This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ) in GN Docket No. 19-309, FCC 26-18, adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026. The complete text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-18A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0503.

Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this document initiates shall 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 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 Act. 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) concerning the possible/potential impact of rule and policy proposals on small entities in the FCC document. The IRFA is found below and in Appendix C of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission invites the general public, particularly small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 1189-9, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) administers several congressionally-mandated programs, such as the Universal Service Fund (USF) and the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) program, that provide significant funding to close the digital divide and ensure that all Americans have access to communications services. In administering these important programs, it is incumbent upon the Commission to be a good steward of these funds, which are ultimately paid for by the American people. We must ensure that these limited dollars serve their intended purposes. Waste, fraud, and abuse frustrate the Commission's goals and undermines public trust in these programs. Bad actors who would seek to enrich themselves by siphoning these critical resources away from connecting rural households and businesses, schools and libraries, rural healthcare providers, low-income households, and people with disabilities have no place in these programs. As such, in a companion Report and Order, we adopted additional, critical tools which will allow us to promptly and efficiently take action to exclude or otherwise limit bad actors' participation in these programs. These changes, which received widespread support in the record, will align our processes with other agencies, incorporate current fraud prevention best practices, and, ultimately, distribute funds more responsibly.

In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to update existing information collection mechanisms for affected programs to include a new certification that applicable program participants have read and complied with the rules we adopt in the Report and Order. We also seek comment on additional safeguards to enhance accountability. We also seek comment on whether applying the new rules to the Commission's Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (also referred to as the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program or, colloquially, Rip-and-Replace) to subsidize smaller carriers to remove and replace certain equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States, as well as to any future USF or TRS programs or National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) or similar financial assistance programs, will improve the sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those whom the programs serve.

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on additional safeguards that could be added to the suspension and debarment framework adopted by the Report and Order. Specifically, we propose to update existing information collection mechanisms for affected programs to include a new certification that applicable program participants have read and complied with the rules we adopt in the Report and Order. We expect that this proposal will help streamline the implementation of the Guidelines and supplemental rules and decrease the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse by prompting participants to both familiarize themselves, and comply, with the adopted rules and providing additional tools to remedy noncompliance. We anticipate this approach to pose little additional burden given that those participating in Commission programs are already responsible for complying with the rules relating to those programs and this approach could help increase awareness of Commission rules among entities that might not otherwise conduct business before the Commission. We seek comment on this proposal and the benefits or burdens it may create, particularly as to any adjustments to alleviate any potential burden on small entities.

We also propose adopting a mandatory disclosure requirement that would provide the agency with additional information concerning threats to program integrity, and other forms of waste, fraud, and abuse in our programs. Specifically, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure provision from OMB's Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance that would require any “applicant, recipient, or subrecipient of a Federal award [to] promptly disclose whenever . . . it has credible evidence of the commission of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations” in connection with the award of Federal funds. 2 CFR 200.113. This provision would require applicants and recipients—often the first to learn of potential waste, fraud, and abuse—to proactively alert both the agency and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of any such credible evidence. We propose adoption of this requirement and propose modifications to the program certifications to require applicants and recipients to demonstrate their compliance with the provision when participating in our programs. We tentatively conclude that adoption of this requirement would better ensure program participants are actively assisting the agency in deterring and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in its programs, and we seek comment on this proposal.

Finally, we also seek comment on any additional safeguards, such as additional certifications, appointment of compliance officers in connection with any compliance plan, or other steps that the Commission may take to enhance its ability to promote greater accountability and policing among persons receiving financial assistance from Commission programs.

As discussed briefly above, in 2020, the Commission established the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program (SCRP) to subsidize smaller carriers to remove and replace certain equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. Although reimbursements are funded by a separate appropriation, the program is designed in part to prohibit Universal Service Fund support from being used for equipment and services which pose a threat to national security. Over the past six years, the Commission has processed over 50,000 claims for reimbursement and has approved approximately $1.3 billion in disbursements to recipients. As the Suspension and Debarment NPRM preceded the creation of the SCRP, we did not seek comment on its inclusion as a covered program for the purposes of suspension and debarment.

We recognize that the Secure Networks Act provided for a debarment-like remedy in the SCRP. Specifically, “[a]ny person or entity that violates the Reimbursement Program rules will also be banned from further participation in the [SCRP], and the person or entity may also be barred from participating in other Commission programs, including Universal Service support programs.” We seek comment on whether we should nonetheless extend the suspension and debarment rules we adopt today to this program, and if so, how extension of the suspension and debarment rules adopted in the Report and Order would support this program-specific statutory requirement. We also seek comment on any implementation issues, including whether there should be any program-specific changes as to how these rules are applied in the context of the SCRP, such as the definitions of primary and lower tier participants for those programs or the disclosure requirements.

The Report and Order applies the suspension and debarment framework to the USF programs (including High-Cost, E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Health Care), TRS and NDBEDP. On occasion, the Commission establishes new support programs—funded by similar mechanisms and designed to mirror existing programs—including new models of High-Cost, pilot programs to evaluate future modifications to universal service, and modernized forms of TRS. To the extent the Commission creates new universal service programs, including additional forms of high cost support or additional pilot programs, or authorizes new forms of TRS or NDBEDP in the future, we propose that any such program will be governed by default by the suspension and debarment framework adopted in the Report and Order. We tentatively conclude that a default application of the suspension and debarment rules to any future USF or TRS programs or NDBEDP or similar financial assistance programs will improve the sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those whom the programs serve. Given the anticipated similarities between any future USF or TRS program and those currently in effect, we do not expect any significant burden on program participants if the suspension and debarment rules were also extended to these similarly-designed programs. We further anticipate that, to the extent that modifications for a specific program are appropriate, the Commission can consider such customization in adopting program-specific rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

The rules we propose in the Further Notice seek to revise the Commission's rules to include a certification requirement to transactions for the four USF programs (including High-Cost programs), the TRS program, and the NDBEDP, which are the Commission's primary permanent nonprocurement programs, as well as to other programs (collectively Covered Programs) to reflect that persons participating in those programs have read and agree to comply with the rules that the Commission adopted in its Report and Order above. The proposed certification could increase the likelihood that those receiving financial assistance from FCC-administered programs will be responsible stewards of these funds.

Additionally, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure provision from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance that would require applicants and recipients to proactively alert both the agency and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of any credible evidence of fraud in our programs. We also seek comment on whether to extend the suspension and debarment framework to the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program, as well as to any new universal service programs or modernized forms of TRS or NDBEDP the Commission may adopt in the future.

The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 218, 225, 254, 403, 616, and 620 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 7402, Title VII of the American Rescue Plan Act 2021, Public Law 117-2, 135 Stat. 4 (2021), and Section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by section 60502 of Division F, Title V of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 218, 225, 254, 403, 616, and 620.

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 Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 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.

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 by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses 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. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. 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.

The rules proposed in the FNPRM 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.

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.

In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to establish further protections to the suspension and debarment framework adopted by the Report and Order. We propose that applicable program participants certify that they have read and complied with the rules adopted in the Report and Order. To achieve this, we propose updating the existing information collection mechanisms for affected programs. The Commission also seeks comment on additional safeguards, including additional certifications, appointment of compliance officers in connection with any compliance plan, or other steps that the Commission may take to enhance its ability to promote greater accountability and policing among persons receiving financial assistance from Commission programs. Specifically, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure provision from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance that would require applicants and recipients to proactively alert both the agency and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of any credible evidence “of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations” in connection with the award of Federal funds. We also see comment on whether to apply the recently adopted suspension and debarment framework to the SCRP, as well as to any new universal service programs or modernized forms of TRS or NDBEDP.

These proposals, if adopted, will help to streamline the implementation of the Guidelines and supplemental rules, and will aid the Commission in meeting its long-standing objective of decreasing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse by prompting participants to both familiarize themselves, and comply, with the adopted rules and provide additional tools to remedy noncompliance.

The Commission does not anticipate that the proposals set forth in the FNPRM will create additional economic, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on small entities seeking to comply with the proposed rules, should they be adopted. We note that entities receiving FCC financial assistance are already required to familiarize themselves with, and comply with, Commission rules governing participation in such programs. As a result, the proposed rules should not create additional burdens to small and other entities. While we do not anticipate that such entities will need to hire professionals to comply with the proposals outlined herein, we request comments from small and other entities that are specific to any potential burdens or costs small entities may incur in connection with these requirements, as well as any benefits that may be achieved.

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 economic 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.”

In developing its proposals in the FNPRM, the Commission considered alternatives that could minimize significant economic impact on small entities. As discussed above, we propose including a new certification to our existing information collection methods for those entities participating in USF programs. For example, we considered not adopting such a requirement; however, maintaining the status quo would not meet our objectives of streamlining both the Guidelines and supplemental rules implementation, and would also not serve the public's interest in decreasing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Moreover, other alternatives beyond the FNPRM' s proposal could prove to be more economically burdensome to comply with for program participants, some of which are small entities. The certification proposal in the FNPRM will both meet the Commission's objectives while minimizing administrative or other compliance costs to small entities. We propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure provision from OMB's Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, and seek comment on alternatives that would ensure program participants are actively assisting the agency in deterring and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. As we propose to apply the recently adopted suspension and debarment framework to the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program, as well as any new universal service programs or modernized forms of TRS or NDBEDP, we seek comment on other alternatives to improve the sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those whom the programs serve.

To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on small entities, and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission seeks comments from small entities and other interested parties on its proposal discussed in the FNPRM. We expect to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities following our review of comments filed in response to the FNPRM in reaching our final conclusions and promulgating rules in this proceeding.

None.

On March 9, 2026, FAS published in the Federal Register (91 FR 11174) a proposed rule to amend the Dairy TRQ Import Licensing regulation, codified at 7 CFR 6.20 et seq., that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under TRQs. The proposed rule stated that the comment period would close on April 8, 2026. FAS has received requests to extend the comment period. After reviewing the requests, the agency finds it appropriate to grant the requests and extend the comment period by an additional 15 days. An extension of the comment period will provide additional time for the public to prepare comments to address the matters raised by the proposed rule. Therefore, FAS is extending the comment period for the Dairy TRQ Import Licensing regulation from April 8, 2026, to April 23, 2026.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1238 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1238.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-1238 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in Section 2 of the E.O. 14300.

The NRC and the 40 Agreement States are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of approximately 80,000 category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material used in medical, commercial, and research applications. The Agreement States are U.S. states that have entered into a formal agreement with the NRC under Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to assume regulatory authority from the NRC over certain radioactive materials and activities within their states. The NRC considers category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material to be risk-significant quantities of radioactive material. These quantities pertain to 16 specific radioactive materials listed in Appendix A to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 37, “Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Materials.” The regulations in 10 CFR part 37 govern the physical protection and security requirements for these category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material.

In response to E.O. 14300, the NRC initiated a review of the 10 CFR part 37 requirements and identified several proposed revisions to enhance the efficiency of the materials licensing and inspection process and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees related to the physical protection of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material while maintaining safety and security. In undertaking this review, the NRC was mindful of the current threat environment and the importance of security regulations being commensurate with that threat environment. These proposed changes are detailed in Section IV, “Discussion” of this document.

The NRC is proposing to revise the 10 CFR part 37 regulations by removing or modifying physical protection requirements for category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The proposed changes would include:

The NRC is proposing to remove the requirement in § 37.23(b)(2) that after completing the background investigation on the reviewing official, the licensee must submit a certification to the NRC affirming that the designated reviewing official is deemed trustworthy and reliable. Reviewing officials are the only individuals within a licensee's organization authorized to make trustworthiness and reliability determinations that allow individuals to have unescorted access to category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material. Under this proposed rule, licensees would still be required to designate reviewing officials as trustworthy and reliable under oath or affirmation, but they would no longer be required to transmit those certifications to the NRC. The NRC would continue to verify compliance through routine inspections, thereby ensuring that the effectiveness of licensees' access authorization programs is maintained.

The NRC is proposing to remove the outdated grandfathering provision in § 37.25(b)(1). Currently, § 37.25(b)(1) allows certain individuals who were determined to be trustworthy and reliable for unescorted access to category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material under the Fingerprint Orders, as defined in § 37.5, to continue to have access to this material without further investigation. The Fingerprint Orders, which were issued primarily in the mid-2000s in response to the events of September 11, 2001, expired on March 19, 2014 and are no longer applicable. The Fingerprint Orders were orders issued by the NRC or legally binding requirements issued by Agreement States that required certain licensees and applicants to submit fingerprints for background checks on individuals who have unescorted access to risk-significant quantities of radioactive material. The NRC allowed these previously approved determinations under the Fingerprint Orders to be grandfathered in because the agency recognized that many individuals had already been fingerprinted and approved under earlier security orders. Under the 10-year reinvestigation requirement in § 37.25(c), all individuals who were grandfathered in have already undergone at least one subsequent reinvestigation by licensees that includes fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal history records check in accordance with § 37.27. Thus, the continued application of the grandfathering provision is no longer necessary, nor would its removal adversely affect the effectiveness of licensees' access authorization programs.

Also, under § 37.25(c), licensees are currently required to conduct a reinvestigation every 10 years for any individual with unescorted access to category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The NRC is proposing to remove this 10-year reinvestigation requirement because it is unnecessary for the effectiveness of licensees' access authorization programs. Since the reinvestigation requirement in § 37.25(c) became effective on March 19, 2013, the reinvestigation process has not produced information leading to a licensee making a trustworthiness and reliability determination to revoke unescorted access from an individual based on results from a reinvestigation. In accordance with the existing § 37.23(e)(5), a licensee is required to remove unescorted access when a person no longer meets access authorization requirements.

In addition, § 37.23(e)(4) allows the reviewing official to terminate or administratively withdraw an individual's unescorted access authorization based on information obtained after the initial background investigation has been completed ( i.e., without waiting for the 10-year reinvestigation). Therefore, the NRC believes that the removal of this requirement would not adversely affect the effectiveness of licensees' access authorization programs.

The NRC is proposing to revise the refresher training requirement in § 37.43(c)(3), extending the frequency interval from not to exceed 12 months to at least every 3 years, and when significant changes are made to the security program. Currently, § 37.43(c)(3) requires each licensee to provide refresher training to all individuals implementing the security program at a frequency not to exceed 12 months and when significant changes have been made to the security program. Examples of significant changes include relocation of security zones, changes to physical security systems, and updates to response procedures. This revision would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees. In addition, because each licensee would still be required to provide refresher training to responsible individuals when significant changes are made to the security program, the effectiveness of the security program would be maintained.

The NRC is proposing to revise the requirement in § 37.45(d) for licensees to coordinate with LLEAs, changing the frequency requirement from at least every 12 months to at least every 3 years, or when changes are made to the facility design or operation that adversely affect the potential vulnerability of the licensee's material to theft, sabotage or diversion. Currently, § 37.45(d) requires licensees to coordinate with LLEAs at least every 12 months, or when changes to facility design or operation adversely affect the potential vulnerability of the licensee's material to theft, sabotage, or diversion. Examples of such changes include relocation of a security zone, changes to access control points or physical barriers, and modifications to alarm systems. The purpose of LLEA coordination is to ensure that law enforcement understands the facility's layout, confirm response expectations and timelines, and facilitate effective communication during emergencies. Once those efforts are documented as is required under § 37.45(c), requiring licensees to coordinate with LLEAs annually is unnecessary unless conditions change. Moreover, licensees are still required to coordinate with LLEAs more frequently than every 3 years if changes are made that may affect the potential vulnerability of the material to theft, sabotage, or diversion. Therefore, this revision would reduce regulatory burden while ensuring that licensees maintain effective coordination with LLEAs.

The NRC is proposing to remove the requirement in § 37.49(a)(3)(ii) that requires licensees that possess category 2 quantities of radioactive material to verify the presence of the material through physical checks, tamper indicating devices, use, or other means on a weekly basis. Originally, weekly verification by licensees was intended to mitigate insider threats by minimizing the time during which misuse or diversion of material could go undetected. However, many category 2 quantity of radioactive material sources—such as radiography devices—are routinely used in daily operations, resulting in frequent observation and handling of the source that effectively ensures that licensees can promptly detect and respond to attempted misuse or diversion of materials, thereby serving the same purpose as weekly verification. Given the low likelihood of inadvertent loss and the existing requirements under § 37.49 to monitor, detect, assess, and respond to unauthorized access or removal, the NRC considers the weekly verification requirement unnecessary to provide reasonable assurance of the security of category 2 quantities of radioactive material from theft or diversion. For category 1 quantities of radioactive material, licensees would continue to be required to immediately detect any attempted unauthorized removal of the radioactive material from the security zone in accordance with § 37.49(a)(3)(i).

The NRC is also proposing to remove the requirement in § 37.49(c) for continuous and alternative communication capabilities for personnel communication and electronic data transmission and processing. Currently, § 37.49(c)(1) requires licensees to maintain continuous capability for personnel communication and electronic data transmission and processing among site security systems. In addition, under § 37.49(c)(2), licensees must also provide alternative personnel communication and data transmission capabilities and processing, in case the primary means is lost. Licensees are already required under § 37.49 to maintain the ability to monitor, detect, assess, and respond to unauthorized removal of radioactive material. Specifically, under § 37.49(a)(1), the licensee must maintain a continuous monitoring and detection capability in the event of a loss of the primary power source or provide for an alarm and response when the capability to continuously monitor and detect unauthorized entries is lost. Therefore, the NRC considers the current specific requirement for continuous and alternative communication capabilities in § 37.49(c) unnecessary to provide reasonable assurance of the security of category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material from theft or diversion.

The NRC is proposing to remove the requirement for a maintenance and testing program. Currently, § 37.51 requires licensees to implement a maintenance and testing program to ensure that intrusion alarms, associated communication systems, and other physical components of the systems used to secure or detect unauthorized access to radioactive material remain operable and capable of performing their intended function when needed. Under § 37.49, licensees are already required to monitor, detect, assess, and respond to unauthorized removal of radioactive material. To meet this performance-based requirement, systems used to secure or detect unauthorized access to radioactive material must remain operable and capable of performing their intended functions when needed. In practice, such systems are exercised during normal operations. Any failure—such as a malfunctioning sensor or communication issue—would impair licensees' ability to monitor, detect, assess, and respond, prompting timely corrective action by the licensees. Therefore, a separate maintenance and testing requirement in § 37.51 imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees.

As a conforming change, the NRC is proposing to remove the associated training requirement in § 37.43(c)(3)(iv), as it would no longer be necessary in the absence of a required maintenance and testing program.

The NRC is proposing to revise the language in § 37.53(b) to reflect advancements in vehicle ignition and disabling technologies by removing the prohibition on a licensee relying on key removal. Currently, § 37.53(b) requires each licensee that possesses mobile devices containing category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material in or on a vehicle or trailer to utilize a method to disable the vehicle or trailer when not under direct control and constant surveillance by the licensee, unless the health and safety requirements for a site prohibit the disabling of the vehicle. Section 37.53(b) further states that licensees are prohibited from relying on the removal of an ignition key to meet this requirement. The intent of this requirement in the current NRC regulations is to delay unauthorized removal of radioactive material contained in mobile devices by preventing the vehicle or trailer from leaving the licensee's control during vehicle theft. However, most modern vehicles now incorporate transponder (chip) keys or electronic fobs that are recognizable only by the vehicle's programmed computer and automatically disable the ignition system when removed, effectively immobilizing the vehicle. Only this specific transponder key or electronic fob can be used to enter and start the vehicle. The NRC has determined that a licensee may use this technology as an acceptable method to disable the vehicle. As a result, the NRC is proposing to remove the existing prohibition in § 37.53(b) on a licensee relying on key removal, which is outdated and does not reflect advancements in technology.

The NRC is proposing to make minor nomenclature changes by revising the language in §§ 37.23, 37.25, 37.45, 37.49, and 37.53 to remove the word “shall” and add in its place the word, “must”.

The regulatory changes in this proposed rule would affect all radioactive materials licensees who possess, use, and transfer category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive materials.

The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments from the public on certain proposed changes under E.O. 14300 aimed at enhancing efficiency and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden related to the physical protection of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. No classified or safeguards information should be disclosed in comments. The NRC is particularly interested in comments with clear justifications and supporting rationales on the following issues:

• Question #1: Are there significant unintended consequences associated with removing the requirement for licensees to provide certifications to the NRC under § 37.23(b)(2) that a reviewing official is trustworthy and reliable? Licensees would continue to be required to designate reviewing officials under oath or affirmation as trustworthy and reliable but would no longer be required to transmit the certifications to the NRC. Provide a rationale for your response.

• Question #2: What are the pros and cons of the NRC removing the requirement for 10-year reinvestigations under § 37.25(c) of individuals with unescorted access to category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material? Provide a rationale for your response.

• Question #3: Are there significant safety-related implications of changing the requirement in § 37.45(d) for licensees to coordinate with the LLEA from at least once every 12 months to at least once every 3 years? What should the required coordination frequency be? Please provide a rationale for your response.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b), the NRC is not preparing a regulatory flexibility certification analysis. The proposed rule affects NRC licensees that fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810), but it will impose no new burden on those “small entities.” As noted in Section VII, “Regulatory Analysis” of this document, the NRC expects that the proposed rule, if adopted, will reduce burden on “small entities.”

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC has determined that the action in this proposed rule is expected to reduce regulatory burden and generate cost savings for licensees, the NRC and the Agreement States, when compared to the no-action alternative. The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft regulatory analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

The NRC identified two alternatives for this action: (1) no action ( i.e., maintaining the status quo regulatory baseline), and (2) the proposed rulemaking to revise language in 10 CFR part 37 as discussed in Section IV. Under the no action alternative, the NRC would not publish this proposed rule and licensees would continue to comply with the existing regulations in 10 CFR part 37. However, this alternative would not realize the cost savings presented in Section VII.D. In addition, the NRC determined that the no-action alternative would not be consistent with the direction in Section 5 of E.O. 14300. The no-action alternative is considered as a baseline for comparing the incremental impacts of the proposed rule.

Throughout this analysis, various labor rates are used. These rates are used consistently for all the issues and their derivations are described below.

Licensee labor rates were obtained from National Wage Data available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website for year 2024 ( https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/000000 ). Depending on the industry and the occupation ( e.g., manufacturing, health and safety, etc.), an appropriate mean hourly labor rate is selected. The rate is then increased using a multiplier of 1.6 to account for benefits (insurance premiums, pension, and legally required benefits). Because exact hourly rates would be difficult to obtain and may not be sufficiently recent, nationwide mean hourly rates are used for lower paid employees, such as clerical staff.

All savings presented in this analysis are expressed in 2024 dollars, as the wage rate used for valuation is a lagging indicator. Using 2024 dollars ensures consistency throughout the analysis. The NRC's wage rate is currently based on 2024 data. Subject to Commission approval, the NRC staff will use the most recent wage rate data available at the time of final rule development for valuation purposes.

The NRC used data from the regulatory analysis, “Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule: Physical Protection of Byproduct Material (10 CFR parts 20, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 51, 71, and 73),” dated December 2011 (2011 regulatory analysis), which was associated with the 2013 final rule, dated March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16922). To align with this rulemaking, the original 2010 dollar values were adjusted to 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, applying an inflation factor of 1.39 as published by the BLS.

Based on information obtained from the NRC's National Source Tracking System in 2025, the NRC estimates that approximately 960 licensees possessing category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material across the National Materials Program will be affected by this proposed rule. These licensees represent a diverse group, including pool-type irradiator operators; manufacturers and distributors; medical facilities using stereotactic radiosurgery devices; self-shielded irradiator users (such as those operating blood irradiators); teletherapy unit operators; radiographers; well loggers; broad scope licensees; radioisotope thermoelectric generator operators; and entities involved in the shipment or preparation for shipment of category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material. Of the estimated 960 licensees, approximately 180 are NRC licensees, while the remaining 780 are licensed by Agreement States, a ratio equivalent of 1 NRC licensee to 4.3 Agreement State licensees. In addition, the NRC estimates that approximately 260 licensees are authorized to possess, use, or transfer category 1 quantities of radioactive material, and about 700 are authorized for category 2 quantities.

(1) The NRC is proposing to revise § 37.23(b)(2) by removing the requirement for licensees to submit a certification under oath or affirmation. The NRC anticipates that eliminating this requirement will result in cost savings for licensees. Currently, there are 40 Agreement States, each with its own process for implementing § 37.23(b)(2). As such, the NRC does not have data on the number of certifications submitted annually to the Agreement States.

For this analysis, the NRC assumes that the number of certifications received by all Agreement States is proportional to the number received by the NRC, which is based on the ratio of the number of NRC licensees to the number of Agreement State licensees provided in Section C, “Assumptions and Data Used for Analysis.” The NRC currently receives approximately two certifications annually from its licensees. Based on the equivalent ratio for NRC licensees to Agreement State licensees, the NRC estimated that Agreement States collectively receive about nine certifications per year. Therefore, the total number of certifications submitted annually across both NRC and Agreement State licensees is estimated to be 11.

The NRC estimates that the development of each certification will require one hour of effort by a facility manager, using the BLS loaded wage rate for occupation code 11-3013 across all industries, which is $88.10 per hour. Accordingly, the NRC estimates the annual savings for Agreement State licensees at $793, with a total undiscounted 10-year savings of $7,929. For NRC licensees, the estimated annual savings is $176, with a 10-year total of $1,762 (undiscounted). In addition, the NRC estimates a cost savings for the NRC from the reduction in resources required to process certification documents. The NRC estimates that processing each affirmation document currently would take approximately 1 hour at a labor cost of $158 per hour. Therefore, eliminating this task would result in annual savings of $316 for the NRC. Over a 10-year period, the total undiscounted savings would be $3,160. The NRC assumes that the Agreement States would incur similar processing times and labor costs—1 hour per certification at $158 per hour. Based on the estimated number of 9 certifications per year, the annual savings for the Agreement States would be approximately $1,422, with a 10-year total of $14,220 (undiscounted).

Combining the savings for licensees, the Agreement States, and the NRC, the total estimated savings over a 10-year period is $23,911 (undiscounted). The total 10-year net present value (NPV) at 7 and 3 percent discount is $16,794 and 20,396 respectively. Table 1 summarizes the combined savings for both industry and government.

(2) The NRC is proposing to remove the provision in § 37.25(c) that requires licensees to conduct a reinvestigation every 10 years for any individual with unescorted access to category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material.

To estimate the potential industry savings from this proposed change, the NRC relied on data from the 2011 regulatory analysis, which detailed the costs associated with implementing reinvestigations. This historical data was used to reverse-engineer the original cost estimates into projected savings, since the proposed rule eliminates the reinvestigation requirement.

According to the 2011 regulatory analysis, there were 1,400 NRC and Agreement State licensees, categorized by size as small, medium, and large, with employee counts of approximately 364 (26 percent), 826 (59 percent), and 210 (15 percent) respectively. These licensees collectively spend an estimated $536,111 annually on reinvestigations. For this analysis, the NRC used the same percentage breakdown based on the estimated 960 NRC and Agreement State licensees to calculate per-licensee reinvestigation costs. Because the 2011 cost estimations were in 2010 dollars, the NRC adjusted the dollar value to 2024 dollars using the appropriate inflation factor as described in Section C of this analysis. Given that reinvestigations occur on a 10-year cycle—matching the timeframe of this analysis—the NRC assumes all reinvestigations would occur within the same year. To calculate annual savings over a 10-year period, the staff multiplied the annual cost savings by 10. As a result, the removal of § 37.25(c) is estimated to save the industry approximately $5.361 million (undiscounted) over the 10-year period of analysis with an NPV of 7 and 3 percent at $3.756 million and $4.573 million respectively. Table 2 presents the detailed breakdown of these projected savings.

(3) The NRC is proposing to revise the requirement under § 37.43(c)(3) for licensees to provide refresher training to individuals implementing the security program from not to exceed 12 months to at least every 3 years, and when significant changes are made to the security program. This change is expected to reduce the financial burden on licensees.

For this analysis, the NRC estimates that approximately 960 licensees would be affected by the proposed change in § 37.43(c). According to the 2011 regulatory analysis, these licensees collectively spend an estimated $10.1 million (adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars) annually on refresher training. By shifting from annual to triannual training, the industry is expected to save approximately $20.2 million over the two years in which training would no longer be required. No savings would occur in the third year, when training is required.

Over a 10-year period, the NRC estimates total savings of $70.8 million (undiscounted), with discounted annualized savings of $7.2 million at a 7 percent discount rate. Table 3 provides a detailed breakdown of the 10-year savings associated with this provision.

(4) The NRC is proposing to revise the requirement under § 37.45(d) for licensees to coordinate with the LLEA from an annual to a triannual schedule, or when licensees make changes to the facility design or operation that adversely affect the potential vulnerability of the licensee's material to theft, sabotage or diversion. This change is expected to reduce the administrative burden on the licensees and result in cost savings.

For this analysis, the NRC assumes that coordination with the LLEA would currently require approximately 2 hours per year per licensee. While the NRC does not have comprehensive data on all facilities that would be affected by this proposed change, it will assess savings on a per-facility basis. Further, the NRC assumes that the LLEA coordination task would require 2 hours of effort per occurrence by a facility manager, using the BLS loaded wage rate for occupation code 11-3013, across all industries, which is $88.10 per hour. This would result in an annual coordination cost of approximately $176.20 per licensee. Assuming licensees coordinate with the LLEA only in the third year of each 3-year cycle following the rule's implementation and applying the per-licensee savings to the estimated 960 licensees, the annual industry savings during the first and second years—when coordination is not required—would be approximately $169,144. No savings would occur in the third year, when coordination with the LLEA is required. This analysis does not consider the costs of licensee coordination with LLEA that is initiated as needed due to changes made to the facility design or operation.

Over a 10-year period, the total undiscounted savings from the proposed change to § 37.45(d) is estimated at $1.18 million. The annualized savings are projected to be an estimated $120,339 discounted at 7 percent. Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of the 10-year savings associated with this provision.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mercy Medical Center Heliport, Canton, OH, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operation). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, OH 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.4-mile radius of Mercy Medical Center Heliport, Canton, OH.

This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Smoky Bend Ranch Airport, Mullin, TX, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operation). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, OH 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 8.3-mile radius of Smoky Bend Ranch Airport, Mullin, TX.

This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport, Crown Point, IN, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operation). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, OH 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile radius of Franciscan Health Crown Point Hospital Heliport, Crown Point, IN.

This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the Class E airspace area to support IFR operations at Omak Airport, Omak, WA.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Class E5 airspace area designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 due to the development of a special instrument approach procedure (IAP) at Omak Airport, Omak, WA: the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) M Runway (RWY) 35.

The central radius of Class E airspace area should be extended by 0.8 miles to more appropriately contain the IFR departure and contain missed approach operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. Additionally, the airspace should be modified to extend 2.2 east of the airport, as circling maneuvers are not authorized east of RWY 17/35.

The Class E airspace area southern boundary should be modified to extend 9 miles, and the southwestern boundary to 12 miles, to more appropriately contain instrument arrivals to RWY 35 operating below 1,500 feet above the surface.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Subject to OSM's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved, State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).

On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Wyoming program in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637). You can also find later actions concerning the Wyoming program and program amendments at 30 CFR 950.10.

By letter dated January 15, 2026 (Administrative Record No. WY-052-01), Wyoming sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). We found Wyoming's proposed amendment administratively complete on January 20, 2026. Wyoming submitted this proposed amendment to us, on its own initiative, following the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council's (EQC) and Wyoming Governor's approval of the proposed changes to its Land Quality Division (LQD)—Coal Rules on September 17, 2025, and October 29, 2025, respectively.

At Wyoming Code of Wyoming Rules (WCWR) 20-0006-12, Section 2(e), which dictates Wyoming's requirements for bond adjustments, Wyoming first proposed to add “operational parameters” to its list of actions or circumstances that reduce the estimated reclamation cost for an operation. Second, Wyoming proposed to add another situation to its list of what would be considered a “bond adjustment” as opposed to a “bond release.” Wyoming's proposed language would allow a decrease in the volume of material required to reclaim a final cut, pit, or void created at a surface mining operation by the permit holder or their designated entities to be considered a “bond adjustment.”

The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Wyoming program.

If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m. M.T. on April 24, 2026. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of their comments. The public hearing will continue until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak, and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment.

We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

This document proposes to take action on changes to the State rule at Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR) 5.570, Control of Sulfur Emissions From Stationary Boilers, as revisions to the SIP previously approved at 40 CFR 52.1320(c). Revisions include removal of references to a revoked State regulation and other minor administrative changes. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register , because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), in SB Docket No. 26-54; FCC 26-13, adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf. The full text of this 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 FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall 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 § 1.1206(b). 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) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Commission document, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.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 the NPRM will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

1. In the geopolitical race to commercialize and dominate the Final Frontier, historic levels of private investment have paved the way for the engineering marvels and daring endeavors that now take place in outer space. Once the province of science fiction, American companies are now upgrading, relocating, and servicing satellites; manufacturing pharmaceuticals in space; building private inhabitable spacecraft; and conducting private robotic missions to the surface of the Moon. Emergent space operations like these depend on the use of radiocommunications for their spacecraft, but they are not the type of communications satellites that have traditionally commanded much of the Commission's regulatory attention.

2. Spectrum is a critical component of all space operations. Even for spacecraft that do not provide radiocommunications services to the public, reliable spectrum access is mandatory for safety functions like telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) to control spacecraft in orbit. American innovators, however, currently face an acute shortage of usable and readily accessible spectrum for TT&C, and that spectrum crunch threatens to delay—or even prevent—the growth of domestic space technologies and jeopardize U.S. leadership in the booming global space economy.

3. This shortage of spectrum is the product of several interlocking factors. For one, spectrum for TT&C is largely unavailable on a standalone basis, absent a separately authorized radiocommunications service. Emergent space innovations like inhabitable spacecraft and orbital laboratories, however, do not typically provide a separately authorized radiocommunications service. For another, the spectrum bands where TT&C may be available on a standalone basis tend to be congested and occupied primarily by Federal users. And for another, even when the Commission does authorize a company's use of spectrum for standalone TT&C, it occurs under a case-by-case review process that may involve extensive coordination and delay.

4. The Commission is aggressively pursuing a policy of spectrum abundance in outer space. Earlier this year, we launched a proceeding to release up to 20,000 megahertz of spectrum for traditional connectivity services, including high-speed broadband from constellations in low-Earth orbit. The Commission has also begun a comprehensive revisiting its licensing and regulatory framework for space communications in the Space Modernization NPRM.

5. Now, with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), we focus on bringing spectrum abundance to support cutting-edge, emergent ventures in space. The NPRM pursues two paths towards abundance. First, we seek to clarify and expand our traditional regulatory classifications so that emergent operations have more predictable spectrum access. Second, we explore new spectrum bands that could support new use cases on a dedicated basis. In each path, our goal remains the same: provide a clear, reliable, and expeditious path to support the groundbreaking technologies and services that companies are developing in space. With the proposals in the NPRM, we look to find ways to use market-based principles to see spectrum resources put to more intensive use in the service of the space economy. By thinking creatively and expansively, we have the opportunity to go from zero non-Federal spectrum available today to support emergent space operations to at least 25 megahertz of such spectrum, and potentially much, much more, if all the proposals in the NPRM are ultimately adopted.

6. To facilitate a precise discussion why emergent space operations may not have sufficient spectrum availability, we first clarify key terms and definitions currently used in our rules governing space communications.

7. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio” from or within the areas specified in section 301 or on a mobile station within the jurisdiction of the United States without a license issued by the Commission. Although the Act does not define the term “signals,” it defines “communication by radio” as “the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.”

8. Consistent with the Act, our rules state that “[n]o person shall use or operate apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by space or earth stations except under, and in accordance with, an appropriate authorization granted by the Federal Communications Commission.” Under our rules, a “space station” is 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.” An “earth station” is a “station located either on the Earth's surface or within the major portion of Earth's atmosphere and intended for communication: (1) With one or more space stations; or (2) With one or more stations of the same kind by means of one or more reflecting satellites or other objects in space.” Our rules define “radiocommunication” as “telecommunication by means of radio waves” and “telecommunication” as “any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.” Section 301 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.” Accordingly, the transmission or reception of intelligence of any nature to or from a station beyond the majority of the Earth's atmosphere via radio waves is a space radiocommunication and, pursuant to our rules, requires an authorization by the Commission.

9. Radiocommunications are classified and regulated as distinct kinds of “radiocommunication service,” defined as “a service . . . involving the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio waves for specific telecommunication purposes.” Those specific purposes are reflected in the radiocommunication services defined by our rules, such as the fixed-satellite service (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS), or broadcasting-satellite service (BSS). Whereas FSS, MSS, and BSS licensees use radio waves to provide voice, video, or data to consumers and businesses, other radiocommunication services do not. For example, the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) uses radio waves to obtain information about the Earth through active or passive sensors, as well as to collect and distribute that information.

10. Some radiocommunication services, in particular, are critical for the operation of a spacecraft, but do not provide a service to the public. For example, the space operation service (SOS) is defined as “[a] radiocommunication service concerned exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand” and uses radio waves for the operation of spacecraft. Similarly, the space research service (SRS) is defined as “[a] radiocommunication service in which spacecraft or other objects in space are used for scientific or technological research purposes.” In both instances, the radiocommunication services are used to control and operate spacecraft, but are not themselves the services offered to the public. Space telemetry is defined as “[t]he use of telemetry for transmission for a space station of results of measurements made in a spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning of the spacecraft.” Space tracking is defined as the “[d]etermination of the orbit, velocity or instantaneous position of an object in space by means of radiodetermination, excluding primary radar, for the purpose of following the movement of the object.” Space telecommand is defined as “[t]he use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals to a space station to initiate, modify or terminate functions of equipment on a space object, including the space station.”

11. Thus, there are numerous space radiocommunication services provided for under our rules, some of which use radiocommunications to provide service directly to the public, and some of which are used to support operations of spacecraft. All of these services involve transmissions of signals and thus require authorization from the Commission under the Act, provided that the station at issue does not belong to and is not controlled by the United States government.

12. Another important point of terminology is the distinction between Federal and non-Federal operations and the effects of this distinction on allocations of radio spectrum. The Commission authorizes non-Federal operations, which include those by private commercial entities. Operations conducted by agencies or entities of the U.S. federal government are Federal, and Congress has assigned the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, oversight of such operations. Together, the FCC and NTIA jointly manage the nation's radio spectrum resources in the public interest. The United States Table of Frequency Allocations (United States Table) contains allocations for both Federal (that is, U.S. federal government) and non-Federal (for example, private entities) use of radiocommunication services and is codified in § 2.106 of our rules. An “allocation” is an entry in the Table of Frequency Allocations (Allocation Table) of a given frequency band for the purpose of its use by one or more terrestrial or space radiocommunication services (or the radio astronomy service) under specified conditions. Any segment of the radio spectrum may be allocated to the federal and/or non-federal sectors either on an exclusive or shared basis for use by one or more radio services. Services may be allocated on a primary or secondary basis, and operations on a secondary basis must not cause harmful interference to operations on a primary basis and cannot claim protection from harmful interference from operations of a primary service.

13. Non-federal operators may be authorized to use Federal frequency allocations, subject to coordination with the appropriate federal agency or agencies and conditions agreed upon by the Commission and NTIA, provided that such operations shall not cause harmful interference to Federal stations and that operations shall terminate should harmful interference occur. Thus, applications to operate non-Federal radiocommunication services in frequency bands that are allocated to Federal operations must first be coordinated with federal agencies and must not cause harmful interference to Federal operations.

14. Lastly, there are important differences in the terms “spacecraft,” “satellite,” and “space station” under our rules. A “spacecraft” is defined as a “man-made vehicle which is intended to go beyond the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.” Although “satellite” is defined as a spacecraft in orbit, it is often used informally to refer to the physical apparatus in space. A “space station” is essentially a station on a spacecraft, and a “station” is the transmitters or receivers (or combination thereof) on the spacecraft necessary for carrying on a radiocommunication service. Furthermore, a station is classified by the service in which it operates, so a space station operating in the fixed-satellite service is classified as an “FSS space station.” Thus, a spacecraft can be a satellite, and a satellite is a spacecraft, and there can be one or more space stations on a satellite or spacecraft. But under our rules, it is the transmitters and receivers that make up a space station that must be authorized by the Commission.

15. The Commission has observed a significant expansion in the commercial space industry in recent years, as well as the need for additional spectrum resources to conduct operations in space. Although the Commission has initiated proceedings to make spectrum abundant for satellites that provide radiocommunications services to the public, such as FSS, longstanding regulatory gaps currently constrain the availability of spectrum for new use cases. This “spectrum crunch” arises from several interlocking factors, discussed below.

16. Spectrum used for emergent space operations may not clearly fall within an existing radiocommunication service. The Commission has received a growing number of applications to transmit or receive radiocommunications that do not involve the provision of radiocommunication services to the public. In each of these instances, the spacecraft is intended to provide services or engage in activities that are not radiocommunication services, such as in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM), commercial habitable space stations, and lunar orbiters and landers. The spectrum needs of such applications are usually limited to radiocommunication services to conduct TT&C functions necessary to command and control the spacecraft.

17. Under our current rules and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations, spacecraft conduct TT&C functions within the same frequency bands in which they are authorized to provide other radiocommunication services, such as FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS. For this reason, licensees are generally authorized by the Commission to conduct TT&C functions within frequency bands authorized for another allocated radiocommunications service. Because spacecraft used for emergent purposes such as lunar missions generally do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services, applicants seeking an FCC license to use spectrum to conduct TT&C to control these spacecraft cannot clearly rely on the use of existing spectrum resources allocated for FSS, MSS, or EESS to command and control their spacecraft.

18. Spectrum available for emergent space operations may be prioritized for Federal operations and can be difficult to access. In the past, activities in space were often conducted by governments, rather than private entities. In the United States, space activities that did not provide radiocommunication services to the public were typically conducted through government agencies, such as the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) or the Department of War (DoW). As observed in our discussion of terminology and definitions above, the Commission did not license these operations because these operations were controlled by federal agencies. Accordingly, these operations relied largely on spectrum allocated for Federal users in the United States Table.

19. Today, as the American commercial space industry expands, there is an increasing reliance on private entities to conduct activities in space that in the past may have been conducted through government agencies. These activities are increasingly conducted either independently of government agencies, or under contractual arrangements with, or with funding from, government agencies. Because these activities are ultimately controlled by private entities, rather than government agencies, applicants are seeking licenses from the Commission for their use of radiofrequencies, particularly for radiocommunications to command and control their spacecraft. In doing so, the operations are categorized as non-Federal operations.

20. Because of the past reliance on the use of other allocated radiocommunication services, such as FSS, for the conduct of TT&C functions for private entities, there are few explicit separate allocations for conducting command and control of spacecraft by non-Federal operators in the United States Table. The Commission's rules and the ITU Radio Regulations provide SOS and SRS allocations that support command and control of spacecraft. Current spectrum allocations for these services, however, are primarily for Federal use in the United States Table and are heavily used by Federal operations, including portions of the S-band allocated for Federal SOS operations in the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space), 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands, and portions of the X-band allocated for Federal SRS in the 8400-8450 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 8450-8500 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands.

21. Many of the applications for Commission authority to operate radiocommunications to support ISAM and lunar operations have requested to operate in the same S-band and X-band allocations for SOS and SRS that are primarily and heavily used by Federal operators, as these bands support readily available, “off-the-shelf” antenna systems that are significantly more cost effective than designing and building customized antenna systems in-house. Access to these allocations by non-Federal operators, however, is subject to coordination and sharing requirements with Federal users, which can often take substantial time and effort to complete. In addition, the absence of a clearly defined regulatory path for access to SOS and SRS allocations used by Federal operations on a primary basis has led to a case-by-case licensing approach and to regulatory uncertainty.

22. Non-Federal spectrum bands that could support emergent operations are also congested. To address and facilitate the development of ISAM, the Commission previously sought comment in a notice of inquiry ( ISAM NOI ) and a notice of proposed rulemaking ( ISAM NPRM ) on the needs of ISAM operators and proposed a potential streamlined regulatory framework for supporting such missions. The Commission has previously acknowledged the increasing variety of space missions and the need to modernize spectrum policies to accommodate these operations. Furthermore, in the ISAM NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that various communication activities in support of ISAM could potentially operate within several existing service allocations and proposed to continue to review ISAM operators' requests for frequency use on a case-by-case basis. Although comments in response to the ISAM NPRM support this tentative conclusion, they also indicate that existing service allocations may not be sufficient for ISAM, and that additional spectrum resources are needed, particularly in frequency bands that are allocated for use by non-Federal operations and that do not require extensive coordination with other spectrum users.

23. Commenters have identified multiple frequency bands that might be used to conduct TT&C functions for spacecraft that do not also operate in other radiocommunication services, such as FSS or EESS. Almost all of the identified frequency bands, however, are currently used by a diverse range of existing non-Federal spectrum users, or are shared with or primarily used by Federal operations, which would still require extensive coordination with multiple spectrum users and would not provide a clear and reliable path for licensing by the Commission. We therefore focus the NPRM on proposals and alternatives that could provide a clear and reliable path in the near future for accessing additional spectrum resources for conducting TT&C operations for spacecraft that are unable to conduct such operations under allocations for other radiocommunication services.

24. We seek comment on steps that the Commission can take to make spectrum abundant for emergent space operations. These steps include providing regulatory clarity and leveraging existing spectrum allocations to support such operations. They also include unlocking new sources of usable spectrum by allowing existing Commission spectrum licensees to make their spectrum resources available in ways that are not currently permitted under our rules. Although we recognize that these are initial steps towards making spectrum abundant to support innovative new endeavors in space, we seek comment on the extent to which they may alleviate spectrum shortcomings, expedite the Commission's licensing, and facilitate innovation.

25. We seek comment on a variety of proposals and ideas in the NPRM. Building upon the record in the ISAM proceeding, we propose to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking. Another proposal herein is to review requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case basis. Next, we seek comment on conducting TT&C to support emergent operations in FSS bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis subject to coordination with other spectrum users, as well as what operations fall within our definition of TT&C. We also seek comment on the types of applications that may seek to operate within the SRS allocation. We also propose to add a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplink and permit a version of de facto spectrum leasing of that band to earth station licensees. We seek comment on alternatives to these proposals and whether to extend this proposed leasing framework to other frequency bands. Lastly, we seek comment on whether licensed satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks to support emergent operations. We also seek comment on any alternatives that would be less burdensome for small entities.

26. As observed above, the Commission has previously sought comment on radiofrequency use for non-communications satellites in the ISAM NOI and NPRM. In this proceeding, we seek comment on proposals to make available additional spectrum resources not only in support of ISAM missions, but also for all emergent space operations. Because we are not proposing here to create spectrum allocations specifically and solely for use by ISAM or for lunar missions, we seek comment on proposals to allow increased and more efficient use of spectrum to support all space operations that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public. Accordingly, we make alternative proposals regarding spectrum availability for ISAM and propose to no longer address spectrum use issues in the ISAM proceeding. Rather, we seek comment on whether to address the issues of spectrum availability to support ISAM missions through the proposals of this proceeding, rather than as part of the ISAM NPRM. We are not seeking comment in this proceeding on potential changes to how we process applications for authority to provide radiocommunication services or on other potential changes to our rules specific to the needs of ISAM operations. Although the ISAM NPRM sought comment on possible modifications to our rules in order to facilitate the licensing and regulation of radiocommunications in support of ISAM missions, our focus today is on proposals and alternatives related to spectrum availability for all emergent space operations.

27. There is currently no radiocommunication service specifically dedicated for use by emergent space operations domestically or internationally. Accordingly, there is the need for clarity and certainty in the ability of operators to access other radiocommunication service allocations necessary to conduct their emergent operations in space. To that end, in addition to the proposals in the NPRM for specific frequency bands that might be utilized more intensively to support TT&C functions for emergent space operations, we propose to codify several Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these operators using existing radiocommunication service allocations.

28. In the ISAM NPRM, the Commission recognized commenters' interest in allowing ISAM spacecraft to communicate in frequency bands already authorized for use by another spacecraft while the two spacecraft are connected or working together in close proximity to each other, also known as frequency “piggybacking.” Additionally the ISAM NPRM noted that the piggybacking option has been authorized under existing part 25 rules in the past. There is unanimous support in response to the ISAM NPRM for allowing frequency piggybacking for radiocommunications in support of ISAM operations, and frequency piggybacking has previously been authorized as an option for ISAM operators on a case-by-case basis.

29. Accordingly, we propose to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking in our rules in order to provide regulatory clarity. We seek comment on how to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking that provides regulatory clarity and certainty, but also recognizes that piggybacking may not be suitable for all types of operations. Furthermore, we seek comment on how such codification could be worded to address a wide-range of potential scenarios for frequency piggybacking, in order to provide both certainty and flexibility. As an example, comments have asked the Commission to clarify whether frequency piggybacking may be permissible for an operator whose client is an EESS operator. We tentatively conclude that this would be an acceptable scenario for frequency piggybacking. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

30. We propose to codify that the Commission may authorize a space station to use the same frequencies as a separate, consenting spacecraft (that is, a “client” spacecraft) that is also authorized by the Commission or has obtained a grant of U.S. market access, provided that the applicant for the space station authorization certifies that the space station will be used for servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with the client spacecraft and that the operations will conform with the client spacecraft's ITU filings and licensed frequency parameters. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on how to define a client spacecraft and whether there are other instances in which we should allow piggybacking in addition to servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with a client spacecraft. Additionally, should licensees or grantees of U.S. market access engaged in spectrum piggybacking be required to provide the specific frequency information required by our rules to allow Space Bureau staff to confirm the operations are in conformance with the client's license or market access grant and ITU filings? Or would certification be sufficient? Similarly, should licensees or grantees be required to provide evidence of the other space station operator's consent to piggybacking operations, or is certification again sufficient? Is there anything else we should consider requiring from operators proposing to conduct piggybacking operations? We recognize there may also be additional considerations for operators seeking FCC authorization to conduct spectrum piggybacking with a non-U.S. licensed client that has not sought U.S. market access, and we seek comment on what certifications or demonstrations we should require in such instances in order to fulfill our international obligations, protect national security, and promote American innovation in space.

31. We also seek comment on permitting licensees and market access grantees for emergent space operations to conduct TT&C in FSS bands where TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication service. As observed above, the Space Bureau routinely authorizes FSS space station licensees to conduct TT&C in the same frequency bands that are allocated for FSS. Thus, we are confident that it is technically feasible to conduct TT&C in frequency bands that are already allocated for FSS by non-Federal operators, and that there is likely to be readily-available earth station facilities and equipment to support TT&C in these frequency bands. TT&C operations licensed outside of our processing procedures for GSO or NGSO FSS are unable to claim protection from interference from, and are not permitted to cause harmful interference to, other licensed operators that are authorized within our processing procedures. Accordingly, we envision permission for such TT&C operations licensed outside of processing procedures would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other authorized spectrum users. We seek comment on the appropriate status of such TT&C operations and whether such TT&C operations can, in fact, be successfully coordinated with other authorized spectrum users to avoid harmful interference. We also seek comment on whether TT&C for emergent space operations could be provided in frequency bands allocated for radiocommunication services such as MSS or BSS, which often require use of frequency division or planned bands in order to avoid interference among spectrum users. Would such frequency bands also be able to accommodate TT&C for emergent space operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis?

32. In addition, we seek comment on whether applicants could be granted authority to provide TT&C as a form of FSS in bands allocated for non-Federal FSS. We observe that FSS is defined as a “radiocommunication service between earth stations at given positions, when one or more satellites are used; the given position may be a specified fixed point or any fixed point within specified areas; in some cases this service includes satellite-to-satellite links, which may also be operated in the inter-satellite service; the FSS may also include feeder links of other space radiocommunication services.” Is the ability to provide TT&C within the definition of FSS analogous to the ability to provide feeder links in such an allocation (that is, one way uplinks that are not between earth stations)? We expect, however, that TT&C provided as FSS would be limited to the provision of TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first service procedure or a processing round. We seek comment on this expectation.

33. We also seek comment to what extent operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis are suitable for TT&C functions, which may be critical to the command and control of a spacecraft. What level of availability and reliability is needed for command and control? Would it be in the public interest to facilitate TT&C operations without providing absolute certainty of non-interference? As an example, would TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference basis be sufficient for certain operators, such as those conducting rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) and docking, or those operating inhabitable spacecraft?

34. Section 2.1 of our rules defines space telecommand as “[t]he use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals to a space station to initiate, modify or terminate functions of equipment on a space object, including the space station.” And space telemetry is defined as “[t]he use of telemetry for transmission for a space station of results of measurements made in a spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning of the spacecraft.” The Commission has previously recognized that service allocations for TT&C, may not be sufficient for certain operators, such as those conducting RPO and docking, or those operating inhabitable spacecraft. The Commission also tentatively concluded that the definition of TT&C need not be so narrowly construed as to exclude data downlink operations. We seek comment on a potential Commission interpretation of the definitions of space telecommand and space telemetry to include downlink of video and other data during maneuvers such as RPO or docking with other spacecraft. Can such operations be accommodated within the existing typical narrowband parameters of TT&C bands? Can operations for inhabitable spacecraft be accommodated in TT&C bands? What other operations besides RPO and docking could function in TT&C bands? If the Commission adopts an interpretation of the definitions of TT&C to include data downlink for RPO, docking, and/or other operations, should we specifically modify the definitions in our rules or add footnotes to the United States Table? We also seek comment on whether explicitly permitting video and other wideband data communications in allocations used for TT&C could crowd out existing narrowband TT&C operations or make it more difficult to permit TT&C operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis. We seek comment on these questions.

35. The Commission tentatively concluded in the ISAM NPRM that radiocommunications in support of various ISAM operations could fit within numerous existing service allocation definitions and that Commission staff would assess whether an applicant's proposed communications fall within the applicant's desired service allocation(s) on a case-by-case basis. Our rules define service allocations according to the ITU definitions, and we rely on these definitions when we consider requests for frequency authorization as part of our licensing process. Commenters were generally supportive of permitting the use of any service allocation for communications in support of ISAM operations so long as the operator can demonstrate that the communications justifiably fit within the existing service allocation definition.

36. Although we propose to continue to review requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit within the definition of the service allocation, we observe the record has generated a number of comments that support the need for greater regulatory clarity to spur innovation in this space. For example, some commenters raise concerns that without affirmative signals from the Commission, some radiocommunication allocations, including the space research service, may not be accessible to ISAM operators due to uncertainty regarding the scope of the allocation definitions and challenges coordinating use of this spectrum with Federal operators. Other commenters disagree whether EESS should be expressly excluded from case-by-case consideration for ISAM missions. Commenters are chiefly concerned with the potential for interference to the important services provided through EESS passive and active remote sensing, especially in the EESS passive bands where “the signals emitted by EESS (passive) sensors are very weak compared to those emitted by active communication services.”

37. We recognize that interference protection is very important for the EESS operations that commenters highlight, and that EESS passive operations can be particularly vulnerable to interference. Allowing operators to request the use of a particular existing service allocation for communications, however, does not permit unfettered access to all frequency bands. The ITU has established stringent recommendations for the protection of passive sensors from interference through ITU-R Recommendation RS.2017 “Performance and interference criteria for satellite remote sensing.” Additionally, our rules require applicants proposing to use specific frequencies to demonstrate compliance with ITU rules and recommendations. It is not our view that merely allowing operators to apply for frequency authorization using frequency bands that are allocated for passive use would make such bands available only to operators engaging in active use. Additionally, we observe that many EESS active operations have demonstrated an ability to share spectrum without the creation of harmful interference to other operators through our small satellite licensing process, which numerous EESS providers have used since its introduction in 2019. We seek comment on this view and observation. Although we certainly take seriously any potential for harmful interference to existing users, we tentatively conclude that we need not preemptively exclude the EESS allocations from case-by-case consideration altogether at this time. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

38. In addition to our tentative conclusion not to exclude operators from applying to use frequencies in any service allocation in which their operations could justifiably fit, we specifically seek comment on applicants seeking to operate within the SRS allocation. Given the nascent stage of many emergent space operations, we propose to consider communications supporting them, particularly when funded by NASA or other federal research agencies, as falling within the definition of SRS. We seek comment on this proposed approach and specifically on what other steps the Commission could take to promote regulatory certainty for these operators. For example, could the uncertainty be resolved by adding a footnote to the United States Table in frequency bands allocated for Federal SRS specifically to permit operations of non-Federal operations funded or contracted by NASA or other federal research agencies? We also seek comment on the language of any such footnote and what additional conditions on such operations may be needed to protect Federal SRS operators from harmful interference.

39. We seek comments on ways that spectrum that is already allocated for non-Federal use could be made available to address the need for spectrum to support emergent space operations. In particular, we seek comment whether such spectrum can be identified in frequency bands that may currently be used intensively by non-Federal spectrum users in certain geographic areas (such as urban, high-population areas, particularly in the contiguous 48 states (CONUS), but that may not be used in other geographic areas (such as rural areas in CONUS, or outside of CONUS and in U.S. Territories and Possessions). In order to avoid the challenges of coordinating non-Federal use of spectrum bands that are allocated primarily to Federal use, we are particularly interested in identifying spectrum bands that either are not shared with Federal users, or that are shared with, but not used intensively by, Federal users and are allocated on a secondary basis for Federal use.

40. Although our focus is on the specific frequency bands discussed below, we also seek comment on whether there are any additional bands that could satisfy the criteria identified above and that could potentially be used more intensively to provide TT&C for emergent space operations. In all cases, our objective is to allow more intensive and flexible use of spectrum in a way that avoids interference or economic harm to existing spectrum users.

41. As part of this process, we seek comment generally on what changes to the United States Table and our rules would need to be made to effectuate such more intensive use domestically, and the specific manner in which those changes could be effectuated (for example, by creation of an allocation or through a footnote to the United States Table). In addition, we seek comment on whether the flexible use, leasing/secondary markets, and competitive bidding proposals discussed in the specific frequency bands below could also be applied to other frequency bands in order to make additional spectrum resources available for emergent space operations. We also generally seek comment on what, if any changes, are needed internationally to effectuate these changes, either through the ITU or through bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements with other countries.

42. As an example of the type of more intensive spectrum use discussed above, we propose to add a secondary allocation for SOS (Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table, and to permit the existing exclusive licensee within this frequency band in the United States, SiriusXM, to lease portions of its spectrum to earth station licensees for command of spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public. We discuss the history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz band below, as well as the specifics of the proposal and possible alternatives.

43. The history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz band are important factors in proposing to make this spectrum available to address the needs of emergent space operations. The 2320-2345 MHz band occupies 25 megahertz of spectrum and is used to provide Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) in the United States, as well as parts of Canada. It is divided equally between two separate, but co-owned, SDARS networks, Sirius and XM. The Commission's rules define SDARS—commonly known as “satellite radio”—as “[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, telemetry, tracking and control facilities.” Thus, SDARS is primarily a satellite-delivered service in which programming is sent directly from satellites to subscriber receivers either at a fixed location or in motion.

44. The Commission awarded licenses to provide SDARS within the United States by auction in 1997. XM and Sirius launched initial satellites and began commercial operations in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The two companies merged in 2008 to form a single company—Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (SiriusXM)—but the merged entity continues to operate the Sirius and XM systems as separate networks and there are still separate licenses for each system. Currently, SiriusXM and its subsidiary companies have licenses for geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) space stations operating at the nominal 85° West Longitude (W.L.) and 115° W.L. orbital locations, which transmit in the space-to-Earth direction to subscriber terminals in the 2320-2345 MHz band, with fixed earth stations providing uplinks in the 7.025-7.075 GHz band. On-station TT&C for SiriusXM's satellites is provided in the X-band for command uplinks and S-band for telemetry downlinks. SiriusXM reported it had approximately 32.8 million subscribers as of June 30, 2025.

45. The 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger block of spectrum from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between SDARS and Wireless Communications Services (WCS) licensees. In 1996, Congress directed that this block of spectrum be reallocated from Federal to non-Federal use and auctioned.

46. Within the 2320-2345 MHz band, SiriusXM operates a network of terrestrial repeaters in the center portion of each of the two 12.5 megahertz assigned to Sirius and XM (2320.0-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5-2345 MHz). Because a direct line of sight is generally required to receive an acceptable satellite signal, ground-based terrestrial repeaters are used in many areas to re-transmit the same signals provided by satellites directly to subscribers in order to maintain adequate signal power. SiriusXM may also provide telemetry beacons in each of these assignments.

47. Domestically, the 2320-2345 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non-Federal BSS, which includes SDARS. Footnote US327 to the United States Table states that the band is allocated to BSS (sound) and complementary terrestrial repeaters on a primary basis, and such use is limited to digital audio broadcasting. The United States Table provides Federal allocations for fixed service and radiolocation service on a secondary basis, subject to a footnote that recognizes the primary allocation for BSS (sound) and restricts radiolocation service in this band to the military services.

48. Internationally, the 2300-2450 MHz band is allocated in ITU Regions 2 & 3 to radiolocation services and fixed and mobile terrestrial services on a primary basis, and to the amateur service on a secondary basis. In ITU Region 1, the 2300-2450 MHz band is allocated to fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and amateur and radiolocation services on a secondary basis. There are no allocations for satellite services internationally in the 2300-2450 MHz band in any of the three ITU regions, but international footnote 5.393 does allocate the 2310-2360 MHz band to BSS (sound) on a primary basis in Canada, the United States, and India. Currently, BSS (sound) in the 2310-2360 MHz band is being provided solely in the United States and parts of Canada through SiriusXM. The United States entered into bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the provision of SDARS, which remain in force.

49. We tentatively find that three factors make the 2320-2345 MHz band particularly well suited for more intensive use for TT&C in support of emergent space operations. First, the 2320-2345 MHz band is located within the S-band and is in relatively close spectrum proximity to the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands already used for Federal space operations. As observed above, these two bands are frequently requested for TT&C operations in support of ISAM and other spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. Although there is significant separation between these Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band, the propagation characteristics of the spectrum and the antennas and radios used to transmit and receive are expected to be similar for both the Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band. Accordingly, we have reason to expect that, from a technical perspective, the 2320-2345 MHz could be readily used to provide space operation services in a manner adequately equivalent to the Federal S-bands. We seek comment on these observations and expectations.

50. Second, there are very few spectrum users of the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States. SiriusXM acquired exclusive use of the 2320-2345 MHz band at auction in 1997. No other non-Federal operators are licensed to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States. Likewise, there are no primary allocations for Federal operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band. As such, we expect that the ability of new spectrum users to operate within the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States are not heavily constrained by incumbent operations, other than the operations of SiriusXM and incumbent WCS operations in adjacent spectrum blocks. We seek comment on this expectation.

51. Third, SiriusXM does not use the 2320-2345 MHz band uniformly throughout the United States. Because of the location of its satellites in geostationary orbit at the nominal 85° and 115° W.L. orbital locations, none of the existing SiriusXM satellites provide service to subscribers in Hawaii, or in the northern portions of Alaska, which we characterize as being north of Anchorage. For example, a review of the coverage footprints presented in the 2320-2345 MHz band downlinks for the newest SiriusXM satellites shows that neither satellite intends to use those downlinks in northern Alaska. This is not surprising given that satellites located on the equatorial plane, such as GSO satellites, appear very low on the horizon to earth stations located in far northern and southern latitudes and are susceptible to increased signal blockage and attenuation from such a low angle on the horizon. Similarly, SiriusXM satellites do not provide downlinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band to Hawaii or to U.S. Territories and Possessions in the Pacific, since the footprints of the service areas of existing SDARS satellites are focused on CONUS. Although SiriusXM may elect to provide service into northern Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. Territories and Possessions in the future, currently it has not proven feasible to do so under its existing deployment of satellites. We seek comment on these observations.

52. In addition, although the 25 megahertz of spectrum in the 2320-2345 MHz band is less than the spectrum available in the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands, 25 megahertz could nonetheless provide meaningful additional spectrum resources for space operations. Currently, non-Federal operations do not have access to the full 85 megahertz of spectrum in the 2025-2110 MHz band due to its heavy use by Federal operations and the need to avoid particular frequencies within the Federal S-band altogether. As a result, only a portion of the Federal S-band is able to be coordinated for non-Federal use. Because TT&C functions are not always transmitting and employ narrowband signals, often 100 kilohertz in bandwidth or less, we anticipate that a large number of TT&C communications can be accommodated in the 25 megahertz of the 2320-2345 MHz band, particularly if multiple earth station uplink sites can be coordinated with SiriusXM. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that making the 2320-2345 MHz band accessible for TT&C could meaningfully supplement or replace, at least in part, the requested use for non-Federal operations in the Federal S-bands. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the reasoning that underlies it.

53. We propose to create a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table in the Earth-to-space direction. We propose a new allocation because the current allocations in the band in the United States Table do not provide for satellite communications other than BSS (sound) in the space-to-Earth direction. We also propose to add this allocation on a secondary basis to provide status for the TT&C operations, but to make clear that they are secondary to the primary use of the band for BSS (sound) in the space-to-Earth direction. These two proposals balance the desire for more intensive use of the band for satellite communications with the need to protect the operations of SiriusXM in a band from harmful interference in which it is exclusively authorized to operate throughout the United States. We seek comment on these two proposals and on our objective in balancing the interests of more intensive spectrum use and the need to protect SiriusXM's use of the band.

54. We tentatively conclude that an SOS allocation in the Earth-to-space direction is less likely to cause interference to SiriusXM's operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band than an allocation in the space-to-Earth direction. SiriusXM provides sensitive service links to subscribers in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the space-to-Earth direction. We observe that allowing other space stations to transmit in the 2320-2345 MHz band could risk causing harmful signal degradation to those service links, which could in turn cause subscribers to become dissatisfied with their service and to cancel their subscriptions to SiriusXM, causing significant economic harm to SiriusXM. Even if space stations were restricted by rule to transmitting solely into a particular geographic area where there are unlikely to be SiriusXM subscribers, such as northern Alaska, there remains the risk of disruption to SiriusXM's subscribers if a space station, even inadvertently, does not comply with that restriction and transmits over CONUS in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Earth-to-space operations in the 2320-2345 MHz bands can be more easily and reliably geographically restricted, with terrain and distance attenuating the risk of any interference from Earth-to-space use of the 2320-2345 MHz band into SiriusXM's downlink operations in the same band in CONUS. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the observations underlying it, as well as whether it may be possible to allow downlinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band through a secondary SOS allocation or footnote to the United States Table, without causing interference or economic harm to SiriusXM. We also propose that any applicant seeking Commission authority to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under this secondary allocation must certify that the proposed operations in the band have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM to ensure that SiriusXM's operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band are strongly safeguarded from interference. We seek comment on this certification proposal.

55. We also seek comment on whether any technical or legal requirements need to be adopted by the Commission and codified in our rules in order to provide reasonable certainty as to what kind of operations are permitted under this secondary allocation. For example, would power limits, antenna elevation angle restrictions, or further geographical limitations help to protect SiriusXM and spectrum users outside of the 2320-2345 MHz band from potential harmful interference from earth stations transmitting in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would such limits and restrictions also provide certainty to potential spectrum lessees as to the parameters of what operations could be provided? We observe that our rules place power limits and out of band emission limits on SiriusXM terrestrial repeaters in the 2320-2345 MHz band in order to protect WCS licensees in adjacent bands from harmful interference. Could such power and out of band emission limitations be extrapolated to earth station operations in a way that provides similar protection to WCS licensees from earth station uplink transmissions in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would limiting operations of earth stations to areas of northern Alaska mitigate the risk of harmful interference to spectrum users, particularly WCS licensees, in adjacent and nearby bands, given the sparse population density and rugged geography of northern Alaska? If so, how would we define these areas in a way that is objective and clear? We seek comment on these questions.

56. We propose to permit SiriusXM to lease use of the 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum to earth station licensees that will use the frequencies to provide command uplinks in support of emergent space operations. This proposal aligns with, but is not identical to, the ability of wireless radio service licensees to lease spectrum under our existing secondary markets policy and rules. We seek comment on how the leasing proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band aligns generally with our secondary markets policy and rules.

57. In 2000, the Commission adopted a policy statement setting forth the Commission's plans for facilitating secondary markets for radio spectrum to allow and encourage licensees to make all or portions of their assigned frequencies and/or service areas available to other entities and uses. The Commission found that such secondary market transactions would complement the primary assignment function performed by the Commission through its spectrum auctions and licensing processes. It also found that, while secondary markets are not a substitute for finding additional spectrum when needed, and should not supplant spectrum allocation processes, a robust and effective secondary market for spectrum usage rights could help alleviate spectrum shortages by making unused or underutilized spectrum held by existing licensees more readily available to other users and uses and help to promote the development of new, spectrum efficient technologies.

58. The Commission first adopted rules to implement the secondary markets policy in 2003. Although the Commission expressly declined to adopt secondary market rules for satellite services at that time, it did establish rules whereby certain wireless radio service licensees could lease their spectrum to other entities under arrangements that are suited to the parties' respective needs. Under our existing secondary market rules, terrestrial wireless licensee lessors and their lessees have two spectrum leasing options that each provide different rights and responsibilities for the wireless licensee and lessee: de facto transfer leasing arrangements; and spectrum manager leasing arrangements. Under either leasing option, the lessor and the lessee may choose to enter into a long-term (more than one year) or short-term (one year or less) arrangement. Spectrum manager leasing arrangements generally do not require prior Commission approval; rather, the licensee/lessor must notify the Commission in advance of commencing operations. In contrast, de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangements are typically subject to the Commission's general approval procedures, under which the Commission must grant the application prior to the parties putting the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement into effect.

59. We seek comment on whether a variation of the de facto transfer leasing arrangement may be an efficient and effective way to encourage SiriusXM to make the 2320-2345 MHz band available to earth station licensees on an expedited basis. As proposed above, any earth station licensee that seeks to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band would have to certify that its proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM in order to avoid harmful interference to SiriusXM's current and potential operations. We propose that no authorization for such uplinks will be accepted for filing absent such coordination and approval. We also propose that any existing authority to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band will be conditioned on such coordination and approval, and the authority will terminate automatically unless the licensee maintains coordination with and approval by SiriusXM. Such coordination is likely to require expenditure of resources by SiriusXM, or the forgoing of future rights to operate in certain areas, for the benefit of third party spectrum users. As such, we tentatively conclude it is reasonable for SiriusXM to require financial compensation for the expenditures under these conditions. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that SiriusXM and potential earth station licensees should be permitted to reach private arrangements suited to each party's needs, including financial consideration, in order to permit the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for uplink TT&C functions to support emergent space operations. Such private leasing arrangements would provide incentive for SiriusXM to make as much of its spectrum rapidly available for use by others as feasible, while still maintaining protection from interference for its own operations in the band. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, proposals, and reasoning underlying them.

60. Under this leasing proposal, private spectrum leasing arrangements with SiriusXM can be made with earth station licensees for individual earth stations or for multiple earth stations. They also can be made for earth stations communicating with the earth station licensee's own space stations, or through an earth station licensee that provides Ground-Station-as-a-Service (GSaaS) for multiple third-party space stations. We seek comment on whether there are efficiencies to be gained from conducting TT&C for emergent space operations as GSaaS, rather than having each space station license also build its own facilities for TT&C. For example, these efficiencies could include reducing the overall number of earth stations that need to be constructed, coordinated, and licensed, or facilitating the ability of TT&C to be provided on an unprotected and non-interference basis through a single GSaaS licensee acting as a de facto spectrum coordinator. We seek comment on these questions.

61. We also propose that space stations can be authorized by the Commission to receive in the 2320-2345 MHz band without needing to certify that such use has been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM, but such authority would be limited to reception of commands from earth stations licensed by the FCC or from earth stations located outside of the United States. For reception of commands in the 2320-2345 MHz from earth stations located outside the United States, we tentatively see no harm should such TT&C uplinks be permitted outside the United States, since SiriusXM satellites do not receive in the 2320-2345 MHz band and there are no SiriusXM subscribers outside the United States, with the exception of Canada. We seek comment on these proposals for earth and space station applications in the 2320-2345 MHz band.

62. We also propose, unlike the spectrum leasing arrangements under our secondary markets policy and rules, lessees of the 2320-2345 MHz band will be licensed for earth stations under the proposal made today. As proposed above, entities wishing to use the 2320-2345 MHz band to provide command uplinks must still obtain an earth station license from the Commission prior to transmitting in the band and will be subject to all licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to earth station licensees. A review of the license application will allow the Commission to review the lessee's qualifications under section 310 of the Act. We seek comment on this proposal and whether instead the Commission should seek to adopt the requirements for approving long and short term de facto transfers of control of spectrum under our spectrum leasing rules applicable to wireless radio services, which generally presume that no separate Commission license is needed to permit the operations using leased spectrum.

63. We also seek comment on whether a variation of the spectrum manager lease approach could be adopted in the 2320-2345 MHz band in which SiriusXM retains legal control and remains primarily responsible for ensuring lessees' compliance with our rules and policies We seek comment on whether requiring a license for the earth station operations in the leased spectrum would allow better assurance that interference is not caused to SiriusXM or other adjacent spectrum users and would allow the Commission to check compliance with any geographic areas restrictions on the use of the spectrum. The Commission would still review the qualifications of the lessees through their applications to operate earth stations using the leased spectrum, and the use of the leased spectrum would be expressly authorized by the Commission through the earth station licenses. As a result, we tentatively conclude that the de facto transfer lease approach (modified by requiring an earth station license) avoids the need for potentially complicated notification and eligibility requirements designed under the spectrum manager lease approach to address compliance of the lessee with our rules and policies. We seek comment on this approach and tentative conclusions, as well as whether we should adopt a spectrum manager approach instead of a de facto transfer approach.

64. We also seek comment on whether SiriusXM is obliged to lease or coordinate use by others of its exclusive use spectrum under the leased spectrum, secondary markets proposal above, or under any of the alternatives discussed in the NPRM. We also seek comment on whether the incentives provided by the leased spectrum, secondary markets proposal would make additional spectrum resources available more quickly and efficiently than a process that provides no incentives for SiriusXM to forego use of its exclusive use spectrum and to expend resources on coordination solely for the benefit of other potential spectrum users.

65. We seek comment on any international issues that may arise from our proposal to allow the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communications satellites. We tentatively conclude that authorizing earth stations in the United States to transmit in the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplink would be unlikely to cause harmful interference to spectrum users in other countries that do not share borders with the United States. As observed above, only the United States, India, and Canada stated an intent to use this band for satellite communications, and only the United States and Canada are actually using the band for satellite communications. In the remainder of the world, this band is used for terrestrial fixed and mobile communications. The geographic distance between transmitting earth stations in the United States and the terrestrial operations of other countries is likely to attenuate greatly any in-band or out of band emissions, thereby avoiding interference to those terrestrial operations. We seek comment on this observation and the potential of interference to the terrestrial operations of other countries. In addition, the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico do not address such Earth-to-space operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band. To what extent would the United States need to request changes to those agreements in order to implement the proposal, if it is adopted? We also seek comment on whether space stations could receive commands in the 2320-2345 MHz band, on either a protected or unprotected basis, consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an allocation for SOS in the International Table.

66. We also seek comment on to what extent other countries might explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide command uplinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band if there is sufficient demand globally for such services. We observe that global networks of TT&C facilities are often used for NGSO spacecraft that do not remain fixed relative to a location on the earth, unlike GSO spacecraft. Although the 2320-2345 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for terrestrial fixed and mobile service in the rest of the world, and is not allocated for satellite communications, individual countries may be amenable to licensing earth stations at fixed locations to uplink in this band, if those uplinks would not cause harmful interference to terrestrial and mobile services in the band. Of course, this is a matter of decision for the regulatory authorities of other countries, but we seek comment on these observations and whether world-wide facilities are needed to provide TT&C in the 2320-2345 MHz band to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public.

67. We seek comment on alternatives to the specific proposals above. In particular, we seek comment on whether allowing the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communication satellites or spacecraft could be better effectuated through a non-governmental (NG) footnote to the United States Table than through a secondary allocation. For example, the footnote could state that “the frequency band 2320-2345 MHz can also be used for command uplinks to non-Federal space stations in the Earth-to-space direction.” If additional restrictions are desired on those operations, such as limiting them to a particular geographic area, those restrictions could be incorporated into the text of the footnote. In this regard, such restrictions may not be necessary in the footnote, since the footnote would only apply in the United States to non-Federal communications, such that any such transmitting earth stations conducting those communications would need to be licensed by the Commission and would have to comply with any Commission rules that could also set forth restrictions on use of the band. We seek comment on the possible advantages and disadvantages of allowing use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks in the Earth-to-space direction by footnote, in addition to or in lieu of a secondary allocation for SOS, and what should be the specific language of any such footnote.

68. We also seek comment on whether to allow earth stations to provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites in the 2320-2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an area of northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring coordination and approval of SiriusXM. If SiriusXM satellites do not currently provide service into these areas, there may not be need for coordination and approval prior to operations to avoid harmful interference to SiriusXM operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Although such a process would obviate the need for SiriusXM to lease spectrum or to spend resources reviewing coordination requests, is it possible to adequately define the area of operations where coordination would not be necessary? Is it possible to foresee and address potential cases of harmful interference in advance and to adopt rules to prevent them, rather than relying on the parties to address potential harmful interference concerns on a case-by-case basis, and to reach an arrangement suitable to both parties? Does such a process take into account the fact that SiriusXM maintains the ability to provide service in all of the United States? We seek comment on these questions.

69. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other market mechanisms, such as competitive bidding, that could be used to effectuate the efficient and expeditious use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks consistent with statutory limitations. For example, could the Commission auction earth station licenses to operate in the United States, using the 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum that may not be internationally allocated for satellite communications? We seek comment on whether more intensive use of the band could be effectuated by auctioning the use to bidders who value the spectrum the highest for operations in a particular geographic area, for example by auctioning the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks in a specific geographic area to a single earth station licensee. If so, how would we define those geographic areas? Are any restrictions or other limitations needed on what entities are eligible to bid for the spectrum use in a geographic area? We seek comment on these questions.

70. We also seek comment on our statutory authority to use auctions to authorize earth station operations using the 2320-2345 MHz band. The Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, enacted in 2000 (ORBIT Act), prohibits the Commission from assigning orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services through competitive bidding ( i.e., auctions). This prohibition, codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f, was intended to prevent the imposition of auction-based licensing regimes on international satellite operators, which could lead to burdensome and duplicative auction requirements in multiple jurisdictions. We ask for comment on these questions in the specific context of our proposals to authorize earth stations to provide command uplinks to non-communication satellites and spacecraft in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Does the fact that the proposal does not seek to use competitive bidding for orbital locations comport with both the letter and intent of the ORBIT Act? Does the fact that SiriusXM provides SDARS service into Canada in the 2320-2345 MHz band transform the band into spectrum “that is used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services,” even though the purpose for which the 2320-2345 MHz band could be used is not SDARS, but SOS, which is not currently being provided in the 2320-2345 MHz band anywhere in the world? Are SOS or TT&C “international or global satellite communications services” as that term is used in the ORBIT Act?

71. We seek comment on whether there are frequency bands, besides the 2320-2345 MHz band, that are allocated for non-Federal use that could be used more intensively to address the need for spectrum for emergent space operations. Although the 2320-2345 MHz band appears particularly promising due to the exclusive use of the band by a single non-Federal licensee, low level of use by Federal operations, and the proximity of the spectrum to existing S-band spectrum that is in high demand, we seek comment on whether there are other frequency bands that also possess these characteristics. In particular, we seek comment on whether frequency bands adjacent to the 2320-2345 MHz band could also be made available, in the same or similar manner as the proposals for the 2320-2345 MHz band, for the provision of command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services.

72. On each side of the 2320-2345 MHz band that is used for SDARS subscriber downlinks are five megahertz of spectrum that served as “guard band” spectrum between SDARS and WCS operations in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands. These two spectrum bands, known as WCS Blocks C & D, were acquired by SiriusXM in 2024. We seek comment on whether these two 5-megahertz spectrum bands could also be used to provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use in the 2320-2345 MHz band.

73. If the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands were to be used to provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use of the 2320-2345 MHz band, the same mechanisms—adding a secondary allocation for SOS or by adding a footnote to the non-Federal column of the United States Table—could be used to implement such use. Likewise, we propose that any use of the bands by applicants for earth station licenses would require certification that the proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM and subject to any spectrum leasing regimes that may be adopted for the 2320-2345 MHz band. We seek comment on the use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands for uplink commands to non-communications satellites. We also seek comment on use of these bands under any of the alternatives discussed above. In addition, footnote US100 provides for use of the 2345-2360 MHz band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in the 2345-2350 MHz band be necessary to protect such Federal secondary allocations from harmful interference? Footnote US97 states that WCS base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band must be subject to a coordination agreement with NASA prior to operations within 145 kilometers of Goldstone, California. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions be necessary to protect the NASA radioastronomy site in Goldstone from harmful interference in the 2315-2320 MHz band, as required for WCS base stations operating in that band under footnote US97? Would a requirement for prior coordination of any earth stations seeking to provide command uplinks in the 2315-2320 MHz band within 145 kilometers of Goldstone be adequate to provide the same level of protection that NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band? The near adjacent 2360-2395 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) for flight testing, and WCS base station operations in the 2345-2360 MHz band must be coordinated to ensure AMT receive stations are protected. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in the 2345-2350 MHz band be necessary to protect Federal and non-Federal flight test operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band from harmful interference caused by SOS out-of-band emissions? We also seek comment on the impact that use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands for command uplinks could have on the proposed use of these bands by SiriusXM for the provision of public safety communication services originating from SiriusXM satellites.

74. We seek comment on whether a secondary allocation for SOS could also be made in the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2350-2360 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table in the Earth-to-space direction and whether to allow WCS licensees, particularly AT&T, to lease the use of the spectrum that they acquired through competitive bidding to earth station licensees to provide uplink commands to non-communications satellites in a manner similar to that proposed for the 2320-2345 MHz band.

75. As observed above, the 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger block of spectrum from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between WCS and SDARS licensees. Within this block of spectrum, 2305-2310 MHz is allocated on a primary basis to non-Federal operations in the fixed, mobile (except aeronautical mobile), and radiolocation services. There is also a secondary non-Federal allocation for the amateur service. There are no Federal allocations in 2305-2310 MHz, although footnote G122 provides that Federal operations may be authorized on a non-interference basis to authorized non-Federal operations and shall not constrain the implementation of any non-Federal operation. In addition, footnote US97 states that space-to-Earth operations in the 2305-2310 MHz band are prohibited, and that WCS base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band must be subject to a coordination agreement with NASA prior to operations within 145 kilometers of Goldstone, California.

76. The 2310-2320 MHz band has primary allocations for non-Federal fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services, as well as a primary allocation for BSS (sound). There are secondary allocations in this band for Federal fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services. The 2310-2320 MHz band also is subject to footnote US97. Footnote US100 also provides for use of the band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS, and that 2312.5 MHz is shared on a co-equal basis by Federal stations for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and reusable launch vehicles. Footnote US100 also provides that other Federal mobile telemetering uses may be provided in the 2310-2320 MHz band on a non-interference basis to all other uses authorized pursuant to footnote US100.

77. The 2345-2360 MHz band has the same allocations as the 2310-2320 MHz band, and is also subject to footnotes G2, US100, and US327. Provisions of footnote US100 that made the 2324-2360 MHz band available for non-Federal aeronautical telemetering and telecommand flight testing operations on a secondary basis to WCS expired on January 1, 2020.

78. WCS was established in 1997. Mutually exclusive initial applications for WCS in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are subject to competitive bidding, and in 1997 the Commission auctioned and issued 128 WCS licenses. WCS licenses are issued by FCC market areas and channel blocks, with 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAG) and 52 Major Economic Areas (MEA). Blocks A (2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz) and B (2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz) are issued by MEAs, and blocks C (2315-2320 MHz) and D (2345-2350 MHz) are issued by REAGs. AT&T currently holds all WCS licenses in Blocks A and B. Thus, similar to SiriusXM in the 2320-2345 MHz band, AT&T has exclusive use of the Block A and B licenses in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands.

79. We seek comment on whether, for the same reasons discussed above for the 2320-2345 MHz band, the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands could be well suited for more intensive use for command uplinks in support of emergent space operations. First, the two bands are also relatively close in proximity to the Federal S-band spectrum that is currently being requested for command and control of ISAM and other spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public. In addition, allowing leased use of the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands for command uplinks would provide nearly contiguous 45 megahertz of S-band spectrum, or 55 megahertz of contiguous S-band spectrum if the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands were also allowed leased use for command uplinks. Second, there are relatively few existing licensed users of the bands, with AT&T having exclusive, or near exclusive use, of the bands in the United States. Finally, similar to the situation with SiriusXM, AT&T does not operate in Blocks A and B uniformly throughout its licensed areas, and there may be geographical areas where earth stations may be able to transmit without causing harmful interference to AT&T's current or future operations. We expect that this may be particularly true in remote and rural areas, such as northern Alaska. We seek comment on these observations and expectations.

80. We also seek comment on whether the same general framework could be implemented for making spectrum available in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that was discussed for the 2320-2345 MHz band, that is, adding a secondary allocation for SOS in the bands or alternatively adding a footnote to the United States Table to permit SOS in the bands, and allowing AT&T to lease use of its spectrum in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands (Blocks A and B) to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services, subject to a certification by the earth station licensee that the proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved by AT&T. We observe that the Commission already permits leased access to WCS spectrum, including that held currently by AT&T, through secondary market mechanisms, although those mechanisms are limited to the provision of wireless radio services and do not apply to use of the spectrum by earth stations to provide SOS. We seek comment on what changes to our rules would be necessary to permit AT&T to lease use of its Block A and B WCS spectrum for use by earth station licensees to provide command uplinks in support of emergent space operations. Are there any concerns for such leasing of spectrum by AT&T that are not implicated by the proposed leasing of the 2320-2345 MHz band by SiriusXM? We seek comment on these questions.

81. We also seek comment on whether there should be any technical or geographic restrictions or limitations on the use of the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that are different from technical or geographic restrictions in the 2320-2345 MHz band. For example, footnote US100 provides for use of the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2345-2360 MHz band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS. We also seek comment on whether coordination with Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) and Federal AMT coordinators would be needed to protect AMT operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band, much as WCS base stations operating in the 2350-2360 MHz band must coordinated today with AFTRCC. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in these bands be necessary to protect such Federal secondary allocations from harmful interference? Similarly, would additional technical or geographic restrictions be necessary to protect the NASA radioastronomy site in Goldstone from harmful interference in the 2305-2320 MHz band, as required for WCS base stations operating in that band under footnote US97? Would a requirement for prior coordination of any earth stations seeking to provide command uplinks in the 2305-2320 MHz band within 145 kilometers of Goldstone be adequate to provide the same level of protection that NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band? Would new earth station uplink operations be compatible with sensitive Moon bounce operations conducted under the amateur radio service in the 2305-2310 MHz band? We also seek comment on whether it may be possible to allow downlinks in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands through a secondary SOS allocation or footnote to the United States Table, without causing interference or economic harm to WCS licensees or other authorized Federal or non-Federal spectrum users in the same or adjacent spectrum bands.

82. We also seek comment on any international issues that may arise from our proposal to allow the use of the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands for command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. We observe that these bands are subject to the same allocations internationally as the 2320-2345 MHz band. Are any differences expected in the potential for interference to spectrum users outside of the United States from those addressed above in the context of our proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would any changes to the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico be needed to address Earth-to-space operations in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that would not be needed to address such operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Could stations could receive commands in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands, on either a protected or unprotected basis, consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an allocation for SOS in the International Table? To what extent might other countries explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide command uplinks in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands if there is sufficient demand globally for such services? If other countries allow use of these bands for SOS, could such frequencies be considered to be spectrum “that is used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services” under the ORBIT Act? We seek comment on these questions.

83. We also seek comment on whether any future auctions involving WCS license that are currently in inventory might specifically address the ability of future WCS licensees to lease spectrum to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. We observe that there are ten WCS licenses in the Pacific Island REAG that are in the Commission's inventory of spectrum. Would the value of such licenses be increased in an auction if the winner would also be able to lease spectrum to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services? Would the ability of earth station licensees to provide such command uplinks in the Pacific Islands be useful in creating a global network of TT&C facilities that are often used for NGSO spacecraft? We seek comment on these questions.

84. We seek comment on whether licensed satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks in support of emergent space operations, without the need to file a modification or obtain additional authorization from the Commission. We expect that such authorization could provide additional spectrum because it will allow the use of off-the-shelf equipment, such as MSS user terminals, and already established ground and space infrastructure. Additionally, we expect such authorization could open up a new avenue of business for established NGSO or GSO space station licensees if there is a regulatory framework for clear authorization for these kinds of radiofrequency communications. We seek comment on these expectations.

85. Many spacecraft that are used to test technologies or perform experiments on-orbit do not have large antennas. This is largely due to financial and launch constraints, and the need for satellites to be small. Since the spacecraft are not intended to provide radiocommunication service to the public, much of a spacecraft's mass could be taken up by non-radio equipment, such as robot arms or other tools, and radios and antennas will need to be as small as possible. As a result, many small satellites and experimental satellites rely on intersatellite links whereby one satellite sends data and TT&C information to the ground via another satellite system. The Commission has experience with this kind of arrangement for experimental part 5 satellite applications and Iridium companion filings. In this arrangement, an experimental satellite operator files a part 5 application for experimental authority and the other satellite system then files a companion application for part 5 experimental authority to communicate with the other experimental satellite using its constellation that is licensed under part 25. We observe that this can be a cost-effective way for many new companies to deploy experimental satellites because they do not have to invest in large antennas or an extensive ground station network. We seek comment on this observation.

86. We seek comment on allowing space stations already licensed by the Commission to use intersatellite links to provide TT&C and payload data downlinks and uplinks to and from spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. Are there any concerns with allowing satellite operators to communicate with such spacecraft via intersatellite links without the need to file a modification? Should we require these operators, like Iridium, to file a notification that they consent to the communications as part of the license application, or should the obligation fall on the applicant to certify that the other satellite system operator has consented to the intersatellite links? We seek comment on these questions.

87. Additionally, should we limit or identify the specific frequency bands in which intersatellite links may be used in connection with spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication service? We expect that satellite operators already licensed to use specific frequencies for intersatellite links, like Iridium, are best placed to coordinate the use of their licensed spectrum and determine the amount of capacity they have to provide intersatellite links to other spacecraft. Should we allow operators to use these intersatellite links in any frequency band in which their satellite partner ( e.g., Iridium would be the satellite partner for part 5 experimental satellites described above) is licensed and willing to offer the intersatellite service? It is also likely that other satellite operators besides Iridium will be able to offer this proposed intersatellite link service if the Commission provides a regulatory pathway. Are there additional interference concerns that need to be considered if multiple NGSO or GSO satellite operators are providing intersatellite links in support of emergent space operations? We seek comment on these questions.

88. We also seek comment on how to address international coordination of such intersatellite links, given the absence of an international allocation for inter-satellite links and the ongoing discussion of intersatellite links at recent World Radio Conferences (WRC). Should we only allow intersatellite links in bands that are allocated internationally for intersatellite links? Should we allow intersatellite links as a non-conforming use provided that applicants provide compatibility showings? We seek comment on these questions.

89. Finally, we seek comment on any other changes to our rules or allocations under the United States Table that would be necessary to facilitate the ability of spacecraft to communicate with existing commercial communications satellites in NGSO or GSO to relay TT&C or payload data. How would any changes to existing rules and allocations be consistent with studies or initiatives that have been made internationally, particularly at the WRC regarding this type of activity? What further steps would be necessary to allow this domestically and/or internationally? We seek comment on these questions.

90. The rules we propose, if adopted, will make additional spectrum available for spacecraft engaged in TT&C functions while also promoting efficiency by clarifying our rules concerning TT&C. In particular, we expect that our proposals would significantly reduce costly federal coordination for TT&C missions by making available a non-federal alternative. We estimate that total cost savings from this and other proposals would amount to approximately $6.8 million per year. We therefore tentatively conclude that the proposed rules are in the public interest. We seek comment on these findings.

91. The NPRM first proposes or seeks comment on codifying several Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these operators. This includes (1) codification of frequency piggybacking; (2) allowing additional applications for frequencies for emergent space operations under existing service allocations; (3) permitting TT&C functions within existing radiocommunication service allocations; and (4) refining the definition of TT&C. To the extent that lack of clarity in our rules has prevented stakeholders from engaging in certain TT&C operations, we could anticipate real benefits of providing stakeholders with regulatory clarity. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

92. We find that the proposal to add a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band will benefit the public by reducing regulatory costs. The proposal could potentially eliminate costly coordination with NTIA to use Federal bands for TT&C by giving a non-Federal alternative. While leasing the 2320-2345 MHz band may entail a payment to SiriusXM, this payment is a pure transfer from the operator to SiriusXM and so has no effect on total costs and benefits. Negotiating with SiriusXM would generate some new costs, but these would be smaller than the costs of coordinating with NTIA or else operators would not seek to negotiate with SiriusXM. Further, operators could set up a longstanding contract with SiriusXM, limiting negotiation during the term of the contrast. By contrast, at present, to the extent that operators are unable to conduct TT&C functions within non-Federal bands such as those for FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS, operators must engage in frequency coordination with NTIA to use the S-band or other Federal allocations of spectrum on a case-by-case basis. We also believe that the proposal has the potential to generate additional space operations by expanding the total bandwidth available to space operators and allowing operations that may not have been justified by the costs and uncertainty of NTIA coordination, which is not guaranteed to result in approval. We seek comment on these observations.

93. We estimate the magnitude of the annual regulatory cost savings to be $8.2 million. We estimate this by assuming the NTIA coordination process is handled on the operator's side by a team of two lawyers and two engineers. We assume they work through the application process over two months, which we approximate as eight forty-hour workweeks or three hundred and twenty work hours for each worker. We estimate that the lawyers have an hourly compensation of $106.10/hour and that the engineers have an hourly compensation of $94.64. Total compensation for one space operator's team in an NTIA coordination is therefore $128,473.60. We estimate on the NTIA side, a team of three government employees handle the coordination. We estimate the average government hourly compensation is $80.67, so the total NTIA team compensation for the coordination process is $77,443.20. The total labor costs of coordination combining both private and public expenses is $205,916.80. Based on the number of application requests in the Federal S-band (2025-2110 MHz) from 2021 to 2025, we estimate the future average for such applications to be about 80. Not all of these applications are related to TT&C, and we assume that some operators will rely on non-Federal bands or prefer to continue coordinating with NTIA, so we estimate that only 50% of applications, 40 annually, will be replaced by leases in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Multiplying this number by the per coordination labor costs results in a total annual labor cost saving of approximately $8.2 million. Total benefits would equal the economic value of additional operations allowed by the new spectrum plus the cost savings. Given the uncertain nature of additional operations, we do not estimate them here, such that $8.2 million is a lower bound on benefits. We seek comment on this methodology.

94. We estimate additional negotiation costs by assuming every negotiation between a space operator and SiriusXM is handled by two teams of two lawyers. Using the 2025-2110 MHz band allows operators to avoid the complex coordination needed for other bands, so that we assume no engineers are involved and the negotiation time falls to two weeks. With these assumptions, and the earlier assumption of hourly compensation for lawyers being $106.10/hour, total negotiations costs for each lease is only $33,952.00. Assuming, again, 40 leases leads to total negotiation costs of approximately $1.4 million. These costs are likely to be front-loaded because we predict negotiations will result in long-term contracts, allowing operators to bypass such costs for a number of years. The long-run average negotiation cost is likely lower than $1.4 million, so $1.4 million represents an upper bound on costs. The lower bound of $8.2 million for benefits is higher than the upper bound of $1.4 million for costs, so we tentatively conclude that the benefits of the 2320-2345 MHz band proposal will exceed its costs and be at least $6.8 million, annually. We seek comment on this methodology.

95. We postpone until a later date estimating the benefits and costs associated with possible secondary allocations in addition to the 2320-2345 MHz band. Currently, we do not have a specific proposal on how to implement other secondary allocations, so it is not possible to estimate benefits or costs at this time. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

96. Although we only seek comment on whether satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks to spacecraft, we can tentatively estimate benefits as costs avoided from no longer needing to file modification applications. Currently, there are about 25 annual applications for experimental modifications for TT&C related activities, so we will assume that number of applications going forward. Applications involve labor costs from a lawyer, which we estimate to be 1.5 hours of work at a total hourly compensation of $106.10/hour. We will assume the avoided fee is equal to $140, the modification fee for experimental licenses. Total benefit from the intersatellite links proposal is then approximately $7.4 thousand, which is a lower bound given potentially higher future demand for intersatellite links and additional space operations that might be spurred on by lower costs. We predict no costs would result from simply reducing application requirements, so we conclude that the net benefit of the intersatellite links proposal also has a lower bound of $7.4 thousand. While this is positive, it is only a small increase relative to the net benefits of the 2320-2345 MHz band proposal, so to avoid an impression of false precision, we do not add this to the net benefit total. We seek comment on this methodology.

97. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the 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 this 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 the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

98. In the NPRM, we initiate this rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on ways in which to make additional spectrum available to support emergent space operations. We continue our efforts to identify spectrum or ways in which spectrum can be used more efficiently to support emergent space operations. We therefore propose to establish regulatory clarity for the use of existing spectrum allocations in support of emergent space operations, and to codify certain Commission policies to provide further regulatory clarity. We also propose to make additional non-Federal spectrum available for TT&C in support of emergent space operations.

99. The primary objectives of the proposals in the NPRM are to identify additional spectrum for spacecraft that conduct emergent space operations and to identify ways in which existing allocated spectrum can be used more efficiently to support such spacecraft. To that end, the NPRM proposes to codify the use of frequency piggybacking to allow certain spacecraft engaged in servicing a client spacecraft to operate in frequency bands consistent with the client's authorized radiofrequency communications. The NPRM seeks comment on how to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking, how such codification might be structured to accommodate a broad range of scenarios while ensuring both regulatory certainty and operational flexibility, and whether additional use cases—beyond servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with a client spacecraft—should also be considered for piggybacking. The NPRM also proposes to refine the definition of “TT&C” to encompass radiofrequency usage by spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services and to permit TT&C within existing radiocommunication service allocations.

100. Finally, the NPRM proposes to add a secondary allocation for space operation service (SOS) (Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (United States Table), and allow leasing of spectrum by the exclusive licensee within this frequency band in the U.S., to earth station licensees for command of spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. The secondary allocation proposal includes a requirement for applicants to seek authority from the Commission to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under secondary allocation, and to certify that their proposed operations have been coordinated with, and approved by, the exclusive licensee within this frequency band to safeguard the existing operations from interference. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposed certification requirement, and on whether there are additional non-Federally allocated spectrum bands such as the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands, and the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands, that could be used in support of emergent space operations.

101. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332.

102. 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.

103. 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. 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. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. 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.

104. 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.

105. 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.

106. In the NPRM, we seek to make additional spectrum available for certain types of spacecraft and satellite operators, and do not propose to change the way the space station licensing process works. By clarifying the use of existing allocations and permitting TT&C on a non-interference basis as proposed in the NPRM, we may reduce the time and expense for small and other entities associated with acquiring spectrum access. Further, these clarifications and the codification of practices such as frequency piggybacking and spectrum leasing should lower barriers to entry, eliminate the need for small entities to file requests for waiver of the United States Table (47 CFR 2.106) to access certain spectrum, and allow small entities to avoid lengthy coordination with Federal users making the application process easier and avoid some legal and administrative costs. We estimate a total cost savings of approximately $6.8 million annually from the proposals discussed in the NPRM.

107. Notwithstanding the benefits of streamlined access to spectrum, small and other entities would be subject to complying with certification and coordination requirements to lease spectrum from incumbent licensees, and are likely to incur new costs in the form of lease payments to incumbent licensees. Small and other entities seeking to lease spectrum would also be required to obtain their own earth station license from the Commission, and would be subject to the applicable reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations for licensees. Additionally, while the proposals in the NPRM will reduce regulatory complexities, burdens and costs, small entities may incur compliance costs and may need to engage the assistance of professionals such as engineers, lawyers or consultants to meet their obligation to demonstrate technical compliance with spectrum use parameters, negotiate leasing agreements and certify coordination with incumbent licensees, and to assist with filings involving coordination with Federal users or international obligations.

108. If the proposals in the NPRM are adopted, we expect the overall burden for small and other entities to be less than under our current requirements. Adding a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band has the potential to eliminate costly coordination with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to use Federal bands for TT&C by giving small and other entities a non-Federal alternative. Further, while leasing 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum may require small and other entities to negotiate with, and make lease payments to, the exclusive licensee in the band, SiriusXM, we anticipate that these costs would be significantly lower than those associated with any individual NTIA coordination effort, since leasing spectrum will eliminate the need for engineering coordination. We estimate the annual regulatory cost savings from the elimination of NTIA coordination will be $8.2 million. By eliminating NTIA coordination, we estimate that small and other entities will each save $128,473.60 in legal and engineering compensation costs. Our estimate assumes an operator's NTIA coordination process uses two lawyers and two engineers working through the application process over a two months period—eight forty-hour workweeks or three hundred and twenty work hours for each worker, with an hourly compensation rate of $106.10/hour for the lawyers, and $94.64 for the engineers. The total calculated compensation for an operator's NTIA coordination is therefore $128,473.60. Additional cost savings may be realized by small and other operators by establishing long-term contracts reducing the need for ongoing negotiations during the contract period. In contrast, frequency coordination with NTIA for each specific use case is required under the current process.

109. 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.”

110. The NPRM proposes ways to identify more spectrum for spacecraft that conduct emergent space operations and to make it easier for operators of these spacecraft to apply for and use spectrum. We consider some alternatives that would minimize the economic impact on small entities while achieving our goal of expanding spectrum availability for space operations in an evolving space industry and economy. These alternatives would balance regulatory certainty with flexibility, and could enable small entities to access spectrum more efficiently and affordably.

111. We generally propose to continue reviewing requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit within the definition of the service allocation; however, we consider and seek comment on allowing TT&C operations within existing service allocations, provided the operations fit within the service allocation definition. Another option upon which we seek comment is allowing licensees and market access grantees to conduct TT&C in any band where TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication service. Allowing such flexible use of existing allocations would avoid the need for new rulemakings to create new allocations or conduct spectrum reallocation. We also consider and seek comments on whether to grant applicants authority to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS) in bands allocated for non-Federal FSS, limited to the provision of TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first service procedure or a processing round.

112. While our proposed allowance of spectrum leasing in the 2320-2345 MHz band discussed in the NPRM would have certification and coordination requirements for lessees, we consider and propose allowing space station authorization in the 2320-2345 MHz band with a certification and coordination requirement in the limited circumstance of reception of commands from earth stations licensed by the Commission, or from earth stations located outside of the United States. We also consider and seek comment on allowing earth stations to provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites and spacecraft in the 2320-2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an area of northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring coordination and approval. These approaches offer regulatory flexibility and would minimize the need for complex coordination which could lower compliance costs for small and other entities.

113. Our proposal for spectrum leasing would still require small and other entities that want to use the 2320-2345 MHz band to provide command uplinks to obtain an earth station license from the Commission prior to transmitting in the band, and lessees would be subject to all licensing and regulatory obligations applicable to earth station licensees. As an alternative, we seek comment on whether to adopt the more extensive requirements for approving long and short term de facto transfers of control of spectrum under the Commission's spectrum leasing rules applicable to Wireless Radio Services and other wireless licensees. Adoption of this approach presumes no additional license authorization is required from the Commission to allow the operations using leased spectrum.

114. Other alternatives we consider and seek comment on in the NPRM include whether a non-governmental (NG) footnote to the United States Table is a better method than our proposed secondary allocation allowance to permit use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communications satellites, and whether competitive bidding or alternative market-based approaches can be employed to promote the efficient and timely use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks, consistent with statutory limitations. We specifically inquire whether earth station licenses to operate in the U.S. using the 2320-2345 MHz band—spectrum that is not internationally allocated for satellite communications—could be auctioned by the Commission. If we decide to use an auction process, as in prior auctions, small entity bidding credits could be made available to promote competitive entry for small entities.

115. To assist with our evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the proposals and matters upon which we seek comment in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks alternative proposals, and requests information from small and other licensees. We expect to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including any costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters may help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. Our evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions we reach, the final alternatives we consider, and the actions we ultimately take in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.

116. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small entities are encouraged to bring to our attention any specific concerns that they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.

117. None.

118. 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.

119. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy.