient. In addition, with the proposed conditional grants and the
proposed overhauls regarding license modifications without Commission
approval, we believe operators will have less need for STAs beyond
actual short-term use or emergency situations, as directed and intended
by the Act.
163. We seek comment on whether our proposal to create conditional
grants would eliminate the need for an applicant to seek STA to
commence operations prior to the grant of their license. Further, we
seek comment on whether the two proposed terms for STAs, 180 days and
60 days, are enough time for true emergency and short-term uses. Should
these terms be extended or reduced? Are there any limits placed on the
Commission by the Act on how we can change our rules for STAs? Should
we put STAs on public notice? The Space Bureau has previously announced
that STAs for services not covered by section 309(b) of the Act will
not be placed on public notice. We also seek comment on our proposal to
deem granted earth station STAs for a term of up to 60 days upon the
filing and payment of fees. Should our deemed granted approach for
earth station STAs only be permitted in certain frequency bands or in
specific situations? We note that all STAs are granted on an
unprotected, non-interference basis. Does that alleviate the
coordination and interference concerns given that the STA holder is
responsible for ceasing operations in the event of any interference?
Considering the proposals to the license modification process discussed
above, do the proposed changes and limitations on STAs sufficiently
address and resolve
[[Page 56366]]
ambiguities on the appropriate use of each of these two types of
applications for the type of authorization requested? We ask for
comment on whether the NPRM provides applicants and licensees with the
tools to determine when a modification is needed compared to an STA,
and if not, how we can more clearly distinguish the two to avoid
further conflation and improper use of the licensing process. Finally,
we seek comment on any alternative proposals, requirements, or
limitations for the STA process.
d. Assignments and Transfers of Control
164. We propose to largely maintain the text of current Sec.
25.119, which sets forth the requirements for assignment and transfer
of control of space and earth station licenses and receive-only earth
station registrations, although we propose a reorganization of the rule
provisions to more logically group relevant requirements together and
propose textual changes to more clearly state existing requirements. We
also propose to incorporate into this section the requirements for
assignments and transfers of control in the context of non-U.S.-
licensed space stations granted U.S. market access. We seek comment on
the proposed regulatory language and its structure. We note that, as
discussed above, we propose that applicants include with the FCC Form
312--Main Form a diagram depicting ownership and control and, for
assignments and transfers of control, we propose that the diagram
include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the
authorization holder. We seek comment on these proposals and any
alternatives.
e. Submission of ITU Filings
165. Before the Commission submits a filing to the ITU for a
satellite system on behalf of an applicant, the Commission has required
an applicant to first file the space station application describing the
overall system, operational parameters, type of service, and the
service area(s). This requirement was intended to prevent speculative
filings with the ITU and ensure that the filings submitted to the ITU
are consistent with the associated application. This, however, may have
led some operators to submit ITU filings through other regulatory
regimes that vary in the requirements and processes for submitting
applicants' filings to the ITU. Considering the proposals to the
licensing structure in the NPRM and the ITU cost recovery fees
associated with ITU filings, we propose to allow prospective applicants
greater flexibility to submit ITU filings to the Commission without
requiring an underlying space station application. We seek comment on
this proposed change. Should we limit this proposal so that a
prospective applicant can only submit one ITU filing to the Commission
without an underlying application? Given that applicants are already
required to pay the ITU cost recovery fees for each filing submitted to
the ITU, is there any need to limit the number of ITU filings? How
would this affect a first-come, first-served application process? Are
there any additional safeguards needed alongside such a new rule to
prevent potentially harmful, speculative filings with the ITU? We also
seek comment on other measures the Commission can take to facilitate
ITU filings from prospective applicants and operators.
166. If the Commission allows prospective applicants to submit ITU
filings to the Commission without having filed an underlying
application, how long should the Commission maintain these filing(s)
without an underlying application before suppressing them? Is four
years a reasonable timeline? If no application is filed, could the
entity lose the ability to use the ITU filing but the Commission allow
another entity to do use that filing? Are there other considerations
that we should take into account?
167. Regarding space station experimental applications filed under
part 5 of the Commission's rules, the Commission will typically submit
the ITU filing after the application has been granted. This allows for
complete coordination with U.S. government operators before submitting
the ITU filing, specifically in frequency bands that are shared on an
equal basis with federal operators, given the quick turnaround time for
a part 5 grant. We seek comment on the Commission submission of part 5
satellite ITU filings while an FCC experimental license application is
pending for bands that are not primarily allocated to federal
operations. For bands that are co-shared on an equal basis with federal
and non-federal users, we seek comment on the Commission submission of
ITU filing for these bands while the application is pending provided
the applicant is able to obtain a letter from NTIA agreeing to the ITU
submission. Are there other considerations that we should take into
account?
3. Milestones and Surety Bonds
168. We seek to simplify and reduce the costs associated with bonds
and milestones while making sure resources are used efficiently. We
seek comment on our proposals detailed below.
169. Milestones. The Commission currently requires space station
licensees and market access recipients to comply with milestone
deployment deadlines. GSO space station licensees are required to
launch and operate the authorized space station no later than five
years after the grant of the license. NGSO space station licenses are
subject to both interim and final milestones. NGSO operators are
required to launch 50% of the maximum number of authorized satellites,
place them into orbit, and operate them in accordance with the station
authorization no later than six years after the grant of authorization.
The remainder of the satellites in the authorized constellation must be
launched, placed into orbit, and operational no later than nine years
after the grant of the authorization. Licensees subject to these
milestone requirements must demonstrate compliance or notify the
Commission that an applicable deadline was not met within 15 days after
the specified deadline.
170. We propose to eliminate the milestone requirement for GSO
space station licensees. Considering the proposed license terms for GSO
space station licensees in the NPRM, we believe that the five-year
milestone benchmark for a 20-year license term would not be necessary
to ensure that GSO system operators launch the authorized satellite(s)
and position and operate the satellite(s) in the orbital location by
the end of the license term. We seek comment on this proposal to remove
the milestone requirements for GSO systems. In the alternative, should
the Commission retain a milestone requirement for GSO licensees, or
alternatively revise the GSO system milestones to more closely align
with the ITU requirements for GSO systems? If so, should the Commission
continue to require the five-year deployment milestone for GSO
licensees, or should the Commission shorten or extend this milestone to
more effectively ensure that GSO satellites are timely launched and
operational? Similar to the NGSO milestone proposals discussed below,
should the Commission similarly require an initial ``bringing-into-
use'' (BIU) benchmark to align with the ITU requirements for GSO
licensees? If the Commission took that approach, should we further
align to only require a BIU benchmark for GSO licensees rather than a
milestone deadline, or require both a BIU and milestone deadline? We
seek comment on alternative milestone proposals and the benefits to any
such proposals on a revised GSO milestone benchmark framework. Are
there other approaches or benchmarks the
[[Page 56367]]
Commission should consider specific to GSO systems to ensure that GSO
satellites are timely launched and operational, for example, should the
five-year milestone be maintained or should we establish alignment with
the proposed first NGSO milestone? Specifically, we seek comment on a
requirement that GSO operators enter into a verifiable launch contract
no later than five years after the grant of the license. This approach
may be desirable as it replaces overly strict milestone requirements
with a more flexible launch contract obligation that continues to
promote timely deployment while reducing administrative burdens on
technically prepared applicants. We seek comment on this alternative to
our proposal and on any other approaches. We propose to retain interim
and final milestone requirements only for NGSO satellite systems and
recipients of U.S. market access grants, but we propose to align the
milestones with the milestone deployment benchmarks as required by the
ITU for NGSO satellite system operators. Under the current rules, a
licensee is subject to both the Commission's milestones and the ITU
milestones. We view this alignment of the two sets of milestone
benchmarks as an effective way to simplify requirements for licensees.
171. As such, we propose that recipients of an initial
authorization for an NGSO satellite system, other than a Satellite
Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) system, would be required to deploy
at least one satellite in the authorized system no later than seven
years after the date of the license grant, consistent with the ITU's
BIU period. Licensees would be considered to have met the requirement
upon notification to the Commission that a satellite has been deployed
and operating for a continuous period of 90 days consistent with a
system's authorization. If a licensee fails to meet this requirement,
the license would be automatically terminated and declared null and
void. After this point, NGSO system licensees would be required to
deploy 10% of the authorized satellites no later than nine years after
the date of grant, 50% of the authorized satellites within twelve years
after the date of grant, and the remainder of the authorized satellites
within fourteen years after the date of grant. A licensee that does not
meet these milestones will lose its authorization to launch additional
space stations beyond those that they have already launched. We note
that this would retain the general requirement for NGSO licensees to
comply with interim and final milestone requirements but would add an
initial milestone requiring that the licensee launch, deploy, and
operate 10% of the maximum number of satellites authorized for service.
As required by the current rules, NGSO system licensees subject to
milestones must either demonstrate compliance with the applicable
milestone or otherwise notify the Commission in writing that the
requirement was not met within 15 days after the specified deadline. We
seek comment on whether aligning the Commission's milestones with the
ITU milestones would benefit U.S. NGSO system licensees and applicants,
compared to our current interim and final milestones.
172. We do not propose to implement milestone requirements for
recipients of a VTSS license. We believe that VTSS licensees do not
need the same milestones as NGSO licensees because VTSS will often
involve shorter duration missions due to the satellites moving around
in and between orbits. Additionally, we believe that VTSS licenses will
typically involve smaller satellite systems that will likely not raise
spectrum warehousing concerns which the main issue milestones are meant
to address. We therefore seek comment on these proposed revisions to
the milestone structure. Are there alternative milestone frameworks or
requirements that the Commission should consider adopting for all
services or for specific services? Conversely, does this proposed
increase in the number of milestone requirements align with the goals
of this proceeding? Are there other methods by which licensees can
effectively notify the Commission of compliance with a milestone
deadline? Should we implement milestones for VTSS authorizations?
173. Further, we seek comment on alternatives to our proposal
regarding the milestone deployment benchmarks as applicable to NGSO
licensees authorized within a processing round. Specifically, we ask
whether systems authorized in a processing rounds should be subject to
milestones other than the ITU-aligned milestones we propose to apply to
all NGSO systems. In particular, should the Commission retain the
existing six- and nine-year milestones only for NGSO licensees
authorized in a processing round, rather than apply the proposed
revised milestones? What would be the benefits and drawbacks to this
approach? Would the proposed milestones in the NPRM cause undue
difficulty for future licensees seeking authorization via processing
round, and if so, how? Would there be benefits to having milestones
which fall well within the ten-year sunset window for a processing
round? Would this allow licensees to coordinate more effectively?
Regarding compliance with the milestone benchmarks for NGSO licensees
authorized in a processing round, we seek comment on more effective or
reformed approaches to deployment timelines within the processing round
framework. If the Commission were to retain the existing milestones for
NGSOs authorized within a processing round and a licensee fails to meet
a required milestone deadline, should that licensee's remaining
undeployed space stations be moved to a subsequent processing round? In
that scenario, should those undeployed space stations be treated as a
new system within that next or subsequent processing round, or still as
part of the originally authorized system? What other methods could the
Commission employ to ensure that NGSO licensees in a processing round
are both on track in reaching the required milestone obligations while
fulfilling the spectrum sharing and coordination obligations with other
systems authorized within a processing round? We seek comment on this
approach and any alternative methods or suggestions to best support
NGSO systems deployment within a processing round framework as proposed
in the NPRM.
174. With respect to licensees authorized to operate different
types of satellites in the same system under a MOSS authorization, we
propose to revise Sec. 25.164(g), which requires that licensees must
meet the applicable milestone deployment deadlines for its satellites,
to reflect whatever milestone is ultimately established in the final
order. We seek comment on this proposal. We also propose to carry over
the current requirement that, in cases where the Commission grants more
than one space station authorization for the same system in different
stages, the earliest of the milestone schedules will be applied to the
entire system. Effectively, the first authorization for a satellite
system establishes the milestone deployment timeliness and applies to
any subsequent authorizations for that system. Retaining this provision
would provide necessary clarity to NGSO operators, especially
considering the revised milestone schedule and modernized licensing
framework proposed herein, in establishing that all space stations
authorized within one licensed system are subject to the same milestone
deployment timelines. We seek comment on this rule part and any
revisions the Commission should
[[Page 56368]]
consider regarding multiple space station authorizations within one
system and the associated deployment timelines. Should the Commission
consider multiple deployment timelines for one system in certain
circumstances, or does retaining this provision provide licensees with
a helpful bright-line rule? We seek comment on the proposed requirement
and on any alternative approaches.
175. Surety Bonds. Under the current rules, all space station
licensees are required to post a surety bond covering the potential
payment liability to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a milestone
default. The Commission adopted the application-stage surety bond
requirement to establish a market-based mechanism for ensuring that
licensees are financially willing and able to proceed with satellite
construction and to discourage warehousing of scarce spectrum
resources. Space station licensees generally must post the required
bond within thirty days from the date of the license grant, while NGSO
systems granted under the small satellite procedures are required to
post the bond within one year and thirty days from the date of the
grant. Failure to post the bond in full within the designated timeframe
automatically renders the license null and void. The amount of a
licensee's total surety bond is determined based on a formula
calculation dependent on the number of days from the date the license
is surrendered, increasing liability for default over time.
176. For NGSO space stations, the Commission proposes to limit the
requirement of a surety bond to licensees with 200 or more authorized
satellites in one system, excluding replacements. We believe that
satellite systems with 200 satellites or more raise spectrum
warehousing concerns and require more intense spectrum use and
therefore should be subject to the surety bond requirement. In
contrast, GSO space stations, NGSO space stations of fewer than 200
satellites that do not seek inclusion in a processing round, and VTSS
licensees will generally raise a lesser concern about spectrum
warehousing leading us to propose to eliminate the surety bond
requirement for those space stations. We seek comment on our proposals
to limit the types of space station licensees required to post a surety
bond. What are the costs and benefits of removing the requirements as
proposed such that the changes are warranted? We also seek comment on
whether the proposed threshold of 200 satellites in an NGSO system is
reasonable. Should the threshold be more, or less? Alternatively, in
contrast to our proposal, should the Commission continue to require
surety bonds for all licensed systems or for some additional
classifications or types of systems or operators? Additionally, given
that a threshold such as this creates incentives for licensees to
``structure'' licenses to avoid the bond, should we establish
requirements to prevent circumventing the purpose of the surety bond,
and what would they be?
177. We further propose that any NGSO space station licensee
authorized to operate fewer than 200 satellites but licensed within a
processing round would also be required to post a surety bond. We
tentatively conclude that the current surety bond requirement for all
NGSO and GSO licensees to discourage spectrum warehousing and encourage
efficient construction is no longer necessary to impose on all such
licensees, considering the Commission's revisions to the regulatory fee
requirements for space station authorizations. In addition, under our
proposal licensees granted access to bands outside a processing round
would be operating on a compatible basis with other systems and would
not be required to post a surety bond. We see little benefit to adding
the cost of a bond to systems for which no particular priority is
provided and for which there is likely to be no material preclusion of
other systems in terms of resources. We also believe that by
dramatically reducing the number of situations in which a bond is
required, we will better encourage U.S. companies to license with the
Commission rather than overseas, and even with a potential increase in
non-priority applications due to the removal of the bond requirement,
we do not anticipate harmful interference risks that would justify the
cost burden. We seek comment on whether this assessment is correct.
178. The Commission proposes to revise the surety bond formula to
calculate the surety bond that a licensee must maintain on file and the
amount required for payment in the event of a default. We propose two
significant changes to the Commission's approach to the surety bond
requirement. First, we propose to shift the approach to the surety bond
formula from an escalating bond to a deescalating bond calculation.
Second, we propose to apply two different calculations--one applicable
to NGSO space station licensees with two hundred or more authorized
satellites and one applicable to NGSO space stations with fewer than
two hundred satellites but that are authorized within a processing
round. For NGSO space stations with 200 or more authorized satellites,
we propose the following calculation, rounded to the nearest dollar: B
= $10,000 * ((0.9*A)-D), where B is the bond amount, D is the number of
satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized. For
NGSO space stations authorized in a processing round but with fewer
than 200 authorized satellites, we propose using the following
calculation, rounded to the nearest non-negative dollar amount: B =
$1,800,000 * (1-(D/(0.9 * A))). Since licensees authorized in a
processing round are granted a priority status, we believe it is
reasonable to set a minimum surety bond amount to disincentivize
applications for speculative systems and promote more intensive use of
spectrum resources. The proposed formula for NGSO systems with fewer
than 200 authorized satellites maintains consistency across small
systems, avoids discontinuities in regulatory treatment at the 200-
satellite threshold, and ensures that the cost of entry remains
sufficiently high to preserve the functional separation between
priority and non-priority licensing. We seek comment on these formulae
and ask whether there are alternative approaches?
179. We believe that these proposed calculations, where the total
amount of the surety bond would decrease based on the number of
satellites deployed in an authorized system, would provide a more
effective incentive structure to support satellite operators in
reaching full deployment, rather than requiring payment of the surety
bond based on compliance with deployment milestones. Also, for systems
with 200 or more satellites, the formula varies the initial bond amount
based on the size of the system which we see as preferable to our
current approach, which applies the same initial bond amount to all
licensees.
180. Alternatively, we seek comment on other approaches to revising
the surety bond calculation and the resulting required commitments for
licensees. Should the Commission adopt an alternative formula or
methodology from the proposed calculations? What other formula might
better incent deployment in a timely manner? Are there better ways to
reduce the number of systems which are licensed but never deployed
while not preventing operators from licensing in the United States?
What other factors, such as system altitudes or beam sizes, might be
incorporated either directly or indirectly into a bond formula so that
the Commission's objectives in having a bond are met? Should the
Commission
[[Page 56369]]
apply a separate surety bond calculation for those entities seeking to
be licensed through a processing round? If the Commission were to
consider a surety bond formula for applicants seeking authorization
through a processing round, should the initial surety bond amount be a
flat value that would apply to all applicants, regardless of system
size or other characteristics, and diminish over time based on
deployment progress? For example, should the Commission adopt an
initial flat bond of $20 million applicable to all processing round
applicants that would diminish over time based on the percentage of
satellites deployed? Is a flat initial bond of $20 million an
appropriate starting point for the surety bond requirement, or should
this number be higher or lower? How should the required bond decline
with deployment so that the right incentives are in place to achieve
the objectives of having the bond? We ask for input on specific
formulaic approaches and the costs and benefits to any proposed
methodologies or revised calculations.
181. We also propose to revise the point at which a licensee is
relieved of its surety bond obligation. We propose to shifting from
upon a finding of compliance with the deployment milestone obligations
to the point when the licensee has deployed the total number of
satellites such that the bond formula equals zero dollars or less and
has notified the Commission of its deployment status. Each proposed
formula declines such that the required bond would reach $0 when 90% of
the authorized satellites have been deployed. At that point, the
licensee could be relieved of the bond while having the flexibility to
deploy up to 10% fewer satellites without defaulting on its bond
obligation, if necessary. However, the licensee would still be subject
to the final deployment milestone requirement, and failure to meet the
final deployment milestone which would cap the system authorization at
the number of satellites deployed by the milestone date. We also
propose to carry over the existing requirement that a licensee will be
considered to be in default with respect to the surety bond filed if it
surrenders the license, but in alignment with the proposals herein,
default would occur if the license is surrendered prior to surety bond
amount deescalating to zero, rather than prior to meeting a milestone
requirement. Licensees with a surety bond on file would be permitted to
notify the Commission on the number of satellites deployed in the
authorized system to decrease the total payment that would be required
in the event of a default using the applicable formula.
182. We seek input from stakeholders on the proposed approach to
surety bonds and milestone compliance and on the revised surety bond
formulas. Would these formulas adjusting the amount of the surety bond
proportionate to the percentage of deployed authorized satellites
effectively incentivize satellite operators while continuing to deter
spectrum or resource warehousing? Do each of the proposed formulas
support these goals equally, or are there specific considerations or
concerns with either of the two formulas? Should the Commission include
an inflation adjustment to the bond formula so that the bond amount
retains its purpose? If so, what measure of inflation should the
Commission rely upon and how frequently should the Commission perform
this adjustment? Are there other methodologies or proposals for
alternative surety bond formulas or calculations that the Commission
should consider in modernizing the surety bond requirement? How should
licensees be permitted to notify the Commission of its deployment
progress to reduce the total amount of the bond?
183. We additionally inquire as to when and how any revised
milestone and bond requirements should come into effect if the proposed
revised milestone deployment benchmarks and surety bond requirements
and calculations are adopted. When the Commission revised the surety
bond requirements in 2016, the Commission permitted space station
licensees and market access grantees with existing grants at the time
the new rules came into effect to submit a letter requesting to replace
its current milestone schedule and bond obligation with the new
schedule and obligation. These operators were also permitted to submit
a new or modified bond and were relieved of their previous obligations,
or retained the option to continue under the milestone and bond
conditions established in their grants. We seek comment on whether the
Commission should take a similar approach to any revisions to the
milestone or bond requirements, allowing applicants the option to
either keep their existing obligations and bond amount or replace them
with the new rule requirements. In the case that the Commission adopts
its proposals to require surety bonds for only those systems authorized
to operate 200 or more satellites or for NGSO systems with fewer than
200 satellites authorized within a processing round, or an alternative
proposed methodology, we propose that current licensees holding
authorizations pursuant to Sec. Sec. 25.122 and 25.123 of the
Commission's rules would be relieved of their bond obligations under
Sec. 25.165(a) upon the effective date of any adopted rules. Are there
other approaches or considerations the Commission should consider in
transitioning to this revised surety bond framework? Should the
Commission consider different approaches to the implementation of any
revised milestone and surety bond requirements specific to licensees
authorized within a processing round? How should the Commission address
licensees with surety bonds on file with upcoming milestone deployment
deadlines?
4. License Terms, Extensions, Replacements, and Renewals
184. License Terms. Currently there are a variety of different
license terms for satellite and earth station licenses in our rules.
Authorizations for GSO and NGSO space stations are issued for fifteen-
year license terms, with certain service-specific exceptions, while
satellites licensed under the small satellite and small spacecraft
rules are licensed for six-year terms. For GSO space stations, license
terms begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time on the date when the licensee
notifies that the Commission that the space station has been placed
into orbit at the assigned location and the operations are compliant
with the license terms and conditions. NGSO space station license terms
begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time when the licensee notifies the Commission
that operation of an initial space station that is compliant with the
license terms and conditions is placed into the authorized orbit. Our
current rules state that the term of earth stations shall be specified
in its authorization.
185. We propose extending the license term for most space stations
and earth stations to 20 years. We note that we routinely receive
applications to extend the license term beyond fifteen years for GSO
satellites, and that we have generally found extensions of five years
to be in the public interest. As such, there is efficiency in not
requiring licensees to file (and the Commission to review) modification
applications to seek authority for five-year license extensions for GSO
satellites and to extend by rule the license term of GSO satellites
from fifteen years to twenty years. Is there any danger that the
proposed extension of the license term may limit the ability for newer
technology to be licensed, given the scarcity of resources? We seek
comment on this proposal and alternatives. Licenses for Direct
Broadcast Satellite
[[Page 56370]]
(DBS) space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that are licensed
as broadcast facilities, and for SDARS space stations and terrestrial
repeaters, are currently issued for a period of eight years. Licenses
for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities are
currently issued for a period of 10 years. We seek comment on whether
license terms for all GSO satellites other than those that are licensed
as broadcast facilities where the license term is statutorily defined
at eight years, should be aligned at a standardized license term,
whether that be established at 15 or 20 years or some other term, for
ease of administration and tracking. Our current rules also include a
provision for GSO satellites to seek license term extensions via
modification requests in increments of five years or less, and we
propose maintaining this option. We seek comment on whether to maintain
the ability for GSO satellites to extend their license term in this
manner given our proposal to increase the standard GSO license term to
20 years and, if so, whether the information required for this
modification is sufficient. We also seek comment on whether such an
option should be provided for NGSO and VTSS satellites and, if so, what
criteria should be applied, or whether such a provision is unnecessary
given our other proposals regarding license terms, replacement space
stations, and renewal expectancy.
186. For NGSO and VTSS satellites, we also propose a 20-year
license term. We recognize that most NGSO satellites may have a shorter
useful life than 20 years, but that replacement space stations may be
used during the license term when needed. Our current regulations allow
for both GSO and NGSO systems to replace satellites. We propose to add
a definition of ``replacement space station'' that largely mirrors the
language in Sec. 25.165(e). Specifically, we propose to define
``replacement space station'' as ``a space station that is authorized
to operate in the same frequency bands and with the same coverage area
as the space station to be replaced, at an orbital location within
0.15[deg] of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be
replaced or in the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO space station
to be replaced, and that is scheduled to be launched so that it will be
brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than,
the existing space station is retired.'' We seek comment on this
proposed definition and if it provides sufficient clarity to applicants
and licensees. Current rules allow for NGSO systems to replace
satellites with ``technically identical'' satellites with 30 days
advance notification to the Commission and certification that the
additional space stations(s) will not increase the number of space
stations providing service above the maximum number specified in the
license. ``Technically identical,'' however, is not a defined term in
the part 25 rules. We propose to retain the ability for NGSO licensees
to replace satellites, up to the number of authorized satellites but
without notification to the Commission, provided that any changes to
the authorized satellites would not require the filing of a
modification application, as enumerated in our major modifications
proposed rules discussed above, or a condition on its authorization.
187. We believe that permitting NGSO licensees to replace
satellites in their authorized constellation, except for those that
would trigger a major modification or a change to its underlying
authorization, allows for upgrades of the overall satellite system to
take place during the license term without the need for additional
Commission involvement, which further provides flexibility, ensures no
harmful interference, and lessens administrative burden on Commission
staff. We seek comment on this proposals, which we believe provide more
clarity and flexibility for NGSO operators than the current
requirements of Sec. Sec. 25.165(e) and 25.113(i). We also propose
removing the requirements for replacement space stations from their
current placement in the surety bond rule and placing them in an
expanded section of our new rules regarding license terms,
replacements, and renewals since they are more logically related to
these provisions than to surety bonds. We seek comment on NGSO and VTSS
license terms and definitions and conditions for replacement space and
earth stations generally.
188. As was noted when the Commission extended the license term for
space stations from 10 years to 15 years, the goal is to reduce the
number of times licensees will be required to renew their licenses and
reduce administrative burdens. We think aligning the satellite license
terms is even more important now when we receive applications for
systems that contain both GSO and NGSO satellites. Our existing rules
do not contain a set license term for earth stations and Commission
practice has been to align the term of the earth station with the term
of the satellite with which it is communicating. We believe that having
a set license term for earth station licenses will support faster
disposition of applications by the Commission staff, since a decision
on license term will no longer need to be made on a case-by-case basis
and it will instead be standardized. This proposed change should also
provide predictability for operators, who may operate earth stations
which communicate with multiple satellites with license terms ending on
different dates. Finally, we note that we currently do not generally
establish a term for market access grantees, instead frequently
conditioning the grant of U.S. market access on continued authorization
by the non-U.S. administration. We propose establishing a definitive
market access term length, whether established at 15 or 20 years, or an
alternative term, on market access grantees to establish consistent
rules for these operators and domestic satellite licensees, which would
be consistent with our requirements under the World Trade Organization
(WTO) agreements, since this term length would establish parity of
treatment and non-discrimination between U.S. and foreign licensed
satellites, including those from WTO member countries. We seek comment
on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether and how to implement
this change for existing market access grantees in light of any
expectations at the time of grant.
189. The Commission retains discretion to establish shorter license
terms if in its judgement the public interest will be served, and we
propose maintaining that discretion as well as the ability for
applicants to seek a shorter license term. Applicants may at the outset
of the application process seek a shorter license term, which is
currently done through notation in the application narrative. We
propose continuing to allow applicants to request a shorter license
term than the applicable standard license term at the time they apply
for a license and seek comment on this approach. Should there be a
question on the general application of Schedule O or Schedule F for
applicants to choose the standard license term for a particular license
or to specify a request for a shorter term? Would formalizing this
option serve the interest of freeing spectrum and orbital resources
sooner than otherwise? Do the recent changes to the satellite and earth
station regulatory fees make this change unnecessary since licensees
will have a financial interest in surrendering their licenses promptly?
Licensees currently may surrender a license should they complete
operations before the license term ends, and we propose maintaining
that option.
[[Page 56371]]
190. We further propose revising the license term rules to state
that license or market access grant terms for space stations and earth
stations will begin on the date that the license is granted, with a
potential exception for receive-only earth stations. While this is a
change from our current rules, under which a license term generally
begins when the operator notifies the Commission the satellite has been
placed into orbit with operations in conformance with the authorization
or license ``terms and conditions,'' in practice this process has
sometimes proven difficult to track as operators may forget to notify
the Commission and the end date of the license then may be unclear.
There also may be ambiguity regarding when to notify the Commission
that the space station is operating in conformance with the ``terms and
conditions'' of the license. Considering the proposed extension of the
license terms for GSO and NGSO space stations to 20 years, we
tentatively conclude that commencing the license term on the date when
the Commission issues the license or market access grant will provide
licensees with clarity and predictability while ensuring that licensees
are ensured sufficient time to recoup their investment. We seek comment
on this proposal. Should the license term for both space stations and
earth stations, excepting receive-only earth stations, begin on the
date of grant, or are there service-specific considerations to justify
commencing the license term after the date of grant? Furthermore, we
seek comment below on whether to continue registration of receive-only
earth stations. If we do continue to register these earth stations, we
propose a 20-year term that would begin on the date that the
application was filed since these stations do not ultimately receive a
license. We seek comment on our proposals on license terms, including
their lengths, time of commencement, approaches for replacement space
stations, and alternatives. We also seek comment on whether these
changes should be applied retroactively to existing licensees and
market access grantees and, if so, how that change should be made.
191. Renewal Expectancy. Operators of, and investors in, satellite
systems and earth stations need sufficient time to recoup the
substantial financial investment and effort in establishing and
operating their ever-more complex systems. An expectation that a
license will be renewed at the end of its term can add to the stability
of the satellite and earth station business environment. The Commission
generally has proceeded on a case-by-case basis regarding renewal of
satellite and earth station authorizations, with the vast majority of
renewal applications being granted. In practice, however, the case-by-
case adjudication of renewals has occasionally led to protracted
disputes about whether a renewal is warranted.
192. We therefore seek comment on whether to establish guidance on
renewal expectancy and whether to establish such an expectancy for all
types of space stations and for earth stations. Is such a renewal
relevant in the GSO context given our proposal for license extensions,
consistent with past processes? For renewal expectancy more generally,
as a baseline standard, should we require that the renewal application
include a certification that the station or system has not operated in
a manner which would cause automatic termination pursuant to our
proposed automatic termination rules? The criteria triggering automatic
termination include, among others, that an earth station has not been
operational for more than ninety days and that an NGSO operator has
failed to maintain fifty percent of the maximum number of NGSO
satellites authorized for service following the nine-year milestone
period as functional satellites in authorized orbits. Would requiring
certification that the automatic termination criteria have not been
triggered be an effective way to ensure that renewal applications are
only filed by operators who have been making significant use of
resources for which they have been authorized? Should additional
guidelines be considered? The Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry in
2013 that examined factors for FSS operations that could be considered
where there are allegations of spectrum warehousing, including gaps in
service, older ``replacement'' satellites, license extensions, and
underutilized space stations. Are any of these criteria relevant to
license renewal, and if so, how should they be incorporated into the
Commission's review? Should a minimum level of operations or service to
customers be required beyond what is defined in the automatic
termination rules? For example, for NGSO satellites, should a
certification be required that at least 50% of authorized satellites
provide ongoing service to customers? If so, how should those terms be
defined? How would changes in ownership or control or developments
affecting a licensee's qualifications be factored into a renewal
expectancy framework? We seek comment on whether additional guidance on
renewals should be delineated in our rules, and if so, what criteria
should be used for evaluating space stations and earth stations. Our
current and proposed rules do not require license renewals to be placed
on public notice, but the discretionary authority under proposed Sec.
100.132(v) could be used to place renewal applications of particular
importance on public notice. Is this process sufficient or should
explicit public notice requirements be added to our rules for certain
renewal types? We seek comment on the appropriate public notice for
renewal applications.
5. Accountability and Transparency Requirements
193. Removal of Application Requirements. The Commission endeavors
to make information available to the public to help them understand how
efficiently the agency is operating, and to manage expectations on
processing timelines so that applicants can have a predictable
environment for business planning. We seek comment on how to remove
unnecessary elements in applications efficiently, consistent with the
President's goals of reducing and eliminating unnecessary and
burdensome regulation. We seek comment on whether this function should
be undertaken by the Commission or if it is more effective to delegate
this function to the Bureau. Would notice and comment be required or
desirable in all cases, or can such changes be made without notice and
comment? If this function is delegated to the Bureau, should it be
included in the rules governing Space Bureau delegation or elsewhere in
our rules? We ask for alternative proposals for a process to eliminate
unnecessary application elements in the most expeditious manner
possible. Is there additional guidance the Commission can provide to
applicants in furthering its goals of providing transparency and
clarity on the application process consistent with the Space Bureau's
directives?
194. Reporting on Space Bureau Licensing. To promote transparency
for the public, we also propose to require the Space Bureau to report
once a year, in December, on the status of all pending space station
and earth station applications. We propose this reporting would be
released in a public notice and posted on a Space Bureau website and
would detail the number of pending applications, the percentage of
applications that have been pending for less than 30 days, 31-60 days,
61-90 days, 91-120 days, 121-150 days, 151-180 days, and more than 180
days. Are there any other metrics which we
[[Page 56372]]
should also require? Or different metrics? Should the type of requests
be separated? We seek comment on this proposal and alternatives that
would improve transparency and accountability as to the Commission's
space licensing operations.
6. Transition to Part 100
195. Transition from Existing Part 25 to New Part 100. When
creating a new rule part for existing services, we must be careful in
how we transition to the new rule part to avoid any unnecessary issues
or disruptions to incumbent satellite and earth station operators.
Because there are thousands of licensees under the existing part 25
rules and because there are hundreds of new applications a year for new
or modified part 25 authorizations, we are aware of the caution
necessary when effectuating the transition between rule parts.
Accordingly, we propose to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to
effectuate the transition to the new rule part in the most efficient
manner, tentatively concluding that the Space Bureau is best positioned
to determine the mechanics of the transition from part 25 to part 100.
196. We invite comment on this proposal generally and welcome
additional comment on how to effectuate the change over from part 25 to
part 100. Are there any best practices that the Commission should rely
on from any previous rule part transitions? Are there any specific
areas of our proposal that may be difficult to transition to part 100
given the number of current licenses or pending applications such as
those for earth stations or for space station modifications?
197. Prospective Application of Part 100 Rules. We seek comment on
what rule changes should apply to existing licensees and market access
grant recipients as of the effective date of the rule changes, or what,
if any, reason exists to grandfather existing licensees for particular
aspects of the existing regulatory framework. The Commission's goal is
to ensure that all licensees and market access recipients ultimately
operate under a single set of part 100 rules without disrupting
reasonable expectations.
198. Accordingly, we propose to apply all procedural aspects of
part 100 prospectively to every licensee, regardless of whether the
authorization was issued under part 25 or part 100, subject to a few
exceptions. For example, if a system is licensed under part 25, and
subsequent system changes would have required prior approval under part
25 but not part 100, we anticipate that such changes will be governed
under the part 100 procedures and timelines ultimately adopted by the
Commission.
199. At the same time, we intend to maintain certain substantive
obligations included in existing license authorizations to protect
other operators and respect certain reasonable reliance expectations
even after the transition. Specifically, we propose maintaining the
license terms, bonds, milestones, processing round status, and
trackability attached to individual licenses and grants of market
access at the time of authorization. We also propose to preserve
license-specific conditions imposed prior to part 100's effective date.
We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other proposed rule changes
that should not apply to existing licensees and recipients of market
access grants after the effective date?
200. We appreciate that some situations may present complexity
between these two rule parts. For example, while we expect to apply
part 100's modification procedures to part 25 licenses, a major
modification may alter a license's processing round status under part
25. In certain circumstances, we propose to grandfather a license's
processing round status under part 25 because of the complexity of
those rules and the effect changes to priority may have on other
systems in a processing round. Comments should state with specificity
which rules should be exempted from applicability for current
authorizations or whether any of the rules we propose to exempt should
not be included. What considerations should we be mindful of to ensure
this process is the most equitable and efficient process it can be
while still ensuring that all legal requirements are met? We seek
comment on these questions and proposals.
201. Transitioning Legacy Part 25 Authorizations. We also seek
comment on transitioning licenses and authorizations issued under part
25 to part 100. It is our intention to sunset part 25 as quickly as
possible in an orderly manner and delete part 25 from the Code of
Federal Regulations. We believe that objective is best achieved by
clearly specifying events to convert authorizations to part 100. During
renewal, for instance, we propose to reissue authorizations that meet
part 100's specifications. We also propose to reissue part 100 licenses
following transfers of control or assignments and major modifications
to the greatest extent possible. We seek comment on creating other
opportunities for licensees to convert their authorizations to part
100, for example should an application for a license extension trigger
a reissuance? Should we allow, or potentially even require by a date
certain, authorizations to be reissued under part 100 by way of
specialized application? We seek comment on the circumstances under
which a full conversion to part 100 may not be feasible, and how the
Commission might address them. For instance, if certain legacy part 25
obligations are necessary to preserve for a specific license, should we
incorporate those legacy obligations in grant conditions that attach to
the new part 100 authorization? Are there different considerations that
warrant different approaches for the transition of space station and
earth station licenses, given the number of earth stations and the fact
that some have continued operation for relatively longer periods of
time without modification or issues via renewals? In addition, are
there different considerations for the transition for space and earth
station licenses that we propose to be included in new categorizations?
We seek comment on any other special considerations that should govern
the conversion of earth station and space station authorizations.
202. Are there alternative approaches that should be considered?
Commenters should address how to operationalize any proposal and
consider the resources needed to effectuate this transition. For
example, in addition to reissuing licenses on an individual basis at
certain triggering events (renewals, major modifications, extensions,
transfers of control or assignments), could the Commission issue an
appendix as part of a future Report and Order that lists each part 25
rule and its corresponding rule in part 100 with a statement that any
part 25 rules that attached to a license will now be mapped to the new
rule part in part 100? Should a rule be added to part 100 that
articulates that the part 100 rules will apply to licenses and market
access grants issued under part 25, subject to any exceptions
established in the final order?
203. Pending Applications. We seek comment on how to treat
applications pending at part 100's effective date. To facilitate a
speedy and orderly transition to part 100, should the Commission
require applicants with pending applications as of the effective date
of the new rules to supplement their applications to address the new
requirements of part 100? Or should there be a cut-off date prior to
the effective date of part 100 when the Commission will stop accepting
applications pursuant to part 25 in order
[[Page 56373]]
to minimize the number of applications that are processed under the old
rules and which may receive a license term of 15 years? If so, what
time period for cut-off would be reasonable? Could we allow
applications that are pending under part 25 when part 100 becomes
effective to optionally amend the application to conform with part 100
and then be handled under part 100?
C. Operational and Technical Requirements
204. The Commission proposes to restructure the rules governing the
technical standards and operations for space station and earth station
licensees. Specifically, the Commission proposes to create a new
``Subpart C--Operational Requirements'' in the proposed part 100 that
includes the rules that licensees must follow. We propose to further
subdivide this subpart C to create clear sections that outline: (1)
general rules applicable to space and earth stations; (2) general space
station rules; (3) NGSO frequency specific rules; (4) GSO frequency
specific rules; (5) coordination requirements and rules; (6) satellite
digital audio radio service rules; (7) general earth station rules; (8)
general earth station coordination and performance requirements; (9)
frequency specific earth station rules; and (10) miscellaneous rules.
We believe that organizing the rules in this manner will make it easier
for licensees to understand their obligations and the rules with which
they must comply based on their individual licenses. Additionally, we
believe it will make it easier for the Commission to update rules in
the future while keeping rules that pertain to the same subject
together. We seek comment on this organizational approach.
205. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on certain rule
sections specific to the technical operations of space stations
licensed under part 25. We propose to largely incorporate the rules
currently located in subparts C through J of part 25 in this new
subpart C in part 100, while making improvements for clarity and ease
of use. Although some notable proposed changes are discussed below, we
seek comment on the entirety of our proposed subpart C.
206. Furthermore, we recognize that many portions of our proposed
subpart C which are carried over from part 25 may be outdated and worth
removing or revising. While we have begun to remove some such rules, we
have chosen to not completely overhaul such rules at this time so that
this proceeding may initially focus on modernizing the overall
framework we apply to space station and earth station licensing and
regulation. We expect that through further notice and additional
proceedings we will further modernize the rules proposed for subpart C
in part 100. Therefore, we seek comment on possible revisions, with the
expectation that we may make such changes if supported by the record or
we may seek further comment.
207. Regarding all of the proposed operational and technical
requirements, we particularly seek comment as to whether the rules
afford flexibility and predictability for licensees. As we seek to
modernize our operational and technical rules in this proceeding and in
others, we aim to apply the presumed acceptable framework widely by
setting standards according to outcomes rather than prescribing
specific designs. To give a few examples, we propose requiring in
subpart C of part 100 that systems be able to cease emissions, operate
according to ITU filings, and respond to collision risk warnings, but
we propose allowing operators considerable freedom as to how they meet
these standards. However, we also recognize some of the proposed part
100 technical rules transferred from part 25 may not follow this
framework. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the substance
of such operational and technical rules, we also seek comment on how
the rules might be revised to follow a presumed acceptable framework
which yields more flexibility and predictability. In particular we seek
comment on how new technologies (e.g., Software-defined Networks) are
or are not addressed by our proposed rules. Where are specific places
we need to update our rules to better allow for such new technologies
while continuing to carry out our statutory duties?
1. General Licensee Operations
208. We propose to begin subpart C with general rules applicable to
all licensees under proposed part 100. Specifically, we propose to
begin with rules that outline permissions and obligations that apply to
all licensees, including license terms and renewals.
209. Licensee Operations. The Commission proposes a new section to
clearly state that licensees may operate within the parameters of their
authorization. Specifically, we propose to adopt new rule text that
states: ``Licensees under this part may operate within the boundaries
of their authorizations, the rules in this part, and any other relevant
provision of this chapter, the Act of 1934, as amended, or other
statute, subject to any Commission action and any conditions or
constraints placed on the license or licensee in any such grant of
authority.'' We believe that this rule will clearly outline the fact
that operators may operate their licensed systems in any way that
complies with all rules applicable to that system as well as with the
terms and conditions of the specific license. We seek comment on these
proposals.
2. Space Station Operations
210. We propose to modify several existing rules that outline
permissible actions for space station operators. We seek comment on the
proposed revisions to the Commission's rules below.
211. Orbit-Raising Maneuvers. We propose to modify the rule
pertaining to orbit-raising maneuvers to authorize both NGSO and GSO
operators to transmit in connection with orbit-raising maneuvers and to
allow NGSO licensees to engage in orbit-raising maneuvers without
Commission approval. We propose to limit this authority to frequencies
in which the space station is authorized for TT&C, and to require
operators to coordinate on an operator-to-operator basis with
potentially affected satellite networks and to accept interference from
lawfully operating satellite systems. We seek comment on this proposal
and ask commenters whether expanding this authority beyond GSO
operators provides a worthwhile benefit to NGSO operators while not
posing any unnecessary risk or other disadvantages. Are there
additional conditions that would need to be met for NGSO operators to
safely engage in orbit-raising maneuvers without first seeking
Commission permission?
212. Operating Provisions for NGSO FSS Space Stations. We propose
to incorporate Sec. 25.146, ``Operating provisions for NGSO FSS space
stations.'' We propose to make minor edits to remove the requirement
that operators certify that they will comply with certain ITU
equivalent power flux density (EPFD) and power flux density (PFD)
limits and instead change it to a requirement that operators comply
with those limits. We believe this will make it easier for applicants
because they will not have to certify to multiple separate requirements
with which they must comply regardless. Instead, we propose to require
a general certification that applicants' operations will comply with
the Commission's rules. We believe that this will be more efficient
because applicants will only need to make one certification that
encompasses multiple rules with which they must comply. We seek comment
on this proposal.
[[Page 56374]]
213. Two-Degree Spacing for GSO Space Stations. We propose to
revise the requirement for two-degree spacing of GSO space stations so
that it applies only to operations to and from the United States. The
Commission's longstanding policy on two-degree orbital spacing for GSO
systems was initially adopted to separate potentially interfering
systems and thereby limit the need for coordination on spectrum usage.
This requirement aimed to facilitate GSO-GSO FSS spectrum sharing and
resulted from independent Commission consideration, departing from the
international requirement of six degrees or greater, to enable more
satellites to serve the United States and increase competition and
service offerings. However, now two-degree orbital spacing may no
longer be necessary in some instances. GSO operators frequently
coordinate at orbital spacings necessary to provide services to
customers without creating harmful interference or otherwise impeding
on effective spectrum sharing. Further, the two-degree spacing
requirement may risk disadvantaging U.S. licensed operators in
designing advanced GSO space station systems vis-[agrave]-vis non-U.S.
licensed operators or inhibit beneficial coordination outcomes
internationally. Therefore, we propose that for operations outside the
U.S., GSO operators are permitted to operate under ITU coordinated
parameters rather than be restricted to the two-degree spacing. We
invite comment on this proposal and also on how to resolve
compatibility between U.S.-licensed operations outside the United
States that rely on U.S.-submitted ITU filings and are not required to
coordinate with each other internationally. Alternatively, we also seek
comment on keeping the two-degree spacing rules for GSO space stations
for U.S. licensed space stations operating outside the U.S. as they
currently are given that the GSO space station industry has utilized
the two-degree spacing rules for years? Similarly, should we also
maintain the +/- 0.05 degree station keeping requirements associated
with the two-degree spacing rules? Would keeping these rules ensure any
greater certainty or predictability for the market or potentially
create undue burdens on applicants or licensees? Conversely, would
eliminating the two-degree spacing and station keeping requirements
cause burdens on the industry, or is there a benefit to doing so that
outweighs any burdens on the industry? Has the GSO industry matured
enough to the point that these requirements are no longer necessary? We
seek comment on both our proposal and alternative solutions to build a
robust record on this issue.
3. Reporting Requirements
214. As we propose to modernize our approach to regulating
operations, we seek to limit reporting requirements as much as possible
to only those which will support a more efficient, safe, and flexible
space operating environment. We see these requirements as being part of
a transition from the Commission's static, backward-looking approach to
regulating licensees to a dynamic, forward-looking model where
operators have greater freedom to operate within prescribed parameters
designed to protect against harmful interference, allowing operators to
simply inform others how and where they are operating instead of
seeking permission for each change in operations. Therefore, we see
these proposals as deregulatory in the long run and facilitating more
intensive and efficient use of space for the delivery of communications
services.
215. Licensee Reporting Obligations. Space station licensees and
market access grantees are currently required to provide contact
information for interference resolution and emergency response on an
annual basis and provide an update with any changes to the contact
information on record within 10 days of the change. We propose to
eliminate the annual point of contact reporting requirement in light of
the existing requirement to provide updates to contact information on
record within 10 days of the change. However, we propose to amend this
timeline to file the required contact information updates with the
Commission within 48 hours of the effective date of the change. We seek
comment on these proposed changes. Should the Commission require any
additional information to be included in the point of contact
information? Are there other reporting requirements for space station
licensees and market access grantees that would provide a benefit to
other operators?
216. Ephemeris Data. As the American space industry booms and the
number of satellites in orbit rises, the need for data sharing becomes
more important and there is a public interest benefit to the public
being informed as to where licenses space stations are located.
Commercial satellite operators and space situational awareness (SSA)
service providers both have roles in this process. SSA service
providers track objects in Earth orbit, predict their future positions,
and warn of potential collisions with active spacecraft (commonly
referred to as conjunction warnings). SSA service providers use ground-
based sensors (and potentially space-based sensors) for object
tracking, supplemented by high-accuracy ephemeris data provided by
satellite operators to increase the accuracy and predictability of
conjunction warnings.
217. Satellite operators have more precise and timely information
about the location and trajectory of their spacecraft than SSA service
providers do from object tracking alone. While operators know of their
planned satellite maneuvers and account for them in their satellite's
predicted ephemeris, the orbit propagated by an SSA service provider
from tracking alone will not capture any planned trajectory changes due
to maneuvering and therefore will leave unreported any satellite
conjunctions that could arise from the modified trajectory. Even for
non-maneuverable satellites, operators generally have a better
understanding of the spacecraft's construction and non-conservative
force parameters, such as the ballistic coefficient and solar radiation
pressure coefficient. Thus, a satellite operator's prediction of its
satellite's future position, captured in predictive ephemeris data, is
often reliable and valuable adjoining data to the future position
information calculated from a space catalog entry.
218. The Commission's rules currently require NGSO space station
license applicants to disclose whether they plan to share information
regarding initial deployment, ephemeris, and/or planned maneuvers with
the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor entity, other entities
that engage in space situational awareness or space traffic management
functions, and/or other operators. Applicants must also certify that
upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the
operator will take all possible steps to assess and mitigate the
collision risk, including by contacting operators of active spacecraft
involved in the warning and sharing ephemeris data. NGSO FSS satellite
operators specifically must ensure that ephemeris data for their
constellations are available to all operators of authorized, in-orbit,
co-frequency satellite systems in a manner that is mutually acceptable.
Non-voice, non-geostationary (NVNG) MSS licensees are also required to
obtain ephemeris information necessary to comply with restrictions
around certain protection zones.
219. In 2020, the Commission adopted the requirement that NGSO
satellite applicants disclose any plans they have for sharing ephemeris
data with an SSA
[[Page 56375]]
service provider, like the 18th Space Control Squadron, but stopped
short of requiring satellite operators to actually provide such
ephemeris data to an SSA service provider. At the time, the Commission
concluded that such an ephemeris sharing requirement was unnecessary
given the newly adopted disclosure requirement and the required
certification that upon receipt of a space situational awareness
conjunction warning, the operator will review and take all possible
steps to assess the collision risk, and will mitigate the collision
risk if necessary and that the assessment and potential mitigation
should include, as appropriate, sharing ephemeris data and other
relevant operational information. While current rules require operators
to address conjunction warnings that they receive, there is no general
requirement for satellite operators to share predicted ephemeris data
for their own systems, including planned maneuvers, to ensure the most
accurate information on potential conjunctions with other operators'
systems.
220. As we seek to provide greater flexibility for space
operations, we recognize the need for orderly activities by spacecraft
with licensed space stations. Predictable commercial operations allow
GSOs and NGSOs to plan their missions in advance, operate more
efficiently, and give VTSS licensees more flexibility in conducting
their missions. To the extent feasible, we want licensees to be able to
operate freely but to also inform operators, the Commission, and the
public of their location by contributing accurate ephemeris data to an
SSA system. We see this as the long-term path to replacing the need for
many notifications or license requests. Given that SSA technology and
the ecosystem is still evolving, our proposal is for a flexible
framework for how licensees may comply with this requirement.
221. Accordingly, we propose to require that all space station
operators file their ephemeris data via space-track or with the 18th
Space Control Squadron or with one or more SSA service providers that
would be identified by the Space Bureau through a public notice (after
notice and comment if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable). We
also propose to ensure that this data be made available to all
authorized operators of co-frequency systems. We seek comment on this
proposal and ask for specific information as to the frequency of
reporting, the method of reporting, any other associated reporting
requirements or notifications the Commission should require along with
the ephemeris data, or alternative approaches. For example, should we
also require that ephemeris data specifically be made available to all
other satellite operators at shared altitudes, in addition to shared
frequency bands, through an appropriate SSA? If so, how should we
define shared altitudes and ensure that such a requirement is not
unduly burdensome, particularly on smaller operators? Do we need any
additional requirements regarding initial launch phase or post-service
mission operations? Should we specifically require operators to
immediately notify an SSA provider of any temporary, ongoing, planned,
or unplanned spacecraft system outages that would prevent collision
avoidance maneuvers? Additionally, we seek comment on how the
Commission and the Space Bureau should identify appropriate SSA
provider. What criteria should the Space Bureau look for in an
appropriate SSA provider? Should we require reporting of the data with
a specific frequency? If so, what frequency would be appropriate? Would
a frequency of submission of ephemeris data and covariance of no less
than every eight hours for spacecraft operating at or below 750 km
altitude and every 24 hours for spacecraft operating above 750 km
altitude be appropriate? Should we specify that space station operators
must register with an SSA provider at least 30 days before initial
launch of a spacecraft and must submit ephemeris data and covariance
within eight hours of launch or initial insertion for all spacecraft in
their authorized system? Is space-track the best place for requiring
the reporting? Are there standard data formats that should be required
so the data can be widely used? Should the Commission adopt a rule that
gives the Commission the ability to update the required reporting
method via public notice? Should the Commission define accuracy
standards for the ephemeris data submitted to an SSA provider and if
so, what should those standards be?
222. Space System Safety Reports. We also propose that NGSO space
station licensees, after the launch of the first satellite in an NGSO
system, must file a semi-annual report in ICFS covering the preceding
six-month period detailing the number of conjunction events identified,
including the number of events resulting in maneuver or coordination
with other operators, the number of satellites removed from operation
or screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that
re-entered the atmosphere. These semi-annual reports would be filed by
January 1 and July 1 of each year, covering the preceding period from
June 1 to November 30 and December 1 to May 31, respectively. We seek
comment on this proposal. Is there other information that the
Commission should require as part of the reporting that would provide
an additional benefit to other operators? Should the Commission
delegate to the Space Bureau the ability to stop requiring these
reports if they are not used or if other tools such as SSA systems
develop to the point where such reports are no longer needed?
4. Orbital Debris
223. The Commission proposes to incorporate the current orbital
debris requirements into the proposed part 100 though with important
changes to align with our modernized approach of applying bright-line
criteria. Specifically, as part of the application submission we
propose to require applicants to submit certifications as to whether
their satellite systems will comply with specific orbital debris
criteria, including: satellites will be identifiable; satellites will
fall below a certain threshold for small debris collision risk, large
object collision risk, and human casualty risk; stored energy will be
vented at the end of operational lifetime; and others. These elements
are part of the application process and will be reviewed at that time.
In addition to the certifications that we propose to include in the
application requirements section, we also propose to create a section
in subpart C that includes orbital debris rules that all licensees must
follow. These are in line with the Commission's current rules but we
believe including them in subpart C provides better organization and
clarity. Specifically, we propose to include a rule that details
certain operational requirements and end-of-life disposal.
Additionally, we propose to create a rule detailing certain space
safety rules for NGSO satellite systems. We see these as common sense
approaches that have been developed through fulsome Commission
proceedings and which will help ensure the ongoing ability of systems
to deliver communications services.
224. End-of-Life Disposal. We propose to incorporate current Sec.
25.283 which details the end-of-life disposal requirements for GSO and
NGSO satellite licensees. We propose to add a requirement that space
station operators must operate their systems in accordance with the
orbital debris mitigation and end-of-life disposal plans that they
provide to the Commission in their applications. We also propose to
[[Page 56376]]
require applicants to notify the Commission of any significant changes
to the ODMP, statements, and disclosure within 30 days of the change.
We seek comment on this proposal, including whether it provides the
predictability and flexibility we seek. We also propose to require that
space station licensees limit operational debris, debris resulting from
accidental explosions, or liquids released that will persist in droplet
form. We believe that taking the current requirement for applicants to
provide a statement that they have ``assessed and limited the
probability'' of accidental explosions and release of liquids that will
persist in droplet form and turning it into an affirmative obligation
for operators will provide a more objective standard for applicants and
operators to meet while also increasing space safety. We seek comment
on this proposal. Are there additional information requirements that we
could make affirmative obligations? Should the Commission require a
specific showing as to how an applicant will satisfy the requirement?
225. We also propose to turn two other current information
requirements found in part 25 into affirmative obligations that all
space station licensees must follow. Specifically, we propose to
require that all NGSO satellites be trackable, with the presumption
that each satellite larger than 10 cm in the smallest dimension is
trackable. We also propose to require that, upon receipt of a space
situational awareness conjunction warning, all operators must review
and take all possible steps to assess and mitigate the collision risk.
This is similar to the current certification required by Sec.
25.114(d)(14)(iv)(A)(5), but relieves the operator of the obligation to
certify to this specific requirement and instead imposes an affirmative
obligation on all space station operators to assess and mitigate
collision risk. We believe that incorporating these requirements,
currently found in a similar manner in part 25, into the new part 100,
and making them affirmative obligations will make it easier for space
station applicants and operators to understand their obligations and
will promote space safety. We seek comment on these proposals. Are
there additional orbital debris information requirements that the
Commission could turn into affirmative obligations?
5. Interference, Spectrum Sharing, and Coordination
226. Coordination Requirements with Federal Government Users. We
propose to create a new rule section that lays out the coordination
process the Commission will undertake with respect to achieving
compatible operations between federal government users under the
jurisdiction of NTIA and commercial licensees under the jurisdiction of
the Commission in shared government/non-government frequency bands. We
propose rule language that is similar to current Sec. 25.279(b)(1). In
addition, we propose to include the following language: ``The
Commission will coordinate with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration regarding the operations of any licensees
authorized to operate in a shared government/non-government frequency
band.'' We believe that this standalone section will make the rules
clearer and make it easier for cross-references in other rules that
speak to federal coordination. We seek comment on this proposal. Is
there additional text or are there additional rules that we should
include here, or should any of the proposed text be eliminated?
227. Procedures to be Followed in the Event of Harmful
Interference. We propose to incorporate Sec. 25.274, ``Procedures to
be followed in the event of harmful interference,'' with certain
revisions. Specifically, we propose to delete current paragraphs (a)
and (b) as we believe they are redundant and unused in practice. We
propose to incorporate some of these paragraphs and revise paragraph
(c) to read as follows: ``An earth station operator experiencing
harmful interference must determine that the interference is not a
result of equipment fault and that the source of the harmful
interference is not from another earth station operating in the same
network or from a terrestrial source. The earth station operator shall
then contact the satellite system control center and advise the
satellite operator of the problem. The control center operator shall
observe the interference incident and make reasonable efforts to
determine the source of the problem. A record shall be maintained by
the control center operator and the earth station operator of all
harmful interference incidents and their resolution. These records
shall be made available to an FCC representative on request.'' We seek
comment on this proposed language, and more broadly on the necessity of
the provisions in this section.
228. Additional Coordination Obligations. Sec. 25.278 of the
Commission's rules details additional coordination obligations for NGSO
and GSO systems operating in FSS. The Commission proposes to delete
this rule section as redundant with the Commission's requirements
requiring such coordination.
229. OOBE Limitations. Sec. 25.202(f), (h) and (k) set forth the
limits for OOBE. We seek comment on whether these limits should be
updated in part 100 in light of modern communications systems and
technological improvements in both transmitter and receiver designs.
6. Earth Stations
230. We do not propose to make significant changes to the specific
technical criteria for operations of earth stations. We conclude that
much of that work is better suited for other proceedings that are more
focused on the technical issues. However, as it may relate to
application requirements and processing and removing redundant or
unnecessary materials from the operational requirements, we do propose
to make a number of changes that are reflected in our proposed rules.
With this in mind, the Commission has endeavored to structure the new
rules in a manner that better groups like services or requirements
together. Generally, we seek comment on how we propose to structure the
rules and welcome alternative proposals and justifications.
231. Furthermore, we propose removing the enumerated list of
available frequency bands because it is redundant of the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations. We seek comment on this proposal. We tentatively
conclude that the inclusion of this list can cause confusion among
applicants and can result in misstatements or misinterpretation by the
Commission or applicants. We seek comment on this conclusion. Should
the Commission keep the enumerated list? If so, what are the benefits
of doing so? What are the drawbacks and benefits of removing the list
from the rules? Is all of the information contained in the current
Sec. 25.202 found in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, and if
not, how should this be handled? In order to achieve our goal of
allowing satellite operators to apply for any spectrum where there is
an allocation for them, do we need to provide a specific rule? Or is
the fact that the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations identifies the
bands where satellite operations are permitted sufficient? Should there
be any carve-outs for any specific bands?
232. Choice of Sites and Frequencies. We do not propose any changes
to the established power limits, other than rearranging the relevant
part 25 rules to group power limits together. We seek comment on
whether any of the requirements of this section are unnecessary given
our proposed shift to
[[Page 56377]]
a Nationwide, Non-Site License regime for all earth station types.
Should any of this section be revised to reflect the new proposal? If
so, how should this be revised and why? Further, given that the
Commission is now relying on self-certification for coordination, would
any of what we require in this section become unnecessary if, as
proposed, we will no longer be reviewing an application's coordination
other than to see that a report has been provided? We seek comment on
these questions and invite any proposals for revising this section.
233. Receive-Only Earth Stations. Although we propose to keep the
rules relating to receive-only earth stations, we do invite comment on
whether we need to have these rules. Specifically, given that the
Commission determined that it was unnecessary to license receive-only
earth stations communicating with U.S.-authorized space stations, and
instead only register them, is this rule part unnecessary? If so, we
invite commenters to provide details as to how and why. In addition, we
invite comment on how we should treat existing rule parts that limit
the receive-only protections available to those already registered,
such as in C-band. Alternatively, should we keep this rule because of a
potential benefit of registering receive-only earth stations? If so,
why? Further, if we choose to adopt a proposal to eliminate the rules,
should we address C-band related issues, including registration of
sites for receive-only earth stations, in a future proceeding given the
unique circumstances surrounding the C-band?
234. Earth Station Antenna Performance Standards. We take this
opportunity to propose a more streamlined approach in which we
generalize the antenna performance standards to cover multiple bands as
opposed to on a band-by-band basis, and to have a single standard for
the co-polarization and cross-polarization antenna gains rather than
the amalgamation that currently exists of specifying different
standards based on frequency. Under our current rules, the earth
station antenna performance standards have caused a large amount of
confusion amongst operators and are unmeetable for many newer antenna
types. We believe the streamlined approach we propose here would
accommodate more antenna types while providing for the necessary
protection of other systems and services. We seek comment on this
proposal generally.
235. In addition, we seek comment on whether the streamlined
approach we propose here would be sufficient to protect current and
future systems. Does it sufficiently account for all types of missions
including FSS, MSS, and VTSS? If not, what should be changed to better
accommodate all service and system types while still giving maximum
flexibility for the types of antennas operators choose to use?
236. Earth Station Off-Axis EIRP Density Limits. We propose to
significantly streamline the off-axis EIRP density limits for earth
stations from what is currently in our rules. Under our current rules,
off-axis EIRP limits vary greatly based on frequency bands and whether
the transmitted signal is analog or digital. Since almost all
transmissions in modern communication systems are digital, as part of
our steaming effort, we propose to have a single requirement for both
digital and analog transmissions as opposed to different requirements.
Also, given the proliferation of NGSO systems with a large number of
satellites, we are proposing to add a new off-axis EIRP density
requirement for NGSO FSS earth stations, including for feeder links for
other satellite services in order to limit interference to other
systems and services. Further, we are also proposing to streamline the
GSO off-axis EIRP limits by creating a single requirement that would
address the different bands as opposed to on a band-by-band basis under
the current rules. We seek comment on our proposals. Are the new and
modified off-axis EIRP limits we propose both broad enough to include
all necessary services, but specific enough such that the requirements
are actually meetable and useful? Is there any reason to keep the
limits as we currently have them in our rules? Are there any benefits
or drawbacks to our proposals? We seek comment on these questions and
invite commenters to provide alternative proposals that achieve the
same goals of reducing confusion and eliminating unnecessary
regulations.
237. Period of Construction. We propose to make changes to the
period of construction to account for our proposed Immovable earth
stations and their registration status. We propose to require that an
Immovable earth station licensee begin operations at a registered site
within 365 days of registering the site to prevent spectrum warehousing
or disadvantage others that may want to operate. We seek comment on
this proposal.
238. Responsibility of Licensee for Blanket Licensed Earth
Stations. In this section we propose to include language in our rules
that makes clear who is responsible for an earth station and how they
must maintain control of the device. We seek comment on this proposal.
Specifically, as the proliferation of direct-to-device and SCS
continues, it becomes impossible for licensees to maintain physical
control over every device. Accordingly, we propose to only require that
the licensee be in control of the network and maintain the ability to
cease transmissions to or from the device over their network. We seek
comment on this proposal and invite comment on any alternative
approaches.
239. Radiofrequency Exposure Requirements. We propose to streamline
the radiofrequency exposure requirements in our rules. We seek comment
on this proposal. We seek comment on whether the general radiofrequency
exposure requirements of part 1 that are applicable to all services,
combined with the filing requirements and instructions of the forms in
ICFS, would sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the rules such
that a specific rule under the new part 100 would become redundant and
unnecessary. We also request comment on whether, similar to the
certification rules for SCS equipment, such requirements could
alternatively be relocated under part 2 rules to sufficiently address
radiofrequency exposure requirements for all other types of
transmitting satellite equipment.
240. User Terminals and ESIMs. We propose to make substantial
changes to our rules related to user terminals and ESIMs. As technology
has developed, the Commission has seen more and more that the same
technological parameters and devices are used for both fixed user
terminals and ESIMs. With that in mind, the Commission proposes to
combine the rule requirements for user terminals and ESIMs into a
single rule section. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, is
there enough overlap between ESIMs and user terminals that a single
rule part is sufficient? Should these rule parts remain separate? Why
or why not? We tentatively conclude that there is enough overlap that
the rule parts can be combined, but seek comment on this conclusion.
241. Earth Station Coordination Requirements. We propose to clearly
lay out the requirements for coordination between earth station
operators in our rules. While we generally make few changes to our
current requirements, we do seek comment on this proposal and on ways
we can improve coordination amongst earth station operators. For
instance, are the requirements described in this proposed rule overly
broad and burdensome? Alternatively, are they too narrow to be of much
use? Given the
[[Page 56378]]
proliferation of third-party coordinators, does the Commission need to
specifically enumerate what needs to be provided for coordination, or
should operators be able to decide amongst themselves what information
they do or do not need to see and evaluate? What are the benefits or
drawbacks to the Commission specifying how coordination works and the
information needed to be provided? Is there any benefit to the
Commission developing a real-time database that handles coordination in
real time for applicants and licensees? Or is the current coordination
process sufficient?
242. We understand that in some instances, coordination may be used
as a tool to prevent new entrants from being able to receive a license.
Do the proposed rules provide sufficient guidance and guardrails to
prevent this from happening? If they do not, we ask commenters to
provide proposals of ways in which the proposed rules can be revised to
better protect against gamesmanship in the coordination process.
D. Benefits and Costs
243. We find that the rules we propose today, if adopted, will
promote efficiency in the Commission's licensing process, provide more
predictability and flexibility for licensees, as well as meet our
statutory responsibilities and international obligations. We expect
that our proposals would significantly reduce regulatory compliance
costs, resulting in annual cost savings of at least $165,000. These
cost savings are in addition to other benefits that are more difficult
to quantify, but nevertheless important, such as reduced harmful
interference, increased spectrum efficiency, and space safety. We
estimate that the costs resulting from the changes that we propose will
be approximately $90,000. We therefore conclude that the cost savings
alone will fully offset the associated costs, such that the proposed
rules are in the public interest. We seek comment on these findings.
244. We estimate that the deregulatory steps we take today will
result in annual cost savings of approximately $165,000. This reduction
will accrue primarily from limiting the cases in which operators are
required to submit modification filings and STA requests. Based on
conservative assumptions, we expect the proposed changes will reduce
such filings by at least 15%. We expect this reduction to result from
measures such as eliminating the requirement for waiver requests for
contemporaneous supplements or exhibits, allowing applicants to certify
that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC Form 312--
Main Form, eliminating certain milestone requirements, and allowing
prospective applicants to submit ITU filings without the need for prior
filings with the Commission. We seek comment on our estimate of cost
savings. We also ask commenters to identify additional potential cost
savings that we have not considered in our estimate.
245. In addition to these quantified savings, we anticipate
significant potential cost savings from eliminating the surety bond
requirements for GSO space stations and certain NGSO systems. These
savings include monthly fees that licensees would otherwise pay to
third parties for posting a surety bond, as well as the opportunity
cost of capital that operators forgo by having to set aside financial
resources for surety bonds. While we do not quantify these savings
here, we believe that they will represent a meaningful reduction in
regulatory burden for affected operators. We seek comment on this view.
246. We estimate that the total cost associated with the proposals
will be approximately $90,000. This estimate is primarily driven by the
cost of preparing semi-annual space system safety reports, which
require information on the number of conjunction events identified for
satellites in the NGSO system during the reporting period, the number
of satellites removed from operation or screened from further
deployment, and the number of satellites that re-entered the
atmosphere. Since we assume that all NGSO operators already collect the
relevant information as part of their routine operations, this estimate
only accounts for the costs associated with preparing and submitting
the report. We also assume that costs associated with all other
proposed reporting requirements will be negligible. Specifically, the
costs of sharing ephemeris and covariance data is expected to be
minimal, as operators already generate and maintain this information
for their own operational purposes. Sharing it with a designated SSA
service provider would primarily involve integrating with an existing
SSA Application Processing Interface, which should require minimal
additional effort. Additionally, we expect that eliminating the annual
point of contact requirement will result in cost savings rather than
impose new costs, although we do not quantify those savings here. We
seek comment on our estimate as well as on the assumptions underlying
our estimate.
247. Overall, we anticipate that cost savings will fully offset the
total estimated costs associated with this item. Moreover, our analysis
does not account for the additional benefits expected to accrue from
these changes, including improvements in spectrum efficiency, space
safety, and reduced regulatory burden. We seek comment on the potential
benefits of our proposed rules. Commenters are encouraged to submit
quantifications of all claimed benefits and costs.
E. Compliance
248. As we seek to shift to a more efficient application review
process, we recognize there will be a need to ensure compliance with
the proposed framework requirements. To that end, our proposal would
provide the Commission with a range of tools, in addition to
traditional enforcement mechanisms, to address instances of
noncompliance. A cornerstone of the Commission's new application and
licensing approach relies on ensuring compliance with the Commission's
rules after a license is granted, given the greater reliance on
certifications to improve processing efficiency. While we expect
applicants to operate in compliance with the Commission's rules and in
accordance with license authorizations, it is important that the
Commission can effectively and nimbly address violations of its rules.
Accordingly, we propose additional non-monetary enforcement remedies to
ensure and address compliance with the Commission's rules and clearly
express in our rules the requirements of operators beyond the
operational requirements.
249. Section 25.161 of the Commission's rules provides that a
station will be automatically terminated, in whole or in part, if the
station is not operational or the license term expires, for failure to
meet applicable milestone deadlines. We propose to retain the
Commission's existing rule outlining the circumstances when a station
authorization will be automatically terminated, in whole or in part,
with certain proposed additional circumstances to reflect the proposed
rules in the NPRM. We propose that earth station licenses would be
subject to automatic termination for failure to comply with the
proposed certification requirements for Immovable earth station
authorizations. Earth station licenses would also be automatically
terminated for failure to meet any of the operational, coordination, or
frequency-specific rules. The Commission further proposes to modify the
compliance provisions specific to milestone deployments to align with
the proposed deployment timelines for satellites.
[[Page 56379]]
250. In addition to admonishments and forfeitures, we propose that
the Commission could address non-compliance through a variety of other
means, including by revoking or terminating a license, requiring
cessation of transmissions, placing an entity in an ``authorization
freeze'' status (i.e., no additional authorizations may be granted
until an issue is resolved), or pausing launch authorization for
continued deployment under an existing license. Unlike some other areas
under the Commission's jurisdiction, space activities are uniquely
complex in that addressing violations of certain rules can be more
complicated, if not nearly impossible, if the violation stems from a
space station already deployed and in orbit, for example, if space
station connectivity fails, if an operator is unable to address or
reduce risks to other deployed systems, or if a space station is unable
to safely deorbit. With this in mind, we believe our proposed
compliance rules will offer a range of ways to ensure licensees comply
with the Commission's rules for the benefit of other operators and the
space economy at large. We also recognize that it may often be in
public interest to address violations outside of traditional
enforcement mechanisms. Further, since we propose to rely more heavily
on affirmative certifications, we expect that ensuring the Commission
can quickly respond to post-grant violations or submissions of
misleading or materially false information in an application will
ultimately strengthen the overall integrity of the licensing system. We
seek comment generally on our proposed compliance measures, including
on how we can efficiently and effectively promote compliance while
conforming to the procedural requirements of the Commission's rules,
the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and due process. Under what
circumstances could the Commission require immediate corrective action
even before an operator has the opportunity to respond? Could the
Commission implement automatic enforcement consequences as a licensing
condition or through a rule? Are there additional or alternative
compliance mechanisms the Commission has not considered that would
achieve the goals of this proceeding?
251. Further, if an operator has a history of anomalous events, or
other noncompliance with our rules, such as unlicensed operations,
should the application no longer be presumed to be in the public
interest, and, if so, should the burden of proof shift to the applicant
to show that the application is in the public interest? Do the proposed
remedies sufficiently dissuade operators from engaging in bad acts or
harmful behavior? Are they too stringent or lenient? In either case,
what alternatives should the Commission consider to more effectively
address and discourage bad actors? We seek comment on these questions
and input for other proposals to encourage responsible behavior by all
applicants, licensees, and market access grantees.
252. We believe that these approaches are not prohibited by the Act
nor do they run afoul of recent judicial precedents.
F. Miscellaneous
1. Delete, Delete, Delete Proceeding
253. This proceeding incorporates the results of the Commission's
comprehensive deregulatory review initiated in the Delete, Delete,
Delete proceeding as it concerns our part 25 satellite licensing rules.
Indeed, we are fully aligned with the deregulatory intent of that
proceeding, and several commenters in that proceeding suggested an
omnibus satellite licensing rulemaking to address the many satellite-
related topics raised in that record. Our proposals if adopted would
result in a substantial overall reduction in the quantity of satellite
licensing rules. In addition to numerous proposed recissions of
duplicative, outdated, unused, or unjustifiably burdensome rule
provisions identified by Commission staff, we have incorporated
commenter suggestions from the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding into
the questions above and the proposed rules.
254. We also invite comment on SiriusXM's suggestion to delete the
SDARS provisions requiring use of interoperable radios, requiring
terrestrial repeaters to retransmit the complete programming
transmitted by the SDARS licensee's satellite(s), and requiring
terrestrial repeaters not to retransmit different transmissions from a
satellite to different regions within that satellite's coverage area.
Are these rules, which affect a limited number of licensees, still in
the public interest, or should they be modified or removed? Is this
something that we should address here, or is it better suited for a
separate proceeding? Further, are there any other rule parts that we
should consider deleting either because they are redundant of rule
parts found in other parts of the Commission's rules, or because they
are outdated and unnecessary, or overly burdensome? We seek comment on
this generally.
2. Other Open Proceedings
255. Some of the proposals outlined herein and proposed in Appendix
A may overlap with other open Commission proceedings. Specifically,
certain proposals here overlap with the Commission's recent ISAM NPRM;
the Commission's proceeding on orbital debris mitigation; and the
Commission's Foreign Adversary NPRM. We specify how we propose to
handle any overlap between these open proceedings and this proceeding
below.
256. For the ISAM NPRM, we recognize that many of the proposals we
make here, regarding changes to application requirements and
application processing, including proposals related to bonds and
milestones, overlap with the proposals made in the ISAM NPRM on those
same issues. As described in depth above, we believe the changes we
propose to make in the NPRM are preferable to those teed up in the ISAM
NPRM, given our overall modernization goals and proposed framework. We
therefore propose to move forward with the proposals in the NPRM rather
than the overlapping proposals in the ISAM NPRM.
257. For the Commission's orbital debris proceeding, we clarify
that other than where clearly identified above, we do not seek comment
on any of the proposals outlined in the most recent 2020 Orbital Debris
Order and FNPRM. We recognize that the Commission sought comment on a
number of proposals related to the orbital debris rules in that FNPRM.
Due to the expansive nature of the NPRM, and the numerous proposals we
make here to modernize the Commission's space and earth station
licensing processes, we do not intend to incorporate the open orbital
debris proceeding into this proceeding.
258. Similarly, we do not here re-open or invite any comment on any
of the inquiries in the ongoing NGSO-GSO Spectrum Sharing proceeding or
the Facilitating More Intensive Use of Upper Microwave Flexible
Spectrum Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Rather, any rule changes to
part 25 adopted in those proceedings will be incorporated into the
corresponding rule provisions in part 100, if any changes are adopted.
259. We propose to align our final rules in this proceeding with
the final rules established in the Foreign Adversary NPRM, including
the final decision on whether those requirements should be incorporated
into existing licensing rules or whether the Commission should create a
single set of new rules that apply to all regulated entities and
whether the requirements
[[Page 56380]]
should be reflected in FCC Form 312--Main Form. We do not seek comment
on any of the substantive proposals in the Foreign Adversary NPRM here.
260. Finally, we also propose that for any other pending or
subsequent FCC proceedings that propose or adopt changes to the part 25
rules, we will incorporate any final rules in part 100, if adopted.
3. Additional Matters
261. Basis and Scope. Sec. 25.101(a) of the Commission's rules
contains a recitation of the statutory authority for part 25 that is
partially out-of-date and with the authority citation in part 25
required by the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, we propose to
delete what is currently paragraph (a) from our rules. We seek comment
on this proposal.
262. Definitions. We believe it is necessary to update, remove, and
add certain definitions to the definition section in the new part 100
that we propose. We do not list all of the proposed definition changes
here, we instead highlight some significant changes but invite
commenters to provide feedback on all the proposed definitions in
Appendix A.
263. We propose to delete several definitions from current part 25
that are duplicative of definitions in part 2 of the Commission's
rules. Specifically, we propose to delete the following definitions:
Coordination distance, Earth station, Feeder link, Inter-Satellite
Service, Ku-band, Land earth station, Land Mobile Earth Station, mobile
earth station, Radiodetermination Satellite Service, Satellite system,
Selected assignment, Space radiocommunication, Terrestrial
radiocommunication, and Terrestrial station. We seek comment on this
proposal.
264. In addition, and as discussed more fully above, we propose to
establish a definition for expedited processing to make clear what that
category of processing an application means. Further, and as discussed
above, we propose to create a definition for Variable Trajectory
Spacecraft Systems as a category of licensable systems distinct from
existing NGSO and GSO categories of licenses.
265. We propose to add a definition of ``Replacement satellite.''
Specifically, we propose to define replacement satellite as ``[a]
satellite that is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands and
with the same coverage area as the satellite to be replaced, at an
orbital location within 0.15[deg] of the assigned location of a GSO
satellite to be replaced or in the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO
satellite to be replaced, and that is scheduled to be launched so that
it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no
later than, the existing satellite is retired.'' We seek comment on
these proposed definitions and if they provide sufficient clarity to
applicants and licensees on the scope and applicability of these terms.
266. Review in the Public Interest. Our proposed part 100 rules
reflect our view that the Commission's public interest review of
authorizations for space-based communications can be described as four
categories that correspond to the Commission's statutory remit, our
historic practice, and the equities of other federal agencies: (1)
harmful interference; (2) spectrum efficiency; (3) space safety; and
(4) foreign ownership. We seek comment on the foregoing. To the extent
commenters find these categories under- or over-inclusive, they are
expected to support such arguments with legal authorities specifically
relevant to the Commission's space licensing activities.
267. EEO and Public Interest Obligations to Parts 73 and 76.
Sec. Sec. 25.601, 25.701, and 25.702 of the Commission's rules contain
political programming and public interest obligations on DBS and SDARS
licensees as well as equal employment opportunity requirements for FSS,
DBS, and 17/24 GHz BSS operators who provide video programming directly
to the public on a subscription basis. These rules cover certain media-
related obligations and requirements applicable to these services,
which the Commission added to part 25 because the underlying licenses
for the operations are part 25 licenses. But the Space Bureau does not
administer these rules. Thus, we tentatively conclude that these rule
provisions would be best housed outside the new part 100 and we seek
comment on the best place to relocate them. As media-related rules,
would they make more sense in parts 73 and 76, which concern broadcast
and multichannel video programming services? If so, we seek comment on
how we can best rewrite and relocate these rule provisions to make
clear which entities are subject to the regulations and make it easy
for those entities to find those regulations.
268. Relevancy of Analog Video Provisions. Part 25 contains several
provisions governing analog video transmissions. Given the transition
from analog to digital video transmission standards in recent decades,
we invite comment on whether any of these provisions are still relevant
and should be included in part 100. Are there other part 25 rules
governing analog transmissions that are out-of-date or unnecessary?
269. Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry
Executive Order. The August 2025 Executive Order, ``Enabling
Competition in the Commercial Space Industry,'' (E.O.) states that it
is the policy of the United States to support commercial space
activities, in part by enabling a competitive space launch marketplace
and increasing commercial space launches and novel space activities by
2030. The E.O. directs the Federal Government to streamline commercial
license and permit approvals for United States-based operators to
further these objectives. We believe that the proposals to the
Commission's space and earth station licensing framework in the NPRM,
as part of the broader initiative in modernizing space licensing,
support the goals and directives of the E.O. to foster a competitive
space marketplace while aligning with the Commission's priorities to
boost the space economy through an improved licensing regime. With this
in mind, we seek comment on how the proposed rules in the NPRM support
and align with the policy initiatives outlined in the E.O. We invite
commenters to provide feedback on this intersection and offer
additional or alternative proposals that the Commission may consider to
create a more cohesive regulatory environment for commercial space and
satellite operators. We note that as other offices and departments
within the Federal Government work to revise agency-specific licensing
processes as directed by the E.O., the Commission will continue to
monitor any developments and will address any necessary revisions or
additions to the Commission's rules at a later date.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
270. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
policies and rules proposed in the NPRM assessing the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission requests written public comments on the IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA
[[Page 56381]]
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
271. In the NPRM, the Commission initiates this rulemaking
proceeding seeking comment on its proposals to update part 25 of the
Commission's rules to improve the application process for space and
earth station applicants and licensees, and remove certain rules and
references that are no longer relevant or no longer provide the
intended benefit to the Commission. The Commission continues its
efforts to modernize and update the regulatory framework to promote
investment, innovation, and competition in the space economy proposing
to replace part 25 with the new proposed part 100 to implement the
proposed revised application framework designed to process review of
applications with increased speed and efficiency, while providing
applicants with a higher degree of predictability during the licensing
process. The Commission also proposes to streamline the information
required from space station and earth station applicants and proposes
to update the ways in which applications are processed and granted for
authorization. We seek comment on these proposals along with a number
of other potential changes to the licensing process, operational
requirements, reporting and information requirements, and compliance
mechanisms.
272. The primary objectives of the proposals in the NPRM are: (1)
to increase license processing speed, (2) to provide more
predictability to applicants and licensees, (3) to provide more
flexibility for innovation and for licensees' operations, and (4) to
faithfully meet our statutory responsibilities and international
obligations in order to create a space and earth station licensing
process that can promote the wide availability and proliferation of
communications and new technologies for the public, and efficiently
scale with the space economy as it continues to grow. To that end, the
cornerstone of the proposed licensing process is whether granting a
license will serve the ``public convenience, interest, or necessity''
based on the assessment of harmful interference, spectrum efficiency,
space safety, and foreign ownership which could undermine the continued
growth of the space economy and hinder the public's access to advanced
communications services and emerging technologies if not evaluated. The
Commission anticipates the modernization of its space and earth station
licensing rules and processes to meet the current needs of the space
industry, and allow for future expansion and growth of the space
economy will facilitate better access and opportunity for companies to
enter and compete in the space industry.
B. Legal Basis
273. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309,
310, 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
274. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the SBA. A ``small
business concern'' is one in 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. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
275. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while
there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that
are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from
the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general, a small business is an
independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of
small business represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States,
which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, ``small
organizations'' are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently
owned and operated and not dominant in their field. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to
delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt
organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately
530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of
$50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt
organizations available from the IRS. Finally, ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
276. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in
the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the industries identified below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Small firms
Regulated industry NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms Small firms in industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............ 517111 1,500 employees......................... 3,054 2,964 97.05
Satellite Telecommunications................. 517410 $47 million............................. 275 242 88.00
All Other Telecommunications................. 517810 $40 million............................. 1,079 1,039 96.29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56382]]
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
277. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
278. The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that will affect
the application and licensing process and requirements for space and
earth station operators. The NPRM proposes to add an additional
milestone deployment requirement, increasing the number of milestone
requirements for NGSO systems from two to three, each requiring notice
to the Commission of meeting the respective milestone. However, the
Commission proposes to remove the milestone requirement for GSO system
operators.
279. Licensing Assembly Line. The Commission proposes an assembly
line approach to modernizing the licensing process which would adopt a
modular application to replace the submission of one large, narrative-
heavy application, with a process that allows applicants to complete
specific sections (or modules) that are tailored to their system type
and licensing needs. Applicants can file the main application form FCC
Form 312--Main Form once and its schedules (Schedules O and F) based on
the type of system license for which they are applying. The key
information sections for space station applications include the General
and Ownership Information on FCC Form 312--Main Form, Orbital Elements
on Schedule O, and Frequency Elements on Scheule F. Earth station
applicants would file Form 312 and a Schedule B. In addition, for
Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) and market access requests
additional information would be required. The Commission intends to
apply this modular application approach to any type of application,
including initial space and earth stations applications, requests for
market access, amendments, modifications, requests for STA, and any
other applications. In future filings, an applicant could reference
their FCC Form 312--Main Form, and certify that the information in FCC
Form 312--Main Form remains accurate.
280. The NPRM proposes that certain written explanation filings
will be replaced with certifications requirements, which will reduce
the burdens of administrative preparation and filings. For example, the
Commission proposes to align its certification requirements in this
proceeding with a May 2025 rulemaking proposing foreign adversary
ownership certification and information collection requirements for all
entities holding Commission licenses or authorizations. Applicants
would still need to include ownership charts and plans for managing
orbital debris under this proposal. The Commission also proposes the
requirement that all applications must be filed electronically. This
new approach is expected to reduce administrative work requirements and
delays, making the licensing process more predictable and easier for
companies to plan around. It is also designed to be scalable to grow
with the industry which will benefit small entities. Cost savings for
small entities will result from removing repetitive paperwork,
simplifying forms, reducing the need for STA and waiver requests, and
allow for future automation. Further, because the proposed process is
less cumbersome and more straightforward, it is likely that small
applicants will not need to hire lawyers or engineers for routine
filings, although more complex cases may still require professional
assistance.
281. Additional Reforms for Licensing Efficiency. The proposed
reporting and recordkeeping requirements clarify when applications may
be dismissed as incomplete or non-compliant, which should allow small
and other applicants to sufficiently prepare their application to avoid
unnecessary delays. The proposed process for amending or modifying
applications has been streamlined to allow a licensee to make changes
to their systems and operations without notifying or seeking approval
from the Commission depending on the type of modification. The
reporting/notification requirement for modifications will fall into
three groups: (1) those that an applicant can make without informing
the Commission; (2) minor modifications, or those that an applicant can
make but will need to notify the Commission either before or after the
modification; and (3) major modifications, or any modification that
meets certain parameters but is also not covered by the first two
categories, and that requires Commission authorization. By expanding
the scope of permissible modifications the need for STA requests should
be reduced. These changes are expected to lower regulatory uncertainty
for small and other entities, and speed up decision-making which in
turn should spur investment. Small entities should incur cost savings
from the elimination of unnecessary filings, and should face lower
compliance costs and fewer administrative burdens. Consistent with the
impacts of the processes discussed in the preceding paragraph, the
removal of requirements, and clarification and simplification of
processes for additional efficiency should reduce the need for small
entities to hire legal or technical consultants for filing of standard
applications.
282. Operational and Technical Requirements. The proposed
operational and technical requirements in the NPRM introduce several
new reporting and recordkeeping obligations aimed at improving space
safety and regulatory efficiency. The Commission proposes to eliminate
the annual reporting requirement for space station licensees and market
access recipients, and proposes to amend the timeline for updating
point of contact information from within ten days to within 48 hours of
the change. The Commission also proposes to modernize data sharing by
requiring the submission of orbital ephemerides data into SSA systems.
More specifically, we propose to require space station licensees and
market access recipients to submit ephemeris data for all space
stations in an authorized satellite system to either the 18th Space
Control Squadron, or to one or more U.S. SSA systems as selected by the
Commission.
283. To address space system safety and ensure that licensees are
monitoring the safety and efficacy of licensed and operating systems,
the NPRM proposes a reporting requirement that would require licensed
operators of NGSO systems to report on the safety of their operating
systems on a biannual basis. The semi-annual reports would cover a
preceding six-month period on space system safety, the number of
conjunction events, the number of satellites removed from operation or
screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that re-
entered the atmosphere. The proposed rules in the NPRM also update
requirements for orbital debris mitigation and end-of-life reporting.
These measures are expected to promote safer and more efficient
operations while reducing long-term costs by helping to prevent
collisions and avoid regulatory delays. Small entities are likely to
experience additional cost savings from streamlined antenna and
radiation hazard rules, as well as the elimination of outdated
technical standards and redundant reporting.
[[Page 56383]]
284. Next we turn to our discussion to the compliance costs for the
reporting, recordkeeping and other proposals in the NPRM. The
Commission estimates the total cost for an operator to implement the
earth and space station licensing process modernization rules will be
$90,000. This estimate is primarily driven by the cost of preparing
semi-annual space system safety reports, which require information on
the number of conjunction events identified for satellites in the NGSO
system during the reporting period, the number of satellites removed
from operation or screened from further deployment, and the number of
satellites that re-entered the atmosphere. However, overall, we expect
that our proposals would significantly reduce regulatory compliance
costs, resulting in annual cost savings of at least $165,000 each for
small and other operators. We attribute these potential savings to
limits on the cases in which operators are required to submit
modification filings and STA requests, elimination of the need for
applicants to request certain waivers and provide associated showings,
elimination of the need for operators to meet certain milestone
requirements, elimination of the need for applicants to resubmit an FCC
Form 312--Main Form in certain circumstances, ability for applicants to
submit an ITU filing without the need for prior filings with the
Commission, and elimination of the bond requirement for certain space
station operators. Small entities may need to hire professionals to
comply with the proposals in the NPRM if adopted however, the degree to
which the services of such professionals are required should be reduced
in light of the aforementioned elimination of filings, showings and
other regulatory requirements. These cost savings are in addition to
other benefits that are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless
important, such as reduced harmful interference, increased spectrum
efficiency, and space safety.
285. The Commission seeks comment on costs associated with the
modernization process we discuss in the NPRM, including but not limited
to our estimates, assumptions, calculations, and any costs or other
burdens we did not consider and/or include that are relevant to the
costs for small and other entities to comply with the proposals in this
proceeding.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
286. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant impact on small entities. The discussion is required to
include alternatives such as: ``(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 rule 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.''
287. The NPRM proposes to reorganize the current part 25 rules and
both modify and simplify the existing requirements to provide an
updated framework for space and earth station applicants under a new
proposed part 100 of the Commission's rules. All of these proposals
could lessen the burdens of the licensing process and operational
requirements for space and earth station operators. Specifically, the
NPRM proposes to replace a number of the current information
requirements included on space and earth station applications with
certifications, intended to significantly cut down on the time required
to prepare and complete applications and the related costs to
applicants. Additionally, the NPRM proposes to permit certain qualified
applications to receive a conditional grant of authority prior to
submission of the required orbital debris plan materials. The NPRM also
proposes to increase the number of permissible space station operations
that do not require an application for modification or notification of
the operation. These proposals are designed to simplify the overall
application process and help to clarify the specific required
information as part of the licensing stage for space and earth station
operator entities. The NPRM seeks comment on each proposed rule, as
well as the application framework in general, as to whether the
Commission's proposed revisions would provide the intended increased
application processing speed, predictability, and clarity for
applicants. The proposed revisions would ultimately lead to benefits
for space and earth station operators in the long term. The NPRM also
proposes to eliminate unnecessary technical and information filing
requirements along with outdated or unused rule provisions.
288. To assist with the Commission's evaluation of the economic
impact on small entities that may result from the actions and
alternatives that have been discussed in this proceeding, the NPRM
seeks alternative proposals, and requests information on the potential
costs of such alternatives to small and other licensees. The Commission
expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities
following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM,
including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and
approaches from commenters could also help the Commission further
minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's
evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the
final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and
the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the
final rules that are ultimately adopted.
289. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any
specific concerns that they may have with the proposals outlined in the
NPRM.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
290. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
291. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308,
309, 310, 312, 316, 332, that the NPRM is adopted.
292. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall
send a copy of the NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed, the Federal Communications Commission
proposes to amend title 47 of the Code of Federal
[[Page 56384]]
Regulations to remove part 25 and add part 100, as follows:
PART 25--[REMOVED]
0
1. Remove part 25.
0
2. Add part 100 to read as follows:
PART 100--SPACE AND EARTH STATION SERVICES
Subpart A--General
Sec.
100.1 Scope.
100.2 Station Authorization Required.
100.3 Definitions.
100.4 Incorporation by reference.
100.5 Cross-reference.
100.6 Preemption of local zoning of earth stations.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
100.100 Filing of applications.
100.101 Application requirements of the FCC Form 312--Main Form.
Space Station Applications
100.110 General space station application requirements.
100.111 Space station orbital information requirements.
100.112 Space station frequency information requirements.
100.113 Additional information for supplemental coverage from space.
100.114 Requests for U.S. market access.
Earth Station Applications
100.120 Earth station licensing application requirements.
100.121 Earth station application processing.
General Application Processing
100.130 Receipt of applications.
100.131 Completeness.
100.132 Public notice.
100.133 Opposition to applications and other pleadings.
100.134 Information requests.
100.135 Dismissal and return of applications.
100.136 Consideration of applications.
100.137 Amendments to applications.
100.138 Application processing timelines.
100.139 Conditional grants.
100.140 Exceptions to expedited processing for applications.
100.141 Processing rounds for NGSO satellite system applications.
100.142 First-come, first-served application processing for GSO
systems.
100.143 Modifications.
100.144 Special temporary authorizations.
100.145 Coordination requirements with Federal government users.
100.146 Assignments and transfers of control.
100.147 Milestones for NGSO and Multi-Orbit systems.
100.148 Surety bonds.
100.149 License and market access terms, extensions, NGSO
replacements, renewals.
Subpart C--Operational and Frequency Specific Requirements
100.200 Reporting requirements.
100.201 Licensee operations.
100.202 Duties regarding space communications transmissions.
100.203 Telemetry, tracking, and command.
100.204 Default service rules.
General Space Station Rules
100.210 Orbit raising maneuvers.
100.211 Frequency use generally.
100.212 Power flux-density and in-band field strength limits.
100.213 Unwanted emissions limits generally; space stations.
100.214 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS and 2 GHz MSS.
NGSO Frequency-Specific Rules
100.220 Requirements for the non-voice, non-geostationary MSS.
100.221 Obligation to remedy interference caused by NGSO MSS feeder
downlinks in the 6700-6875 MHz band.
100.222 Operating provisions for NGSO FSS space stations.
GSO Frequency-Specific Rules
100.230 Further requirements for license applications for GSO space
station operation in the FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS.
100.231 Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for 17/24
GHz BSS space stations and FSS space stations transmitting in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band.
100.232 Requirements to facilitate reverse-band operation in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band.
100.233 Provisions for direct broadcast satellite service.
100.234 Analog video transmissions in the FSS.
100.235 Inclined orbit operations.
Coordination/Interference/Sharing for Space Stations
100.240 NGSO/GSO sharing/coordination.
100.241 Sharing among NGSO FSS space stations.
100.242 Time sharing between NOAA meteorological satellite systems
and non-voice, non-geostationary satellite systems in the 137-138
MHz band.
100.243 Time sharing between DoD meteorological satellite systems
and non-voice, non-geostationary satellite systems in the 400.15-401
MHz band.
100.244 Inter-service coordination requirements for the 1.6/2.4 GHz
MSS.
100.245 Acceptance of interference in 2000-2020 MHz.
100.250 Licensing provisions for the 2.3 GHz satellite digital audio
radio service.
100.251 Information sharing requirements for SDARS terrestrial
repeater operators.
Orbital Debris
100.260 Operations and end-of-life disposal.
100.261 Specific NGSO space safety rules.
General Earth Station Rules
100.270 Radiofrequency exposure requirements.
100.271 Responsibility of blanket licensed earth station licensees.
100.272 Minimum elevation angle.
100.273 Receive-only earth stations.
100.274 Temporary-fixed earth station operations.
100.275 Period of construction.
General Earth Station Coordination and Performance Requirements
100.276 Earth station coordination requirements.
100.277 Frequency tolerance.
100.278 Emissions limits generally; earth stations.
100.279 Earth station antenna performance standards.
100.280 Off-axis EIRP density limits.
Frequency-Specific Earth Station Rules
100.281 Earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-
40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz, and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands.
100.282 User terminals and earth stations in motion.
100.283 MSS and ATC requirements.
100.284 Requirements for ancillary terrestrial components in Mobile-
Satellite Service networks operating in the 1.5./1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4
GHz Mobile-Satellite Service.
100.285 Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to ATC
in the 1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.
100.286 Transmitter identification requirements for video uplink
transmissions.
Miscellaneous Rules
100.290 Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs).
Subpart D--Compliance
100.300 Temporary Measures for Non-Compliance
100.301 Administrative sanctions.
100.302 Automatic termination of station authorization.
100.303 Reinstatement.
100.304 Cause for termination of interference protection for
registered receiving earth stations.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 100.1 Scope.
The rules and regulations in this part are in addition to and
supplement the rules and regulations contained in or to be added to,
other parts of this chapter currently in force, or which may
subsequently be promulgated, and which are applicable to matters
relating to communications by space stations and earth stations.
Sec. 100.2 Station Authorization Required.
No person shall use or operate apparatus for the transmission of
energy or communications or signals by space or earth stations except
under, and in
[[Page 56385]]
accordance with, an appropriate authorization granted by the Federal
Communications Commission.
Sec. 100.3 Definitions.
1.5/1.6 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. Mobile-Satellite Service that
operates in the 1525-1559 MHz space-to-Earth band and the 1626.5-1660.5
MHz Earth-to-space band, or any portion thereof.
1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. A Mobile-Satellite Service
that operates in the 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz bands, or in
any portion thereof.
2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. A Mobile-Satellite Service that
operates in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or in any
portion thereof.
17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (17/24 GHz BSS). A
radiocommunication service involving transmission from one or more
feeder-link earth stations to other earth stations via geostationary
satellites, in the 17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) (domestic
allocation), 17.3-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) (international allocation)
and 24.75-25.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands. For purposes of the
application processing provisions of this part, the 17/24 GHz BSS is a
GSO-like service. Unless specifically stated otherwise, 17/24 GHz BSS
systems are subject to the rules in this part applicable to FSS.
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC). A terrestrial communications
network used in conjunction with a qualifying satellite network system
authorized pursuant to these rules and the conditions established in
the Orders issued in IB Docket No. 01-185, Flexibility for Delivery of
Communications by Mobile-Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band,
the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band.
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base station. A terrestrial
fixed facility used to transmit communications to or receive
communications from one or more ancillary terrestrial component mobile
terminals.
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) mobile terminal. A
terrestrial mobile facility used to transmit communications to or
receive communications from an ancillary terrestrial component base
station or a space station.
Blanket license. A blanket license is a license for:
(a) Multiple earth stations in the FSS or MSS, or for SDARS
terrestrial repeaters, that may be operated anywhere within a
geographic area authorized in the license; or
(b) Multiple space stations in non-geostationary-orbit.
Contiguous United States (CONUS). For purposes of subparts B and C
of this part, the contiguous United States consists of the contiguous
48 states and the District of Columbia as defined by Partial Economic
Areas Nos. 1-41, 43-211, 213-263, 265-297, 299-359, and 361-411, which
includes areas within 12 nautical miles of the U.S. Gulf coastline. In
this context, the rest of the United States includes the Honolulu,
Anchorage, Kodiak, Fairbanks, Juneau, Puerto Rico, Guam-Northern
Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of
America PEAs (Nos. 42, 212, 264, 298, 360, 412-416). See Sec. 27.6(m)
of this chapter.
Conventional C-band. The 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925-
6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands.
Conventional Ka-band. The 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2
GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0
GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands, which the Commission has
designated as primary for GSO FSS operation.
Conventional Ku-band. The 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-
14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands.
Coordination distance. When determining the need for coordination,
the distance on a given azimuth from an earth station sharing the same
frequency band with terrestrial stations, or from a transmitting earth
station sharing the same bidirectionally allocated frequency band with
receiving earth stations, beyond which the level of permissible
interference will not be exceeded and coordination is therefore not
required.
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. A radiocommunication
service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by Broadcasting-
Satellite Service space stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band are intended
for direct reception by subscribers or the general public. For the
purposes of this definition, the term direct reception includes
individual reception and community reception.
Earth Station Aboard Aircraft (ESAA). An earth station operating
aboard an aircraft that receives from and transmits to Fixed-Satellite
Service space stations.
Earth Station in Motion (ESIM). A term that collectively designates
ESV, VMES and ESAA earth stations, as defined in this section.
Earth Station on Vessel (ESV). An earth station onboard a craft
designed for traveling on water, receiving from and transmitting to
Fixed-Satellite Service space stations.
Equivalent diameter. When circular aperture reflector antennas are
employed, the size of the antenna is generally expressed as the
diameter of the antenna's main reflector. When non-reflector or non-
circular-aperture antennas are employed, the equivalent diameter is the
diameter of a hypothetical circular-aperture antenna with the same
aperture area as the actual antenna. For example, an elliptical
aperture antenna with major axis a and minor axis b will have an
equivalent diameter of [a x b]\1/2\. A rectangular aperture antenna
with length l and width w will have an equivalent diameter of [4(l x
w)/[pi]]\1/2\.
Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD). The sum of the power flux
densities produced at a geostationary-orbit receive earth or space
station on the Earth's surface or in the geostationary orbit, as
appropriate, by all the transmit stations within a non-geostationary-
orbit Fixed-Satellite Service system, taking into account the off-axis
discrimination of a reference receiving antenna assumed to be pointing
in its nominal direction.
The equivalent power flux density, in dB(W/m\2\) in the reference
bandwidth, is calculated using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05DE25.005
[[Page 56386]]
Where:
Na is the number of transmit stations in the non-
geostationary orbit system that are visible from the GSO receive
station considered on the Earth's surface or in the geostationary
orbit, as appropriate;
i is the index of the transmit station considered in the non-
geostationary orbit system;
Pi is the RF power at the input of the antenna of the transmit
station, considered in the non-geostationary orbit system in dBW in
the reference bandwidth;
[thgr]i is the off-axis angle between the boresight of the transmit
station considered in the non-geostationary orbit system and the
direction of the GSO receive station;
Gt([thgr]i) is the transmit antenna gain (as a ratio) of the station
considered in the non-geostationary orbit system in the direction of
the GSO receive station;
di is the distance in meters between the transmit station considered
in the non-geostationary orbit system and the GSO receive station;
[phiv]i is the off-axis angle between the boresight of the antenna
of the GSO receive station and the direction of the ith transmit
station considered in the non-geostationary orbit system;
Gr([thgr]i) is the receive antenna gain (as a ratio) of the GSO
receive station in the direction of the ith transmit station
considered in the non-geostationary orbit system;
Gr,max is the maximum gain (as a ratio) of the antenna of the GSO
receive station.
Expedited processing. The processing of applications that are not
subject to any exceptions to expedited processing.
Extended C-band. The 3600-3700 MHz (space-to-Earth), 5850-5925 MHz
(Earth-to-space), and 6425-6725 MHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency
bands.
Extended Ka-band. The 17.3-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), 18.8-19.4 GHz
(space-to-Earth), 19.6-19.7 GHz (space- to-Earth), 27.5-28.35 GHz
(Earth-to-space), and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency
bands.
Extended Ku-band. The 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.45-11.7
GHz (space-to-Earth), and 13.75-14.0 GHz bands (Earth-to-space) FSS
frequency bands.
Fixed earth station. An earth station intended to be used at a
fixed position. The position may be a specified fixed point or any
fixed point within a specified area.
Geographically independent area (GIA). Any of the following six
areas:
(1) CONUS;
(2) Alaska;
(3) Hawaii;
(4) American Samoa;
(5) Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands; and
(6) Guam/Northern Mariana Islands.
Geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellite. A geosynchronous satellite
whose circular and direct orbit lies in the plane of the Earth's
equator and which thus remains fixed relative to the Earth; by
extension, a geosynchronous satellite which remains approximately fixed
relative to the Earth.
GSO satellite system. A system composed of one or more
geostationary-orbit satellites operating together at a single orbital
location and under a single space station call sign.
Immovable earth station. An earth station licensed under either a
Nationwide, Non-Site License or an individual location authorization
that is located at a single fixed location that must be registered and
coordinated before operating.
Inter-Satellite Service. A radiocommunication service providing
links between artificial satellites. (RR)Ku band. In this rule part,
the terms ``Ku band'' and ``conventional Ku band'' refer to the 11.7-
12.2 GHz (space-to- Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands.
These paired bands are allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service and are
also referred to as the 12/14 GHz bands.
Licensable System. A system that proports to use an apparatus in
space for the use of radio frequency spectrum to communicate with an
apparatus or object on the Earth's surface or within the major portion
of the Earth's atmosphere or between satellite or spacecraft beyond the
major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.
Network Control and Monitoring Center (NCMC). As used in part 100,
a facility that has the capability to remotely control earth stations
operating as part of a satellite network or system.
NGSO. Non-geostationary orbit.
NGSO FSS gateway earth station. An earth station or complex of
multiple earth station antennas that supports the routing and switching
functions of an NGSO FSS system and that does not originate or
terminate communication traffic. An NGSO FSS gateway earth station may
also be used for telemetry, tracking, and command transmissions.
NGSO satellite system. A system of one or more non-geostationary
orbit satellites operating together under one space station call sign
and that is not a Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System.
Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary (NVNG) Mobile-Satellite Service. A
Mobile-Satellite Service reserved for use by non-geostationary
satellites in the provision of non-voice communications in the 137-138
MHz (space-to-Earth), 148-150.05 MHz (Earth-to-space), 399.9-400.05 MHz
(Earth-to-space), and 400.15-401 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands, which may
include satellite links between land earth stations at fixed locations.
Permitted Space Station List. A list of all U.S.-licensed
geostationary-orbit space stations providing Fixed-Satellite Service in
the extended or conventional C-band, the extended or conventional Ku-
band, the conventional Ka-band, or the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, as well as
non-U.S.-licensed geostationary-orbit space stations approved for U.S.
market access to provide Fixed-Satellite Service in the conventional C-
band, conventional Ku-band, or 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6
GHz, and 29.25-30.0 GHz bands.
Plane perpendicular to the GSO arc. The plane that is perpendicular
to the ``plane tangent to the GSO arc,'' as defined below, and includes
a line between the earth station in question and the GSO space station
that it is communicating with.
Plane tangent to the GSO arc. The plane defined by the location of
an earth station's transmitting antenna and a line in the equatorial
plane that is tangent to the GSO arc at the location of the GSO space
station that the earth station is communicating with.
Power flux density (PFD). The amount of power flow through a unit
area within a unit bandwidth. The units of power flux density are those
of power spectral density per unit area, namely watts per hertz per
square meter. These units are generally expressed in decibel form as
dB(W/Hz/m\2\), dB(W/m\2\) in a 4 kHz band, or dB(W/m\2\) in a 1 MHz
band.
Power Spectral Density (PSD). The amount of an emission's
transmitted carrier power applied at the antenna input falling within
the stated bandwidth. The units of power spectral density are watts per
hertz and are generally expressed in decibel form as dB(W/Hz) when
measured in a 1 Hz bandwidth, dB(W/4kHz) when measured in a 4 kHz
bandwidth, or dB(W/MHz) when measured in a 1 MHz bandwidth.
Protection areas. The geographic regions where U.S. Department of
Defense meteorological satellite systems or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration meteorological satellite systems, or both
such systems, receive signals from low earth orbiting satellites. Also,
areas around NGSO MSS feeder-link earth stations in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service determined in the manner specified in Sec.
100.283.
Replacement space station. A space station that is authorized to
operate in the same frequency bands and with the same coverage area as
the space station to be replaced, at an orbital location within
0.15[deg] of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be
replaced or in
[[Page 56387]]
the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO space station to be replaced,
and that is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into
use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the existing
space station is retired.
Satellite. A body which revolves around another body of
preponderant mass and which has a motion primarily and permanently
determined by the force of attraction of that other body. (RR)
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS). A radiocommunication
service in which audio programming is digitally transmitted by one or
more space stations directly to fixed, mobile, and/or portable
stations, and which may involve complementary repeating terrestrial
transmitters and telemetry, tracking and command facilities.
SCS earth stations. Any earth station used for the provision of
supplemental coverage from space.
Selected assignment. A spectrum assignment voluntarily identified
by a 2 GHz MSS licensee at the time that the licensee's first 2 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service satellite reaches its intended orbit.
Shapeable antenna beam. A satellite transmit or receive antenna
beam, the gain pattern of which can be modified at any time without
physically repositioning a satellite antenna reflector.
Skew angle. The angle between the minor axis of an axially
asymmetric antenna beam and the plane tangent to the GSO arc.
Spacecraft. A man-made vehicle which is intended to go beyond the
major portion of the Earth's atmosphere. (RR)
Space radiocommunication. Any radiocommunication involving the use
of one or more space stations or the use of one or more reflecting
satellites or other objects in space. (RR)
Space station. A station located on an object which is beyond, is
intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the
Earth's atmosphere. (RR)
Space system. Any group of cooperating earth stations and/or space
stations employing space radiocommunication for specific purposes. (RR)
Supplemental coverage from space (SCS). The provision of coverage
to terrestrial wireless subscribers through an arrangement or agreement
(see Sec. 1.9047 of this chapter) between one or more NGSO or GSO
operator(s) and one or more terrestrial wireless licensee(s), involving
transmissions between space stations and SCS earth stations. NGSO and
GSO operators and terrestrial wireless service licensees seeking to
provide SCS must be authorized in compliance with Sec. 100.113.
Terrestrial station. A station effecting terrestrial
radiocommunication.
Two-degree-compliant space station. A GSO FSS space station
operating in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or
extended Ku-bands, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the conventional or
extended Ka-bands within the limits on downlink equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density or PFD specified in Sec.
25.140(a)(3) or (b)(3) and communicating only with earth stations
operating in conformance with routine uplink parameters specified in
Sec. 100.278.
Vehicle-Mounted Earth Station (VMES). An earth station, operating
from a motorized vehicle that travels primarily on land, that receives
from and transmits to Fixed-Satellite Service space stations and
operates within the United States.
Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System (VTSS). One or more
spacecraft either operating beyond the geosynchronous orbit or
operating without fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course
of its lifetime and operating under one space station call sign.
Sec. 100.4 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the FCC and the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
(b) European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 650
Route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France; http://www.etsi.org; Voice: +33 (0)4 92 94 42 00; Fax: +33 (0)4 93 65 47 16;
email: [email protected].
(1) ETSI TS 103 129 V1.1.2 (2014-03), ``Digital Video Broadcasting
(DVB); Framing structure, channel coding and modulation of a carrier
identification system (DVB-CID) for satellite transmission,'' Version
1.1.2, March 2014. Incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
25.281(b).
(c) International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Place des Nations,
1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland; www.itu.int; Voice: +41 22 730 5111; Fax:
+41 22 733 7256; email: [email protected].
(1) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 1: Articles, Article 21,
``Terrestrial and space services sharing frequency bands above 1 GHz,''
Section V, ``Limits of power flux-density from space stations,''
Edition of 2024, copyright 2024, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2016.
Incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 100.222(a).
(2) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 1: Articles, Article 22, ``Space
services,'' Section II, ``Control of interference to geostationary-
satellite systems,'' Edition of 2024, copyright 2024, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2016. Incorporation by reference approved for
Sec. Sec. 100.222(a), 100.240(a).
(3) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30,
``Provisions for all services and associated Plans and List for the
broadcasting-satellite service in the frequency bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (in
Region 3), 11.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1) and 12.2-12.7 GHz (in Region
2),'' Edition of 2012, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2012.
Incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec. 100.100, 100.143,
100.230, and 100.231.
(4) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30A,
``Provisions and associated Plans and List for feeder links for the
broadcasting-satellite service (11.7-12.5 GHz in Region 1, 12.2-12.7
GHz in Region 2 and 11.7-12.2 GHz in Region 3) in the frequency bands
14.5-14.8 GHz and 17.3-18.1 GHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 17.3-17.8 GHz
in Region 2,'' Edition of 2012, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2012.
Incorporation by reference approved for Sec. Sec. 100.100, 100.143,
100.230, and 100.231.
(5) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30B,
``Provisions and associated Plan for the fixed-satellite service in the
frequency bands 4 500-4 800 MHz, 6 725-7 025 MHz, 10.70-10.95 GHz,
11.2-11.45 GHz and 12.75-13.25 GHz,'' Edition of 2012, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2012. Incorporation by reference approved for
Sec. Sec. 100.100 and 100.230.
(6) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 3: Resolutions and
Recommendations, Resolution 76 (Rev.WRC-15), ``Protection of
geostationary fixed-satellite service and geostationary broadcasting-
satellite service networks from the maximum aggregate equivalent power
flux-density produced by multiple non-geostationary fixed-satellite
service systems in frequency bands where equivalent power flux-density
limits have been adopted,'' Edition of 2024, copyright 2024, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2016. Incorporation by reference approved for
Sec. 100.222(a).
(7) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 3: Resolutions and
Recommendations, Resolution 85 (WRC-03), ``Application of Article 22 of
the Radio Regulations to the protection of geostationary fixed-
[[Page 56388]]
satellite service and broadcasting-satellite service networks from non-
geostationary fixed-satellite service systems,'' Edition of 2024,
copyright 2024, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR-2016. Incorporation by
reference approved for Sec. 100.222(b).
(8) Recommendation ITU-R M.1186 ``Technical Considerations for the
Coordination Between Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) Networks Utilizing
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Other Spread Spectrum
Techniques in the 1-3 GHz Band'' (1995). Incorporation by reference
approved for Sec. 100.284.
(d) Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM). 2200
Wilson Blvd., Suite 102-109, Arlington, VA 22201; email: [email protected];
website: www.rtcm.org.
(1) RTCM 12800.0, ``Satellite Emergency Notification Devices
(SENDs),'' dated August 1, 2011. Incorporation by reference approved
for Sec. 100.2901.
Sec. 100.5 Cross-reference.
(a) Space and SCS earth stations providing SCS are subject to
technical rules in parts 2, 22, 24, and 27 of this chapter where
applicable.
(b) Space and earth stations in the Experimental Radio Service may
be subject to licensing under part 5 of this chapter.
(c) Space and earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band may be
subject to transition rules in part 27 of this chapter.
(d) Ship earth stations in the Maritime Mobile-Satellite Service
transmitting in the 1626.5-1646.5 MHz band are subject to licensing
under part 80 of this chapter.
(e) Earth stations in the Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite (Route)
Service are subject to licensing under part 87 of this chapter.
(f) Space and earth stations in the Amateur Satellite Service are
licensed under part 97 of this chapter.
Sec. 100.6 Preemption of local zoning of earth stations.
(a) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar
regulation that materially limits transmission or reception by
satellite earth station antennas or imposes more than minimal costs on
users of such antennas, is preempted unless the promulgating authority
can demonstrate that such regulation is reasonable, except that
nonfederal regulation of radio frequency emissions is not preempted by
this section. For purposes of this paragraph (a), reasonable means that
the local regulation:
(1) Has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective
that is stated in the text of the regulation itself; and
(2) Furthers the stated health, safety or aesthetic objective
without unnecessarily burdening the federal interests in ensuring
access to satellite services and in promoting fair and effective
competition among competing communications service providers.
(b)
(1) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar
regulation that affects the installation, maintenance, or use of a
satellite earth station antenna that is two meters or less in diameter
and is located or proposed to be located in any area where commercial
or industrial uses are generally permitted by non-federal land-use
regulation shall be presumed unreasonable and is therefore preempted
subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. No civil, criminal,
administrative, or other legal action of any kind shall be taken to
enforce any regulation covered by this presumption unless the
promulgating authority has obtained a waiver from the Commission
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, or a final declaration from
the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction that the
presumption has been rebutted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) Any presumption arising from paragraph (b)(1) of this section
may be rebutted upon a showing that the regulation in question:
(i) Is necessary to accomplish a clearly defined health or safety
objective that is stated in the text of the regulation itself;
(ii) Is no more burdensome to satellite users than is necessary to
achieve the health or safety objective; and
(iii) Is specifically applicable on its face to antennas of the
class described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the application or potential
application of a state or local zoning or other regulation in violation
of paragraph (a) of this section may, after exhausting all nonfederal
administrative remedies, file a petition with the Commission requesting
a declaration that the state or local regulation in question is
preempted by this section. Nonfederal administrative remedies, which do
not include judicial appeals of administrative determinations, shall be
deemed exhausted when:
(1) The petitioner's application for a permit or other
authorization required by the state or local authority has been denied
and any administrative appeal and variance procedure has been
exhausted;
(2) The petitioner's application for a permit or other
authorization required by the state or local authority has been on file
for ninety days without final action;
(3) The petitioner has received a permit or other authorization
required by the state or local authority that is conditioned upon the
petitioner's expenditure of a sum of money, including costs required to
screen, pole-mount, or otherwise specially install the antenna, greater
than the aggregate purchase or total lease cost of the equipment as
normally installed; or
(4) A state or local authority has notified the petitioner of
impending civil or criminal action in a court of law and there are no
more nonfederal administrative steps to be taken.
(d) Procedures regarding filing petitions requesting declaratory
rulings and other related pleadings will be set forth in subsequent
Public Notices. All allegations of fact contained in petitions and
related pleadings must be supported by affidavit of a person or persons
with personal knowledge thereof.
(e) Any state or local authority that wishes to maintain and
enforce zoning or other regulations inconsistent with this section may
apply to the Commission for a full or partial waiver of this section.
Such waivers may be granted by the Commission in its sole discretion,
upon a showing by the applicant that local concerns of a highly
specialized or unusual nature create a necessity for regulation
inconsistent with this section. No application for waiver shall be
considered unless it specifically sets forth the particular regulation
for which waiver is sought. Waivers granted in accordance with this
section shall not apply to later-enacted or amended regulations by the
local authority unless the Commission expressly orders otherwise.
(f) A satellite earth station antenna that is designed to receive
direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite
services, that is one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska
is covered by the regulations in Sec. 1.4000 of this chapter.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
General Application Requirements
Sec. 100.100 Filing of applications.
(a) For purposes of this section, applications include all filings
by an entity related to any application or authorization under this
part including space and earth station applications, requests for
market access, amendments, modifications, and requests for special
[[Page 56389]]
temporary authority and any other applications, supplements, addenda,
requests, or notifications.
(b) All applications must be filed electronically and submitted via
the International Communications Filing System (ICFS), or any successor
system designated by the Space Bureau.
(c) The Commission delegates to the Space Bureau the authority to
issue public notices directing changes in the form and format for
filing all space station and earth station applications and other
filings under this part. Filing in the specified form and format is a
requirement of the application.
(d) All applicants must submit FCC Form 312--Main Form.
(e) Space station applicants must submit the information required
in Sec. Sec. 100.110, 100.111, and 100.112 on FCC Form 312--Main Form,
Schedule O, and Schedule F.
(f) An application for a multi-orbit or multi-service system must
provide the required information for each of the proposed orbits and
services that are described in Sec. 100.110.
(g) Earth station applicants must submit the general information
required in Sec. 100.120 and the information required by Sec. Sec.
100.120 and 100.121 on FCC Form 312--Main Form and Schedule B.
(h) Applications for Commission consent to the assignment of a
license or the transfer of control of a licensee, and notifications of
assignment or transfer of control when permitted under this part, must
be filed on FCC Form 312--Main Form and Schedule A.
(i) Requests for U.S. market access must include all additional
information required by Sec. 100.114.
(j) Applicants may submit required or additional information as a
supplement or exhibit to the application filed contemporaneously with
the FCC Form 312--Main Form, or any other required schedule or form, in
the case of technical limitations with the designated forms.
(k) Application fees must be paid at the time of filing your
application in ICFS. A schedule of application fees applicable to this
part can be found at Sec. 1.1107 in this chapter. If an application is
dismissed, the applicant will generally not be entitled to a refund of
the filing fee.
(l) Applicants must respond completely and accurately to all
questions and certifications.
(m) Each applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and
completeness of information furnished in a pending application
consistent with the requirements of Sec. 1.65 of this chapter.
Sec. 100.101 Application requirements of the FCC Form 312--Main
Form.
(a) Applicants filing the FCC Form 312--Main Form must include the
following information:
(1) Contact information.
(i) The name, email, and phone number of the applicant and a
designated contact, if different from the applicant; and
(ii) The name, mailing address, email, and telephone number of the
person(s), including counsel, to whom inquiries or correspondence
should be directed.
(2) Ownership information.
(i) Ownership definitions and methodology. Applicants under this
section must use the definitions and methodology found in Sec. 1.5000
of this chapter.
(ii) Ownership. Applicants must disclose the names, citizenship/
place of organization, principal place of business, and mailing address
of any individual or entity holding a 10% or greater direct or indirect
equity or voting interest in the applicant, or a controlling interest,
along with the percentages of those interests held.
(iii) Officers and directors. Applicants must provide the names,
addresses, and citizenship of each individual officer and director of
the applicant entity.
(iv) Ownership diagram. Applicants must provide a diagram
illustrating the applicant's vertical ownership structure, including
the direct and indirect equity and voting interests held by each
individual and entity listed in response to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section. For assignment and transfer of control applications, the
ownership diagram must include both the pre-transaction and post-
transaction ownership of the authorization holder.
(3) Certifications.
(i) A certification waiving any claim to the use or ownership of
any particular frequency or of the electromagnetic spectrum as against
the regulatory power of the United States because of the previous use
of the same, whether by license or otherwise as required by 47 U.S.C.
304.
(ii) A certification that neither the applicant nor any party to
the application is subject to a denial of federal benefits that
includes FCC benefits pursuant to the Anti-Drug Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C.
862, because of a conviction for possession or distribution of a
controlled substance.
(iii) An attestation under penalty of perjury that all information
submitted on or associated with any FCC Form 312--Main Form, or that
will be associated with FCC Form 312--Main Form, has been verified for
accuracy and believed to be complete and accurate at the time of
submission.
(b) A single FCC Form 312--Main Form may be associated with
multiple applications filed by the same applicant or licensee. If an
applicant or licensee already has a current FCC Form 312--Main Form on
file when it files an additional authorization request, it may certify
that it has a current FCC Form 312--Main Form on file that is complete
and accurate.
Space Station Applications
Sec. 100.110 General space station application requirements.
(a) Applicants for space station licenses must submit the following
information:
(1) Type of authorization requested;
(2) Requested license term in years, if different than the default
terms in Sec. 100.149;
(3) Contact information, if different than the contact information
listed on the FCC Form 312--Main Form associated with the applicant:
(i) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the applicant;
(ii) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the person(s),
including counsel, to whom inquiries or correspondence should be
directed;
(iii) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the person(s)
or entity with the authority and capability to cease transmissions of
any service for which the application seeks authorization and who must
be available 24/7 365 days a year and located within the United States;
(4) A comprehensive statement describing the satellite system,
including orbits, any service(s) to be provided, and planned operations
(including the service areas); and
(5) A brief description of how the proposed operations would serve
the public interest.
(b) An operator may apply for multiple GSO satellites under a
single call sign so long as all necessary information is provided for
each space station listed in the application.
(c) To the extent that satellites in an NGSO satellite system will
be technically identical, the applicant may submit an application for a
blanket license for those satellites that are technically identical. If
the satellites and space stations in the NGSO satellite system will not
be technically identical, the applicant must provide the information
required for each distinct type.
[[Page 56390]]
Sec. 100.111 Space station orbital information requirements.
(a) General requirements. Space station applicants must identify
whether they are applying for a GSO satellite system, an NGSO satellite
system, a multi-orbit satellite system, or a VTSS authorization.
Applicants must submit the following information, depending on the type
of application. If an application includes more than one system type,
the applicant must submit the required information for each system
type.
(b) GSO satellite systems. An applicant for a GSO satellite system
must provide the following information, except that applications filed
pursuant to Sec. 100.139(a)(2) do not need to provide the information
in paragraph (b)(3):
(1) Orbital location. The requested orbital location(s) of the
satellite(s), the east-west, north-south station-keeping range and the
accuracy to which the antenna axis (yaw, pitch and roll) attitude will
be maintained.
(2) Certifications. Certification whether the following criteria
will or will not be met for all space station(s) to be operated under
the license:
(i) For operations on the U.S. Arc, the operator will comply with
the 2-degree spacing requirements; and
(ii) The space station(s) will comply with the orbital debris rules
in Sec. 100.260.
(3) Orbital debris. An orbital debris mitigation plan and end-of-
life disposal plan that demonstrates how the operator will or will not
comply with Sec. 100.260 and that supports the certifications made
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Conditional grant. Whether the applicant is requesting a grant
conditioned on a deferred orbital debris showing under Sec.
100.139(a)(2).
(c) NGSO satellite systems. An application for an NGSO satellite
system must provide the following information, except that applications
filed pursuant to Sec. 100.139(a)(2) do not need to provide the
information required by paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(ii)-(iv) of this
section.
(1) Technical information.
(i) The number of satellites in the constellation,
(ii) The number of in-orbit spares if any,
(iii) The orbital planes and the number of satellites in each
plane,
(iv) The inclination of the orbital plane(s),
(v) The orbital period,
(vi) The apogee,
(vii) The perigee,
(viii) The argument(s) of perigee,
(ix) Active service arc(s),
(x) Right ascension of the ascending node(s),
(xi) The initial phase angle at the reference time for each
satellite in each orbital plane,
(xii) The tolerances with which the orbital parameters will be
maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and the right
ascension of the ascending node(s), and
(xiii) Estimated operational lifetime of each satellite in the
constellation.
(2) Certifications. Applicants must certify whether the following
criteria will or will not be met for all satellites that the applicant
proposes to operate under the license:
(i) The space station(s) will operate only in non-geostationary
orbit;
(ii) The space station(s) will be identifiable by a unique signal-
based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or
space objects;
(iii) The satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest
dimension;
(iv) The operator will take appropriate steps to assess and
mitigate collision risk upon receipt of a space situational awareness
conjunction warning, including, but not limited to: contacting the
operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning, sharing
ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information with any
such operator, and modifying satellite attitude and/or operations.
(v) The probability that any individual satellite will become a
source of debris by collision with small debris or meteoroids that
would cause loss of control and prevent disposal is 0.01 (1 in 100) or
less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing NASA
Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity assessment tool;
(vi) The probability of collision between each satellite and any
large object (10 centimeters or larger) during the orbital lifetime of
the space station, including any de-orbit phases is 0.001 (1 in 1,000)
or less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing
NASA Debris Assessment Software or higher fidelity tool. The collision
risk may be assumed zero for a satellite during any period in which the
satellite will be maneuvered effectively to avoid colliding with large
objects;
(vii) The probability of human casualty from portions of the
spacecraft surviving re-entry and reaching the surface of the Earth
with a kinetic energy in excess of 15 joules is 0.0001 (1 in 10,000) or
less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing NASA
Debris Assessment Software or higher fidelity tool;
(viii) The stored energy will be removed at the end of life for
each satellite, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all fuel line
valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all batteries in a
permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining source of stored
energy, or through other equivalent procedures;
(ix) The space station(s) will be disposed of via atmospheric re-
entry;
(x) The space station(s) will de-orbit no later than five years
after the end of the mission; and
(xi) The system will maintain a probability of success of disposal
of 0.9 or greater for any individual space station.
(3) Orbital debris. An orbital debris mitigation plan and end-of-
life disposal plan that demonstrates how the proposal will or will not
comply with Sec. Sec. 100.260 and 100.261 and that supports the
certifications made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(4) Additional information. Applicants must provide the following
information:
(i) Whether the applicant is requesting an authorization
conditioned on a deferred orbital debris showing under Sec.
100.139(a)(2).
(ii) If at any time during the space station(s)' mission or de-
orbit phase the space station(s) will transit through any orbits used
by any inhabitable spacecraft, a description of the design and
operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk
of collision and avoid posing any operational constraints to the
inhabitable spacecraft.
(iii) A description of the design, operation, capability and
reliability of maneuverability and deorbit systems, if any, including
the quantity of fuel that will be reserved for disposal maneuvers, as
well as the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the
proposed satellite(s).
(iv) If the space station(s) will not terminate operations in an
orbit in or passing through the low-Earth orbit region below 2000 km
altitude, the operator must submit a statement indicating whether
disposal will involve use of a storage orbit or long-term atmospheric
re-entry. If disposal will involve the use of a storage orbit, provide
a plot of the long-term (100 years or more) stability of the orbit
reflecting the orbit variations over time.
(d) Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System. An application for a
VTSS authorization must provide the following information, except that
applications filed pursuant to Sec. 100.139(a)(2) do not need to
provide the information required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section:
(1) Technical information:
[[Page 56391]]
(i) The number of spacecraft and the maximum number of spacecraft
operating at any one time if the number of operational spacecraft will
vary during the course of the license period;
(ii) The range of altitudes (or orbital shell(s)) in which the
space station(s) will operate;
(iii) The initial deployment apogee, perigee, and inclination, and
(iv) The planned amount of time expected to be spent in any
particular phase of the operations, including earth's orbit, transiting
to the moon, lunar orbit, lunar surface, transiting beyond the moon,
and/or operating on another celestial body, as applicable to the
individual application.
(2) Certifications. Applicants must certify whether the following
criteria will be met for all space station(s) proposed for operation
under the license:
(i) The space station(s) will be identifiable by a unique signal-
based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or
space objects.
(ii) The spacecraft will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest
dimension.
(iii) The operator will take appropriate steps to assess and
mitigate collision risk upon receipt of a space situational awareness
conjunction warning, including, but not limited to: contacting the
operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning, sharing
ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information with any
such operator, and modifying spacecraft attitude and/or operations.
(iv) Prior to, and during, any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and
proximity operations, the operator will share and update propagated
ephemeris and covariance data according to Sec. 100.200(c).
(v) If the spacecraft will terminate its mission beyond the
geosynchronous orbit, the spacecraft will be disposed of beyond Earth's
orbit.
(vi) For all related space stations under paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A),
operations will be conducted only with the consent of the operator of
the related station, and with certification from the other operator to
be submitted when consent is finalized.
(vii) For all related space stations under paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A),
the applicant is or will consult with other relevant federal agencies,
including but not limited to the State Department and the Commerce
Department, as necessary.
(viii) Operations that will terminate in low-earth orbit will
comply with Sec. 100.260(e).
(ix) Operations that will terminate at or near the GSO arc will
comply with Sec. 100.260(b).
(3) Negative certifications. If an applicant certifies in the
negative to the certifications required under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) or
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section, the applicant may submit one of
the following to avoid an exception to expedited processing under Sec.
100.140:
(i) A completed agreement with one or more relevant government
entities, (i.e., NOAA), approving of the system's space safety plan; or
(ii) Affirmative certifications to all required certifications for
an NGSO satellite system in paragraph (c)(2) of this section or a GSO
satellite system in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, depending on the
applicant's proposed operations. The applicant must also provide the
required orbital debris mitigation plan pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) or
(c)(3) of this section.
(4) Orbital debris. An orbital debris and end-of-life disposal plan
that demonstrates how the proposal will or will not comply with
Sec. Sec. 100.260 and 100.261 and supports the certifications pursuant
to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) Additional information. Applicants must provide the following
information:
(i) Whether the applicant is requesting a grant conditional on a
deferred orbital debris showing under Sec. 100.139(a)(2).
(ii) If at any time during the space station(s)' mission or de-
orbit phase the space station(s) will transit through any orbits used
by any inhabitable spacecraft, a description of the design and
operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk
of collision and avoid posing any operational constraints to the
inhabitable spacecraft.
(iii) Applicants planning to travel beyond the geosynchronous orbit
must provide the following information, if known at the time of filing.
In the case where such information is not known at the time of filing,
the applicant must affirmatively certify that this information will be
provided to the Commission as soon as practicable once the information
is known, and prior to beginning any such operations.
(A) A description of any instruments or rovers onboard the
spacecraft that will engage in radiofrequency communications with the
spacecraft while in transit or on the surface of the moon or any other
celestial body.
(B) A description of completed or planned coordination with
relevant government entities such as the National Science Foundation
(NSF), National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), or other similar
groups regarding radio astronomy or space research considerations that
may be impacted by any instruments or experiments to be conducted on
board or other mitigation of contamination of the lunar environment or
other celestial bodies.
(iv) Applicants planning to engage in servicing or otherwise
planning to interact with additional spacecraft on-orbit must provide
the following information, if known at the time of filing. In the case
where such information is not known at the time of filing, the
applicant must affirmatively certify that this information will be
provided to the Commission as soon as practicable once the information
is known, and prior to beginning any such operations.
(A) All FCC file numbers or call signs for any applications or
Commission grants related to the proposed operations (e.g.,
experimental license grants, other space station or earth station
applications or grants), including client space stations or spacecraft,
spacecraft that have become debris the applicant seeks to remediate,
and other space stations or spacecraft the applicant plans to interact
with as part of its operations.
(B) A list of the International Telecommunications Union filings
and United Nations Registration information, or the expected State of
United Nations Registry, for any space stations or spacecraft not
licensed or granted market access by the United States that are related
to the proposed operations, including client space stations or
spacecraft, spacecraft that have become debris the applicant seeks to
remediate, and other space stations or spacecraft the applicant plans
to interact with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
(C) A statement disclosing planned proximity operations and
addressing debris generation that will or may result from the proposed
operations, including any planned release of debris, the risk of
accidental explosions, the risk of accidental collision, and measures
taken to mitigate those risks.
Sec. 100.112 Space station frequency information requirements.
(a) Services identified. Space station applicants must identify all
services included in the proposed system.
(b) Required information. Applications must provide the following
information:
(1) The frequencies that the satellite proposes to both transmit
and receive on and the polarization and channelization plan (with
carrier
[[Page 56392]]
frequency and bandwidth of each channel) for each beam. For space
stations in which the channels are dynamically generated and the
bandwidth varies, specify only the range of frequencies in that band
over which the beam can operate and the polarization plan.
(2) An explanation of how uplink frequency bands would be connected
to downlink frequency bands.
(3) Identification of any requested bands for which there are
Federal allocations. Applicants shall provide sufficient information to
evaluate electromagnetic compatibility with the federal government use
of the spectrum, and any additional information requested by the
Commission. As part of the coordination process, applicants shall show
that they will not cause harmful interference to authorized federal
government users, based upon existing system information provided by
the federal government.
(4) For each space station, the maximum EIRP, maximum EIRP density
and emission bandwidth for each transmitting beam. If the satellite
uses shapeable antenna beams, specify instead the maximum possible
EIRP, maximum possible EIRP density and emission bandwidth within each
shapeable beam's proposed coverage area. Provide this information for
each frequency band in which the transmitting antenna would operate.
For bands below 15 GHz, specify EIRP density in dBW/4 kHz; for bands at
and above 15 GHz, specify EIRP density in dBW/MHz. If the EIRP density
varies, specify the maximum possible EIRP density.
(5) For each space station, the receive antenna gain and the gain-
to-temperature ratio at beam peak for each receiving beam. For
receiving beams fed into transponders, also specify the minimum and
maximum saturation flux density at beam peak. If the satellite uses
shapeable beams, specify the minimum and maximum gain-to-temperature
ratio and the corresponding receive antenna gains within each shapeable
beam's proposed coverage area. For shapeable receiving beams fed into
transponders, specify the minimum and maximum saturation power flux
density within the 0 dB relative antenna gain isoline. Provide this
information for each frequency band in which the receiving beam can
operate.
(6) For GSO space stations, the predicted antenna gain contour(s)
for each transmit and receive antenna beam. The contours should be
plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on the surface of the
earth with the space station's peak antenna gain pointed at nadir to a
latitude and longitude within the proposed service area. The contour(s)
should be plotted at 2 dB intervals down to 10 dB below the peak gain
and at 5 dB intervals between 10 dB and 20 dB below the peak gain. The
plots should be presented in a Graphical Interference Management System
(GIMS)-readable format. For intersatellite links, applicants must
specify the peak antenna gain and 3 dB beamwidth.
(7) For requests involving NGSO satellites, the predicted antenna
gain contour(s) plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on the
surface of the earth for each transmit and each receive antenna beam
for one space station for each orbital plane if all space stations in
the orbital plane are identical. If individual space stations in the
NGSO constellation have different antenna beam configurations, specify
the predicted antenna gain contours for each transmit and each receive
beam for each space station type in each orbital plane requested. The
contour(s) should be plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on
the surface of the earth with the space stations' peak antenna gain
pointed at nadir to a latitude and longitude within the proposed
service area. The contour(s) should be plotted at 2 dB intervals down
to 10 dB below the peak gain and at 5 dB intervals between 10 dB and 20
dB below the peak gain. The plots should be presented in a Graphical
Interference Management System (GIMS)-readable format. For
intersatellite links, applicants must specify the peak antenna gain and
3 dB beamwidth.
(8) For space stations with shapable antenna beams, the antenna
gain contours, as specified in (6) or (7) of this section, as
applicable, for the transmitting beam configuration that results in the
highest EIRP density, and the receiving beam configuration with the
smallest gain-to-temperature ratio and the highest saturation power
flux density for the beams listed in (5) of this section. If the beams
are also steerable, include the contours, plotted on an area map, of
the 0 dB and -3 dB relative antenna gain isolines that that would
result from moving the beam peak around the limit of the effective beam
peak area. The proposed maximum coverage area must be clearly
specified.
(9) For space stations with steerable antenna beams that are not
shapeable, in addition to (6) or (7) of this section, the contours,
plotted on an area map, of the 0 dB and -3 dB relative antenna gain
isolines that would result from moving the beam peak around the limit
of the effective beam peak area. The proposed maximum coverage area
must be clearly specified.
(10) In addition to (6) through (9) of this section, area maps
showing all of the transmit beams, and all of the receive beams,
depicted on the surface of the Earth.
(11) Transmitter and receiver characteristics (transmit power,
transmit antenna gain, EIRP density, emission bandwidth, receive
antenna gain, receiver noise temperature and receiver bandwidth) and
link budget for each of the different links.
(12) For each space station emission (space-to-Earth), the power
flux-density at the Earth's surface for the various angles of arrival
(0-5[deg], 5-25[deg], 25-90[deg]) above the horizontal plane under
free-space propagation conditions.
(13) A description how the requested spectrum can be shared with
both current and future operators, (e.g., antenna design, earth station
geographic locations) and whether operations will materially constrain
other operations in the requested frequency band(s).
(14) Whether the space station will operate on a common carrier
basis.
(c) Certifications. Applicants for space station licenses must
certify whether the following criteria will be met for all requested
space station(s):
(1) The space station(s) will comply with and operate within the
applicable service and frequency requirements and technical and
operational parameters outlined in the Commission's rules;
(2) The space station(s) will operate under ITU coordination
procedures and agreements; and
(3) The space station(s) can be commanded to immediately cease
transmissions and the licensee will have the capability to eliminate
harmful interference when required under the terms of the license or
other applicable regulations.
(d) Service-specific application requirements.
(1) Applications for SCS must also provide the information required
in Sec. 100.113.
(2) In the Direct Broadcast Satellite service, applicants and
licensees shall also provide the Commission with all information it
requires in order to modify the plans for the Broadcasting-Satellite
Service (BSS) in Appendix 30 of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR) and
associated feeder-link plans in Appendix 30A of the ITU RR, if the
system has technical characteristics differing from those specified in
the Appendix 30 BSS Plans, the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans, Annex 5
to Appendix 30, or Annex 3 to Appendix 30A. For such systems, no
protection from interference caused by radio
[[Page 56393]]
stations authorized by other Administrations is guaranteed until the
agreement of all affected Administrations is obtained and the frequency
assignment becomes a part of the appropriate Region 2 BSS and feeder-
link Plans. Authorizations for which coordination is not completed and/
or for which the necessary agreements under Appendices 30 and 30A have
not been obtained may be subject to additional terms and conditions as
required to effect coordination or obtain the agreement of other
Administrations. Applicants and licensees shall also provide the
Commission with the information required by Appendix 4 of the ITU RR
for advance publication and notification or coordination of the
frequencies to be used for tracking, telemetry and control functions of
DBS systems.
(3) Space station license applications must also include any
additional information required by applicable provisions in subpart C
of this part:
(i) NVNG MSS in 137-138 MHz, 148-150.05 MHz, 399.9-400.05 MHz, and
400.15-401. See Sec. 100.220.
(ii) 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz MSS. See Sec. 100.214.
(iii) SDARS in 2.3 GHz. See Sec. 100.250.
(iv) NGSO FSS in 10.7-30 GHz. See Sec. 100.222.
(v) DBS in 12.2-12.7 GHz. See Sec. 100.233.
(vi) GSO FSS or BSS in 17.3-17.8 GHz. See Sec. 100.231 and Sec.
100.232.
(vii) GSO FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS. See Sec. 100.230 and Sec.
100.234.
(viii) Inter-satellite service. See Sec. 100.240(c).
(ix) Default service rules. For space station operations in a
frequency band where band-specific service rules have not yet been
adopted, see Sec. 100.204.
Sec. 100.113 Additional information for supplemental coverage from
space.
(a) SCS entry criteria. This section applies only to applicants
seeking to provide SCS. An applicant for SCS space station
authorization must hold either an existing NGSO or GSO license or grant
of U.S. market access under this part, or must be seeking an NGSO or
GSO license or grant of U.S. market access under this part, and must
have a lease arrangement(s) or agreement pursuant to Sec. 1.9047 of
this chapter with one or more terrestrial wireless licensee(s) that
hold, collectively or individually, all co-channel licenses throughout
a GIA in a band identified in Sec. 2.106(d)(33)(i) of this chapter.
Applicants for SCS space stations must comply with the requirements set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) SCS space station application requirements. An applicant
seeking a space station authorization to provide SCS must either submit
an application requesting modification of a current NGSO or GSO license
or grant of U.S. market access under this part, or an application
seeking a new NGSO or GSO license or grant of U.S. market access under
this part.
(1) The application must certify that:
(i) A lease notification(s) or application(s), pursuant to Sec.
1.9047 of this chapter, where a single terrestrial wireless licensee
holds or multiple co-channel licensees collectively hold all co-channel
licenses within the relevant Geographically Independent Area (GIA) in
the bands identified in Sec. 2.106(d)(33)(i) of this chapter, or as it
pertains to FirstNet, an agreement, is on file with the Commission;
(ii) The current space station licensee under this part or grantee
of market access for NGSO or GSO satellite operation under this part
seeks modification of authority to provide SCS in the same geographic
areas covered in the relevant GIA, or the applicant for a space station
license under this part or grant of market access for NGSO or GSO
satellite operation under this part seeks to provide SCS in the same
geographic areas covered in the relevant GIA; and
(iii) SCS earth stations will qualify as ``licensed by rule'' earth
stations under Sec. 100.120(e).
(2) The application must include a proposal for the prospective SCS
system and the certifications described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(3) The application must include a list of the file and
identification numbers associated with the relevant leasing
notifications under part 1 of this chapter, application(s), and FCC
Form 601(s).
(4) The application must provide a description of the coverage
areas that will be served both domestically and internationally, as
applicable.
(5) If the licensee is seeking to provide SCS in a foreign
administration with a foreign terrestrial partner then the licensee
must submit a request for authorization via ICFS to operate in a
foreign country which must include a letter from the communications
authority approving the SCS operations as well as a letter from the
mobile operator certifying that there is a lease agreement between them
and the licensee. This request must include the frequencies of
operation and a certification that cross-border interference has been
assessed and the operations proposed will not cause harmful
interference to stations in other countries.
(c) Equipment authorization for SCS earth stations. Each SCS earth
station used to provide SCS under this section must meet the equipment
authorization requirements under paragraph (d) of this section and all
equipment authorization requirements for all intended uses of the
device pursuant to the procedures specified in part 2 of this chapter
and the requirements of at least one of part 22, 24, or 27 of this
chapter.
(d) SCS earth station equipment certification requirements.
Applicants for certification for SCS earth stations for use with a
satellite system must meet all requirements for equipment certification
and equipment test data necessary to demonstrate compliance with
pertinent standards under parts 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter as
applicable.
(e) Effective date and continued operation of SCS authorization.
SCS authorization will be deemed effective in the Commission's records
and for purposes of the application of the rules set forth in this
section after each of the following requirements is satisfied:
(1) Grant of:
(i) A modification application under this part or request for
modification of a grant of market access; or
(ii) An application to launch and operate or for market access;
(2) Approval of a leasing arrangement(s) or agreement(s) under part
1 of this chapter; and
(3) Grant of a valid SCS earth station equipment certification
under part 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 100.114 Requests for U.S. market access.
(a) Petitioners for a grant of U.S. market access must provide all
the applicable information for the type of system for which they are
requesting market access as described in Sec. Sec. 100.110 through
100.113 and the application requirements general to all applications
described in Sec. Sec. 100.100 and 100.101.
(b) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling seeking to
access the United States market using a non-U.S.-licensed space station
must provide an exhibit demonstrating:
(1) That U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive
opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the
non-U.S. licensed space station is licensed; and
(2) For requests to operate using a space station that is not
licensed by, or seeking a license from, a member nation of the World
Trade Organization for services covered under the WTO BTA, that U.S.-
licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to
provide analogous services in all countries in which communications
[[Page 56394]]
will originate or terminate. The application must include a statement
that grant is in the public interest, and the applicant bears the
burden of showing that there are no practical or legal constraints that
limit or prevent access of U.S. space stations in the relevant foreign
markets.
(c) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling seeking to
access the United States must demonstrate that the system, at the time
of filing:
(1) Is in orbit and operational;
(2) Has a license from another administration; or
(3) Has been submitted for coordination to the ITU and has been
published as ``as received.''
(d) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling to access the
United States market must certify that the non-U.S. licensed space
station has complied with all applicable Commission requirements,
including but not limited to the following:
(1) Milestones.
(2) Reporting requirements.
(3) Any other applicable service rules.
(4) The surety bond requirement pursuant to Sec. 100.148, for non-
U.S.-licensed space stations that are not in orbit and operating.
(5) Entities that have one market access request on file with the
Commission for NGSO satellite system operations in a particular
frequency band will not be permitted to request access to the U.S.
market for another NGSO satellite system in that frequency band in the
same processing round subject to Sec. Sec. 100.141 and 100.241.
(e) Non-U.S. licensed space station operators may file initial
petitions for U.S. market access, amendments to petitions, petitions
for modification of U.S. market access, petitions for special temporary
market access, and other requests for Commission action using the same
procedures as space station license applicants, provided they comply
with all relevant application and operational requirements, and unless
otherwise provided in this part.
(f) A non-U.S. licensed space station operator with a grant of
market access may seek special temporary access for operations under
the procedures set forth in Sec. 100.144.
Earth Station Applications
Sec. 100.120 Earth station licensing application requirements.
(a) Requirements for all earth station license applications.
(1) All applicants must provide the name, address, email, and
telephone number of the person(s) or entity with the authority and
capability to cease transmissions of any service for which the
application seeks authority. This person or entity must be available
24/7, 365 days a year and be located within the United States.
(2) Earth station applicants must certify whether the applicant
will operate the earth station at the lowest power level to close the
link as required by Sec. 100.201.
(3) A certification whether the application complies with all the
Commission's rules or if a waiver is requested of any Commission rule.
(4) Earth station applicants must provide the following technical
information:
(i) Whether the request is for a blanket license;
(ii) The frequencies that the earth station(s) propose(s) to use;
(iii) If requesting a location area other than nationwide blanket
authorization, the applicant must provide the geographic coordinates
and operating radius of the earth station(s);
(iv) The proposed relevant power, out of band emission, off axis
limits, and power density limits as described in Sec. Sec. 100.270-
100.280;
(v) The antenna type;
(vi) The number of antennas or devices if not requesting an
unlimited number;
(vii) If the applicant is not seeking 360 degree coordination, the
maximum and minimum elevation and azimuth angles for intended
operations for the antenna; and
(viii) Any additional information necessary to complete
coordination with federal entities.
(b) Additional service-specific information.
(1) Type of application. Earth station applicants must identify
whether their application is for an Immovable earth station, user
terminal including VSATs and transportable, ESIM, or mobile earth
station.
(2) Additional requirements for Immovable earth station
authorizations.
(i) Applicants must certify whether the following criteria will or
will not be met for all Immovable Earth Stations to be operated under
the license:
(A) For non-Nationwide, Non-Site Licenses, that the applicant has
completed all required location and frequency specific coordination.
(B) For Nationwide, Non-Site Licenses, that the applicant will
register all site locations in ICFS or a successor system and will
complete all required location and frequency specific coordination for
the registered sites prior to operation.
(C) That the proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of
band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described
in Sec. Sec. 100.270-100.280.
(ii) Applicants must also provide the geographic coordinates of the
proposed Immovable Earth Station for those applications that do not
affirmatively certify to all application requirements, or that request
a waiver of the Commission's rules, or are subject to an exception
outlined in Sec. 100.140 other than federal coordination, or that are
not seeking Nationwide, Non-Site License.
(3) Additional requirements for user terminals and Earth Stations
in Motion authorizations. Applicants must certify whether the following
will be met for all User Terminals or Earth Stations in Motion to be
operated under the license:
(i) That the proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of
band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described
in Sec. 100.282.
(ii) The radiofrequency exposure meets the requirements of Sec.
100.270.
(iii) The applicant has completed all required location and
frequency specific coordination.
(4) Additional requirements for mobile earth station
authorizations. Applicants must certify whether the following will be
met for all mobile earth stations to be operated under the license:
(i) The proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of band
emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described in
Sec. Sec. 100.270-100.280 and 100.283.
(ii) The radiofrequency exposure meets the requirements of Sec.
100.270.
(c) Earth stations subject to Sec. 100.281. Earth stations
proposing to operate in frequencies subject to Sec. 100.281 must
provide all information required under Sec. 100.281 and any additional
information required under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) SCS earth stations application requirements.
(1) An applicant seeking to use SCS earth stations to provide
Supplemental Coverage from Space must comply with Sec. 100.113.
(2) A satellite operator licensed under Sec. 100.113 to provide
SCS is permitted to communicate with all terrestrial wireless
licensee(s)-associated SCS earth stations that have been approved for
such use under part 2 of this chapter.
(i) Such earth stations must show compliance with this part and at
least one of either part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter to provide SCS
within the technical parameters and provisions associated with the
device certification.
(ii) The device certification must show compliance with the
licensed parameters of the terrestrial wireless
[[Page 56395]]
license(s) and at least one of either part 22, 24, or 27 of this
chapter, as applicable.
(3) An earth station may be used for the provision of SCS when:
(i) The satellite operator licensed under Sec. 100.113 is a party
to a valid and approved spectrum leasing arrangement or agreement
pursuant to Sec. 1.9047 of this chapter with at least one terrestrial
wireless licensee(s) licensed under one of either part 22, 24, or 27 of
this chapter; and
(ii) That terrestrial wireless licensee(s) has met and operates
within all conditions associated with the relevant terrestrial wireless
license(s).
(4) A satellite operator authorized to provide SCS under Sec.
100.113 is authorized under this section to communicate with SCS earth
stations for any period during which each of the following apply:
(i) The service is provided during the valid duration of any
spectrum leasing arrangement or agreement pursuant to Sec. 1.9047 of
this chapter between the terrestrial wireless licensee(s) and satellite
operator;
(ii) The devices to which service is provided are certified under
part 2 of this chapter; and
(iii) The terrestrial wireless licensee(s) is a valid licensee(s)
under part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter.
(5) A satellite operator with SCS authorization via a grant of
market access can avail itself of the provisions of this paragraph but,
in addition to the parameters established in this section, must also
comply with any additional parameters included in the satellite
operator's space station market access grant.
(6) A space station licensee operating in conformance with the
parameters established in this part does not need a separate earth
station authorization for the provision of SCS under this part.
(e) Other requirements in subpart C. Applicants for earth station
authorizations must also submit any information required by applicable
provisions in subpart C of this part:
(1) Radiofrequency exposure reports. See Sec. 100.270,
(2) Siting. See Sec. 100.276.
(3) MSS and ATC. See Sec. 100.283.
(4) Receive-only earth stations. See Sec. 100.273.
(5) Analog video transmissions in 5925-6425 MHz and 14-14.5 GHz.
See Sec. 100.234.
(6) Temporary-fixed earth stations. See Sec. 100.274.
(7) UMFUS. See Sec. 100.281.
(8) Coordination and sharing requirements. See Sec. 100.276.
Sec. 100.121 Earth station application processing.
(a) For applications for which there are no exceptions to expedited
processing pursuant to Sec. 100.140:
(1) The application will be placed on public notice pursuant to
Sec. 100.132(2)(i);
(2) When an application is placed on public notice pursuant to this
subsection, the applicant may begin operating pursuant to the
parameters requested in the underlying application that have already
been coordinated, if coordination is required as reflected in the filed
coordination report. These operations must be on a non-interference,
unprotected basis until further action is taken by the Commission on
the application.
(b) For applications that are subject to one of the exceptions in
Sec. 100.140:
(1) The application will be placed on public notice pursuant to
Sec. 100.132(2)(ii).
(2) An application placed on public notice pursuant to this
subsection may not begin operations until authorized to do so by the
Commission.
(3) An applicant for an immovable earth station that affirmatively
certifies to all application requirements in Sec. 100.120 may apply
for a Nationwide, Non-Site License. Applicants who seek to operate in
frequency bands subject to federal coordination may apply for a blanket
authorization or a Nationwide, Non-Site License pursuant to the limits
and requirements established in Sec. Sec. 100.139 and 100.140.
(c) A licensee with a Nationwide, Non-Site License for Immovable
Earth Stations must register earth station sites in accordance with the
Commission's guidance and certify that any necessary location and
frequency specific coordination has been completed prior to operations
within the period described in Sec. 100.275.
General Application Processing
Sec. 100.130 Receipt of applications.
Applications received by the Commission are given a file number and
a unique station identifier for administrative convenience. Neither the
assignment of a file number and/or other identifier nor the listing of
the application on public notice as received for filing indicates that
the application has been found acceptable for filing or precludes
subsequent return or dismissal of the application if it is found to be
defective or not in accordance with the Commission's rules.
Sec. 100.131 Completeness.
(a) An application will be considered complete if, under the
relevant rule section(s), all required information, forms,
certifications, exhibits, and showings are included in the application.
(b) Applications with negative certifications and without the
appropriate waiver requests or additional information are incomplete
and may be dismissed.
(c) If an application is determined to be complete, the Commission
will place the application on public notice pursuant to Sec. 100.132.
(d) If an application is determined to be incomplete, the
Commission will provide notice within 30 days of filing to the
applicant identifying deficiencies related to the completeness of the
application. An applicant receiving such notice must either amend or
supplement the filed application within 30 days from the date of
receipt of notice or the application will be dismissed subject to Sec.
100.135.
Sec. 100.132 Public notice.
(a) Public notices for space station license or market access
requests.
(1) At regular intervals, the Commission will issue public notices
listing:
(i) The receipt of applications for new space station licenses that
have been accepted for filing;
(ii) The receipt of applications for major amendments to pending
applications;
(iii) The receipt of applications for major modifications to space
station authorizations;
(iv) Applications for special temporary authority filed pursuant to
Sec. 100.144(d);
(v) Significant Commission actions regarding applications; or
(vi) Information that the Commission in its discretion believes to
be of public significance.
(2) The following public notice periods will apply to applications
that are accepted for filing:
(i) Applications not subject to any identified exceptions under
Sec. 100.140 or paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section and STAs filed
pursuant to Sec. 100.144(d)(2) will be placed on public notice for a
period of seven days.
(ii) Applications subject to an identified exception under Sec.
100.140 and major amendments under 100.143(c) will be placed on public
notice for a period of 15 days.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(2)(i)-(ii) of this section,
applications for stations in the broadcasting or common carrier
services, or stations listed in Sec. 309(b)(2)(A)-(E), subject to
Section 309 of the Communications Act will be placed on public notice
[[Page 56396]]
following the procedures described in Section 309 of the Communications
Act for a period of at least 30 days.
(b) Public notices for earth station license requests.
(1) At regular intervals, the Commission will issue public notices
listing:
(i) The receipt of new earth station applications that have been
accepted for filing;
(ii) The receipt of applications for major amendments to pending
applications;
(iii) The receipt of applications for major modifications to earth
station authorizations;
(iv) Applications for special temporary authority filed pursuant to
Sec. 100.144(d); and
(v) Information that the Commission in its discretion believes to
be of public significance or where speed is of the essence and
efficiency of Commission process will be served thereby.
(2) The following public notice periods will apply to applications
that are accepted for filing:
(i) Applications will be subject to the operation procedures
described in Sec. 100.121.
(ii) Applications eligible for expedited processing and STAs filed
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 100.144(b)(2)(iv) and (d)(2) or of this chapter
will be placed on public notice for a period of seven days.
(iii) Applications that that are not eligible for expedited
processing under Sec. 100.140 and major amendments under Sec.
100.143(c) will be placed on public notice for a period of 15 days.
(iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-(iii) of this section,
applications for stations in the broadcasting or common carrier
services, or stations listed in Sec. 309(b)(2)(A)-(E), subject to
Section 309 of the Communications Act will be placed on public notice
following the procedures described in section 309 of the Communications
Act for a period of at least 30 days.
(c) Time periods for public notice. The Commission may, in its sole
discretion or upon request by an applicant, petitioner, or commenter,
extend or shorten the public notice periods outlined herein, except for
applications subject to the requirements of Sec. 309(b) of the
Communications Act.
Sec. 100.133 Opposition to applications and other pleadings.
(a) Oppositions, including petitions to deny, petitions for other
forms of relief, and other objections must:
(1) Identify the application(s) (including applicant's name,
station location, Commission file numbers, and radio service and
frequencies involved) with which it is concerned;
(2) Contain the specific allegations of fact to support the relief
requested, which shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons
with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to
demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest
and that a grant of, or other Commission action regarding, the
application would be inconsistent with any of the rules in this chapter
or the Communications Act, or otherwise inconsistent with the public
interest;
(3) Be timely filed within the designated public notice period,
unless designated otherwise by the Commission;
(4) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods,
and other applicable provisions of Sec. Sec. 1.41 through 1.52 of this
chapter, except that such pleadings or filings must be filed
electronically through ICFS; and
(5) Contain a certificate of service showing that it has been
served on the applicant in accordance with Sec. 1.47 of this chapter
no later than the date the pleading is filed with the Commission.
(b) Reply comments by the party who filed the original pleading
must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for
filing oppositions.
(c) Pleadings, oppositions, and comments filed pursuant to this
section must address the merits and/or public interest considerations
of the application(s) with which they are concerned. Pleadings,
oppositions, and comments outside the scope of the application or
applications will not be considered.
(1) Pleadings, oppositions, and comments may only be filed during
the public notice period. Pleadings, oppositions, and comments filed
outside of the public notice period will not be considered without a
petition requesting the Commission for leave to file.
(2) An applicant may reply to any pleadings, oppositions, or
comments filed against their application within five days of a filing
filed pursuant to this section even if the public notice period has
closed and need not file a request for leave to file.
(d) The Commission may, in its sole discretion upon request by a
petitioner, commenter, or applicant, extend or shorten the filing
periods outlined herein, except that the Commission may not shorten the
30-day notice period for applications subject to the requirements of
section 309(b) of the Communications Act.
Sec. 100.134 Information requests.
(a) The Commission may request additional information from
applicants and licensees to:
(1) Determine completeness of an application;
(2) Understand the facts of informational showings,
inconsistencies, execution, or other technical matters, if the factual
issue is directly material to the review;
(3) Determine whether an exception in Sec. 100.140 applies to an
application;
(4) Resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings, objections, or
comments;
(5) Evaluate compliance with the Commission's rules, the
Communications Act, or other requirements; or
(6) Consider issues which are directly material and necessary for
the Commission to evaluate the merits of an application, including
evaluating exceptions in Sec. 100.140, under the Commission's rules.
(b) Following any filing period pursuant to Sec. Sec. 100.132 and
100.133, the Commission will identify all deficiencies requiring
additional information or clarification and notify the applicant as
follows:
(1) The Commission must clearly identify any deficiencies with an
application as soon as practicable;
(2) The Commission must raise all known or identified deficiencies
in an initial request for information;
(3) Applicants must respond completely to all deficiencies raised
in a request for additional information within the prescribed time
frame and in the manner required by the information request;
(4) If an applicant's response raises additional issues outside the
scope of an initial information request the Commission may request
additional information from the applicant; and
(5) Nothing in this rule part prevents the Commission from issuing
subsequent information requests if the applicant fails to fully respond
to the initial information request except that the Commission must
adhere to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) of this
section when issuing any subsequent information requests.
Sec. 100.135 Dismissal and return of applications.
(a) Unless otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an
application is without prejudice.
(b) An application will be deemed unacceptable for filing and may
be dismissed with a brief statement identifying the reason if:
(1) The application is determined incomplete pursuant to Sec.
100.131 and
[[Page 56397]]
the applicant does not complete the application within 30 days of a
notice of deficiency from the Commission;
(2) The application does not contain all necessary forms, unless
the applicant is filing the FCC Form 312--Main Form without any
associated schedules pursuant to Sec. 100.101;
(3) The application fails to propose a Licensable System as defined
in Sec. 100.3;
(4) The application is filed for a specific type of authority
(i.e., NGSO satellite system, GSO satellite system, VTSS) that does not
align with the proposed operations;
(5) The application or any associated waiver requests do not comply
with the relevant application requirements as described Sec. Sec.
100.100 through 100.121;
(6) The application is duplicative of a pending application on file
with the Commission; or
(7) The application contains, or clearly appears to contain,
materially false information.
(c) Applications for space station licenses found defective under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be accepted for filing if:
(1) The application is accompanied by a request which sets forth
the reasons in support of a waiver of (or exception to), in whole or in
part, any specific rule, regulation, or requirement with which the
application is in conflict; or
(2) The Commission, upon its own motion, waives (or allows an
exception to), in whole or in part, any rule, regulation, or
requirement.
(d) The Commission will dismiss an application for failure to
prosecute or failure to respond substantially within a specified time
period to official correspondence or requests for additional
information.
(e) An application that is not accompanied by the appropriate
application fee in accordance with part 1, subpart G of this chapter
will be dismissed by the Commission.
(f) An applicant may request that an application be dismissed or
returned without action at any time prior to final action by the
Commission but will not be entitled to a refund of filing fees.
(g) Applicants may withdraw an application at any time prior to
final action by the Commission. Withdrawal will be without prejudice.
Sec. 100.136 Consideration of applications.
(a) Applications for a new space station or earth station
authorization, or for modification or renewal of an existing station
authorization, will be reviewed under the presumption that any
requested authorization is in the public interest if the application
demonstrates compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations, and
policies.
(b) An application will be granted if, upon examination of the
application, any pleadings or objections filed, and upon consideration
of such other matters as it may officially notice, the Commission finds
that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise qualified,
that the proposed facilities and operations comply with all applicable
rules, regulations, and policies, and that grant of the application
will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Sec. 100.137 Amendments to applications.
(a) General. Except as specified in this section, any pending
application may be amended prior to final action being taken by the
Commission. Amendments will not be placed on public notice under Sec.
100.132 unless the Commission determines that the amendment qualifies
as a major amendment under paragraph (b) of this section or that
placing the amendment on public notice is otherwise in the public
interest.
(b) Major amendments. Major amendments submitted pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section establish a new filing date for the part
of the application being amended and are subject to the process for
initial applications, including completeness, public notice, and
dismissal rules. Major amendments may not be filed later than 45 days
from the date of filing of associated pending application. Major
amendments filed 45 days or later from the initial date of filing will
be dismissed pursuant to Sec. 100.135. An amendment will be deemed as
a major amendment under the following circumstances:
(1) It would result in an exception under Sec. 100.140;
(2) It requests a waiver of the Commission's rules;
(3) It would increase power, power density, or increase in the out-
of-band emissions beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules;
(4) It would result in modification of the antenna pattern(s) or
antenna gain characteristics beyond what is permitted in the
Commission's rules;
(5) It would require operations outside of already coordinated
ranges or require re-coordination with federal agencies;
(6) It seeks to add frequencies;
(7) It would cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to
humans beyond what is permitted pursuant to Sec. 100.270;
(8) For non-blanket licensed earth stations, it proposes a change
of more than 10 seconds from the initially requested location; or
(9) If the amendment, or the cumulative effect of the amendment, is
determined by the Commission otherwise to be substantial pursuant to
section 309 of the Communications Act.
Sec. 100.138 Application processing timelines.
(a) Processing timelines for space stations.
(1) For an application for a space station authorization, no later
than 30 days after the application is filed and application fee has
been paid as reflected in the FCC's fee filing system, the Commission
will place the application on public notice, dismiss the application,
or identify for the applicant additional information required to
achieve completeness.
(2) The Space Bureau will place an application on public notice as
soon as practicable once an application is determined to be complete
pursuant to Sec. 100.131.
(3) If full action (i.e., grant, conditional grant, denial,
dismissal) has not been taken on the space station application within
60 days following the end of the public notice period, the Commission
will inform the applicant and the public of the reason(s) preventing
grant with particular note to any and all identified exceptions under
Sec. 100.140.
(b) Processing timelines for earth stations.
(1) For an earth station application filed pursuant to Sec.
100.120, no later than 30 days after the application is filed and
application fees have been received as reflected in the FCC's fee
filing system, the Commission will place the application on Public
Notice, dismiss the application, or identify for the applicant
additional information required to achieve completeness.
(2) The Bureau will place an application on Public Notice as soon
as practicable once an application is determined to be complete.
(3) If full action (i.e., grant, conditional grant, denial,
dismissal) has not been taken on the earth station application within
60 days following the end of the public notice period, the Commission
will inform the applicant and the public of the reason(s) preventing
grant with particular note to any and all identified exceptions under
Sec. 100.140.
(4) Applications for earth station renewals that affirmatively
certify to all certifications described in Sec. 100.120 and do not
request a waiver of any of the Commission's rules will be deemed
granted 30 days after filing the
[[Page 56398]]
application and payment of any application fees unless the Commission
notifies the applicant otherwise prior to the expiration of the 30
days.
Sec. 100.139 Conditional grants.
(a) The Commission may conditionally grant an application under the
circumstances described in this section.
(1) Expedited processing conditional grant. An application that is
not subject to any of the exceptions under Sec. 100.140, that is
deemed complete and accepted for filing, placed on public notice and
for which no objections, comments, or other petitions are filed will be
conditionally granted upon the expiration of the public notice period,
subject to the outcome of the Commission's determination on the
application and any terms and conditions of grant following completion
of review.
(2) Operations. A licensee of a conditional grant under this
section, issued under Sec. 100.139(a)(1), must operate subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Operations authorized by the conditional grant under this
section must be on an unprotected, non-interference basis and are
limited only to the operations requested and coordinated, if
coordination is required, in the underlying application;
(ii) The space station may be launched or integrated into a launch
vehicle only with express approval from the Commission;
(iii) Operations under a conditional grant are entirely at the
grant holder's own risk and the Commission may revoke the conditional
grant at any time. Upon receipt of revocation notice from the
Commission, the conditional licensee or grantee must immediately cease
all operations, other than those required to maintain control of the
apparatus.
(3) Orbital debris deferral. The Commission may issue a conditional
grant to an applicant if the applicant elects to defer providing the
required orbital debris showing, subject to the following requirements:
(i) The applicant must provide all information required by
Sec. Sec. 100.110, 100.111, 100.112, and 100.113, as necessary, except
the orbital debris plan and related certifications.
(ii) The applicant must certify that the finished and operational
satellite system detailed in the application will comply with all the
requirements in Sec. 100.260 and Sec. 100.111, including affirmative
certifications.
(iii) The applicant must certify that it will submit a complete
orbital debris plan that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 100.260 and
supports the affirmative orbital debris certifications in Sec. 100.111
at least 6 months prior to integration of any satellites for which
authority is sought with a launch vehicle.
(iv) A licensee conditionally authorized under this section that
cannot demonstrate compliance with Sec. 100.260 or provide an orbital
debris mitigation plan that supports the affirmative orbital debris
certifications in Sec. 100.111 at least 6 months prior to integration
with a launch vehicle must file a major modification application
pursuant to Sec. 100.143 and receive Commission approval prior to
beginning operations.
(A) The filing of a major modification under paragraph (a)(3)(iv)
of this section will render the conditional grant null and void.
(B) The major modification will be placed on public notice pursuant
to Sec. 100.132.
(4) Commercial coordination. If an applicant is coordinating with
other operators in certain frequency bands not subject to federal
coordination, but the application is otherwise eligible for grant, the
Commission may grant the application conditioned upon any portion(s) of
the application not subject to ongoing coordination and condition grant
of the remaining portion(s) of the application on notice to the
Commission of successful coordination, provided that the applicant is
coordinating in good faith.
(5) Withholding conditional grants. The Commission may, at its
discretion and after providing notice to the applicant, withhold
conditional grant and instead complete its review of the application
without conditionally granting the application prior to completion of
review. A conditional grant is not a final determination on the merits
of the application and does not convey any rights to the applicant to
receive a license under Sec. Sec. 100.100 through 100.121.
Sec. 100.140 Exceptions to expedited processing for applications.
(a) For complete applications, exceptions to expedited processing
will be identified based on the materials available to the Commission.
(b) Applications for which there are no exceptions identified are
presumed eligible for grant in the public interest and generally will
be acted upon as soon as practicable while applications with identified
exceptions will require additional review to determine if a grant is in
the public interest.
(c) Exceptions to expedited processing are as follows:
(1) Negative certifications.
(i) If an applicant does not affirmatively certify to all of the
certifications required in the application and described in Sec. Sec.
100.100 through 100.121, that are applicable to the request, the
Commission will remove the application from expedited processing.
(ii) The Commission will review materials supplied regarding any
negative certifications to determine with respect to that element of
the application whether grant is in the public interest.
(2) Requests for waiver.
(i) If an application is accompanied by a request for waiver of the
Commission's rules the Commission will remove the request from
expedited processing unless the waiver request is deemed to be for a
purely administrative issue;
(ii) The Commission will review materials supplied regarding the
waiver request to determine whether grant of the waiver is in the
public interest.
(3) Foreign ownership. The Commission will review materials
supplied regarding reportable foreign ownership to determine whether
grant is in the public interest.
(4) Processing round.
(i) If the Commission determines that an application or petition
for declaratory ruling to access the U.S. market should be subject to
processing round procedures, the Commission will place an application
into the appropriate processing round pursuant to the procedures
described in Sec. 100.141.
(ii) The Commission will place an application into a processing
round if it determines:
(A) the application seeks to operate in a frequency band identified
by the Commission as a ``processing round-eligible'' frequency band;
and
(B) the applicant is subject to the surety bond requirement
pursuant to Sec. 100.148(a); or
(C) If the applicant is not subject to the surety bond requirement
but requests inclusion into a processing round for a processing-round
eligible frequency band.
(iii) If the Commission grants an authorization for an NGSO
satellite system outside of a processing round, then the operations of
the NGSO satellite system must be compatible with existing operations
in the authorized frequency band(s) and must not materially constrain
future space station entrants from using the authorized frequency
band(s).
(5) Spectral constraints. Based upon review of the application, the
Commission determines that the
[[Page 56399]]
frequencies that the applicant seeks to use are limited in the use
either by rule, by existing users, or by international arrangement.
(6) Federal coordination. Applications requesting use of bands
shared with federal operations will be removed from expedited
processing.
(7) Market access. Petitions for declaratory ruling for U.S. market
access will be removed from expedited processing and handled pursuant
to Sec. 100.114.
(d) The Commission will determine whether a request for
authorization is in the public interest despite any identified
exceptions, after reviewing materials provided by the applicant and any
comments received with respect to each element of a request related to
the identified exception.
(e) In addition to applying any other applicable Commission rules,
statutory requirements, and public interest considerations, the
Commission will determine whether an element of a request related to an
identified exception is in the public interest based on whether
granting the request would result in a net benefit to the United
States.
Sec. 100.141 Processing rounds for NGSO satellite system
applications.
(a) The Commission will annually determine specific frequency bands
that will be subject to processing rounds. The Commission will announce
the list of frequency bands automatically subject to processing rounds
via public notice.
(b) Band-specific processing rounds will open on January 1st at
12:00 a.m. Eastern Time of every year and will close the processing
round at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 31st of the same year.
(1) All applications that are granted in the same year that meet
the criteria of Sec. 100.140(c)(4)(ii) will automatically be
considered part of the band-specific processing round for that year.
(2) FSS system licensees authorized in the same processing round
must share spectrum in accordance with Sec. 100.241(c).
(3) If two or more non-FSS system licensees are authorized in the
same processing round, they will be required to coordinate on an equal
basis to share the spectrum among all operators licensed in the same
processing round. A licensee authorized in an earlier processing round
may not prevent licensees granted in later processing rounds from
accessing spectrum.
(4) Applications granted in the same processing round will have
equal priority that will sunset ten years after the close of the
processing round.
(5) Applications granted in subsequent processing rounds must
coordinate with and protect already granted operations for a period of
ten years from the date of grant.
(c) If an NGSO satellite system operator is licensed in a frequency
band prior to the first processing round for that frequency band, the
operator must comply with any sharing requirements later applied to
licensees authorized in the first processing round in that band.
Sec. 100.142 First-come, first-served application processing for GSO
systems.
Applications processed on a first-come, first-served basis will be
placed in a queue and considered in the order in which they are filed.
Such applications will be granted only if the proposed operation will
not cause harmful interference to any previously authorized operations,
and the application otherwise meets the criteria for grant.
Sec. 100.143 Modifications.
(a) General. A licensee may request to modify any portion of a
license subject to the requirements described in this section and any
conditions placed on the license.
(b) Modifications not requiring notification. A licensee may modify
system operations without notifying the Commission unless the change is
a major or minor modification pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section.
(c) Major modifications.
(1) Major modification requests will be considered as initial
requests for licenses under this paragraph.
(2) A major modification is any modification that would:
(i) Result in an exception under Sec. 100.140;
(ii) Require a waiver of the Commission's rules;
(iii) Increase power, power density, or increase in the out-of-band
emissions beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules or limits
placed on a license;
(iv) Modify the antenna pattern(s) or antenna gain characteristics
or expand the coverage area beyond what is permitted under the
licensee's authorization;
(v) Require operations outside of already coordinated ranges or
require re-coordination with federal agencies;
(vi) Add frequencies;
(vii) Increase any orbital debris risk beyond that permitted in the
licensee's authorization;
(viii) Cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to humans
beyond what is permitted pursuant to Sec. 100.270; or
(ix) Remove or change conditions on a license.
(3) A licensee granted a conditional authorization pursuant to
Sec. 100.139(a)(2) that is unable to certify in the affirmative to all
orbital debris certification requirements at the time of submitting
orbital debris information must file a major modification pursuant to
this section.
(4) Major modifications require prior authorization from the
Commission before a licensee may begin any operations as proposed in
the modification.
(5) Applications for major modifications must comply with the
application and processing requirements described in Sec. Sec. 100.100
through 100.121.
(6) Applications for major modifications will be placed on public
notice pursuant to Sec. 100.132.
(d) Minor modifications.
(1) Notification required within 30 days after modification.
(i) A licensee may move and locate satellites across already
authorized orbital shells and altitudes but must submit a notification
via ICFS no later than 30 days after the change.
(ii) Satellite operators may commence operations in inclined orbit
mode without obtaining prior Commission authorization provided that the
Commission is notified no later than 30 days after the last north-south
station keeping maneuver. The notification must include:
(A) The operator's name;
(B) The date of commencement of inclined orbit operation;
(C) The initial inclination;
(D) The rate of change in inclination per year; and
(E) The expected end-of-life of the satellite accounting for
inclined orbit operation, and the maneuvers specified under Sec.
100.260 of the Commission's rules for end-of-life disposal.
(2) Notification required prior to modification.
(i) Space station operators may change an antenna, sensor, or
microelectronics upon 30 days prior notification to the Commission, if
the changes do not cause a change that would result in a major
modification.
(ii) An earth station operator may add a point of communication
upon seven days prior notification to the Commission.
(A) An earth station applicant may begin operations with the added
point of communication under this rule part after filing the FCC Form
312--Main Form and Schedule B in ICFS in
[[Page 56400]]
accordance with the applicable provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this
chapter and paying the applicable filing fee, subject to the following
provisions:
(1) The operator has permission from the satellite operator to
communicate with the satellite system;
(2) The earth station operator has completed frequency coordination
with other potentially affected licensees as required by Commission
rules;
(3) Adding the point of communication does not result in a change
classified as a major modification; and
(4) The added point of communication has either an FCC space
station license or U.S. market access.
(B) This notification shall constitute a conditional authorization.
The conditional authorization will automatically expire and the
operator must terminate operations immediately using the new point of
communication if, within 15 days of paying the filing fee, the
Commission notifies the earth station operator that the added point of
communication does not comply with requirements of this paragraph. If
the Commission does not provide the foregoing notice within the
prescribed period, the conditional authorization will automatically
expire and the license will be modified in ICFS to add the point of
communication as of the date of payment of the filing fee. Nothing in
this rule part prohibits the Commission from pursuing enforcement
action after the lapse of the 15-day period for noncompliant operation,
including noncompliant operation occurring during the period of
conditional authorization.
(iii) A space station licensee may conduct telemetry, tracking and
command functions necessary to relocate a U.S.-licensed GSO space
station to, and maintain the space station at, a different orbital
location on the geostationary arc, without prior authorization, but
must provide seven days prior notice to the Commission. The notice must
include the following information:
(A) A notification of the date on which the space station is
planned to depart from its current orbital location, the planned
duration of the drift and the planned date of arrival at the new
location.
(B) A certification that the licensee will limit operations of the
space station to tracking, telemetry, and command functions.
(C) A description of the frequencies and radiocommunication
services to be provided during and after the space station relocation.
(D) A certification that the space station will be relocated to a
position within 0.15[deg] of an orbital location for which
a filing of the administration of the United States of America has been
recorded in the Master International Frequency Register of the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
(E) A certification that the space station has coordinated all
operations at the relocated site location under the ITU filing of the
administration of the United States of America at that location.
(F) A certification that that the space station will conduct all
operations after the relocation within the technical parameters
coordinated under the ITU filing of the administration of the United
States of America at that location.
(G) A certification that all operations, including any non-
telemetry, tracking and command operations, during and after the
relocation will be conducted on an unprotected, non-harmful
interference basis and that all operations will be coordinated with any
existing geostationary space stations to ensure that no harmful
interference results from operations during or after the relocation.
(H) A certification that the licensee will file an application to
modify the license of the space station to reflect operations at the
new location within 60 days.
(I) A certification that the relocation will not result in a lapse
of service for any current customer and provides a list of any
frequency bands that will not be in use by the licensee at the current
orbital location after the relocation of the space station.
(J) A certification that the space station will not be used to
bring into use, or maintain the use of, any ITU filing of an
administration other than the United States of America.
(K) A certification that:
(1) The licensee has assessed and limited the probability of the
satellite(s) becoming a source of debris as a result of collisions with
large debris or other operational satellites during or after the
relocation;
(2) The proposed station-keeping volume of the space station(s)
following relocation will not overlap a station-keeping volume
reasonably expected to be occupied by any other space station,
including those authorized by the Commission, applied for and pending
before the Commission, or otherwise the subject of an ITU filing and
either in orbit or progressing towards launch; and
(3) The relocation will not result in any changes to the previously
approved orbital debris mitigation plans for the satellite(s),
including the end-of-life disposal plans for the satellite(s) and the
quantity of fuel that will be reserved for disposal maneuvers.
(L) A certification that the licensee acknowledges that any action
taken or expense incurred as a result of the relocation is solely at
the licensee's own risk and is without prejudice to any potential
enforcement action by the Commission.
(3) Minor modifications are not subject to the public notice
requirements in Sec. 100.132, unless the Commission determines that
the minor modification, or effect of the minor modification, would
qualify as or amount to a major modification under Sec. 100.143(c)(2).
Sec. 100.144 Special temporary authorizations.
(a) In circumstances requiring immediate or temporary use of
facilities, a request may be made for special temporary authority (STA)
to install and/or operate new or modified equipment or for modified
operations.
(b) A request for STA must be filed in the manner and meeting the
requirements of the applicable license type as described in Sec. Sec.
100.100 through 100.121. Alternatively, a request for STA may instead
reference a pending license application if the requested STA is for
identical operations as requested in the license application.
(c) No request for temporary authority will be considered unless it
is received by the Commission at least 3 business days prior to the
date of proposed operation, pursuant to Sec. 1.4 of this chapter. A
request received within less than 3 business days may be accepted only
upon due showing of extraordinary reasons for the delay in submitting
the request which could not have been reasonably foreseen by the
applicant.
(d) Other than for those services expressly enumerated in Sec.
309(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission may grant a temporary
authorization pursuant to the following:
(1) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization only if
there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in
the public interest and that delay in the institution of these
temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public interest.
(2) If placed on public notice, subject to the 7-day public notice
period pursuant to Sec. 100.132, the Commission may grant an STA for
up to 180 days that may not be renewed or extended. Temporary
authorization holders authorized under this paragraph may file for a
new STA for up to another 180
[[Page 56401]]
days no sooner than 60 days and no later than 30 days before the end of
the prior grant of special temporary authority.
(3) If not placed on public notice, the Commission may grant an STA
for a period of up to 60 days.
(4) An STA for an earth station not placed on public notice and not
subject to federal coordination requirements will be deemed granted
upon filing and paying of the application fee and notice of the grant
will appear in the actions taken public notice.
(5) An STA holder authorized pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this
section cannot file for subsequent STAs without going on public notice
pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e) For operations expressly enumerated in section 309(b) of the
Communications Act, the Commission may grant an STA pursuant to the
following:
(1) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization only upon a
finding that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary
operations in the public interest and that delay in the institution of
these temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public
interest. Convenience to the applicant, such as marketing
considerations or meeting scheduled customer in-service dates, will not
be deemed sufficient for this purpose.
(2) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period
not to exceed 180 days, with additional periods not exceeding 180 days,
if the Commission has placed the STA request on public notice.
(3) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period
not to exceed 60 days, if the STA request has not been placed on public
notice, and the applicant plans to file a request for regular authority
for the service.
(4) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period
not to exceed 30 days, if the STA request has not been placed on public
notice, and an application for regular authority is not contemplated.
(f) Temporary authorizations granted pursuant to this subsection
are not of a continuing nature or subject to Sec. 1.62 of this
chapter.
(g) All operations authorized by and pursuant to this rule part are
on a non-interference, unprotected basis and cannot be modified.
(h) A special temporary authorization shall automatically terminate
upon the expiration date specified therein, or upon failure of the
grantee to comply with any terms or conditions in the authorization.
Sec. 100.145 Coordination requirements with Federal government
users.
The Commission will coordinate with the National Telecommunications
Information Administration regarding the operations of any application
for license or market access requesting to operate in a shared
government/non-government frequency band. The Commission will use its
procedures for liaison with NTIA to reach agreement with respect to
achieving compatible operations between federal government users under
the jurisdiction of NTIA and commercial applicants of the Commission in
shared government/non-government frequency bands through the frequency
assignment and coordination practices established by NTIA and the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) or any successor
organization.
Sec. 100.146 Assignments and transfers of control.
(a) Prior approval required. An application for Commission
authorization must be filed, and granted, prior to the transfer,
assignment, or disposal of a construction permit or station license, or
accompanying rights, under this part, whether voluntarily or
involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of control of any
entity, unless otherwise provided in this section.
(b) Transfers of control. Transfers of control requiring Commission
approval, for purposes of this section, include all transactions that:
(1) Change the party controlling the affairs, operations, or
management of the licensee; or
(2) Effect any change in a controlling interest in the ownership of
the licensee, including changes in legal or equitable ownership.
(c) Pro forma transactions.
(1) Pro forma transactions involving a telecommunications carrier.
No prior Commission approval is required for a non-substantial (pro
forma) transfer of control or assignment of license involving a
telecommunications carrier as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(51). The pro
forma transferee or assignee must file a notification with the
Commission no later than 30 days after the transfer or assignment is
complete and include a certification that the transfer of control or
assignment was pro forma and, together with all previous pro forma
transactions, did not result in a change of the actual controlling
party.
(2) Pro forma transactions not involving a telecommunications
carrier. An application for Commission approval of a non-substantial
(pro forma) transfer of control or assignment of a license not
involving a telecommunications carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C.
153(51), will be deemed granted one business day after filing, provided
that:
(i) Approval does not require a waiver of, or declaratory ruling
pertaining to, any applicable Commission rule; and
(ii) The application includes a certification that the proposed
transfer of control or assignment is pro forma and that, together with
all previous pro forma transactions, it would not result in a change in
the actual controlling party.
(d) Market access.
(1) A non-U.S.-licensed satellite operator that acquires control of
a non-U.S.-licensed space station that is permitted to serve the United
States must notify the Commission within 30 days after consummation of
the transaction.
(2) If the transferee or assignee is not licensed by, or seeking a
license from a country that is a WTO member for services covered under
the WTO BTA, the non-U.S.-licensed satellite operator must provide the
showings under the market access application procedures in Sec.
100.114.
(3) A non-U.S.-licensed satellite that is transferred to new owners
may continue to provide service in the United States unless and until
the Commission determines otherwise.
(e) Receive-only earth station registrations. No prior Commission
approval is required for the assignment or transfer of control of a
receive-only earth station registration. For all such transactions
other than non-substantial (pro forma) transfers of control, the
transferee or assignee must file a notification with the Commission no
later than 30 days after the assignment or transfer of control is
completed. No notification is required for a pro forma transfer of
control of a receive-only earth station registrant.
(f) Involuntary assignments or transfers of control. Applications
for assignment or transfer of control on an involuntary basis (e.g., by
bankruptcy, death, or legal disability) must be filed within ten days
of the event causing the assignment or transfer of control.
(g) Applications with multiple authorizations. A single application
or notification may be filed to cover a group of station authorizations
held by the same entity, provided the authorizations are in the same
radio service for the same class of facility and would be transferred
or assigned to a single transferee or assignee.
(h) Consummation. Assignments and transfers of control shall be
completed within 180 days from the date of
[[Page 56402]]
authorization. Within 30 days of consummation, the Commission shall be
notified via ICFS of the date of consummation and the file numbers of
the applications involved in the transaction.
(i) Good faith intent to construct. The Commission retains
discretion in reviewing assignments and transfers of control of space
station and earth station licenses to determine whether the initial
license was obtained in good faith with the intent to construct the
licensed system.
Sec. 100.147 Milestones for NGSO and Multi-Orbit systems.
(a) Recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite
system or grant of U.S. market access, other than a SDARS space station
license or VTSS authorization, are required to launch, deploy, and
operate at least one satellite in accordance with the space station
authorization for a continuous period of ninety (90) days and no later
than seven years after the grant of the authorization, unless a
different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter 1 or by the
Commission.
(b) For recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO
satellite system meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c)(1)
of this section, other than a SDARS space station license or VTSS
authorization, the following milestone requirements apply:
(1) Preliminary milestone. The recipient of an initial
authorization for an NGSO satellite system or grant of U.S. market
access must launch ten percent of the maximum number of satellites
authorized for service, place them in their orbits, and operate them in
accordance with the station authorization no later than nine years
after grant of the authorization unless a different schedule is
established by Title 47, Chapter 1 or by the Commission.
(2) Interim milestone. The recipient of an initial authorization
for an NGSO satellite system or grant of U.S. market access that
satisfies the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must
launch 50% of the maximum number of satellites authorized for service,
place them in their orbits, and operate them in accordance with the
station authorization no later than 12 years after the grant of the
authorization, unless a different schedule is established by Title 47,
Chapter 1 or by the Commission.
(3) Final milestone. The recipient of an initial authorization for
an NGSO satellite system or grant of U.S. market access that satisfies
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section must
launch the remaining satellites necessary to complete its authorized
NGSO satellite system, or grant of U.S. market access, place them in
their assigned orbits, and operate each of them in accordance with the
station authorization no later than 14 years after the grant of the
authorization.
(c) A licensee subject to the milestone requirements in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section must either demonstrate compliance with the
applicable milestone or notify the Commission in writing that the
milestone was not met, within 15 days of the specified deadline.
(1) Compliance with paragraphs (a) of this section may be
demonstrated by certifying that a satellite has been launched, placed
in an authorized orbital location or non-geostationary orbit(s), and
that in-orbit operation of the satellite has been tested, maintained,
and found to be consistent with the terms of the authorization for a
continuous period of 90 days.
(2) Compliance with the milestone requirements in paragraph (b) of
this section may be demonstrated by certifying that the satellites in
question have been launched and placed in the authorized orbital
location or non-geostationary orbit(s) and that in-orbit operation of
the satellites have been tested and found to be consistent with the
terms of the authorization.
(d) A space station authorization shall be automatically terminated
in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee if the
licensee fails to meet an applicable milestone required by paragraph
(a) of this section or any other milestone imposed on a NGSO satellite
system license as a condition to the license authorization.
(1) If a licensee fails to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)
and (c)(1) of this section, the station authorization shall be
automatically terminated in whole.
(2) If at least one authorized satellite is functional in an
authorized orbit by the milestone date specified in paragraph (a) of
this section or imposed as a condition to the license authorization,
but fails to meet the milestone requirements in paragraphs (b) or
(c)(2) of this section or by a condition of authorization, the space
station authorization shall be terminated in part, resulting in the
termination of authority to launch and operate additional satellites
beyond those already in operation.
(3) After termination of a space station authorization under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, licensees may continue to launch and
operate technically identical replacements, such that the total number
of satellites operating at any one time is not greater than the number
of functional satellites in an authorized orbit at the time of the
applicable milestone in paragraph (b) of this section or as imposed as
a condition to the license authorization.
(e) Licensees of multi-orbit systems must meet the applicable
requirements of this section for each type of satellite in its system.
(f) In cases where the Commission grants more than one space
station authorization for the same system in different stages, the
milestone schedule as applied to the first authorization will be
applied to the entire satellite system.
Sec. 100.148 Surety bonds.
(a) For all recipients of a license to operate an NGSO satellite
system under Sec. Sec. 100.110 through 100.113 and authorized to
operate 200 or more satellites, excluding replacements, the licensee
must post a surety bond within 30 days from the date of the license
grant.
(b) An NGSO licensee authorized pursuant to Sec. 100.141 must post
a bond in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section within 30 days
from the date of the license grant, regardless of the number of
authorized satellites.
(c) Failure to post a required bond within 30 days will
automatically render the license null and void.
(d) An NGSO licensee subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section must have on file with the Commission a surety bond requiring
payment in the event of a default as defined in paragraph (g) of this
section, in an amount, at a minimum, determined by the applicable
formula:
(1) An NGSO licensee with 200 or more authorized satellites subject
to paragraph (a) of this section must have a surety bond on file in an
amount determined by the following formula, with the resulting dollar
amount rounded to the nearest dollar: B = $10,000 * ((0.9 * A)-D),
where B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and
A is the number of satellites authorized, excluding replacements.
(2) An NGSO licensee authorized pursuant to Sec. 100.141 with
fewer than 200 satellites subject to paragraph (b) of this section must
have a surety bond on file in an amount determined by the following
formula, with the resulting dollar amount rounded to the nearest
dollar: B = $1,800,000 * (1-D/(0.9 * A)), where B is the bond amount, D
is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites
authorized, excluding replacements.
(e) A licensee may reduce the amount of the surety bond required,
as determined by paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)
[[Page 56403]]
of this section, upon written notification to the Commission providing
an update on the total number of deployed satellites (D) in the
authorized system.
(f) A licensee will be relieved of the surety bond obligation under
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section once the amount of the surety
bond, as calculated under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section,
is zero dollars.
(g) A licensee will be in default of its surety bond obligation
filed pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section if it surrenders
the license before the amount of the bond required, as calculated under
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, is zero dollars.
(h) The licensee must use a surety company deemed acceptable within
the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9304 et seq. (See, e.g., Department of
Treasury Fiscal Service, Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as
Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and As Acceptable Reinsurance
Companies, 57 FR 29356, July 1, 1992.) The bond must name the U.S.
Treasury as beneficiary in the event of the licensee's default. The
licensee must provide the Commission with a copy of the performance
bond, including all details and conditions.
Sec. 100.149 License and market access terms, extensions and
renewals, NGSO replacements.
(a) General. License and market access grant terms shall be as set
forth in this section, unless a shorter term is specified by the
Commission, in its discretion, or requested by the applicant.
(b) GSO satellite systems.
(1) License terms. Licenses and market access grants for GSO
satellite system authorizations will be issued for a period of 20 years
beginning on the date of grant of the license, except as follows:
(i) Broadcast and SDARS. Licenses and market access grants for DBS
space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as broadcast
facilities, and for SDARS space stations and terrestrial repeaters,
will be issued for a period of eight years.
(ii) Non-broadcast DBS. Licenses for DBS space stations not
licensed as broadcast facilities will be issued for a period of 10
years.
(2) Extensions. For GSO satellite systems issued an authorization
initial license or market access term for a period of twenty years,
licensees may apply for a major modification to extend the license term
in increments of five years or less. GSO satellite system licensees
seeking a license or market access term extension through a license or
market access modification application must provide a statement that
includes the following:
(i) The requested duration of the license or market access
extension;
(ii) The estimated total remaining space station lifetime;
(iii) A description of any single points of failure or other
malfunctions, defects, or anomalies during the satellite's operation
that could affect its ability to conduct end-of-life procedures as
planned, and an assessment of the associated risk;
(iv) A certification that remaining fuel reserves are adequate to
complete de-orbit as planned; and
(v) A certification that telemetry, tracking, and command links are
fully functional.
(c) NGSO satellite systems and VTSS.
(1) License terms. Licenses and market access grants for NGSO
satellite systems and VTSS authorizations will be issued for a period
of 20 years beginning on the date of grant of the license.
(2) Renewals. Applications for renewals of authorizations for NGSO
satellite systems or VTSS authorizations shall be filed no earlier than
12 months, and no later than 30 days, before the expiration date of the
license.
(3) NGSO replacement satellites. NGSO satellite system licensees or
recipients of market access grants that include a blanket license may
replace satellites in their constellation with satellites up to the
number of satellites authorized, without application or notification to
the Commission, provided the replacement does not result in a
modification under Sec. 100.143, unless otherwise specified in the
authorization.
(d) Earth stations.
(1) Transmitting stations. Licenses for transmitting earth stations
will be issued for a period of 20 years beginning on the date of grant
of the license. Earth station site registrations for Immovable earth
stations will be valid until the date identified in the underlying
Nationwide, Non-Site License grant.
(2) Receive-only stations. Licenses and registrations for receive-
only earth stations will be issued for a period of 20 years from the
date on which the application was filed.
(3) Renewals. Applications for renewals of earth station licenses
or receive-only registrations must be submitted on FCC Form 312R no
earlier than 12 months, and no later than 30 days, before the
expiration date of the license. Immovable Earth Stations registered
pursuant to Sec. 100.120 will be renewed in conjunction with renewal
of the underlying Nationwide, Non-Site License authorization.
Subpart C--Operational and Frequency Specific Requirements
Sec. 100.200 Reporting requirements.
(a) Point of contact.
(1) Space stations. If, at any time, a space station licensee's or
market access recipient's point of contact information on file changes,
the licensee or market access recipient must file the updated
information within 48 hours of the change.
(2) Earth stations. The licensee of any transmitting earth station
licensed under this part must update the contact information provided
in the most recent license application for the station within 10 days
of any change therein. The updated information must be filed in the
station's current authorization file.
(b) Space station control arrangements. The operator of any space
station licensed by the Commission or granted U.S. market access must
file the following information with the Commission in ICFS prior to
commencing operation with the space station, or, in the case of a non-
U.S.-licensed space station, prior to commencing operation with U.S.
earth stations.
(1) The call signs of any telemetry, tracking, and command earth
station(s) communicating with the space station from any site in the
United States.
(2) The location, by city and country, of any telemetry, tracking,
and command earth station that communicates with the space station from
any point outside the United States.
(3) Alternatively, instead of listing the call signs and/or
locations of earth stations currently used for telemetry, tracking, and
command, the space station operator may provide 24/7 contact
information for a satellite control center and a list of the call signs
of any U.S. earth stations, and the locations of any non-U.S. earth
stations, that are used or may be used for telemetry, tracking, and
command communication with the space station(s) in question.
(4) If call sign or location information provided pursuant to this
paragraph becomes invalid due to a change of circumstances, the space
station operator must file updated information in ICFS within 30 days,
except with respect to changes less than 30 days in duration, for which
no update is necessary.
(c) Ephemeris data.
(1) Space station licensees and market access recipients must
submit accurate and timely ephemeris data for all spacecraft in their
authorized system(s),
[[Page 56404]]
including the propagated ephemeris data and covariance for any planned
maneuvers, to the following:
(i) The 18th Space Control Squadron or a successor entity as
identified by the Commission; or
(ii) One or more U.S. space situational awareness systems which
have been identified by the Commission as satisfying this requirement.
(2) Space station operators are responsible for ensuring the
quality of data submitted to space situational awareness systems in
accordance with the requirements of such systems.
(d) Space system safety reports. Beginning after the launch of the
first satellite in an NGSO satellite system, space station operators
must provide a semi-annual report, by January 1 and July 1 each year,
covering the preceding six-month period, respectively, from June 1 to
November 30 and December 1 to May 31, that includes the following
information:
(1) The number of conjunction events identified for satellites in
the NGSO satellite system during the reporting period, including the
number of events that resulted in an action such as maneuver or
coordination with another operator;
(2) The number of satellites that were removed from operation or
screened from further deployment; and
(3) The number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere.
Sec. 100.201 Licensee operations.
Licensees under this part may operate within the boundaries of
their authorizations, the rules in this part, and any other relevant
provision of this chapter, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
or other statute, subject to any Commission action and any conditions
or constraints placed on the license or licensee in any such grant of
authority.
Sec. 100.202 Duties regarding space communications transmissions.
(a) Unauthorized transmissions. No person shall:
(1) Transmit to a space station unless the specific transmission is
first authorized by the satellite network control center;
(2) Conduct transmissions over a space station unless the operator
is authorized to transmit at that time by the space station licensee;
(3) Transmit communications to or from earth stations in the United
States unless such communications are authorized under a service
contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC earth station license or
under a service contract with another party with authority for such
operation delegated by such a licensee; or
(4) Transmit in any manner that causes harmful interference to the
authorized transmission of another licensee unless that licensee is
authorized on an unprotected basis.
(b) Cessation of emissions. Space stations and earth stations shall
be made capable of ceasing radio emissions by the use of appropriate
devices (battery life, timing devices, ground command, etc.) that will
ensure definite cessation of emissions.
(c) Operations at lowest level necessary to close the link. Each
earth and space station transmission shall be conducted at the lowest
power level necessary to close the link for the required signal quality
as indicated in the application and further amended by any coordination
agreement(s).
(d) Unauthorized access. Licensees shall ensure that the licensed
facilities are properly secured against unauthorized access or use. For
space station operations, this includes securing satellite commands
against unauthorized access and use.
(e) ITU filings. Space station licensees must operate in accordance
with any filings submitted to the ITU by the Commission on behalf of
the licensee, unless otherwise conditioned by the Commission. No
protection from interference caused by radio stations authorized by
other Administrations is guaranteed unless ITU procedures are timely
completed or, with respect to individual Administrations, coordination
agreements are successfully completed. A license for which such
procedures have not been completed may be subject to additional terms
and conditions required for coordination of the frequency assignments
with other Administrations.
(f) Coordination agreements. Any coordination agreements, both
domestic and international, concerning specific frequency usage
constraints, including non-use of any particular frequencies within the
frequency bands listed in the station authorization, are considered to
be conditions of the station authorization.
(g) Sharing of operational information and resolution of
interference.
(1) Space station licensees are responsible for maintaining
complete and accurate technical details of current and planned
transmissions over their satellites and shall require that authorized
users of transponders on their satellites, whether by tariff or
contract, provide any necessary technical information in this regard
including that required by Sec. 100.240.
(2) Based on this information, space station licensees shall
exchange among themselves general technical information concerning
current and planned transmission parameters as needed to identify and
promptly resolve any potential cases of harmful interference between
their satellite systems.
(3) Space station licensees shall provide upon request by the
Commission, and by earth station licensees authorized to transmit on
their satellites, relevant information needed to avoid harmful
interference to other users, including the polarization angles for
proper illumination of a given transponder.
(4) Where the operations of a space station or earth station are
suspected of causing harmful interference, the station operator shall
take reasonable measures to determine whether its operations are the
source of interference, and if they are, shall take all measures
necessary to resolve the interference.
(5) A record shall be maintained by the space station licensee and/
or earth station licensee of all harmful interference incidents and
their resolution. These records shall be made available to the
Commission upon request.
(6) All licensees are required to cooperate fully with the
Commission in any investigation of interference problems.
(h) Station identification. The requirement to transmit station
identification is waived for all radio stations licensed under this
part with the exception of earth stations subject to the requirements
of Sec. 100.233.
Sec. 100.203 Telemetry, tracking, and command.
(a) Telemetry, tracking, and command signals may be transmitted in
frequencies within the assigned bands that are not at a band edge only
if the transmissions cause no greater interference and require no
greater protection from harmful interference than the communications
traffic on the satellite network or, for GSO space stations, have been
coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at
orbital locations within six degrees of the assigned orbital location.
(b) Frequencies, polarization, and coding of telemetry, tracking,
and command transmissions must be selected to minimize interference
into other satellite networks.
Sec. 100.204 Default service rules.
(a) Scope. The technical rules in this section only apply to
licenses to operate
[[Page 56405]]
a satellite service in a frequency band granted after a domestic
frequency allocation has been adopted for that band, but before any
frequency band-specific rules have been adopted for that frequency
band.
(b) NGSO satellite systems. For all NGSO satellite system licenses
authorizing operations in a frequency band for which the Commission has
not adopted frequency band-specific service rules at the time the
license is granted, the licensee will be required to comply with the
applicable technical requirements of the Commission's rules.
(c) GSO satellite systems. For all GSO satellite system licenses
authorizing operations in a frequency band for which the Commission has
not adopted frequency band-specific service rules at the time the
license is granted, the licensee will be required to comply with the
applicable technical requirements in the Commission's rules.
(d) Earth stations.
(1) Earth station licensees authorized to operate with one or more
space stations described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall
comply with the earth station antenna performance verification
requirements in Sec. 100.279.
(2) Earth station licensees with a gain equivalent or higher than
the gain of a 1.2 meter antenna operating in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band,
authorized to operate with one or more space stations described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section in frequency bands greater than 14.5
GHz shall be required to comply with the antenna input power density
requirements set forth in Sec. 100.279.
(3) Mobile earth station licensees authorized to operate with one
or more space stations must comply with the requirements in Sec.
100.282. In addition, earth station licensees authorized to operate
with one or more space stations in frequency bands shared with
terrestrial wireless services shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 100.276.
(e) Later-adopted service rules. In the event that the Commission
adopts frequency band-specific service rules for a particular frequency
band after it has granted one or more space station or earth station
licenses for operations in that frequency band, those licensees will be
required to come into compliance with the frequency band-specific
service rules within 30 days of the effective date of those rules,
unless otherwise specified by either the Commission or Space Bureau.
General Space Station Rules
Sec. 100.210 Orbit raising maneuvers.
A space station authorized to operate under this part is also
authorized to transmit in connection with short-term, transitory
maneuvers directly related to post-launch, orbit-raising or orbit-
lowering maneuvers, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) Authority is limited to those tracking, telemetry, and control
frequencies in which the space station is authorized to operate once it
reaches its assigned orbital location;
(b) The space station operator will coordinate in good faith on an
operator-to-operator basis with any potentially affected satellite
networks; and
(c) The space station licensee is required to accept interference
from any lawfully operating satellite network or radio communication
system.
Sec. 100.211 Frequency use generally.
(a) Frequency-use restrictions. In addition to the frequency-use
restrictions set forth in Sec. 2.106 of this chapter, the following
restrictions apply:
(1) In the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, the FSS (Earth-to-space) is
secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service authorized
pursuant to part 30 of this chapter, except for FSS operations
associated with earth stations authorized pursuant to Sec. 100.281.
(2) Use of the 37.5-40 GHz band by the FSS (space-to-Earth) is
limited to individually licensed earth stations. Earth stations in this
band must not be ubiquitously deployed and must not be used to serve
individual consumers.
(3) The U.S. non-Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, in Sec.
2.106 of this chapter, is applicable between Commission space station
licensees relying on a U.S. ITU filing and transmitting to or receiving
from anywhere on Earth, including airborne earth stations, in the 17.3-
20.2 GHz or 27.5-30.0 GHz bands.
(b) Frequency tolerance, space stations. The carrier frequency of
each space station transmitter authorized in these services shall be
maintained within 0.002% of the reference frequency.
(c) Cross-polarization isolation. Space station antennas operating
in the DBS or operating in the FSS for reception of feeder links for
DBS must be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such
that the ratio of the on-axis co-polar gain to the cross-polar gain of
the antenna in the assigned frequency band is at least 27 dB within the
primary coverage area.
(d) Full frequency re-use. All space stations in the FSS operating
in any portion of the 3600-4200 MHz, 5091-5250 MHz, 5850-7025 MHz,
10.7-12.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.5 GHz, 15.43-15.63 GHz, 17.3-
17.8 GHz, 18.3-20.2 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, or 27.5-30.0 GHz bands,
including feeder links for other space services, and in the BSS in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth), shall employ state-of-the-art full
frequency reuse, either through the use of orthogonal polarizations
within the same beam and/or the use of spatially independent beams.
This requirement does not apply to telemetry, tracking, and command
operation.
Sec. 100.212 Power flux-density and in-band field strength limits.
(a) SCS. The aggregate field strength at the earth's surface
produced by all visible beams and satellites at and beyond the service
boundary of each satellite constellation providing SCS service as they
move over any given point or area in bands authorized by NG33A in the
United States Table of Frequency Allocations must not exceed:
(1) 40 dB[micro]V/m for the 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands;
and
(2) 47 dB[micro]V/m for the AWS and PCS bands; and
(3) Licensees must comply with all applicable provisions and
requirements of treaties and other international agreements between the
United States Government and the governments of other countries,
including Canada and Mexico. Absent specific international agreements
regarding SCS, licensees must comply with the limits provided in this
section.
(b) 2496-2500 MHz--NGSO. In the 2496-2500 MHz band, the power flux-
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from non-
geostationary space stations for all conditions and all methods of
modulation shall not exceed the following values (these values are
obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions):
(1) -144 dB (W/m[supcaret]2) in 4 kHz for all angles of arrival
between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; -144 dB (W/
m[supcaret]2) + 0.65([delta]-5) in 4 kHz for all angles of arrival
between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) -131 dB (W/m[supcaret]2) in 4 kHz and for all angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(3) -126 dB (W/m[supcaret]2) in 1 MHz for all angles of arrival
between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; -126 dB (W/
m[supcaret]2) + 0.65([delta]-5) in 1 MHz for all angles of arrival
between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane; and
(4) -113 dB (W/m[supcaret]2) in 1 MHz and for all angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(c) 3650-4200 MHz. In the 3650-4200 MHz band, the power flux
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a space
station for all conditions
[[Page 56406]]
and for all method/s of modulation shall not exceed the following
values:
(1) -152 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between 0
and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(2) -152 + ([delta]-5)/2 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane.
(3) -142 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between
25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plan.
(4) These limits relate to the power flux density which would be
obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(d) 6700-7075 MHz. The power-flux density at the Earth's surface
produced by emissions from a space station in the FSS (space-to-Earth),
for all conditions and for all methods of modulation, shall not exceed
the limits given in Table N. These limits relate to the power flux-
density which would be obtained under assumed free-space conditions.
Table 1--Limits of Power-Flux Density From Space Stations in the Band 6700-7075 MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit in dB (W/m\2\) for angle of arrival ([delta]) above
the horizontal plane
Frequency band ----------------------------------------------------------- Reference bandwidth
0[deg]-5[deg] 5[deg]-25[deg] 25[deg]-90[deg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6700-6825 MHz.................. -137.............. -137 + 0.5([delta]- -127............. 1 MHz.
5).
6825-7075 MHz.................. -154 and.......... -154 + 0.5([delta]- -144 and......... 4 kHz.
5) and.
-134.............. -134 + 0.5([delta]- -124............. 1 MHz.
5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) 10.7-11.7 GHz. In the 10.95-11.2 and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands for
GSO FSS space stations and 10.7-11.7 GHz band for NGSO FSS space
stations, the power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced by
emissions from a space station for all conditions and for all methods
of modulation shall not exceed the lower of the following values:
(1) -150 dB(W/m\2\) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; -150 + ([delta]-5)/2 dB(W/
m\2\) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival ([delta]) (in degrees)
between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane; and -140 dB(W/
m\2\) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees
above the horizontal plane; or
(2) -126 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; -126 + ([delta]-5)/2 dB(W/
m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival ([delta]) (in degrees)
between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane; and -116 dB(W/
m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees
above the horizontal plane.
Note to paragraph (e): These limits relate to the power flux
density, which would be obtained under assumed free-space
propagation conditions.
(f) 12.2-12.7 GHz--NGSO. In the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, for NGSO FSS
space stations, the specified low-angle power flux-density at the
Earth's surface produced by emissions from a space station shall not be
exceeded into an operational MVDDS receiver:
(1) -158 dB(W/m\2\) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 2 degrees above the horizontal plane; and
(2) -158 + 3.33([delta]-2) dB(W/m\2\) in any 4 kHz band for angles
of arrival ([delta]) (in degrees) between 2 and 5 degrees above the
horizontal plane.
Note to paragraph (f): These limits relate to the power flux
density which would be obtained under assumed free-space propagation
conditions.
(g) 17.7-24.75 GHz. For a GSO space station in the 17.7-19.7 GHz,
22.55-23.55 GHz, or 24.45-24.75 GHz bands, or for an NGSO space station
in the 22.55-23.55 GHz or 24.45-24.75 GHz bands, the PFD at the Earth's
surface produced by emissions for all conditions and for all methods of
modulation must not exceed the following values:
(1) -115 dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(2) -115 + 0.5 ([delta]-5) dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival d (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal
plane.
(3) -105 dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(h) 25.25-27.5 GHz. The power flux-density at the Earth's surface
produced by emissions from a space station in either the Earth
exploration-satellite service in the 25.5-27 GHz band or the inter-
satellite service in the 25.25-27.5 GHz band for all conditions and for
all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following values:
(1) -115 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(2) -115 + 0.5(-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
arrival between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(3) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(4) These limits relate to the power flux-density which would be
obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(i) 37.5-40 GHz--NGSO. In the 37.5-40.0 GHz band, the power flux-
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a non-
geostationary space station for all methods of modulation shall not
exceed the following values:
(1) This limit relates to the power flux-density which would be
obtained under assumed free space conditions (that is, when no
allowance is made for propagation impairments such as rain-fade):
(i) -132 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(ii) -132 + 0.75 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for
angles of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane; and
(iii) -117 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) This limit relates to the maximum power flux-density which
would be obtained anywhere on the surface of the Earth during periods
when FSS system raises power to compensate for rain-fade conditions at
the FSS earth station:
(i) -120 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(ii) -120 + 0.75 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for
angles of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane; and
(iii) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
Note to paragraph (i): The conditions under which satellites
may exceed these power flux-density limits for normal free space
propagation described in this section to compensate for the effects
of rain fading are under study and have therefore not yet been
defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits can be
exceeded will be
[[Page 56407]]
the subject of a further rulemaking by the Commission on the
satellite service rules.
(j) 37.5-40 GHz--GSO. In the 37.5-40.0 GHz band, the power flux-
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a
geostationary space station for all methods of modulation shall not
exceed the following values.
(1) This limit relates to the power flux-density which would be
obtained under assumed free space conditions (that is, when no
allowance is made for propagation impairments such as rain-fade):
(i) -139 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(ii) -139 + 4/3 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 20 degrees above the
horizontal plane;
(iii) -119 + 0.4 ([delta]-20) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for
angles of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 20 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane; and
(iv) -117 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(2) This limit relates to the maximum power flux-density which
would be obtained anywhere on the surface of the Earth during periods
when FSS system raises power to compensate for rain-fade conditions at
the FSS earth station:
(i) -127 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(ii) -127 + 4/3 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 20 degrees above the
horizontal plane;
(iii) -107 + 0.4 ([delta]-20) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for
angles of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 20 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane; and
(iv) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
Note to paragraph (h): The conditions under which satellites may
exceed the power flux-density limits for normal free space
propagation described in this section to compensate for the effects
of rain fading are under study and have therefore not yet been
defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits can be
exceeded will be the subject of a further rulemaking by the
Commission on the satellite service rules.
(k) 40-40.5 GHz. In the 40.0-40.5 GHz band, the power flux density
at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a space station for
all conditions and for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the
following values (these values are obtained under assumed free-space
propagation conditions):
(1) -115 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) -115 + 0.5 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane; and
(3) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(l) 40.5-42 GHz--NGSO. In the 40.5-42.0 GHz band, the power flux
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a non-
geostationary space station for all conditions and for all methods of
modulation shall not exceed the following values (these values are
obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions):
(1) -115 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) -115 + 0.5 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane; and
(3) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(m) 40.5-42 GHz--GSO. In the 40.5-42.0 GHz band, the power flux-
density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a
geostationary space station for all conditions and for all methods of
modulation shall not exceed the following values (these values are
obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions):
(1) -120 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) -120 + ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 15 degrees above the
horizontal plane;
(3) -110 + 0.5 ([delta]-15) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 15 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane; and
(4) -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
Sec. 100.213 Unwanted emissions limits generally; space stations.
(a) General. The mean power of emissions shall be attenuated below
the mean output power of the transmitter in accordance with the
schedule set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(4) of this section.
(1) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including
100 percent of the authorized bandwidth: 25 dB.
(2) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent up to and
including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: 35 dB.
(3) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized
bandwidth: an amount equal to 43 dB plus 10 times the logarithm (to the
base 10) of the transmitter power in watts.
(4) In any event, when an emission outside of the authorized
bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its
discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(b) 23.6-24 GHz--NGSO. The following unwanted emissions power
limits for non-geostationary satellites operating in the inter-
satellite service that transmit in the 22.55-23.55 GHz band shall apply
in any 200 MHz of the 23.6-24 GHz passive band, based on the date that
complete advance publication information is received by the ITU's
Radiocommunication Bureau:
(1) For information received before January 1, 2020: -36 dBW.
(2) For information received on or after January 1, 2020: -46 dBW.
(c) SCS. Space station downlinks operating as SCS under the
provisions of Sec. 100.113 and Sec. 2.106(d)(33)(i) of this chapter
are subject to the following rules.
(1) Out of band emission limits. Notwithstanding the emission
limitations of Sec. 100.213, the aggregation of all space station
downlink emissions outside a licensee's SCS frequency band(s) of
operation shall not exceed a power flux density of -120 dBW/m\2\/MHz at
1.5 meters above ground level.
(2) Interference caused by out of band emissions. If any emission
from a transmitter operating in the SCS service results in harmful
interference to users of another radio service, the FCC may require a
greater attenuation of the emission than specified in this section.
Sec. 100.214 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS and 2 GHz
MSS.
(a) Technical qualifications. In addition to providing the
information specified in Sec. Sec. 100.110 through 100.112, each
applicant and petitioner must demonstrate the following:
(1) That a proposed system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS frequency bands
employs a non-geostationary constellation or constellations of
satellites;
(2) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary
satellites be capable of providing MSS to all locations as far north as
70[deg] North
[[Page 56408]]
latitude and as far south as 55[deg] South latitude for at least 75% of
every 24-hour period, i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible
above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5[deg] for at least
18 hours each day within the described geographic area;
(3) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary
satellites be capable of providing MSS on a continuous basis throughout
the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, i.e., that
at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at an
elevation angle of at least 5[deg] at all times within the described
geographic areas; and
(4) That a system only using geostationary orbit satellites, at a
minimum, be capable of providing MSS on a continuous basis throughout
the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, if technically
feasible.
(5) That operations will not cause harmful interference to other
authorized users of the spectrum.
(b) Safety and distress communications.
(1) Stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS and 2 GHz MSS that
are voluntarily installed on a U.S. ship or are used to comply with any
statute or regulatory equipment carriage requirements may also be
subject to the requirements of sections 321(b) and 359 of the
Communications Act. Licensees are advised that these provisions give
priority to radio communications or signals relating to ships in
distress and prohibits a charge for the transmission of maritime
distress calls and related traffic.
(2) Licensees offering distress and safety services should
coordinate with the appropriate search and rescue organizations
responsible for the licensees' service area.
NGSO Frequency-Specific Rules
Sec. 100.220 Requirements for the non-voice, non-geostationary MSS.
(a) NVNG MSS space station application requirements.
(1) General. Each application for a space station license in the
non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service (NVNG MSS) shall
describe in detail the proposed NVNG MSS system, setting forth all
pertinent technical and operational aspects of the system, and the
technical and legal qualifications of the applicant. In addition to the
information specified in Sec. Sec. 100.110 through 100.112, applicants
must also file information demonstrating compliance with all
requirements of this section, and showing, based on existing system
information publicly available at the Commission at the time of filing,
that they will not cause harmful interference to any NVNG MSS system
authorized to construct or operate.
(2) Power flux density. Applicants for a NVNG MSS space station
license must identify the power flux density produced at the Earth's
surface by each space station of their system in the 137-138 MHz and
400.15-401 MHz bands, to allow determination of whether coordination
with terrestrial services is required under any applicable footnote to
the Table of Frequency Allocations in Sec. 2.106 of this chapter. In
addition, applicants must identify the measures they would employ to
protect the radio astronomy service in the 150.05-153 MHz and 406.1-410
MHz bands from harmful interference from unwanted emissions.
(3) Emission limitations.
(i) Applicants in the NVNG MSS shall show that their space stations
will not exceed the emission limitations of Sec. 100.213, as
calculated for a fixed point on the Earth's surface in the plane of the
space station's orbit, considering the worst-case frequency tolerance
of all frequency determining components, and maximum positive and
negative Doppler shift of both the uplink and downlink signals, taking
into account the system design.
(ii) Applicants in the NVNG MSS service shall show that no signal
received by their space stations from sources outside of their system
shall be retransmitted with a power flux density level, in the worst 4
kHz, higher than the level described by the applicants in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(b) Operating conditions. In order to ensure compatible operations
with authorized users in the frequency bands to be utilized for
operations in the NVNG MSS, NVNG MSS systems must operate in accordance
with the conditions specified in this section.
(1) Service limitation. Voice services may not be provided.
(2) Coordination among non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-
satellite service systems. All affected applicants, permittees, and
licensees shall, at the direction of the Commission, cooperate fully
and make every reasonable effort to resolve technical problems and
conflicts that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the radio
spectrum; however, the permittee or licensee being coordinated with is
not obligated to suggest changes or re-engineer an applicant's proposal
in cases involving conflicts.
(3) Safety and distress communications. Stations operating in the
NVNG MSS that are used to comply with any statutory or regulatory
equipment carriage requirements may also be subject to the provisions
of sections 321(b) and 359 of the Communications Act. Licensees are
advised that these provisions give priority to radio communications or
signals relating to ships in distress and prohibit a charge for the
transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic.
Sec. 100.221 Obligation to remedy interference caused by NGSO MSS
feeder downlinks in the 6700-6875 MHz band.
If an NGSO MSS satellite transmitting in the 6700-6875 MHz band
causes harmful interference to previously licensed co-frequency Public
Safety facilities, the satellite operator has an obligation to remedy
the interference.
Sec. 100.222 Operating provisions for NGSO FSS space stations.
(a) NGSO FSS system licensees and market access recipients
operating in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range must comply with:
(1) Any applicable power flux-density levels in Article 21, Section
V, Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
Sec. 100.4), except:
(i) In the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz bands, applicants must
comply with the ITU power flux-density limits governing NGSO FSS
systems in the 17.7-19.3 GHz band; and
(ii) In the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, applicants must comply with the ITU
power flux-density limits governing NGSO FSS systems in the 17.7-17.8
GHz band.
(2) Any applicable equivalent power flux-density levels in Article
22, Section II, and Resolution 76 of the ITU Radio Regulations (both
incorporated by reference, Sec. 100.4), except that for operations in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, operators must comply with the ITU equivalent
power flux-density limits applicable to NGSO FSS system operations in
the 17.8-18.4 GHz band.
(b) Prior to the initiation of service, an NGSO FSS operator
licensed or holding a market access authorization to operate in the
10.7-30 GHz frequency range must receive a ``favorable'' or ``qualified
favorable'' finding by the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau, in accordance
with Resolution 85 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by
reference, Sec. 100.4), regarding its compliance with applicable ITU
EPFD limits. In addition, a market access holder in these bands must:
(1) Communicate the ITU finding to the Commission; and
(2) Submit the input data files used for the ITU validation
software.
[[Page 56409]]
GSO Frequency-Specific Rules
Sec. 100.230 Further requirements for license applications for GSO
space station operation in the FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS.
(a) Additional information requirements for GSO space stations. In
addition to the information required by Sec. Sec. 100.110 through
100.112, an applicant for GSO FSS space station operation in the FSS
and 17/24 GHz BSS must comply with the following:
(1) An applicant for GSO FSS space station operation involving
transmission of analog video signals must certify that the proposed
analog video operation has been coordinated with operators of
authorized co-frequency space stations within six degrees of the
requested orbital location.
(2) An applicant for GSO FSS space station operation, including
applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the
17/24 GHz BSS, that will be located at an orbital location less than
two degrees from the assigned location of an authorized co-frequency
GSO space station, must either certify that the proposed operation has
been coordinated with the operator of the co-frequency space station or
submit an interference analysis demonstrating the compatibility of the
proposed system with the co-frequency space station. Such an analysis
must include, for each type of radio frequency carrier, the link noise
budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis.
(See Appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
Fixed-Satellite Service, FCC 83-184, and the following public notices,
copies of which are available in the Commission's EDOCS database,
available at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs: DA 03-3863 and DA 04-1708.) The
provisions in this paragraph (a)(2) do not apply to proposed analog
video operation, which is subject to the requirement in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
(3) An applicant for a GSO FSS space station, including applicants
proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz
BSS, must provide the following for operation other than analog video
operation:
(i) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or
extended C-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not
exceed 3 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 8 dBW/4kHz for analog
transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed
applicable EIRP density envelopes in Sec. 100.280 unless the non-
routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators
of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within
six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and
except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or
extended Ku-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not
exceed 13 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 17 dBW/4kHz for analog
transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed
applicable EIRP density envelopes in Sec. 100.280 unless the non-
routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators
of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within
six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and
except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) With respect to proposed FSS operation in the conventional or
extended Ka-bands, a certification that the proposed space station will
not generate power flux density at the Earth's surface in excess of the
limits in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, and that
associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density
envelopes in Sec. 25.218(i) unless the non-routine uplink and/or
downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-
frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of
the orbital location and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(A) -118 dBW/m\2\/MHz, except as provided in paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
(B) For space-to-Earth FSS transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band
in the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 100 West
Longitude: -121 dBW/m\2\/MHz.
(iv) With respect to proposed operation in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band
(Earth-to-space), a certification that the proposed uplink operation
will not exceed the applicable EIRP density envelopes in Sec. 100.280
and that the associated space station will not generate a power flux
density at the Earth's surface in excess of the applicable limits in
this part, unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink FSS operation
is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations
at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location and
except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(v) With respect to proposed operation in the 4500-4800 MHz (space-
to-Earth), 6725-7025 MHz (Earth-to-space), 10.70-10.95 GHz (space-to-
Earth), 11.20-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth), and/or 12.75-13.25 GHz
(Earth-to-space) bands, a statement that the proposed operation will
take into account the applicable requirements of Appendix 30B of the
ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 100.4) and
a demonstration that it is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings under
Appendix 30B.
(vi) With respect to proposed operation in other FSS bands, an
interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with any previously
authorized co-frequency space station at a location two degrees away or
a certification that the proposed operation has been coordinated with
the operator(s) of the previously authorized space station(s). If there
is no previously authorized space station at a location two degrees
away, the applicant must submit an interference analysis demonstrating
compatibility with a hypothetical co-frequency space station two
degrees away with the same receiving and transmitting characteristics
as the proposed space station.
(b) Operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(1) Each applicant for a license to operate a space station
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must provide the following
information:
(2) An applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must certify that the
downlink power flux density on the Earth's surface will not exceed the
regional power flux density limits listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section:
(i) In the region of the contiguous United States, located south of
38[deg] North Latitude and east of 100[deg] West Longitude: -115 dBW/
m\2\/MHz.
(ii) In the region of the contiguous United States, located north
of 38[deg] North Latitude and east of 100[deg] West Longitude: -118
dBW/m\2\/MHz.
(iii) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west
of 100[deg] West Longitude: -121 dBW/m\2\/MHz.
(iv) For all regions outside of the contiguous United States
including Alaska and Hawaii: -115 dBW/m\2\/MHz.
(3) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the
following applicants must either certify that their proposed operations
have been coordinated with the adjacent operator of a previously
authorized or proposed co-frequency space station, or must provide an
interference analysis of the kind described in this section, except
that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed network will not
cause more interference to the adjacent space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8
[[Page 56410]]
GHz band operating in compliance with the technical requirements of
this part, than if the applicant were located at an orbital separation
of four degrees from the previously licensed or proposed space station:
(i) Applicants for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a
previously authorized or proposed co-frequency 17/24 GHz BSS space
station;
(ii) Applicants for a FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a previously
authorized or proposed co-frequency 17/24 GHz BSS space station; and
(iii) Applicants for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a
previously authorized or proposed co-frequency FSS space station
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(4) Where an authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space
station is located within four degrees of a previously authorized or
proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, no new third proposed 17/24 GHz
BSS or FSS space station may be located within eight degrees of the
first authorized or proposed space station in the same direction as the
second authorized or proposed space station, unless the applicant for
the third space station certifies that its proposed operation has been
coordinated with the operator of the first previously authorized or
proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, or the applicant for the third
proposed space station provides an interference analysis of the kind
described in this section, or the applicant for the third proposed
space station demonstrates that its proposed network will not cause
more interference to the first previously authorized or proposed space
station than if the applicant for the third proposed space station were
located at an orbital separation of eight degrees from the first
previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)-(4) of
this section, the link budget for any satellite transmitting in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) must take into account longitudinal
station-keeping tolerances. Any applicant for a space station
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that has reached a coordination
agreement with an operator of another space station to allow that
operator to exceed the PFD levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) or
(b)(2) of this section, must use those higher PFD levels for the
purpose of this showing.
(c) GSO FSS operations in certain bands.
(1) An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or
extended C-bands, conventional or extended Ku-bands, 24.75-25.25 GHz
band (Earth-to-space), or conventional or extended Ka-bands may notify
the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be relieved
of the obligation to coordinate such levels with later applicants and
petitioners.
(2) The letter notification must include the downlink off-axis EIRP
density levels or power flux density levels and/or uplink off-axis EIRP
density levels, specified per frequency range and space station antenna
beam, that exceed the relevant routine limits set forth in paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section and Sec. 100.280.
(3) Non-routine transmissions notified pursuant to this section
need not be coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space
stations that filed their complete applications or petitions after the
date of filing of the notification with the Commission. Such later
applicants and petitioners must accept any additional interference
caused by the notified non-routine transmissions.
(4) An operator of a replacement space station, may operate with
non-routine transmission levels to the extent permitted under this
section for the replaced space station.
(d) Geographic service requirements.
(1) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to
provide video programming directly to consumers in the 48 contiguous
United States (CONUS) must provide comparable service to Alaska and
Hawaii, unless such service is not technically feasible or not
economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location.
(2) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station subject to
paragraph (d)(1) of this section must design and configure its space
station to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii, that
is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS
subscribers, from any orbital location capable of providing service to
either Alaska or Hawaii to which it may be located or relocated in the
future.
(3) If an operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to
provide video programming directly to consumers in the United States
relocates or replaces a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location from
which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24
GHz BSS space station, the operator must use a space station capable of
providing at least the same level of service to Alaska and Hawaii as
previously provided from that location.
Sec. 100.231 Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for
17/24 GHz BSS space stations and FSS space stations transmitting in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(a) A 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS applicant seeking to transmit in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band may be authorized to operate a space station at
levels up to the maximum power flux density limits defined in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section without coordinating its
power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted
operators, as follows:
(1) For 17/24 GHz BSS applicants, up to the power flux density
levels specified in Sec. 100.230 only if there is no licensed space
station, or prior-filed application for a space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at a location less than four degrees from the
orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate; and
(2) For FSS space station applicants transmitting in the 17.3-17.8
GHz band, up to the maximum power flux density levels in Sec. 100.230,
only if there is no licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, or prior-
filed application for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station, at a location less
than four degrees from the orbital location at which the FSS applicant
proposes to operate, and there is no licensed FSS space station, or
prior-filed application for an FSS space station transmitting in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band, at a location less than two degrees from the
orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate.
(b) Any U.S. licensee or permittee authorized to transmit in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with the applicable power flux-
density limits set forth in Sec. 100.230 shall bear the burden of
coordinating with any future co-frequency licensees and permittees of a
space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(c) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the
FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not
comply with Sec. 100.230 or the operator of the 17/24 GHz BSS space
station that does not comply with Sec. 100.230 shall reduce its power
flux-density levels to be compliant with those specified in Sec.
100.230 as appropriate.
(d) Any U.S. licensee or permittee of a space station transmitting
in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is required to provide information in
its application pursuant to Sec. 100.230 must accept any increased
interference that may result from adjacent space stations
[[Page 56411]]
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that are operating in compliance
with the rules for such space stations specified in this part.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, licensees and
permittees will be allowed to apply for a license or authorization for
a replacement space stations that will be operated at the same power
level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.
Sec. 100.232 Requirements to facilitate reverse-band operation in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(a) Each applicant or licensee for a space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must submit a series of tables or graphs
containing predicted off-axis gain data for each antenna that will
transmit in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, in accordance with
the following specifications. Using a Cartesian coordinate system
wherein the X axis is tangent to the geostationary orbital arc with the
positive direction pointing east, i.e., in the direction of travel of
the satellite; the Y axis is parallel to a line passing through the
geographic north and south poles of the Earth, with the positive
direction pointing south; and the Z axis passes through the satellite
and the center of the Earth, with the positive direction pointing
toward the Earth, the applicant or licensee must provide the predicted
transmitting antenna off-axis antenna gain information:
(1) In the X-Z plane, i.e., the plane of the geostationary orbit,
over a range of 30 degrees from the positive and negative X
axes in increments of 5 degrees or less.
(2) In planes rotated from the X-Z plane about the Z axis, over a
range of 60 degrees relative to the equatorial plane, in
increments of 10 degrees or less.
(3) In both polarizations.
(4) At a minimum of one measurement frequency at the center of the
portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band over which the space
station is designed to transmit. Applicants or licensees must provide
additional measurement data at 5 MHz above the lower edge of the band
and/or at 5 MHz below the upper edge of the band, upon request by the
Commission staff.
(5) Over a greater angular measurement range, if necessary, to
account for any planned spacecraft orientation bias or change in
operating orientation relative to the reference coordinate system. The
applicant or licensee must state the reasons for including such
additional information.
(b) A space station applicant or licensee transmitting in any
portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must submit PFD calculations based on
the predicted gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section, as follows:
(1) The PFD calculations must be provided at the location of all
prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations where the applicant's PFD level
exceeds the coordination trigger of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz in the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band. In this rule, the term prior-filed U.S. DBS space
station refers to any co-frequency Direct Broadcast Satellite service
space station for which an application was filed with the Commission,
or an authorization was granted by the Commission, prior to the filing
of the information and certifications required by paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section. The term prior-filed U.S. DBS space station does
not include any applications (or authorizations) that have been denied,
dismissed, or are otherwise no longer valid. Prior-filed U.S. DBS space
stations may include foreign-licensed DBS space stations seeking
authority to serve the United States market, but do not include
foreign-licensed DBS space stations that have not filed applications
with the Commission for market access in the United States.
(2) The calculations must take into account the aggregate PFD
levels at the DBS receiver at each measurement frequency arising from
all antenna beams on the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8
GHz band. They must also take into account the maximum permitted
longitudinal station- keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and
orbital eccentricity of both the space station transmitting in the
17.3-17.8 GHz band and DBS space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose
location the coordination threshold PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz
is exceeded; and
(ii) Indicate the extent to which the calculated PFD of the space
station's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold
PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz at those prior- filed U.S. DBS space
station locations.
(3) If the calculated PFD exceeds the threshold level of -117 dBW/
m\2\/100 kHz at the location of any prior-filed U.S. DBS space station,
the applicant or licensee must also provide with the PFD calculations a
certification that all affected DBS operators acknowledge and do not
object to such higher off-axis PFD levels. No such certification is
required in cases where the frequencies assigned to the DBS and to the
space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band do not overlap.
(4) The information and any certification required by paragraph (b)
of this section must be submitted to the Commission for each license
application that is filed for a space station transmitting in any
portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band no later than two years after license
grant for the space station.
(c) No later than two months prior to launch, each licensee of a
space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band
must update the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain
information provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section
by submitting measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information
over the angular ranges, measurement frequencies and polarizations
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. The
transmitting antenna off-axis gain information should be measured under
conditions as close to flight configuration as possible. As an
alternative, licensees authorized to operate at locations one degree or
greater from a prior-filed DBS space station may submit simulated
transmitting antenna off-axis gain data in lieu of measured data, over
the same angular ranges, frequencies and polarizations.
(d) No later than two months prior to launch, or when applying for
authority to change the location of a space station transmitting in any
portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is already in orbit, each such
space station licensee must provide PFD calculations based on the
measured off-axis gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section, as follows:
(1) The PFD calculations must be provided:
(i) At the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations as
defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, where the applicant's PFD
level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceeds the coordination trigger of -
117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz; and
(ii) At the location of any subsequently filed U.S. DBS space
station where the PFD level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band calculated on the
basis of measured gain data exceeds -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz. In paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section, the term ``subsequently filed U.S. DBS
space station'' refers to any co-frequency DBS service space station
proposed in a license application filed with the Commission after the
operator of a space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band submitted the predicted data required by paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section but before submission of the
[[Page 56412]]
measured data required by this paragraph. Subsequently filed U.S. DBS
space stations may include foreign-licensed DBS space stations seeking
authority to serve the United States market. The term does not include
any applications (or authorizations) that have been denied, dismissed,
or are otherwise no longer valid, nor does it include foreign-licensed
DBS space stations that have not filed applications with the Commission
for market access in the United States.
(2) The PFD calculations must take into account the maximum
permitted longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, orbital inclination
and orbital eccentricity of both the transmitting 17.3-17.8 GHz and DBS
space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose
location the coordination threshold PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz
is exceeded; and
(ii) Demonstrate the extent to which the applicant's or licensee's
transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold PFD level
of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz at those prior-filed U.S. DBS space station
locations.
(e) If the aggregate PFD level calculated from the measured data
submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section is in excess
of the threshold PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz:
(1) At the location of any prior-filed U.S. DBS space station as
defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, then the operator of the
space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band
must either:
(i) Coordinate its operations that are in excess of the threshold
PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz with the affected prior-filed U.S.
DBS space station operator, or
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the
prior-filed U.S. DBS space station, the PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100
kHz is not exceeded.
(2) At the location of any subsequently filed U.S. DBS space
station as defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, where the
aggregate PFD level submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section is also in excess of the PFD level calculated on the basis of
the predicted data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section that were on file with the Commission at the time the DBS space
station application was filed, then the operator of the space station
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must either:
(i) Coordinate with the affected subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space
station operator all of its operations that are either in excess of the
PFD level calculated on the basis of the predicted antenna off-axis
gain data, or are in excess of the threshold PFD level of -117 dBW/
m\2\/100 kHz, whichever is greater; or
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the
subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station, either the PFD level
calculated on the basis of the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna
gain data, or the threshold PFD level of -117 dBW/m\2\/100 kHz,
whichever is greater, is not exceeded.
(3) No coordination or adjustment of operating parameters is
required in cases where there is no overlap in frequencies assigned to
the DBS and the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(f) The applicant or licensee for the space station transmitting in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must modify its license, or amend its
application, as appropriate, based upon new information:
(1) If the PFD levels submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this section, are in excess of those submitted in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section at the location of any prior-filed or
subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (d)(1) of this section, or
(2) If the operator of the space station transmitting in the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band adjusts its operating parameters in accordance with
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2)(ii) or this section.
(g) Absent an explicit agreement between operators to permit more
closely spaced operations, U.S. authorized 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space
stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and U.S. authorized DBS
space stations with co-frequency assignments may not be licensed to
operate at locations separated by less than 0.2 degrees in orbital
longitude.
(h) All operational space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8
GHz band must be maintained in geostationary orbits that:
(1) Do not exceed 0.075[deg] of inclination.
(2) Operate with an apogee less than or equal to 35,806 km above
the surface of the Earth, and with a perigee greater than or equal to
35,766 km above the surface of the Earth (i.e., an eccentricity of less
than 4.7 x 10-4).
(i) U.S. authorized DBS networks may claim protection from space
path interference arising from the reverse-band operations of U.S.
authorized space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to the
extent that the DBS space station operates within the bounds of
inclination and eccentricity listed in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of
this section. When the geostationary orbit of the DBS space station
exceeds these bounds on inclination and eccentricity, it may not claim
protection from any additional space path interference arising as a
result of its inclined or eccentric operations and may only claim
protection as if it were operating within the bounds listed in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) The DBS space station's orbit does not exceed 0.075[deg] of
inclination; and
(2) The DBS space station's orbit maintains an apogee less than or
equal to 35,806 km above the surface of the Earth, and a perigee
greater than or equal to 35,766 km above the surface of the Earth
(i.e., an eccentricity of less than 4.7 x 10-4).
Sec. 100.233 Provisions for direct broadcast satellite service.
(a) Geographic service requirements. Applicants for DBS service
must provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii where such service is
technically feasible from the authorized orbital location. This
requirement does not apply to DBS satellites authorized to operate at
the 61.5[deg] W.L. orbital location. DBS applicants seeking to operate
from locations other than 61.5[deg] W.L. who do not provide service to
Alaska and Hawaii must provide technical analyses to the Commission
demonstrating that such service is not feasible as a technical matter,
or that while technically feasible such services would require so many
compromises in satellite design and operation as to make it
economically unreasonable.
(b) Technical qualifications. DBS operations must be in accordance
with the sharing criteria and technical characteristics contained in
Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU's Radio Regulations. Operation of
systems using differing technical characteristics may be permitted,
with adequate technical showing, and if a request has been made to the
ITU to modify the appropriate Plans to include the system's technical
parameters.
Sec. 100.234 Analog video transmissions in the FSS.
(c) All conventional C-band analog video transmissions must contain
an energy dispersal signal at all times with a minimum peak-to-peak
bandwidth set at whatever value is necessary to meet the power flux
density limits specified in Sec. 100.212 and successfully coordinated
internationally and accepted by adjacent U.S. satellite operators based
on the use of state of the
[[Page 56413]]
art space and earth station facilities. All transmissions in frequency
bands described in Sec. 100.212 must also contain an energy dispersal
signal at all times with a minimum peak-to-peak bandwidth set at
whatever value is necessary to meet the power flux density limits
specified in Sec. 100.212 and successfully coordinated internationally
and accepted by adjacent U.S. satellite operators based on the use of
state of the art space and earth station facilities.
(d) All initial analog video transmissions shall be preceded by a
video test transmission at an uplink e.i.r.p. at least 10 dB below the
normal operating level. The earth station operator shall not increase
power until receiving notification from the satellite network control
center that the frequency and polarization alignment are satisfactory
pursuant to the procedures specified in Sec. 100.240. The stationary
earth station operator that has successfully transmitted an initial
video test signal to a satellite pursuant to this paragraph is not
required to make subsequent video test transmissions if subsequent
transmissions are conducted using exactly the same parameters as the
initial transmission.
(e) An earth station may be routinely licensed for transmission of
full-transponder analog video services in the 5925-6425 MHz band or
14.0-14.5 GHz band provided:
(1) The application includes certification, of conformance with the
antenna performance standards in Sec. 100.279;
(2) For transmission in the 5925-6425 MHz band, the input power
into the antenna will not exceed 26.5 dBW; or
(3) For transmission in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, the input power
into the antenna will not exceed 27 dBW.
Sec. 100.235 Inclined orbit operations.
Licensees operating in inclined-orbit are required to:
(a) Periodically correct the satellite attitude to achieve a
stationary spacecraft antenna pattern on the surface of the Earth and
centered on the satellite's designated service area;
(b) Control all electrical interference to adjacent satellites, as
a result of operating in an inclined orbit, to levels not to exceed
that which would be caused by the satellite operating without an
inclined orbit;
(c) Not claim protection in excess of the protection that would be
received by the satellite network operating without an inclined orbit;
and
(d) Continue to maintain the space station at the authorized
longitude orbital location in the geostationary satellite arc with the
appropriate east-west station-keeping tolerance.
Coordination/Interference/Sharing for Space Stations
Sec. 100.240 NGSO/GSO sharing/coordination.
(a) Protection of GSO networks by NGSO systems. Unless otherwise
provided in this chapter, an NGSO system licensee must not cause
harmful interference to, or claim protection from, a GSO FSS or GSO BSS
network. An NGSO licensee operating in compliance with the applicable
equivalent power flux-density limits in Article 22, Section II of the
ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, Sec. 100.4) will be
considered as having fulfilled this obligation with respect to any GSO
network.
(b) 10.7-12.75 GHz NGSO/GSO coordination. Coordination will be
required between NGSO FSS systems and GSO FSS earth stations in the
10.7-12.75 GHz band when:
(1) The GSO satellite network has receive earth stations with earth
station antenna maximum isotropic gain greater than or equal to 64 dBi;
G/T of 44 dB/K or higher; and emission bandwidth of 250 MHz; and
(2) The EPFDdown radiated by the NGSO satellite system
into the GSO specific receive earth station, either within the U.S. for
domestic service or any points outside the U.S. for international
service, as calculated using the ITU software for examining compliance
with EPFD limits exceeds -174.5 dB(W/(m\2\/40kHz)) for any percentage
of time for NGSO systems with all satellites only operating at or below
2500 km altitude, or -202 dB(W/(m\2\/40kHz)) for any percentage of time
for NGSO systems with any satellites operating above 2500 km altitude.
(c) Coordination among inter-satellite service systems. Applicants
for authority to establish inter-satellite service are encouraged to
coordinate their proposed frequency usage with existing permittees and
licensees in the inter-satellite service whose facilities could be
affected by the new proposal in terms of frequency interference or
restricted system capacity. All affected applicants, permittees, and
licensees, shall at the direction of the Commission, cooperate fully
and make every reasonable effort to resolve technical problems and
conflicts that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the radio
spectrum; however, the permittee or licensee being coordinated with is
not obligated to suggest changes or re-engineer an applicant's proposal
in cases involving conflicts.
Sec. 100.241 Sharing among NGSO FSS space stations.
(a) Scope. This section applies to NGSO FSS operation with earth
stations with directional antennas anywhere in the world under a
Commission license, or in the United States under a grant of U.S.
market access.
(b) Coordination. NGSO FSS licensees and market access recipients
must coordinate in good faith the use of commonly authorized
frequencies regardless of their processing round status.
(c) Default procedure for NGSO FSS space stations. Absent
coordination between two or more satellite systems, whenever the
increase in system noise temperature of an earth station receiver, or a
space station receiver for a satellite with on-board processing, of
either system, [Delta]T/T, exceeds six percent due to interference from
emissions originating in the other system in a commonly authorized
frequency band, such frequency band will be divided among the affected
satellite networks in accordance with the following procedure:
(1) Each of n (number of) satellite networks involved that were
licensed or granted market access through the same processing round,
except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, must select 1/n of
the assigned spectrum available in each of these frequency bands. The
selection order for each satellite network will be determined by the
date that the first space station in each satellite system is launched
and capable of operating in the frequency band under consideration;
(2) The affected station(s) of the respective satellite systems may
operate in only the selected (1/n) spectrum associated with its
satellite system while the [Delta]T/T of six percent threshold is
exceeded;
(3) All affected station(s) may resume operations throughout the
assigned frequency bands once the threshold is no longer exceeded.
(d) Protection of earlier-round systems. Prior to commencing
operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either
certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any
operational NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in
an earlier processing round, or submit for Commission approval a
compatibility showing which demonstrates by use of a degraded
throughput methodology that it will not cause harmful interference to
any such system with which coordination has not been completed. If an
earlier-round system becomes operational after a later-round
[[Page 56414]]
system has commenced operations, the later-round licensee or market
access recipient must submit a certification of coordination or a
compatibility showing with respect to the earlier-round system no later
than 60 days after the earlier-round system commences operations as
notified pursuant to Sec. 100.149 or otherwise.
(1) Compatibility showings must contain the following elements:
(i) A demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more
than three percent time-weighted average degraded throughput of the
link to the earlier-round system, for links with a baseline link
availability of 99.0% or higher at a C/N threshold of 0 dB;
(ii) A demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more
than 0.4% absolute change in link availability to the earlier-round
system using a C/N threshold value of 0 dB, for links with a baseline
link availability of 99.0% link availability or higher; and
(iii) With respect to an earlier-round system that has not yet
satisfied its 50% deployment milestone pursuant to Sec. 100.147, the
compatibility showing may consider only 50% deployment of the earlier-
round system; if the 50% deployment milestone has been satisfied, the
showing must consider 100% deployment of the authorized system.
(2) Compatibility showings will be placed on public notice pursuant
to Sec. 100.132.
(3) While a compatibility showing remains pending before the
Commission, the submitting NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient
may commence operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis with
respect to the operations of the system that is the subject of the
showing.
(4) A later-round NGSO FSS system will be required to conform its
operations to its compatibility showing submitted for the protection of
an earlier-round system to the extent necessary to protect the actual
number of deployed and operating space stations of the earlier-round
system.
(e) Sunsetting. Ten years after the first authorization or grant of
market access in a processing round, the systems approved in that
processing round will no longer be required to protect earlier-rounds
systems under paragraph (d) of this section, and instead will be
required to share spectrum with earlier-round systems under paragraph
(c) of this section.
Sec. 100.242 Time sharing between NOAA meteorological satellite
systems and non-voice, non-geostationary satellite systems in the 137-
138 MHz band.
(a) The space stations of a non-voice, non-geostationary Mobile-
Satellite Service (NVNG MSS) system time-sharing downlink spectrum in
the 137-138 MHz band with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) satellites shall not transmit signals into the
``protection areas'' of the NOAA satellites.
(1) With respect to transmission in the 137.333-137.367 MHz,
137.485-137.515 MHz, 137.605-137.635 MHz, and 137.753-137.787 MHz
bands, the protection area for a NOAA satellite is the area on the
Earth's surface in which the NOAA satellite is in line of sight from
the ground at an elevation angle of five degrees or more above the
horizon. No NVNG MSS satellite shall transmit in these bands when it is
in line of sight at an elevation angle of zero degrees or more from any
point on the ground within a NOAA satellite's protected area for that
band.
(2) With respect to transmission in the 137.025-137.175 MHz and
137.825-138 MHz bands, the protection area for a NOAA satellite is the
area on the Earth's surface in which the NOAA satellite is in line of
sight from the ground at any elevation angle above zero degrees. No
NVNG MSS satellite shall transmit in these bands when at a line-of-
sight elevation angle of zero degrees or more from any point on the
ground within a NOAA satellite's protected area for that band. In
addition, such an NVNG MSS satellite shall cease transmitting when it
is at an elevation angle of less than zero degrees from any such point,
if reasonably necessary to protect reception of the NOAA satellite's
signal.
(3) An NVNG MSS licensee is responsible for obtaining the ephemeris
data necessary for compliance with these restrictions. The ephemeris
information must be updated system-wide on at least a weekly basis. For
calculation required for compliance with these restrictions an NVNG MSS
licensee shall use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy
equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by NOAA.
(b) An NVNG licensee time sharing spectrum in the 137-138 MHz band
must establish a 24-hour per day contact person and telephone number so
that claims of harmful interference into NOAA earth stations and other
operational issues can be reported and resolved expeditiously. This
contact information must be made available to NOAA or its designee. If
the NTIA notifies the Commission that NOAA is receiving harmful
interference from a NVNG licensee, the Commission will require such
NVNG licensee to terminate its interfering operations immediately
unless it demonstrates to the Commission's reasonable satisfaction, and
that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing harmful
interference into the worldwide NOAA system. An NVNG licensee assumes
the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors,
officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or
suffer in connection with an interruption of its MSS, in whole or in
part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with
the requirements of this paragraph.
(c) Each satellite in a NVNG licensee's system time-sharing
spectrum with NOAA in the 137-138 MHz band shall automatically turn off
and cease satellite transmissions if, after 72 consecutive hours, no
reset signal is received from the NVNG licensee's gateway earth station
and verified by the satellite. All satellites in such NVNG licensee's
system shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any sub-band upon
command from such NVNG licensee's gateway earth station.
Sec. 100.243 Time sharing between DoD meteorological satellite
systems and non-voice, non-geostationary satellite systems in the
400.15-401 MHz band.
(a) The space stations of a non-voice, non-geostationary Mobile-
Satellite Service (NVNG MSS) system time-sharing downlink spectrum in
the 400.15-401.0 MHz band with Department of Defense (DoD) satellites
shall not transmit signals into the ``protection areas'' of the DoD
satellites.
(1) The protection area for such a DoD satellite is the area on the
Earth's surface in which the DoD satellite is in line of sight from the
ground at an elevation angle of five degrees or more above the horizon.
(2) An NVNG MSS space station shall not transmit in the 400.15-401
MHz band when at a line-of-sight elevation angle of zero degrees or
more from any point on the ground within the protected area of a DoD
satellite operating in that band.
(3) An NVNG MSS licensee is responsible for obtaining the ephemeris
data necessary for compliance with this restriction. The ephemeris
information must be updated system-wide at least once per week. For
calculation required for compliance with this restriction an NVNG MSS
licensee shall use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy
equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by DoD.
[[Page 56415]]
(b) An NVNG licensee time sharing spectrum in the 400.15-401 MHz
band must establish a 24-hour per day contact person and telephone
number so that claims of harmful interference into DoD earth stations
and other operational issues can be reported and resolved
expeditiously. This contact information must be made available to DoD
or its designee. If the NTIA notifies the Commission that DoD is
receiving harmful interference from a NVNG licensee, the Commission
will require such NVNG licensee to terminate its interfering operations
immediately unless it demonstrates to the Commission's reasonable
satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing
harmful interference into the worldwide DoD system. A NVNG licensee
assumes the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors,
officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or
suffer in connection with an interruption of its MSS, in whole or in
part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with
the requirements of this paragraph.
(c) Each satellite in a NVNG licensee's system time-sharing
spectrum with DoD in the 400.15-401 MHz band shall automatically turn
off and cease satellite transmissions if, after 72 consecutive hours,
no reset signal is received from the NVNG licensee's gateway earth
station and verified by the satellite. All satellites in such NVNG
licensee's system shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any
sub-band upon command from such NVNG licensee's gateway earth station.
(d) Initially, a NVNG licensee time-sharing spectrum with DoD in
the 400.15-401 MHz band shall be able to change the frequency on which
its system satellites are operating within 125 minutes of receiving
notification from a DoD required frequency change in the 400.15-401 MHz
band. Thereafter, when an NVNG licensee constructs additional gateway
earth stations located outside of North and South America, it shall use
its best efforts to decrease to 90 minutes the time required to
implement a DoD required frequency change. An NVNG licensee promptly
shall notify the Commission and NTIA of any decrease in the time it
requires to implement a DoD required frequency change.
(e) Once an NVNG licensee time-sharing spectrum with DoD in the
400.15-401 MHz band demonstrates to DoD that it is capable of
implementing a DoD required frequency change within the time required
under paragraph (d) of this section; thereafter, such NVNG licensee
shall demonstrate its capability to implement a DoD required frequency
change only once per year at the instruction of DoD. Such
demonstrations shall occur during off-peak hours, as determined by the
NVNG licensee, unless otherwise agreed by the NVNG licensee and DoD.
Such NVNG licensee will coordinate with DoD in establishing a plan for
such a demonstration. In the event that an NVNG licensee fails to
demonstrate to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD required
frequency change in accordance with a demonstration plan established by
DoD and the NVNG licensee, upon the Commission's receipt of a written
notification from NTIA describing such failure, the Commission shall
impose additional conditions or requirements on the NVNG licensee's
authorization as may be necessary to protect DoD operations in the
400.15-401 MHz downlink band until the Commission is notified by NTIA
that the NVNG licensee has successfully demonstrated its ability to
implement a DoD required frequency change. Such additional conditions
or requirements may include, but are not limited to, requiring such
NVNG licensee immediately to terminate its operations interfering with
the DoD system.
Sec. 100.244 Inter-service coordination requirements for the 1.6/2.4
GHz MSS.
(f) Protection of the radio astronomy service in the 1610.6-1613.8
MHz band against interference from 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems.
(1) All 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems shall be capable of determining the
position of the user transceivers accessing the space segment through
either internal radiodetermination calculations or external sources
such as LORAN-C or the Global Positioning System.
In the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band, within a 160 km radius of the
following radio astronomy sites:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
Observatory (DMS) (DMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arecibo, PR...................................... 18 20 46 66 45 11
Green Bank Telescope, WV......................... 38 25 59 79 50 24
38 26 09 79 49 42
Very Large Array, NM............................. 34 04 43 107 37 04
Owens Valley, CA................................. 37 13 54 118 17 36
Ohio State, OH................................... 40 15 06 83 02 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) In the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band, within a 50 km radius of the
following radio astronomy sites:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
Observatory (DMS) (DMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Town, NM.................................... 34 18 04 108 07 07
Los Alamos, NM................................... 35 46 30 106 14 42
Kitt Peak, AZ.................................... 31 57 22 111 36 42
Ft. Davis, TX.................................... 30 38 06 103 56 39
N. Liberty, IA................................... 41 46 17 91 34 26
Brewster, WA..................................... 48 07 53 119 40 55
Owens Valley, CA................................. 37 13 54 118 16 34
St. Croix, VI.................................... 17 45 31 64 35 03
Mauna Kea, HI.................................... 19 48 16 155 27 29
Hancock, NH...................................... 42 56 01 71 59 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Out-of-band emissions of a mobile earth station licensed to
operate within the 1610.0-1626.5 MHz band shall be attenuated so that
the PFD it produces in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band at any radio
astronomy site listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section
shall not exceed the emissions of a mobile earth station operating
within the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band at the edge of the protection zone
applicable for that site. As an alternative, a mobile earth station
shall not operate during radio astronomy observations within the
1613.8-1615.8 MHz band within 100 km of the radio astronomy sites
listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and within 30 km of the
sites listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, there being no
restriction on a mobile earth station operating within the 1615.8-
1626.5 MHz band.
(iii) For airborne mobile earth stations operating in the 1610.0-
1626.5 MHz band, the separation distance shall be the larger of the
distances specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section, as applicable, or the distance, d, as given by the formula:
d (km) = 4.1 square root of (h)
where h is the altitude of the aircraft in meters above ground level.
(iv) Smaller geographic protection zones may be used in lieu of the
areas specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this
section if agreed to by the MSS licensee and the Electromagnetic
Spectrum Management Unit (ESMU), National Science Foundation,
Washington, DC upon a showing by the MSS licensee that the operation of
a mobile earth station will not cause harmful interference to a radio
astronomy observatory during periods of observation.
(v) The ESMU shall notify MSS space station licensees authorized to
operate mobile earth stations in the 1610.0-1626.5 MHz band of periods
of radio astronomy observations. The MSS systems shall be capable of
terminating operations within the frequency bands and protection zones
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, after the first position fix of the mobile earth station
either prior to transmission or, based upon its location within the
protection zone at the time of initial transmission of the mobile earth
station. Once the Mobile-Satellite Service system
[[Page 56416]]
determines that a mobile earth station is located within an RAS
protection zone, the Mobile-Satellite Service system shall immediately
initiate procedures to relocate the mobile earth station operations to
a non-RAS frequency.
(vi) A beacon-actuated protection zone may be used in lieu of fixed
protection zones in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band if a coordination
agreement is reached between a MSS system licensee and the ESMU on the
specifics of beacon operations.
(2) Additional radio astronomy sites, not located within 100 miles
of the 100 most populous urbanized areas as defined by the United
States Census Bureau at the time, may be afforded similar protection
one year after notice to the MSS system licensees by issuance of a
public notice by the Commission.
(3) MSS space stations transmitting in the 1613.8-1626.5 MHz band
shall take whatever steps necessary to avoid causing harmful
interference to the radio astronomy facilities listed in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section during periods of observation.
(4) MSS space stations operating in the 2483.5-2500 MHz frequency
band shall limit spurious emission levels in the 4990-5000 MHz band so
as not to exceed -241 dB (W/m\2\/Hz) at the surface of the Earth.
(5) The Radioastronomy Service shall avoid scheduling radio
astronomy observations during peak MSS/RDSS traffic periods to the
greatest extent practicable.
(g) If a MSS space station operator in the 2496-2500 MHz band
intends to operate at powers levels that exceed the PFD limits in Sec.
100.212, or if actual operations routinely exceed these PFD limits, the
MSS operator must receive approval from each operational BRS system in
the affected geographical region.
Sec. 100.245 Acceptance of interference in 2000-2020 MHz.
MSS receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept
interference from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, where
such interference is due to:
(a) The in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (i.e., the
portion of transmit power contained in the 1995-2000 MHz band); or
(b) The portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005
MHz.
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service
Sec. 100.250 Licensing provisions for the 2.3 GHz satellite digital
audio radio service.
(a) General requirements. Each application for a system
authorization in the satellite digital audio radio service in the 2310-
2360 MHz band shall describe in detail the proposed satellite digital
audio radio system, setting forth all pertinent technical and
operational aspects of the system, and the technical, legal, and
financial qualifications of the applicant.
(b) Technical qualifications. In addition to the information
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each applicant shall:
(1) Demonstrate that its system will, at a minimum, service the 48
contiguous states of the United States (full CONUS); and
(2) Certify that its satellite DARS system includes a receiver that
will permit end users to access all licensed satellite DARS systems
that are operational or under construction.
(c) Milestone requirements. Each applicant for system authorization
in the satellite digital audio radio service must demonstrate within 10
days after a required implementation milestone as specified in the
system authorization, and on the basis of the documentation contained
in its application, certify to the Commission by affidavit that the
milestone has been met or notify the Commission by letter that it has
not been met. At its discretion, the Commission may require the
submission of additional information (supported by affidavit of a
person or persons with knowledge thereof) to demonstrate that the
milestone has been met. The satellite DARS milestones are as follows,
based on the date of authorization:
(1) One year: complete contracting for construction of first
satellite or begin satellite construction;
(2) Two years: if applied for, complete contracting for
construction of second satellite or begin second satellite
construction;
(3) Four years: in orbit operation of at least one satellite; and
(4) Six years: full operation of the satellite system.
Sec. 100.251 Information sharing requirements for SDARS terrestrial
repeater operators.
This section requires SDARS licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band to
share information regarding the location and operation of terrestrial
repeaters with WCS licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
bands. Sec. 27.72 of this chapter requires WCS licensees to share
information regarding the location and operation of base stations in
the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands with SDARS licensees in the
2320-2345 MHz band.
(a) Site and frequency selection. SDARS licensees must select
terrestrial repeater sites and frequencies, to the extent practicable,
to minimize the possibility of harmful interference to WCS base station
operations in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands.
(b) Notice requirements. SDARS licensees that intend to operate a
new terrestrial repeater must, before commencing such operation,
provide 10 business days prior notice to all potentially affected
Wireless Communications Service (WCS) licensees. SDARS licensees that
intend to modify an existing repeater must, before commencing such
modified operation, provide five business days prior notice to all
potentially affected WCS licensees.
(1) For purposes of this section, a ``potentially affected WCS
licensee'' is a WCS licensee that:
(i) Is authorized to operate a base station in the 2305-2315 MHz or
2350-2360 MHz bands in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in
which the terrestrial repeater is to be located;
(ii) Is authorized to operate base station in the 2315-2320 MHz or
2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG)
as that in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located;
(iii) In addition to the WCS licensees identified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, in cases in which the SDARS
licensee plans to deploy or modify a terrestrial repeater within 5
kilometers of the boundary of an MEA or REAG in which the terrestrial
repeater is to be located, a potentially affected WCS licensee is one
that is authorized to operate a WCS base station in that neighboring
MEA or REAG within 5 kilometers of the location of the terrestrial
repeater.
(2) For modifications other than changes in location, a licensee
may provide notice within 24 hours after the modified operation if the
modification does not result in a predicted increase of the PFD at
ground level by more than 1 dB since the last advance notice was given.
If a demonstration is made by the WCS licensee that such modifications
may cause harmful interference to WCS receivers, SDARS licensees will
be required to provide notice five business days in advance of
additional repeater modifications.
(3) SDARS repeaters operating below 2 watts EIRP are exempt from
the notice requirements set forth in this paragraph.
(4) SDARS licensees are encouraged to develop separate coordination
agreements with WCS licensees to facilitate efficient deployment of and
coexistence between each service. To the extent the provisions of any
such
[[Page 56417]]
coordination agreement conflict with the requirements set forth herein,
the procedures established under a coordination agreement will control.
SDARS licensees must maintain a copy of any coordination agreement with
a WCS license in their station files and disclose it to prospective
assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees and, upon request, to the
Commission.
(5) SDARS and WCS licensees may enter into agreements regarding
alternative notification procedures.
(c) Contents of notice.
(1) Notification must specify relevant technical details,
including, at a minimum:
(i) The coordinates of the proposed repeater to an accuracy of no
less than 1 second latitude and longitude;
(ii) The proposed operating power(s), frequency band(s), and
emission(s);
(iii) The antenna center height above ground and ground elevation
above mean sea level, both to an accuracy of no less than 1
meter;
(iv) The antenna gain pattern(s) in the azimuth and elevation
planes that include the peak of the main beam; and
(v) The antenna downtilt angle(s).
(2) An SDARS licensee operating terrestrial repeaters must maintain
an accurate and up-to-date inventory of its terrestrial repeaters
operating above 2 watts average EIRP, including the information set
forth in this section which shall be available upon request by the
Commission.
(d) Calculation of notice period. Notice periods are calculated
from the date of receipt by the licensee being notified. If
notification is by mail, the date of receipt is evidenced by the return
receipt on certified mail. If notification is by fax, the date of
receipt is evidenced by the notifying party's fax transmission
confirmation log. If notification is by email, the date of receipt is
evidenced by a return email receipt. If the SDARS licensee and all
potentially affected WCS licensees reach a mutual agreement to provide
notification by some other means, that agreement must specify the
method for determining the beginning of the notice period.
(e) Duty to cooperate. SDARS licensees must cooperate in good faith
in the selection and use of new repeater sites to reduce interference
and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities. SDARS
licensees should provide WCS licensees as much lead time as practicable
to provide ample time to conduct analyses and opportunity for prudent
repeater site selection prior to SDARS licensees entering into real
estate and tower leasing or purchasing agreements. Licensees of
stations suffering or causing harmful interference must cooperate in
good faith and resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory
arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Space Bureau,
in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, will consider the actions taken by
the parties to mitigate the risk of and remedy any alleged
interference. In determining the appropriate action, the Space Bureau
will take into account the nature and extent of the interference and
act promptly to remedy the interference. The Space Bureau may impose
restrictions on SDARS licensees, including specifying the transmitter
power, antenna height, or other technical or operational measures to
remedy the interference, and will take into account previous measures
by the licensees to mitigate the risk of interference.
Orbital Debris
Sec. 100.260 Operations and end-of-life disposal.
(a) Orbital debris mitigation plans.
(1) Space station operators must operate in accordance with the
orbital debris mitigation plans, statements, and disclosures provided
to the Commission pursuant to Sec. Sec. 100.110 through 100.114.
(2) Operators must notify the Commission of any significant changes
to the orbital debris mitigation plans, statements, and disclosures
within 30 days of the date the change is effective.
(b) Geostationary orbit satellites. Unless otherwise explicitly
specified in an authorization, a satellite authorized to operate in the
geostationary satellite orbit under this part shall be relocated, at
the end of its useful life, barring catastrophic failure of satellite
components, to an orbit with a perigee with an altitude of no less
than:
36,021 km + (1000[middot]CR[middot]A/m)
where CR is the solar radiation pressure coefficient of the spacecraft,
and A/m is the Area to mass ratio, in square meters per kilogram, of
the spacecraft.
(c) GSO end-of-life operations. A space station authorized to
operate in the geostationary satellite orbit under this part may
operate using its authorized telemetry, tracking, and command
frequencies, and outside of its assigned orbital location, for the
purpose of removing the satellite from the geostationary satellite
orbit at the end of its useful life, provided that the conditions of
paragraph (b) of this section are met, and on the condition that the
space station's telemetry, tracking, and command transmissions are
planned so as to avoid radio frequency interference to other space
stations, and coordinated with any potentially affected satellite
networks.
(d) All space stations. Upon completion of any relocation
authorized by paragraph (c) of this section, or any relocation at end-
of-life specified in an authorization, or upon a spacecraft otherwise
completing its authorized mission, a space station licensee shall
ensure, unless prevented by technical failures beyond its control, that
stored energy sources on board the spacecraft are discharged, by
venting excess propellant, discharging batteries, relieving pressure
vessels, or other appropriate measures.
(e) Low-earth orbit space stations. For spacecraft ending their
mission in or passing through the low-Earth orbit region below 2000 km
altitude and planning disposal through uncontrolled atmospheric re-
entry, disposal must be completed as soon as practicable following end
of mission, and no later than five years after the end of the mission.
For purposes of this paragraph (e), end of mission is defined as the
time at which the individual spacecraft is no longer capable of
conducting collision avoidance maneuvers. For spacecraft without
collision avoidance capabilities, end of mission is defined as the
point in which the individual spacecraft has completed its primary
mission.
(f) Debris generation. A space station operator shall limit, during
and after completion of mission operations, unnecessary operational
debris, debris resulting from accidental explosions, or liquids
released that will persist in droplet form.
Sec. 100.261 NGSO space safety rules.
(a) Trackability. Each individual satellite in an NGSO satellite
system must be trackable. Satellites operating in low-Earth orbit will
be presumed trackable if each individual satellite is 10 cm or larger
in its smallest dimension, excluding deployable components.
(b) Conjunction warnings. Upon receipt of a space situational
awareness conjunction warning, the operator must review and take all
possible steps to assess and mitigate the collision risk. These steps
should include, but are not limited to: contacting the operator of any
active spacecraft involved in such a warning, sharing ephemeris data
and other appropriate operational information with any such operator,
and modifying spacecraft attitude or operations.
[[Page 56418]]
General Earth Station Rules
Sec. 100.270 Radiofrequency exposure requirements.
(a) Earth station applicants must provide a radiofrequency exposure
report that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's radio
frequency exposure requirements in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and
2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applicants with terminals that
will exceed the guidelines in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter for radio
frequency radiation exposure shall provide a plan for mitigation of
radiofrequency exposure to the extent required to meet those
guidelines.
(b) Earth stations defined as mobile devices as defined in Sec.
2.1091 of this chapter must comply with the requirements of part 2,
subpart J of this chapter.
Sec. 100.271 Responsibility of blanket licensed earth station
licensees.
(a) The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license is
responsible for operation of any earth station or user terminal under
that license.
(b) For purposes of this part, a blanket licensee for user
terminals, ESIMs, or Mobile Earth Stations, does not need to maintain
control over the specific device, but must be in control of the network
and maintain the ability to cease transmissions from the device.
Sec. 100.272 Minimum elevation angle.
(a) Earth station antennas must not transmit at elevation angles
less than five degrees, measured from the horizontal plane to the
direction of maximum radiation, in a frequency band shared with
terrestrial radio services or in a frequency band with an allocation to
space services operating in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth
directions. In other bands, earth station antennas must not transmit at
elevation angles less than three degrees. In some instances, it may be
necessary to specify greater minimum elevation angles because of
interference considerations.
(b) ESAAs in aircraft on the ground must not transmit at elevation
angles less than three degrees. There is no minimum angle of antenna
elevation for ESAAs while airborne.
Sec. 100.273 Receive-only earth stations.
(a) 17/24 GHz BSS. Receive-only earth stations operating in the 17/
24 GHz BSS can claim no greater protection from interference than they
would receive if the equivalent antenna diameter were equal to or
greater than 45 cm and the antenna meets the co-polar and cross-polar
performance patterns represented by the following set of formulas
(adopted in Recommendation ITU-R BO.1213-1, dated November 2005) that
are valid for D/[lambda] >=11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05DE25.006
(b) Applicability. This paragraph does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS
telemetry earth stations.
(c) Protection from interference. Receive-only earth stations in
the FSS that operate with U.S.-licensed space stations, or with non-
U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S.
market access, may be
[[Page 56419]]
registered with the Commission in order to protect them from
interference from terrestrial microwave stations in bands shared co-
equally with the Fixed Service. The registration of a receive-only
earth station results in the listing of an authorized frequency band at
the location specified in the registration. Interference protection
levels are those agreed to during coordination.
(d) Use of programming. Licensing or registration of receive-only
earth stations with the Commission confers no authority to receive and
use signals or programming received from satellites. See Section 705 of
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605.
(e) Applications. Applications for registration must be accompanied
by the exhibits and certifications of Sec. 100.120.
(f) International agreements. Reception of signals or programming
from non-U.S. satellites may be subject to restrictions as a result of
international agreements or treaties.
(g) Modifications. Applications for modification of license or
registration of receive-only earth stations must be made in conformance
with Sec. 100.143. In addition, registrants are required to notify the
Commission when a receive-only earth station is no longer operational
or when it has not been used to provide any service during any six-
month period.
(h) Reception from non-U.S. licensed space stations.
(1) Except as set forth in this section, operators of receive-only
earth stations seeking to operate with non-U.S. licensed space stations
must file an FCC Form 312--Main Form requesting a license or license
modification to operate such station.
(2) Operators of receive-only earth stations need not apply for a
license to receive transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed space stations
that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, provided the space
station operator and earth station operator comply with all applicable
rules in this chapter and with applicable conditions in the Permitted
Space Station List or market-access grant.
Sec. 100.274 Temporary-fixed earth station operations.
(a) When an earth station in the FSS is to remain at a single
location for fewer than six months, the location may be considered to
be temporary fixed. Services provided at a single location which are
initially known to be of longer than six months' duration shall not be
provided under a temporary fixed authorization.
(b) When a station, other than an ESV, authorized as a temporary
fixed earth station, is to remain at a single location for more than
six months, application for a regular station authorization at that
location shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the expiration of
the six-month period.
(c) The licensee of an earth station, other than an ESV, which is
authorized to conduct temporary fixed operations in bands shared co-
equally with terrestrial fixed stations shall provide the following
information to the licensees of all terrestrial facilities lying within
the coordination contour of the proposed temporary fixed earth station
site before beginning transmissions:
(1) The name of the person operating the station and the telephone
number at which the operator can be reached directly;
(2) The exact frequency or frequencies used and the type of
emissions and power levels to be transmitted; and
(3) The commencement and anticipated termination dates of operation
from each location.
(d) Transmissions may not be commenced until all affected
terrestrial licensees have been notified and the earth station operator
has confirmed that harmful interference will not be caused to such
terrestrial stations.
(e) Operations of temporary fixed earth stations shall cease
immediately upon notice of harmful interference from the Commission or
the affected licensee.
(f) Filing requirements concerning applications for new temporary
fixed earth station facilities operating in frequency bands shared co-
equally with terrestrial fixed stations.
(i) When the initial location of the temporary fixed earth
station's operation is known, the applicant shall provide, as part of
the FCC Form 312--Main Form application, a frequency coordination
report in accordance with Sec. 100.276 for the initial station
location.
(ii) When the initial location of the temporary fixed earth
station's operation is not known at the time the application is filed,
the applicant shall provide, as part of FCC Form 312--Main Form
application, a statement by the applicant acknowledging its
coordination responsibilities under Sec. 100.276.
Sec. 100.275 Period of construction.
(a) A licensee for site specific earth stations must certify to
commencement of operations within 365 days from grant.
(b) A Nationwide, Non-Site Licensee that is required to register
locations prior to operations must certify to the commencement of
operations within 365 days from registration.
(c) A blanket licensee for user terminals, ESIMs, or Mobile Earth
Stations, must certify to the commencement of operations within 365
days from license grant.
General Earth Station Coordination and Performance Requirements
Sec. 100.276 Earth station coordination requirements.
(a) Terrestrial coordination report. An applicant for an earth
station authorization, other than an ESV, in a frequency band shared
with equal rights with terrestrial microwave services shall provide, as
part of their application, a coordination report that demonstrates
coordination with potentially impacted services and includes all
relevant transmitting and/or receiving parameters necessary in
assessing the likelihood of interference.
(b) Requirements for coordination with terrestrial stations.
(1) The administrative aspects of the coordination process are set
forth in Sec. 101.103 of this chapter in the case of coordination of
terrestrial stations with earth stations and in this subpart in the
case of earth station coordination with terrestrial stations.
(2) An applicant for an earth station authorization or registrants
pursuant to an immovable earth station licensed under a Nationwide,
Non-Site License, shall coordinate the proposed frequency usage with
existing terrestrial users and with applicants for terrestrial station
authorizations with previously filed applications in accordance with
the following procedure:
(i) An applicant for an earth station authorization shall perform
an interference analysis in accordance with the procedures set forth
below for each terrestrial station, for which a license or construction
permit has been granted or for which an application has been accepted
for filing, which is or is to be operated in a shared frequency band to
be used by the proposed earth station and which is located within the
great circle coordination distance contour(s) of the proposed earth
station.
(ii) The earth station applicant shall provide each such
terrestrial station licensee, permittee, and prior grantee with the
technical details of the proposed earth station and the relevant
interference analyses that were made. At a minimum, the earth station
applicant shall provide the terrestrial user with the following
technical information:
(A) The geographical coordinates of the proposed earth station
antenna(s),
(B) Proposed operating frequency band(s) and emission(s),
(C) Antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above
[[Page 56420]]
mean sea level, Antenna gain pattern(s) in the plane of the main beam,
(D) Longitude range of GSO satellites at which antenna may be
pointed, for proposed earth station antenna(s) accessing GSO
satellites,
(E) Horizon elevation plot,
(F) Antenna horizon gain plot(s) for satellite longitude range
specified in (a)(2)(vi) of this section, taking into account the
provisions of requirements for earth stations operating with NGSO
satellites,
(G) Minimum elevation angle,
(H) Maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.)
density in the main beam in any 4 kHz band, (dBW/4 kHz) for frequency
bands below 15 GHz or in any 1 MHz band (dBW/MHz) for frequency band
above 15 GHz,
(I) Maximum available RF transmit power density in any 1 MHz band
and in any 4 kHz band at the input terminals of the antenna(s),
(J) Maximum permissible RF interference power level as determined
in accordance with (a)(1) of this section for all applicable
percentages of time, and
(K) A plot of great circle coordination distance contour(s) and
rain scatter coordination distance contour(s).
(3) The coordination procedures specified in Sec. 101.103 of this
chapter shall be applicable except that the information to be provided
shall be that set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and that
the 30-day period allowed for response to a request for coordination
may be increased to a maximum of 45 days by mutual consent of the
parties.
(4) Where technical problems are resolved by an agreement or
operating arrangement between the parties that would require special
procedures be taken to reduce the likelihood of harmful interference
(such as the use of artificial site shielding) or would result in
lessened quality or capacity of either system, the details thereof
shall be contained in the application.
(5) Multiple antennas in an NGSO FSS gateway earth station complex
located within an area bounded by one second of latitude and one second
of longitude may be regarded as a single earth station for purposes of
coordination with terrestrial services.
(c) Technical aspects of coordination. The technical aspects of
coordination are based on Appendix 7 of the International
Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 100.4) and certain recommendations of the ITU
Radiocommunication Sector (available at the address in Sec. 0.445 of
this chapter).
(d) Coordination across international boundaries. An applicant for
operation of an earth station, other than an ESV, VMES or an ESAA,
shall also ascertain whether the great circle coordination distance
contours and rain scatter coordination distance contours, computed for
those values of parameters indicated in Appendix 7 of the ITU RR
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 100.4 for international
coordination across the boundaries of another Administration). In this
case, the applicant shall furnish the Commission copies of these
contours on maps drawn to appropriate scale for use by the Commission
in effecting coordination of the proposed earth station with the
Administration(s) affected.
(e) Protection for Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone, Boulder
County, Colorado. Applicants for a station authorization to operate in
the vicinity of Boulder County, Colorado under this part are advised to
give due consideration, prior to filing applications, to the need to
protect the Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone from harmful
interference. These are the research laboratories of the Department of
Commerce, Boulder County, Colorado. To prevent degradation of the
present ambient radio signal level at the site, the Department of
Commerce seeks to ensure that the field strengths of any radiated
signals (excluding reflected signals) received on this 1800 acre site
(in the vicinity of coordinates 40[deg]07'50'' N Latitude,
105[deg]14'40'' W Longitude) resulting from new assignments (other than
mobile stations) or from the modification or relocation of existing
facilities do not exceed the following values:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In authorized bandwidth of service
------------------------------------------
Frequency range Field strength Power flux density \1\
(mV/m) (dBW/m\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below 540 kHz................ 10 -65.8
540 to 1600 kHz.............. 20 -59.8
1.6 to 470 MHz............... 10 \2\-65.8
470 to 890 MHz............... 30 \2\-56.2
Above 890 MHz................ 1 \2\-85.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Equivalent values of power flux density are calculated assuming free
space characteristic impedance of 376.7 = 120[pi] ohms.
\2\ Space stations shall conform to the power flux density limits at the
earth's surface specified in appropriate parts of the FCC rules, but
in no case should exceed the above levels in any 4 kHz band for all
angles of arrival.
(f) Notification to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in
West Virginia. In order to minimize possible harmful interference at
the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site at Green Bank, Pocahontas
County, W. Va., and at the Naval Radio Research Observatory site at
Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, W. Va., any applicant for operating
authority under this part for a new transmit or transmit-receive earth
station, other than a mobile or temporary fixed station, within the
area bounded by 39[deg]15' N on the north, 78[deg]30' W on the east,
37[deg]30' N on the south and 80[deg]30' W on the west or for
modification of an existing license for such station to change the
station's frequency, power, antenna height or directivity, or location
must, when filing the application with the Commission, simultaneously
notify the Director, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box No.
2, Green Bank, W. Va. 24944, in writing, of the technical particulars
of the proposed station. Such notification shall include the
geographical coordinates of the antenna, antenna height, antenna
directivity if any, proposed frequency, type of emission, and power. In
addition, the applicant shall indicate in his application to the
Commission the date notification was made to the observatory. After
receipt of such applications, the Commission will allow a period of 20
days for comments or objections in response to the notifications
indicated. If an objection to the proposed operation is received during
the 20-day period from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory for
itself or on behalf of the Naval Radio Research Observatory, the
Commission will consider all aspects of the problem and take whatever
action is deemed appropriate.
[[Page 56421]]
(g) Protection for Federal Communications Commission monitoring
stations.
(1) Applicants for authority to operate a new transmitting earth
station in the vicinity of an FCC monitoring station or to modify the
operation of a transmitting earth station in a way that would increase
the field strength produced at such a monitoring station above that
previously authorized should consider the possible need to protect the
FCC stations from harmful interference. Geographic coordinates of the
facilities that require protection are listed in Sec. 0.121(c) of this
chapter.
(2) Applications for fixed stations that will produce field
strength greater than 10 mV/m or power flux density greater than -65.8
dBW/m\2\ in the authorized emission bandwidth at any of the referenced
coordinates may be examined to determine the extent of possible
interference. Depending on the theoretical field strength value and
existing root-sum-square or other ambient radio field signal levels at
the referenced coordinates, a condition to protect the monitoring
station may be included in the station authorization.
(3) In the event that the calculated value of the expected field
strength exceeds 10 mV/m (-65.8 dBW/m\2\) at the reference coordinates,
or if there is any question whether field strength levels might exceed
the threshold value, advance consultation with the FCC to discuss any
protection necessary should be considered. See Sec. 0.401 of this
chapter for contact information
(h) Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, or Culebra Site
Requirements.
(1) Any applicant for a new permanent transmitting fixed earth
station to be located on the island of Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona,
Vieques, or Culebra, or for modification of an existing authorization
to change the frequency, power, antenna height, directivity, or
location of such a station on one of these islands in a way that would
increase the likelihood of causing interference, must notify the
Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory, HC3 Box 53995, Arecibo,
Puerto Rico 00612, in writing or electronically, of the technical
parameters of the proposal. Applicants may wish to consult interference
guidelines, which will be provided by Cornell University. Applicants
who choose to transmit information electronically should email to:
[email protected].
(2) The notification to the Interference Office, Arecibo
Observatory shall be made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing
of the application with the Commission. The notification must specify
the geographical coordinates of the antenna (NAD-83 datum), antenna
height above ground, ground elevation at the antenna, antenna
directivity and gain, proposed frequency, relevant FCC rule part, type
of emission, effective radiated power, and whether the proposed use is
itinerant. Generally, submission of the information in the technical
portion of the FCC license application is adequate notification. In
addition, the applicant shall indicate in its application to the
Commission the date notification was made to the Arecibo Observatory.
(3) After receipt of such applications, the Commission will allow
the Arecibo Observatory a period of 20 days for comments or objections
in response to the notification indicated. The applicant will be
required to make reasonable efforts in order to resolve or mitigate any
potential interference problem with the Arecibo Observatory and to file
either an amendment to the application or a modification application,
as appropriate. If the Commission determines that an applicant has
satisfied its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to protect the
Observatory from interference, its application may be granted.
(4) The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to operations
that transmit on frequencies above 15 GHz.
(i) Co-primary GSO and NGSO system earth station coordination.
Prior to filing an earth station application, in bands with co-primary
allocations to GSO and NGSO system earth stations, the applicant shall
coordinate the proposed site and frequency usage with existing earth
station licensees and with current earth station authorization
applicants.
(j) Special operational requirements of the 3.65-3.7 GHz band. Upon
request from a terrestrial licensee authorized under part 90, subpart Z
that seeks to place base and fixed stations in operation within 150 km
of a primary earth station, licensees of earth stations operating on a
primary basis in the FSS in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band must negotiate in
good faith with that terrestrial licensee to arrive at mutually
agreeable operating parameters to prevent harmful interference.
(k) Earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
(1) Applications for new, modified, or renewed earth station
licenses and registrations in the 3.7-4.0 GHz portion of the band in
CONUS are no longer accepted.
(2) Applications for new earth station licenses or registrations
within CONUS in the 4.0-4.2 GHz portion of the band will not be
accepted until the transition is completed and upon announcement by the
Space Bureau via public notice that applications may be filed.
(3) Fixed and temporary fixed earth stations operating in the 3.7-
4.0 GHz portion of the band within CONUS will be protected from
interference by licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service subject to the
deadlines set forth in Sec. 27.1412 of this chapter and are eligible
for transition into the 4.0-4.2 GHz band so long as they:
(i) Were operational as of April 19, 2018 and continue to be
operational;
(ii) Were licensed or registered (or had a pending application for
license or registration) in the ICFS database on November 7, 2018; and
(iii) Timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with
the Commission by May 28, 2019.
(4) Fixed and temporary earth station licenses and registrations
that meet the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section may be renewed
or modified to maintain operations in the 4.0-4.2 GHz band.
(5) Applications for new, modified, or renewed licenses and
registrations for earth stations outside CONUS operating in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band will continue to be accepted.
Sec. 100.277 Frequency tolerance.
The carrier frequency of each earth station transmitter authorized
in these services shall be maintained within 0.001% of the reference
frequency.
Sec. 100.278 Emissions limits generally; earth stations.
(a) General. Except for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, the mean power
of emissions shall be attenuated below the mean output power of the
transmitter in accordance with the schedule set forth in this section.
(1) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 50% up to and including 100%
of the authorized bandwidth: 25 dB.
(2) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 100% up to and including 250%
of the authorized bandwidth: 35 dB.
(3) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 250% of the authorized
bandwidth: An amount equal to 43 dB plus 10 times the logarithm (to the
base 10) of the transmitter power in watts.
(4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
[[Page 56422]]
(b) Emission limits in shared bands between 1 and 15 GHz. In bands
shared coequally with terrestrial radio communication services, the
equivalent isotropically radiated power transmitted in any direction
towards the horizon by an earth station, other than an ESV, operating
in frequency bands between 1 and 15 GHz, shall not exceed the following
limits:
(1) + 40 dBW in any 4 kHz band for [thgr] <=0[deg];
(2) + 40 + 3[thgr] dBW in any 4 kHz band for 0[deg] <[thgr]
<=5[deg]; and
(3) where [thgr] is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed
from the center of radiation of the antenna of the earth station and
measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative
below it.
(c) Emission limits in shared bands above 15 GHz. In bands shared
coequally with terrestrial radiocommunication services, the equivalent
isotropically radiated power transmitted in any direction towards the
horizon by an earth station operating in frequency bands above 15 GHz
shall not exceed the following limits:
(1) + 64 dBW in any 1 MHz band for [thgr] <=0[deg];
(2) + 64 + 3 [thgr] dBW in any 1 MHz band for 0[deg] <[thgr]
<=5[deg]; and
(3) where [thgr] is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed
from the center of radiation of the antenna of the earth station and
measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative
below it.
(d) Emissions limits in the 50.2-50.4 GHz band. For earth stations
in the FSS (Earth-to-space) that transmit in the 49.7-50.2 GHz and
50.4-50.9 GHz bands, the unwanted emission power in the 50.2-50.4 GHz
band shall not exceed -20 dBW/200 MHz (measured at the input of the
antenna), except that the maximum unwanted emission power may be
increased to -10 dBW/200 MHz for earth stations having an antenna gain
greater than or equal to 57 dBi. These limits apply under clear-sky
conditions. During fading conditions, the limits may be exceeded by
earth stations when using uplink power control.
(e) Angles of elevation greater than 5[deg]. For angles of
elevation of the horizon greater than 5[deg] there shall be no
restriction as to the equivalent isotropically radiated power
transmitted by an earth station towards the horizon.
(f) Fade compensation limits. Earth stations in the FSS may employ
uplink adaptive power control or other methods of fade compensation to
facilitate transmission of uplinks at power levels required for desired
link performance while minimizing interference between networks.
(1) Transmissions from FSS earth stations in frequencies above 10
GHz may exceed the uplink EIRP and EIRP density limits specified in the
station authorization under conditions of uplink fading due to
precipitation by an amount not to exceed 1 dB above the actual amount
of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions.
EIRP levels must be returned to normal as soon as the attenuating
weather pattern subsides.
(2) An FSS earth station transmitting to a geostationary space
station in the 13.77-13.78 GHz band must not generate more than 71 dBW
EIRP in any 6 MHz band.
(3) An FSS earth station transmitting to a non-geostationary space
station in the 13.77-13.78 GHz band must not generate more than 51 dBW
EIRP in any 6 MHz band.
(4) Automatic power control may be used to increase the EIRP
density in a 6 MHz uplink band in this frequency range to compensate
for rain fade, provided that the power flux-density at the space
station does not exceed the value that would result when transmitting
with an EIRP of 71 dBW or 51 dBW, as appropriate, in that 6 MHz band in
clear-sky conditions.
(g) Emission limits on SCS earth stations. SCS earth stations
providing SCS pursuant to Sec. 100.120 shall comply with the power
requirements and out-of-band emission limits corresponding to devices
operating in part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter, as required for their
operating frequencies.
(h) Limits on emissions from 1.6 GHz mobile earth stations for
protection of aeronautical radionavigation-satellite service.
(1) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink
frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/
MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
the band 1559-1587.42 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed -80
dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
that band.
(2) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink
frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1626.5 MHz shall not exceed -64 dBW/
MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
the band 1587.42-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed -74
dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
the 1587.42-1605 MHz band.
(3) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service after July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies
between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged
over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the band 1559-
1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over
any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz
band.
(4) As of January 1, 2005, the e.i.r.p. density of emissions from
mobile earth stations placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with
assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not
exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission
interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions
of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed -80
dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
the 1559-1605 MHz band. Inmarsat-B terminals manufactured more than six
months after Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted
in FCC 03-283 must meet these limits.
(5) The e.i.r.p density of emissions from mobile earth stations
with assigned uplink frequencies between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz shall
not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval, in frequencies between 1559 MHz and 1610 MHz.
The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from
such stations between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz shall not exceed -80 dBW,
averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval. The
e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such
stations between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz manufactured more than six
months after Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted
in FCC 03-283 shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond
active transmission interval.
(6) Mobile earth stations placed in service after July 21, 2002
with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band shall
suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band to an
extent determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/
[[Page 56423]]
MHz at 1605 MHz to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz.
(7) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283
with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band shall
suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band-
segment to an extent determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/
MHz at 1605 MHz to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz averaged over any 2
millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p of discrete
emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not
exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW at 1605
MHz to -20 dBW at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval.
(8) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283
with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz band shall
suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band-
segment to an extent determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/
MHz at 1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2
millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p of discrete
emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not
exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW at 1605
MHz to -56 dBW at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval.
(9) The e.i.r.p density of carrier-off state emissions from mobile
earth stations manufactured more than six months after Federal Register
publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283 with assigned
uplink frequencies between 1 and 3 GHz shall not exceed -80 dBW/MHz in
the 1559-1610 MHz band averaged over any two millisecond interval.
(10) A Root-Mean-Square detector shall be used for all power
density measurements.
Sec. 100.279 Earth station antenna performance standards.
(a) The gain of any earth station antenna operating in the FSS,
including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a
GSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in Sec. 100.3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <= 7[deg].
8........................... dBi................. for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
32-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 9.2[deg] <
[thgr] <=
19.1[deg].
0........................... dBi................. for 19.1[deg] <
[thgr] <= 48[deg].
29-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <= 7[deg].
-10......................... dBi................. for 48[deg] < [thgr]
<= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite, and dBi refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in Sec.
100.3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 3[deg] <= [thgr]
<= 7[deg].
10.9........................ dBi................. for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
35-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 9.2[deg] <
[thgr] <=
19.1[deg].
3........................... dBi................. for 19.1[deg] <
[thgr] <= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite, and dBi refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator.
(b) The gain of any earth station antenna operating in the FSS,
including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a
NGSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-25log10[thgr]............ dBi................. for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <=
36.5[deg].
-10......................... dBi................. for 36.5[deg] <
[thgr] <= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) An FSS receiving earth station, including feeder link earth
station for other satellite services, not confirming to the gain
patterns in (a) and (b) of this section is not entitled to any greater
protection from interference from authorized operation of other
stations that would not have cause interference to that earth station
if it was using an antenna with gain patterns conforming to the levels
specified (a) and (b) of this section.
Sec. 100.280 Off-axis EIRP density limits.
(a) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the
FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting
to a GSO satellite, the co-polarized transmissions may not exceed the
following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in Sec. 100.3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <= 7[deg].
-3.......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
21-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 9.2[deg] <
[thgr] <= 48[deg].
-21......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 48[deg] < [thgr]
<= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in Sec.
100.3:
[[Page 56424]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 3[deg] <= [thgr]
<= 7[deg].
0........................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
24-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 9.2[deg] <
[thgr] <= 48[deg].
-18......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 19.1[deg] <
[thgr] <= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite.
(b) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the
FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting
to a GSO satellite, the cross-polarized transmission may not exceed the
following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in Sec. 100.3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-25log10[thgr]............. dBW/4 kHz........... for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <= 7[deg].
-13......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in Sec.
100.3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 3[deg] <= [thgr]
<= 7[deg].
-10......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 7[deg] < [thgr]
<= 9.2[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target
satellite.
(c) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the
FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting
to a NGSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-25log10[thgr]............ dBW/4 kHz........... for 1.5[deg] <=
[thgr] <=
36.5[deg].
-21......................... dBW/4 kHz........... for 36.5[deg] <
[thgr] <= 180[deg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth
station antenna to the target satellite.
Frequency-Specific Earth Station Rules
Sec. 100.281 Earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz,
37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz, and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands.
(a) FSS is secondary to the UMFUS in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band.
Notwithstanding that secondary status, an applicant for a license for a
transmitting earth station in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band that meets one of
the following criteria may be authorized to operate without providing
interference protection to stations in the UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for
the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above
ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz;
(2) The FSS earth station was authorized prior to July 14, 2016;
(3) The application for the FSS earth station was filed prior to
July 14, 2016 and has been subsequently granted; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following
criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations
operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band within the county where the
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in
either paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes
of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with
or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one
earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz, together with the similar area of any other earth station
authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, does not cover,
in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the UMFUS
license area within which the earth station is located as noted in
table 1 to this paragraph (a)(4)(ii):
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(4)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum permitted aggregate
population within -77.6 dBm/
Population within UMFUS license area m\2\/MHz PFD contour of earth
stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 450,000................... 0.1 percent of population in
UMFUS license area.
Between 6,000 and 450,000.............. 450 people.
Fewer than 6,000....................... 7.5 percent of population in
UMFUS license area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz does not contain any major event venue, urban mass transit route,
passenger railroad, or cruise ship port. In addition, the area
mentioned in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section shall not cross any
of the following types of roads, as defined in functional
classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration
pursuant to 23 CFR 470.105(b): Interstate, Other Freeways and
Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. The Federal Highway
Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive
[[Page 56425]]
Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the
classification of roads. For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall
be an Adjusted Urban Area as defined in 21 U.S.C. 101(a)(37).
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency
coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the
earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of
greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz with respect to existing
facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In
coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the
applicable processes contained in Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter.
(b) Applications for earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band shall
provide an exhibit describing the zone within which the earth station
will require protection from transmissions of UMFUS licensees. For
purposes of this rule, the protection zone shall consist of the area
where UMFUS licensees may not locate facilities without the consent of
the earth station licensee. The earth station applicant shall
demonstrate in its application, using reasonable engineering methods,
that the requested protection zone is necessary in order to protect its
proposed earth station.
(c) The protection zone (as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section) shall comply with the following criteria. The applicant must
demonstrate compliance with all of the following criteria in its
application:
(1) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations
operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band within the county within which the
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in
paragraph (c) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other
authorized earth stations operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band within the
PEA within which the proposed earth station is located that meet the
criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this section. For purposes of
this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or
at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth
station;
(2) The protection zone, together with the protection zone of other
earth stations in the same PEA authorized pursuant to this, does not
cover, in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the PEA
within which the earth station is located as noted in table 2 to this
paragraph (c)(2):
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum permitted aggregate
Population within Partial Economic Area population within protection
(PEA) where earth station is located zone of earth stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 2,250,000................. 0.1 percent of population in
PEA.
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000........... 2,250 people.
Fewer than 60,000...................... 3.75 percent of population in
PEA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The protection zone does not contain any major event venue,
urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port. In
addition, the area mentioned in the preceding sentence shall not cross
any of the following types of roads, as defined in functional
classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration
pursuant to 23 CFR 470.105(b): Interstate, Other Freeways and
Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. The Federal Highway
Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive
Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the
classification of roads. For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall
be an Adjusted Urban Area as defined in 21 U.S.C. 101(a)(37).
(4) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination
with the UMFUS licensees within the protection zone with respect to
existing facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee.
In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the
applicable processes contained in Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter.
(d) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the UMFUS in the
47.2-48.2 GHz band, earth stations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band shall be
limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant for a
license for a transmitting earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band must
meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without
providing any additional interference protection to stations in the
UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for
the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above
ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz;
(2) The earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was authorized
prior to February 1, 2018;
(3) The application for the earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band
was filed prior to February 1, 2018; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following
criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations
operating in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band within the county where the
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in
paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, and there are no
more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the 47.2-48.2
GHz band within the PEA where the proposed earth station is located
that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (3), or (4)
of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth
stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each
other shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz, together with the similar area of any other earth station
authorized pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, does not cover,
in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the PEA within
which the earth station is located as noted in table 3 to this
paragraph (d)(4)(ii):
Table 3 to Paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum permitted aggregate
Population within Partial Economic Area population within -77.6 dBm/
(PEA) where earth station is located m\2\/MHz PFD contour of earth
stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 2,250,000................. 0.1 percent of population in
PEA.
[[Page 56426]]
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000........... 2,250 people.
Fewer than 60,000...................... 3.75 percent of population in
PEA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz does not contain any major event venue, any highway classified by
the U.S. Department of Transportation under the categories Interstate,
Other Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial, or an
urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port; and
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency
coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the
earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of
greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz with respect to existing
facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In
coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the
applicable processes contained in Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter.
(e) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the UMFUS in the
24.75-25.25 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands, earth stations in these bands
shall be limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant
for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz
or 50.4-51.4 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be
authorized to operate without providing any additional interference
protection to stations in the UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for
the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density
(PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -
77.6dBm/m\2\/MHz;
(2) The earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized
prior to August 20, 2018; or the earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz
band was authorized prior to June 12, 2019;
(3) The application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz
band was filed prior to August 20, 2018; or the application for the
earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band was filed prior to June 12,
2019; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following
criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations
operating in the same frequency band within the county where the
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in
either paragraph (e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, and there
are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the
same frequency band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed
earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraph
(e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes of the
requirement in this paragraph (e)(4), multiple earth stations that are
collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be
considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz, together with the similar area of any other earth station
operating in the same frequency band authorized pursuant to paragraph
(e) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than the
amount of population of the county within which the earth station is
located as noted in table 4 to this paragraph (e)(4)(ii):
Table 4 to Paragraph (e)(4)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum permitted aggregate
Population within the County where population within -77.6 dBm/
earth station is located m\2\/MHz PFD contour of earth
stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 450,000................... 0.1 percent of population in
county.
Between 6,000 and 450,000.............. 450 people.
Fewer than 6,000....................... 7.5 percent of population in
county.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10
meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/
MHz does not contain any major event venue, urban mass transit route,
passenger railroad, or cruise ship port. In addition, the area
mentioned in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section shall not cross any
of the following types of roads, as defined in functional
classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration
pursuant to 23 CFR 470.105(b): Interstate, Other Freeways and
Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. The Federal Highway
Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive
Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the
classification of roads. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(4), an
urban area shall be an Adjusted Urban Area as defined in 21 U.S.C.
101(a)(37); and
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency
coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the
earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of
greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz with respect to existing
facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In
coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the
applicable processes contained in Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter.
(f) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25
GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and/or 50.4-51.4 GHz
bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations
shall be governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the
agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's rules or the
Communications Act.
(g) Any earth station authorizations issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.
100.120-100.121 and 100.281 shall be conditioned upon operation being
in compliance with the criteria contained in the applicable paragraph.
(h) Re-coordination. An earth station licensed under this section
that is brought into operation later than one year after the date of
the license grant must be re-coordinated with UMFUS
[[Page 56427]]
stations using the applicable processes in Sec. 101.103(d) of this
chapter. The earth station licensee must complete re-coordination
within one year before its commencement of operation. The re-
coordination should account for any demographic or geographic changes
as well as changes to the earth station equipment or configuration. A
re-coordination notice must be filed in ICFS before commencement of
earth station operations.
Sec. 100.282 User terminals and earth stations in motion.
(a) Self-monitoring. Each FSS ESIM and user terminal must be self-
monitoring and, should a condition occur that would cause the ESIMs to
exceed its authorized off-axis EIRP density limits in the case of GSO
FSS ESIMs or any emission limits included in the licensing conditions
in the case of NGSO FSS ESIMs, the ESIM must automatically cease
transmissions within 100 milliseconds, and not resume transmissions
until the condition that caused the ESIM to exceed those limits is
corrected.
(b) NCMC. Each FSS ESIM and user terminal must be monitored and
controlled by a network control and monitoring center (NCMC) or
equivalent facility. Each terminal must comply with a ``disable
transmission'' command from the NCMC within 100 milliseconds of
receiving the command. In addition, the NCMC must monitor the operation
of each terminal in its network, and transmit a ``disable
transmission'' command to any terminal that operates in such a way as
to exceed the authorized off-axis EIRP density limit described in Sec.
100.280 or any emission limits included in the licensing conditions.
The NCMC must not allow the terminal(s) under its control to resume
transmissions until the condition that caused the terminals(s) to
exceed the authorized EIRP density limits is corrected.
(c) Installation and radiofrequency exposure. ESIM and user
terminal licensees must ensure installation of terminals on vehicles by
qualified installers who have an understanding of the antenna's
radiation environment and the measures best suited to maximize
protection of the general public and persons operating the vehicle and
equipment. A terminal exhibiting radiofrequency exposure levels
exceeding 1.0 mW/cm\2\ in accessible areas (or the appropriate limit
pursuant to Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter), such as at the exterior
surface of the radome, must have a label attached to the surface of the
terminal warning about the radiofrequency exposure and must include
thereon a diagram showing the regions around the terminal where the
radiation levels could exceed the maximum radiofrequency exposure limit
specified in Table 1 in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter.
(d) ESVs on vessels of foreign registry. ESV NCMC operators
communicating with ESVs on vessels of foreign registry must maintain
detailed information on each such vessel's country of registry and a
point of contact for the relevant administration responsible for
licensing those ESVs.
(e) ESVs operating in 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz. The
following requirements govern all operations in the 3700-4200 MHz
(space-to-Earth) and 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands of
ESVs receiving from or transmitting to GSO satellites in the FSS:
(1) ESVs must not operate in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) and
3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands on vessels smaller than
300 gross tons.
(2) ESV operators transmitting in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-
space) frequency band to GSO satellites in the FSS must not seek to
coordinate, in any geographic location, more than 36 megahertz of
uplink bandwidth on each of no more than two GSO FSS satellites.
(3) ESVs, operating while docked, for which coordination with
terrestrial stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band is completed in
accordance with Sec. 100.276, will receive protection from such
terrestrial stations in accordance with the coordination agreements,
for 180 days, renewable for 180 days.
(4) ESVs in motion must not claim protection from harmful
interference from any authorized terrestrial stations to which
frequencies are already assigned, or any authorized terrestrial station
to which frequencies may be assigned in the future in the 3700-4200 MHz
(space-to-Earth) frequency band.
(5) ESVs operating within 200 km from the baseline of the United
States, or within 200 km from a U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore
installation, must complete coordination with potentially affected
U.S.-licensed fixed service operators prior to operation. The
coordination method and the interference criteria objective will be
determined by the frequency coordinator. The details of the
coordination must be maintained and available at the frequency
coordinator, and must be filed with the Commission electronically via
ICFS or successor system to be placed on public notice. The
coordination notifications must be filed in the form of a statement
referencing the relevant call signs and file numbers. Operation of each
individual ESV may commence immediately after the public notice that
identifies the notification sent to the Commission is released.
Continuance of operation of that ESV for the duration of the
coordination term must be dependent upon successful completion of the
normal public notice process. If, prior to the end of the 30-day
comment period of the public notice, any objections are received from
U.S.-licensed Fixed Service operators that have been excluded from
coordination, the ESV licensee must immediately cease operation of that
particular station on frequencies used by the affected U.S.-licensed
Fixed Service station until the coordination dispute is resolved and
the ESV licensee informs the Commission of the resolution. As used in
this section, ``baseline'' means the line from which maritime zones are
measured. The baseline is a combination of the low-water line and
closing lines across the mouths of inland water bodies and is defined
by a series of baseline points that include islands and ``low-water
elevations,'' as determined by the U.S. Department of State's Baseline
Committee.
(6) An ESV must automatically cease transmission if the ESV
operates in violation of the terms of its coordination agreement,
including, but not limited to, conditions related to speed of the
vessel or if the ESV travels outside the coordinated area, if within
200 km from the baseline of the United States, or within 200 km from a
U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore installation. Transmissions may be
controlled by the ESV network control and monitoring center. The
frequency coordinator may decide whether ESV operators should
automatically cease transmissions if the vessel falls below a
prescribed speed within a prescribed geographic area.
(7) ESV transmissions in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) band
shall not exceed an EIRP spectral density towards the radio-horizon of
17 dBW/MHz, and shall not exceed an EIRP towards the radio-horizon of
20.8 dBW. The ESV network shall shut-off the ESV transmitter if either
the EIRP spectral density towards the radio-horizon or the EIRP towards
the radio-horizon is exceeded.
(f) ESAAs. The following requirements govern all ESAA operations:
(1) All ESAA terminals operated in U.S. airspace, whether on U.S.-
registered civil aircraft or non-U.S.-registered civil aircraft, must
be licensed by the Commission. All ESAA terminals on U.S.-registered
civil aircraft operating outside of U.S. airspace must
[[Page 56428]]
be licensed by the Commission, except as provided by section 303(t) of
the Communications Act.
(2) Prior to operations within a foreign nation's airspace, the
ESAA operator must ascertain whether the relevant administration has
operations that could be affected by ESAA terminals, and must determine
whether that administration has adopted specific requirements
concerning ESAA operations. When the aircraft enters foreign airspace,
the ESAA terminal must operate under the Commission's rules, or those
of the foreign administration, whichever is more constraining. To the
extent that all relevant administrations have identified geographic
areas from which ESAA operations would not affect their radio
operations, ESAA operators may operate within those identified areas
without further action. To the extent that the foreign administration
has not adopted requirements regarding ESAA operations, ESAA operators
must coordinate their operations with any potentially affected
operations.
(3) For ESAA transmissions in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band from
international airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a
foreign administration where fixed service networks have primary
allocation in this band, the maximum PFD produced at the surface of the
Earth by emissions from a single aircraft carrying an ESAA terminal
must not exceed the following values unless the foreign Administration
has imposed other conditions for protecting its fixed service stations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-132 + 0.5[middot][thgr]............. dB(W/(m\2\ [middot] For.................... [thgr] <=40[deg].
MHz)).
-112................................. dB(W/(m\2\ [middot] For.................... 40[deg] <[thgr]
MHz)). <=90[deg].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where: [thgr] is the angle of arrival of the radio-frequency wave
(degrees above the horizontal) and the aforementioned limits relate to
the PFD under free-space propagation conditions.
Sec. 100.283 MSS and ATC requirements.
(a) Construction and pre-operational testing.
(1) No construction permit required. Construction permits are not
required for Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) stations. A party
with licenses issued under this part for launch and operation of 1.5/
1.6 GHz or 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service space stations and
operation of associated ATC facilities may commence construction of ATC
base stations at its own risk after commencing physical construction of
the space stations, subject to the requirements of Sec. 1.1312 and
part 17 of this chapter.
(2) Equipment tests. Such an MSS/ATC licensee may also conduct
equipment tests for the purpose of making adjustments and measurements
necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of its ATC license,
applicable rules in this part, and technical design requirements.
(3) Notification. Prior to commencing such construction and pre-
operational testing, an MSS/ATC licensee must notify the Commission of
the commencement of physical satellite construction and the licensee's
intention to construct and test ATC facilities. This notification must
be filed electronically in the appropriate file in the ICFS database.
The notification must specify the frequencies the licensee proposes to
use for pre-operational testing and the name, address, and telephone
number of a representative for the reporting and mitigation of any
interference resulting from such testing.
(4) Experimental requirements. MSS/ATC licensees engaging in pre-
operational testing must comply with Sec. Sec. 5.83, 5.85(c), 5.111,
and 5.117 of this chapter regarding experimental operations.
(5) Compensation. A n MSS/ATC licensee may not offer ATC service to
the public for compensation during pre-operational testing.
(b) Special Requirements for ATC operations in the 1626.5-1660.5
MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands.
(1) An ancillary terrestrial component in these bands shall:
(i) In any band segment coordinated for the exclusive use of an MSS
applicant within the land area of the U.S., where there is no other L-
band MSS satellite making use of that band segment within the visible
portion of the geostationary arc as seen from the ATC coverage area,
the ATC system will be limited by the in-band and out-of-band emission
limitations contained in this section and the requirement to maintain a
substantial MSS service.
(ii) In any band segment that is coordinated for the shared use of
the applicant's MSS system and another MSS operator, where the
coordination agreement existed prior to February 10, 2005 and permits a
level of interference to the other MSS system of less than 6% [Delta]T/
T, the applicant's combined ATC and MSS operations shall increase the
system noise level of the other MSS to no more then 6% [Delta]T/T. Any
future coordination agreement between the parties governing ATC
operation will supersede this paragraph.
(iii) In any band segment that is coordinated for the shared use of
the applicant's MSS system and another MSS operator, where a
coordination agreement existed prior to February 10, 2005 and permits a
level of interference to the other MSS system of 6% [Delta]T/T or
greater, the applicant's ATC operations may increase the system noise
level of the other MSS system by no more than an additional 1%
[Delta]T/T. Any future coordination agreement between the parties
governing ATC operations will supersede this paragraph.
(iv) In a band segment in which the applicant has no rights under a
coordination agreement, the applicant may not implement ATC in that
band.
(2) ATC base stations shall not exceed an out-of-channel emissions
measurement of -57.9 dBW/MHz at the edge of a MSS licensee's authorized
and internationally coordinated MSS frequency assignment.
(3) An applicant for an ancillary terrestrial component in these
bands shall:
(i) Demonstrate, at the time of application, how its ATC network
will comply with the requirements of footnotes US308 and US315 to the
Table of Frequency Allocations contained in Sec. 2.106 of this chapter
regarding priority and preemptive access to the L-band MSS spectrum by
the aeronautical mobile-satellite en-route service (AMS(R)S) and the
global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS).
(ii) Coordinate with the terrestrial CMRS operators prior to
initiating ATC transmissions when co-locating ATC base stations with
terrestrial commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) base stations that
make use of Global Positioning System (GPS) time-based receivers.
(iii) Provide, at the time of application, calculations that
demonstrate the ATC system conforms to the [Delta]T/T requirements of
this section, if a coordination agreement that incorporates the ATC
operations does not exist with other MSS operators.
(4) Applicants for an ATC in these bands must demonstrate that ATC
base stations shall not:
(i) Exceed a peak EIRP of 31.9-10*log (number of carriers) dBW/
200kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547.5-
1559 MHz frequency bands;
[[Page 56429]]
(ii) Exceed an EIRP in any direction toward the physical horizon
(not to include man-made structures) of 26.9-10*log (number of
carriers) dBW/200 kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1525-1541.5
MHz and 1547.5-1559 MHz frequency bands;
(iii) Exceed a peak EIRP of 23.9 -10*log(number of carriers) dBW/
200 kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz
frequency band;
(iv) Exceed an EIRP toward the physical horizon (not to include
man-made structures) of 18.9 -10*log(number of carriers) dBW/200 kHz,
per sector, for each carrier in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band;
(v) Exceed a total PFD level of -56.8 dBW/m\2\/200 kHz at the edge
of all airport runways and aircraft stand areas, including takeoff and
landing paths from all carriers operating in the 1525-1559 MHz
frequency bands. The total PFD here is the sum of all power flux
density values associated with all carriers in a sector in the 1525-
1559 MHz frequency band, expressed in dB(Watts/m\2\/200 kHz). Free-
space loss must be assumed if this requirement is demonstrated via
calculation;
(vi) Exceed a total PFD level of -56.6 dBW/m\2\/200 kHz at the
water's edge of any navigable waterway from all carriers operating in
the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547.5-1559 MHz frequency bands. The total PFD
here is the sum of all power flux density values associated with all
carriers in a sector in the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547.5-1559 MHz
frequency bands, expressed in dB(Watts/m\2\/200 kHz). Free-space loss
must be assumed if this requirement is demonstrated via calculation;
(vii) Exceed a total PFD level of -64.6 dBW/m\2\/200 kHz at the
water's edge of any navigable waterway from all carriers operating in
the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band. The total PFD here is the sum of
all power flux density values associated with all carriers in a sector
in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band, expressed in dB(Watts/m\2\/200
kHz). Free-space loss must be assumed if this requirement is
demonstrated via calculation;
(viii) Exceed a peak antenna gain of 16 dBi;
(ix) Generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond
active transmission interval, greater than -70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1605
MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear interpolation in
the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at
1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active
transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than
700 Hz bandwidth from such base stations shall not exceed -80 dBW in
the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear
interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -80 dBW at 1605 MHz to -
56 dBW at 1610 MHz. A root-mean-square detector function with a
resolution bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video
bandwidth shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes
of this rule, and narrowband EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-
square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz
or equivalent.
(5) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component in these
bands must demonstrate, at the time of the application, that ATC base
stations shall use left-hand-circular polarization antennas with a
maximum gain of 16 dBi and overhead gain suppression according to the
following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle from direction of maximum gain,
in vertical plane, above antenna Antenna discrimination pattern
(degrees) (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................... Gmax.
5...................................... Not to Exceed Gmax -5.
10..................................... Not to Exceed Gmax -19.
15 to 55............................... Not to Exceed Gmax -27.
55 to 145.............................. Not to Exceed Gmax -30.
145 to 180............................. Not to Exceed Gmax -26.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where: Gmax is the maximum gain of the base station antenna in dBi.
(6) Prior to operation, ancillary terrestrial component licensees
shall:
(i) Provide the Commission with sufficient information to complete
coordination of ATC base stations with Search-and-Rescue Satellite-
Aided Tracking (SARSAT) earth stations operating in the 1544-1545 MHz
band for any ATC base station located either within 27 km of a SARSAT
station, or within radio horizon of the SARSAT station, whichever is
less.
(ii) Take all practicable steps to avoid locating ATC base stations
within radio line of sight of Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry (MAT)
receive sites in order to protect U.S. MAT systems consistent with ITU-
R Recommendation ITU-R M.1459. MSS ATC base stations located within
radio line of sight of a MAT receiver must be coordinated with the
Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) for non-
Government MAT receivers on a case-by-case basis prior to operation.
For government MAT receivers, the MSS licensee shall supply sufficient
information to the Commission to allow coordination to take place. A
listing of current and planned MAT receiver sites can be obtained from
AFTRCC for non-Government sites and through the FCC's IRAC Liaison for
Government MAT receiver sites.
(7) ATC mobile terminals shall:
(i) Be limited to a peak EIRP level of 0 dBW and an out-of-channel
emissions of -67 dBW/4 kHz at the edge of an MSS licensee's authorized
and internationally coordinated MSS frequency assignment.
(ii) Be operated in a fashion that takes all practicable steps to
avoid causing interference to U.S. radio astronomy service (RAS)
observations in the 1660-1660.5 MHz band.
(iii) Not generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond
active transmission interval, greater than -70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1605
MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear interpolation in
the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at
1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active
transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than
700 Hz bandwidth from such mobile terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW in
the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear
interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -80 dBW at 1605 MHz to -
56 dBW at 1610 MHz. The EIRP density of carrier-off-state emissions
from such mobile terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW/MHz in the 1559-
1610 MHz band, averaged over a two-millisecond interval. A root-mean-
square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz
or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure
wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband
[[Page 56430]]
EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-square detector function with a
resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or equivalent.
(8) When implementing multiple base stations and/or base stations
using multiple carriers, where any third-order intermodulation product
of these base stations falls on an L-band MSS band coordinated for use
by another MSS operator with rights to the coordinated band, the MSS
ATC licensee must notify the MSS operator. The MSS operator may request
coordination to modify the base station carrier frequencies, or to
reduce the maximum base station EIRP on the frequencies contributing to
the third-order intermodulation products. The threshold for this
notification and coordination is when the sum of the calculated signal
levels received by an MSS receiver exceeds -70 dBm. The MSS receiver
used in these calculations can be assumed to have an antenna with 0 dBi
gain. Free-space propagation between the base station antennas and the
MSS terminals can be assumed and actual signal polarizations for the
ATC signals and the MSS system may be used.
(c) Special requirements for ATC operations in the 1610-1626.5 MHz/
2483.5-2500 MHz bands.
(1) An applicant for an ATC in these bands must demonstrate that
ATC base stations shall:
(i) Not exceed a peak EIRP of 32 dBW in 1.25 MHz;
(ii) Not cause harmful interference to systems identified in
paragraph (c) of this section and, in any case, shall not exceed out-
of-channel emissions of -44.1 dBW/30 kHz at the edge of the MSS
licensee's authorized frequency assignment;
(iii) At the time of application, that it has taken, or will take
steps necessary to avoid causing interference to other services sharing
the use of the 2450-2500 MHz band through frequency coordination; and
(iv) Base stations operating in frequencies above 2483.5 MHz shall
not generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond active
transmission interval, greater than -70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz
band. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission
interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth from such base stations shall not exceed -80 dBW in the 1559-
1610 MHz band. A root-mean-square detector function with a resolution
bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video bandwidth
shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes of this
rule, and narrowband EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-square
detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or
equivalent.
(2) An applicant for an ancillary terrestrial component in these
bands must demonstrate that mobile terminals shall:
(i) Meet the requirements contained to protect radio astronomy
service (RAS) observations in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band from harmful
interference;
(ii) Observe a peak EIRP limit of 1.0 dBW in 1.25 MHz;
(iii) Observe an out-of-channel EIRP limit of -57.1 dBW/30 kHz at
the edge of the licensed MSS frequency assignment; and
(iv) For ATC mobile terminals operating in assigned frequencies in
the 1610-1626.5 MHz band, not generate EIRP density, averaged over any
two-millisecond active transmission interval, greater than -70 dBW/MHz
in the 1559-1605 MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear
interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz
to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond
active transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth from such mobile terminals shall not exceed -80
dBW in the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear
interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from -80 dBW at 1605 MHz to -
20 dBW at 1610 MHz. The EIRP density of carrier-off-state emissions
from such mobile terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW/MHz in the 1559-
1610 MHz band, averaged over a two-millisecond interval. A root-mean-
square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz
or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure
wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband EIRP
shall be measured with a root-mean-square detector function with a
resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or equivalent.
(3) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component to be used in
conjunction with an MSS system using CDMA technology shall coordinate
the use of the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS spectrum designated for CDMA systems
using the framework established by the ITU in Recommendation ITU-R
M.1186.
(4) To avoid interference to an adjacent channel licensee in the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), the power of any ATC base station
emission above 2495 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) measured in watts in accordance with the standards below.
(i) For base stations, the attenuation shall be not less than 43 +
10 log (P) dB at the upper edge of the authorized ATC band, unless a
documented interference complaint is received from an adjacent channel
licensee in the BRS. Provided that a documented interference complaint
cannot be mutually resolved between the parties, the following
additional attenuation requirements shall apply:
(ii) If a pre-existing BRS base station suffers harmful
interference from emissions caused by a new or modified ATC base
station located 1.5 km or more away, within 24 hours of the receipt of
a documented interference complaint the ATC licensee must attenuate its
emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P) dB measured at 3 megahertz above
the edge of the authorized ATC band, and shall immediately notify the
complaining licensee upon implementation of the additional attenuation.
(iii) If a pre-existing BRS base station suffers harmful
interference from emissions caused by a new or modified ATC base
station located less than 1.5 km away, within 24 hours of the receipt
of a documented interference complaint the ATC licensee must attenuate
its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P)-20 log(Dkm/1.5) dB
measured at 3 megahertz above the edge of the authorized ATC band, or
if both base stations are co-located, limit its undesired signal level
at the pre-existing BRS base station receiver(s) to no more than -107
dBm measured in a 5.5 megahertz bandwidth and shall immediately notify
the complaining licensee upon such reduction in the undesired signal
level.
(iv) If a new or modified BRS base station suffers harmful
interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing ATC base station
located 1.5 km or more away, within 60 days of receipt of a documented
interference complaint the licensee of the ATC base station must
attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P) dB
measured at 3 megahertz above the edge of the authorized ATC band.
(v) If a new or modified BRS base station suffers harmful
interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing ATC base station
located less than 1.5 km away, within 60 days of receipt of a
documented interference complaint:
(A) the ATC licensee must attenuate its base station emissions by
at least 67 + 10 log (P)-20 log(Dkm/1.5) dB measured 3
megahertz above the edge of the authorized ATC band, or
(B) if both base stations are co-located, the ATC licensee must
limit its undesired signal level at the new or modified BRS base
station receiver(s) to
[[Page 56431]]
no more than -107 dBm measured in a 5.5 megahertz bandwidth.
(vi) Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater.
However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately above and adjacent to the 2495
MHz a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be
employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to
improve measurement accuracy, provided the measured power is integrated
over the full required measurement bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent
of emission bandwidth, as specified). The emission bandwidth is defined
as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier
center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of
which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter
power. When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
(5) Licensees of terrestrial low-power systems operating in the
2483.5-2495 MHz band shall operate consistent with the technical limits
and other requirements.
Note to Sec. 100.283: The requirements adopt in this section
are based on cdma2000 and IS-95 system architecture. A licensee may
use different system architecture upon demonstration that it will
produce no greater potential interference than would be produced in
a cdma2000 and IS-95 system architecture.
(d) Requirements for MES operations in the NVNG, 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/
2.4 GHz and 2 GHz MSS bands.
(1) Any mobile earth station (MES) operating in the 1530-1544 MHz
and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands must have the following minimum set of
capabilities to ensure compliance with Footnote 5.353A in Sec. 2.106
of this chapter and the priority and real-time preemption requirements
imposed by Footnote US315 in Sec. 2.106 of this chapter.
(i) All MES transmissions must have a priority assigned to them
that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime
distress and safety communications sharing the band.
(ii) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and
safety data communications must be capable of either:
(A) Recognizing message and call priority identification when
transmitted from its associated Land Earth Station (LES), or
(B) Accepting message and call priority identification embedded in
the message or call when transmitted from its associated LES and
passing the identification to shipboard data message processing
equipment.
(iii) Each MES must be assigned a unique terminal identification
number that will be transmitted upon any attempt to gain access to a
system.
(iv) After an MES has gained access to a system, the mobile
terminal must be under control of an LES and must obtain all channel
assignments from it.
(v) All MESs that do not continuously monitor a separate signaling
channel or signaling within the communications channel must monitor the
signaling channel at the end of each transmission.
(vi) Each MES must automatically inhibit its transmissions if it is
not correctly receiving separate signaling channel or signaling within
the communications channel from its associated LES.
(vii) Each MES must automatically inhibit its transmissions on any
or all channels upon receiving a channel-shut-off command on a
signaling or communications channel it is receiving from its associated
LES.
(viii) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and
safety communications must have the capability within the station to
automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.
(2) Any LES for an MSS system operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and
1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands must have the following minimum set of
capabilities to ensure compliance with Footnote 5.353A and the priority
and real-time preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315 in
Sec. 2.106 of this chapter. An LES fulfilling these requirements must
not have any additional priority with respect to FSS stations operating
with other systems.
(i) LES transmissions to MESs must have a priority assigned to them
that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime
distress and safety communications pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) The LES must recognize the priority of calls to and from MESs
and make channel assignments taking into account the priority access
that is given to maritime distress and safety communications.
(iii) The LES must be capable of receiving the MES identification
number when transmitted and verifying that it is an authorized user of
the system to prohibit unauthorized access.
(iv) The LES must be capable of transmitting channel assignment
commands to the MESs.
(v) The communications channels used between the LES and the MES
shall have provision for signaling within the voice/data channel, for
an MES that does not continuously monitor the LES signaling channel
during a call.
(vi) The LES must transmit periodic control signals to MESs that do
not continuously monitor the LES signaling channel.
(vii) The LES must automatically inhibit transmissions to an MES to
which it is not transmitting in a signaling channel or signaling within
the communications channel.
(viii) The LES must be capable of transmitting channel-shut-off
commands to MESs on signaling or communications channels.
(ix) Each LES must be capable of interrupting, and if necessary,
preempting ongoing routine traffic from an MES in order to complete a
maritime distress, urgency or safety call to that MES.
(x) Each LES must be capable of automatically turning off one or
more of its associated channels in order to complete a maritime
distress, urgency or safety call.
(3) No person without an FCC license for such operation may
transmit to a space station in the NVNG, 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, or 2
GHz MSS from anywhere in the United States except to receive service
from the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket license or from another
party with the permission of such a blanket licensee.
(e) Operations of MES and ATC transmitters or transceivers on board
civil aircraft.
(1) Operation of any of the following devices aboard civil aircraft
is prohibited, unless the device is installed in a manner approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration or is used by the pilot or with the
pilot's consent:
(i) Earth stations capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/
2.4 GHz, or 2 GHz MSS frequency bands;
(ii) ATC terminals capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz or
1.6/2.4 GHz MSS bands;
(iii) Earth stations used for non-voice, non-geostationary MSS
communication that can emit radiation in the 108-137 MHz band.
(2) No portable device of any type identified in paragraph (a) of
this section (including transmitter or transceiver units installed in
other devices that are themselves portable) may be sold or distributed
to users unless it conspicuously bears the following warning: ``This
device must
[[Page 56432]]
be turned off at all times while on board aircraft.'' For purposes of
this section, a device is portable if it is a ``portable device'' as
defined in Sec. 2.1093(b) of this chapter or is designed to be carried
by hand.
Sec. 100.284 Requirements for ancillary terrestrial components in
Mobile-Satellite Service networks operating in the 1.5./1.6 GHz and
1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service.
(a) Technical certifications or showings. Applicants for ancillary
terrestrial component authority shall demonstrate that the applicant
does or will comply with the following through certification or
explanatory technical exhibit, as appropriate:
(1) ATC shall be deployed in the forward-band mode of operation
whereby the ATC mobile terminals transmit in the MSS uplink bands and
the ATC base stations transmit in the MSS downlink bands in portions of
the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band) and the 1610-1626.5
MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands.
Note to paragraph (a)(1): An L-band MSS licensee is permitted to
apply for ATC authorization based on a non-forward-band mode of
operation provided it is able to demonstrate that the use of a non-
forward-band mode of operation would produce no greater potential
interference than that produced as a result of implementing the
rules of this section. A 1.6/2.4 GHz band licensee is permitted to
apply for ATC authorization on a non-forward-band mode of operation
where the equipment deployed will meet the requirements of paragraph
(c)(4) of this section.
(2) ATC operations shall be limited to certain frequencies:
(i) In the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band), ATC
operations are limited to the frequency assignments authorized and
internationally coordinated for the MSS system of the MSS licensee that
seeks ATC authority.
(ii) In the 1610-1626.5 MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands, ATC operations
are limited to the 1610-1617.775 MHz, 1621.35-1626.5 MHz, and 2483.5-
2495 MHz bands and to the specific frequencies authorized for use by
the MSS licensee that seeks ATC authority.
(3) ATC operations shall not exceed the geographical coverage area
of the Mobile-Satellite Service network of the applicant for ATC
authority.
(4) ATC base stations shall comply with all applicable antenna and
structural clearance requirements established in part 17 of this
chapter.
(5) ATC base stations and mobile terminals shall comply with part 1
of this chapter, Subpart I--Procedures Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including the guidelines for human
exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields as defined in
Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b) and 1.1310 of this chapter for PCS networks.
(6) ATC base station operations shall use less than all available
MSS frequencies when using all available frequencies for ATC base
station operations would exclude otherwise available signals from MSS
space-stations.
(b) Additional certifications. Applicants for an ATC shall
demonstrate that the applicant does or will comply with the following
criteria through certification:
(1) Geographic and temporal coverage.
(i) For the L-band, an applicant must demonstrate that it can
provide space-segment service covering all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands one-hundred percent of the time, unless it is
not technically possible for the MSS operator to meet the coverage
criteria from its orbital position.
(ii) For the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service bands, an
applicant must demonstrate that it can provide space-segment service to
all locations as far north as 70[deg] North latitude and as far south
as 55[deg] South latitude for at least 75% of every 24-hour period,
i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at
an elevation angle of at least 5[deg] for at least 18 hours each day,
and on a continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, i.e., that at least one satellite will be
visible above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5[deg] at
all times.
(2) Replacement satellites.
(i) Operational NGSO MSS ATC systems shall maintain an in-orbit
spare satellite.
(ii) Operational GSO MSS ATC systems shall maintain a spare
satellite on the ground within one year of commencing operations and
launch it into orbit during the next commercially reasonable launch
window following a satellite failure.
(iii) All MSS ATC licensees must report any satellite failures,
malfunctions or outages that may require satellite replacement within
ten days of their occurrence.
(3) Commercial availability. Mobile-satellite service must be
commercially available (viz., offering services for a fee) in
accordance with the coverage requirements that pertain to each band as
a prerequisite to an MSS licensee's offering ATC service.
(4) Integrated services. MSS ATC licensees shall offer an
integrated service of MSS and MSS ATC. Applicants for MSS ATC may
establish an integrated service offering by affirmatively demonstrating
that:
(i) The MSS ATC operator will use a dual-mode handset that can
communicate with both the MSS network and the MSS ATC component to
provide the proposed ATC service; or
(ii) Other evidence establishing that the MSS ATC operator will
provide an integrated service offering to the public.
(5) In-band operation.
(i) In the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service bands, MSS ATC is
limited to no more than 7.775 MHz of spectrum in the L-band and 11.5
MHz of spectrum in the S-band. Licensees in these bands may implement
ATC only on those channels on which MSS is authorized, consistent with
the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS band-sharing arrangement.
(ii) In the L-band, MSS ATC is limited to those frequency
assignments available for MSS use in accordance with the Mexico City
Memorandum of Understanding, its successor agreements or the result of
other organized efforts of international coordination.
(c) Equipment certification.
(1) Each ATC mobile station utilized for operation under this part
and each transmitter marketed, as set forth in Sec. 2.803 of this
chapter, must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission
under its certification procedure for use under this part.
(2) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.
(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. Sec.
1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. An
Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the
proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other
sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area
to exceed the applicable limits specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this
chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable
devices operating under this section must contain a statement
confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be
[[Page 56433]]
submitted to the Commission upon request.
(4) Applications for equipment authorization of terrestrial low-
power system equipment that will operate in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band
shall demonstrate the following:
(i) The transmitted signal is digitally modulated;
(ii) The 6 dB bandwidth is at least 500 kHz;
(iii) The maximum transmit power is no more than 1 W with a peak
EIRP of no more than 6 dBW;
(iv) The maximum power spectral density conducted to the antenna is
not greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band during any time interval of
continuous transmission;
(v) Emissions below 2483.5 MHz are attenuated below the transmitter
power (P) measured in watts by a factor of at least 40 + 10 log (P) dB
at the channel edge at 2483.5 MHz, 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 5 MHz from the
channel edge, and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at X MHz from the channel edge
where X is the greater of 6 MHz or the actual emission bandwidth;
(vi) Emissions above 2495 MHz are attenuated below the transmitter
power (P) measured in watts by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB
on all frequencies between the channel edge at 2495 MHz and X MHz from
this channel edge and 55 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies more than X
MHz from this channel edge, where X is the greater of 6 MHz or the
actual emission bandwidth; and
(vii) Compliance with these rules is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz
or greater. However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately above and adjacent
to the 2495 MHz a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the
emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may
be employed. If 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental
emission is less than 1 MHz, the power measured must be integrated over
the required measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz. A resolution bandwidth
narrower than 1 MHz is permitted to improve measurement accuracy,
provided the measured power is integrated over the full required
measurement bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz). The emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of a transmitter is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power. When an
emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful
interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require greater
attenuation than specified in this section.
(d) Compliance with other rules. Applicants for an ancillary
terrestrial component authority shall demonstrate that the applicant
does or will comply with the provisions of Sec. 1.924 of this chapter
and Sec. 100.276 and with this section, as appropriate, through
certification or explanatory technical exhibit.
(e) Limitations on grant timing. Except as provided for in
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, no application for an ancillary
terrestrial component shall be granted until the applicant has
demonstrated actual compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of
this section. Upon receipt of ATC authority, all ATC licensees shall
ensure continued compliance with this section, as appropriate.
(f) Special provision for operational MSS systems. Applicants for
MSS ATC authority with operational MSS systems that are in actual
compliance with the requirements prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section at the time of application may elect
to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section prospectively by providing a substantial showing in its
certification regarding how the applicant will comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section.
Notwithstanding paragraph (e) of this section, the Commission may grant
an application for ATC authority based on such a prospective
substantial showing if the Commission finds that operations consistent
with the substantial showing will result in actual compliance with the
requirements prescribed in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section. An MSS ATC applicant that receives a grant of ATC authority
pursuant to this paragraph (f) shall notify the Commission within 30
days once it begins providing ATC service. This notification must take
the form of a letter formally filed with the Commission in the
appropriate MSS license docket and shall contain a certification that
the MSS ATC service is consistent with its ATC authority.
(g) Special provisions for terrestrial low-power systems in the
2483.5-2495 MHz band.
(1) An operational MSS system that applies for authority to deploy
ATC in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band for terrestrial low-power operations
satisfying the equipment certification requirements of paragraph (c)(4)
of this section is not required to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (b) of this section, except to demonstrate the commercial
availability of MSS, without regard to coverage requirements.
(2) An ATC licensee seeking to modify its license to add authority
to operate a terrestrial low-power network shall certify in its
modification application that its operations will utilize a Network
Operating System (NOS), consisting of a network management system
located at an operations center or centers. The NOS shall have the
technical capability to address and resolve interference issues related
to the licensee's network operations by reducing operational power;
adjusting operational frequencies; shutting off operations; or any
other appropriate means. The NOS shall also have the ability to resolve
interference from the terrestrial low-power network to the licensee's
MSS operations and to authorize access points to the network, which in
turn may authorize access to the network by end-user devices. The NOS
operations center shall have a point of contact in the United States
available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with a phone
number and address made publicly-available by the licensee.
(3) All access points operating in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall
only operate when authorized by the ATC licensee's NOS, and all client
devices operating in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall only operate when
under the control of such access points.
(h) Spectrum leasing. Leasing of spectrum rights by MSS licensees
or system operators to spectrum lessees for ATC use is subject to the
rules for spectrum manager leasing arrangements (see Sec. 1.9020) as
set forth in part 1, subpart X of this chapter (see Sec. 1.9001 et
seq.). In addition, at the time of the filing of the requisite
notification of a spectrum manager leasing arrangement using Form 608
(see Sec. Sec. 1.9020(e) and 1.913(a)(5)), both parties to the
proposed arrangement must have a complete and accurate Form 602 (see
Sec. 1.913(a)(2)) on file with the Commission.
Sec. 100.285 Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to
ATC in the 1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.
If harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary
MSS ATC operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals,
the MSS ATC operator must resolve any such interference. If the MSS ATC
operator claims to have resolved the interference and other operators
claim that interference has not been resolved, then the parties to the
dispute may petition
[[Page 56434]]
the Commission for a resolution of their claims.
Sec. 100.286 Transmitter identification requirements for video uplink
transmissions.
(a) Analog. Earth-to-space transmissions carrying video information
with analog modulation must be identified through use of an Automatic
Transmitter Identification System (ATIS) with an analog identifier or a
direct sequence spread spectrum signal. Use of an analog identifier
must be in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) The ATIS signal must be a separate subcarrier that is
automatically activated whenever any radio frequency signal is
transmitted.
(2) The ATIS message must continuously repeat.
(3) The ATIS subcarrier signal must be generated at a frequency of
7.1 MHz 25 kHz and modulate the uplink radio frequency
carrier at a level no less than -26 dB (referenced to the unmodulated
carrier).
(4) ATIS subcarrier deviation must not exceed 25 kHz.
(5) The ATIS message protocol must be International Morse Code
keyed by a 1200 Hz 800 Hz tone representing a mark and a
message rate of 15 to 25 words per minute. The tone must frequency-
modulate the subcarrier signal with the ATIS message.
(6) The ATIS message must include the FCC-assigned call sign of the
transmitting earth station, a telephone number providing immediate
access to personnel capable of resolving interference or coordination
problems, and a unique serial number of ten or more digits programmed
into the ATIS message in a permanent manner so that it cannot be
readily changed by the operator on duty. Additional information may be
included in the ATIS data stream provided the total ATIS message length
does not exceed 30 seconds.
(7) Use of a direct sequence spread spectrum ATIS signal must be in
accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b) Digital. Transmissions of fixed-frequency, digitally modulated
video signals with a symbol rate of 128,000/s or more from a temporary-
fixed earth station must be identified through use of an ATIS in
accordance with the requirements that follow.
(1) The ATIS message must be modulated onto a direct sequence
spread spectrum signal in accordance with the DVB-CID standard, ETSI TS
103 129 V1.1.2 (2014-03)
(2) The ATIS message must continuously repeat.
Note 1 to paragraph (b): Paragraph (b) of this section is waived
for earth stations using modulators manufactured before August 1,
2017, that cannot be made compliant with the DVB-CID standard by a
software upgrade.
(c) Integration. ATIS equipment must be integrated into the uplink
transmitter chain with a method that cannot easily be defeated.
Miscellaneous Rules
Sec. 100.290 Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs).
No device described by the marketer or seller using the terms
``SEND'' or ``Satellite Emergency Notification Device'' may be marketed
or sold in the United States unless it complies with the requirements
of RTCM 12800.0.
Subpart D--Compliance
Sec. 100.300 Temporary Measures for Non-Compliance
(a) A space station or earth station operator may be required to
temporarily cease radio emissions upon a Commission determination of:
(1) Failure to operate in conformance with the Commission's rules
or conditions on a license authorization;
(2) Failure to timely pay any regulatory fee debts without prior
Commission approval or request for waiver in advance of the payment
deadline; or
(3) During the pendency of an investigation into any potential
violation of the Commission's rules or conditions on a license as
directed by the Commission.
Sec. 100.301 Administrative sanctions.
(a) Subject to section 503 of the Communications Act, a forfeiture
may be imposed for failure to operate in conformance with the
Communications Act, license terms, any conditions imposed on an
authorization, or any of the Commission's rules and regulations; or for
failure to comply with Commission requests for information needed to
complete international coordination or for failure to cooperate in
Commission investigations with respect to international coordination.
(b) Subject to section 503 of the Communications Act, a forfeiture
will be imposed and the station license may be terminated for malicious
transmission of any signal that causes harmful interference with any
other radio communications or signals.
(c) Subject to section 312 of the Communications Act, a station
license may be revoked for any reason stated in section 312(a) of the
Communications Act, including repeated or willful violation of the kind
set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The operator of a
space station license that has been revoked under this rule part must
maintain control of each authorized spacecraft until it has deorbited.
(d) The Commission may prevent a licensee from launching or
operating additional satellites or space stations under a space station
license for any violation of the kind set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section until such violation is cured.
(e) The Commission may place a licensee into an authorization
freeze status preventing a licensee from receiving any new or
additional licenses or authorizations for any violation of the kind set
forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(f) Subject to sections 312(a)(1) and 316 of the Communications
Act, the Commission may revoke or modify a station license if the grant
of the operations requested in the station license was predicated on
statements subsequently found to be intentionally false or misleading.
(g) The sanctions specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section will be imposed pursuant to such notice and an opportunity to
be heard as is required pursuant to Titles III and V of the
Communications Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the
requirements of due process.
(h) For purposes of this section, the term ``repeated'' and
``willful'' are defined as set out in section 312(f) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(f).
Sec. 100.302 Automatic termination of station authorization.
(a) All space and earth station licenses shall be automatically
terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee
upon:
(1) The failure to meet an applicable milestone as specified in
Sec. 100.147.
(2) The failure to meet any registration and coordination
requirements as specified in Sec. 100.120(c)(2).
(3) The failure to meet any operational requirements for earth
stations as specified in Sec. Sec. 100.270 through 100.286.
(4) The expiration of the license term, unless an application for
extension of the license term has been filed with the Commission
pursuant to Sec. 100.149.
(5) The removal or alteration of earth station equipment or
antennas that renders the earth station not operational for more than
90 days, or upon the occurrence of a failure or anomaly that renders a
space station permanently unable to conduct any radiocommunications.
(6) The failure to maintain 50% of the maximum number of NGSO
satellites
[[Page 56435]]
authorized for service following the 12-year milestone period as
functional space stations in authorized orbits, for NGSO satellite
system licensees, which failure will result in the termination of
authority for the space stations not in orbit as of the date of
noncompliance, but allow for replacements pursuant to Sec. 100.149(d).
(7) The failure to provide any SCS on all or some of the SCS
authorized frequencies for more than 90 days, for an SCS space station
licensee authorized pursuant to Sec. 100.113. In this instance, the
authorization will be terminated in whole or in part with respect to
the relevant frequencies on which SCS has not be operational for more
than 90 days in the United States, unless specific authority is
requested.
Sec. 100.303 Reinstatement.
A station authorization terminated in whole or in part under the
provisions of Sec. 100.302 may be reinstated if the Commission, in its
discretion, determines that reinstatement would best serve the public
interest, convenience, and necessity. Petitions for reinstatement will
be considered only if:
(a) The petition is filed within 30 days after the expiration date
set forth in Sec. 100.301, whichever is applicable;
(b) The petition explains the failure to file a timely notification
or renewal application; and
(c) The petition sets forth with specificity the procedures that
have been established to ensure timely filings in the future.
Sec. 100.304 Cause for termination of interference protection for
registered receiving earth stations.
The protection from interference afforded by the registration of a
receiving earth station shall be automatically terminated if:
(a) The request for registration is not submitted to the Commission
within three months of the completion of the frequency coordination
process, except for as provided in Sec. 100.276;
(b) The receiving earth station is not constructed and placed into
service within six months after completion of coordination;
(c) The Commission finds that the station has been used less than
50% of the time during any 12 month period;
(d) The Commission finds that the station has been used for an
unlawful purpose or otherwise in violation of the Commission's rules,
regulations or policies;
(e) The Commission finds that the actual use of the facility is
inconsistent with what was set forth in the registrant's application;
or
(f) The Commission finds that the frequency coordination exhibit,
upon which the granted registration is based, is incomplete or does not
conform with established coordination procedures.
[FR Doc. 2025-22019 Filed 12-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P