If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your comments to the BLM by mail, personal or messenger delivery, or through https://www.regulations.gov (see the ADDRESSES section). Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, explain the reason for any changes you recommend, and include any supporting documentation. Where possible, your comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal that you are addressing (for example, “43 CFR 3139.11 Pads and Road Design”). The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the administrative record for the final rule any comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed previously (see ADDRESSES ).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under “ ADDRESSES : Mail, personal or messenger delivery” during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised 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 from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

On May 12, 2026, the BLM Alaska State Office received a “Petition for Rulemaking to Create a Development Permit Program in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska” (Petition) from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, which is a professional trade association that represents companies involved in exploring, producing, transporting, and refining oil and gas in Alaska. The Petition, submitted on behalf of AOGA's member companies, outlines the need for a uniform and efficient permit approval process that would expedite the authorization and construction of production sites and associated rights-of-way, while maintaining robust environmental protections and mitigation measures. Drawing on nearly 3 decades of environmental impact analyses and regulatory experience in the NPR-A, the Petition proposes regulatory modifications designed to streamline permitting for projects with well-understood environmental effects, thereby advancing both Congressional intent for expeditious development under the laws governing the NPR-A and national energy policy objectives. The public can review the Petition on the BLM's website, https://eplanning.blm.gov, under NEPA number “DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS.”

After considering the Petition, the BLM decided to undertake this rulemaking to streamline the decision-making process for certain defined and repeatable common activities with similar environmental effects in the Petroleum Reserve. The Department and the BLM have long recognized that existing processes for NPR-A development were often repetitive, duplicative, unpredictable, and unnecessarily burdensome and in need of streamlining. This rulemaking therefore advances improvements that the Department had already contemplated, before it received the petition, to reduce delays in decision making for oil and gas infrastructure in the Petroleum Reserve; to better implement the direction of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as amended (NPRPA); and to expeditiously develop oil and gas resources within the NPR-A.

In addition, this rulemaking reflects the current Integrated Activity Plan (IAP), which provides the overarching management framework for the NPR-A, including land allocations, applicable lease stipulations, required operating procedures, and broad-scale environmental analyses that guide future leasing and development decisions. The 2025 IAP implements the direction in section 50105 of Public Law 119-21 that the BLM expeditiously restore and resume oil and gas lease sales under the NPR-A leasing program by holding at least five lease sales by 2035 in the areas designated for leasing in the 2020 IAP ROD and under the same lease terms and stipulations set out in that decision. As a result, the 2025 IAP established the conditions and expectations, consistent with the 2020 IAP ROD, under which oil and gas activities may proceed across much of the Petroleum Reserve, ensuring consistency, predictability, and appropriate resource protections. Note, however, that while the IAP provides the management direction for how leasing and development occur in the NPR-A, it does not by itself authorize exploration or development activities. This proposed rule relies on that framework, but goes further, by offering a streamlined permitting process for production site applications, aligning detailed project-level approvals with the IAP's programmatic direction.

The most recent example of the BLM's decision-making process to authorize oil and gas development in the Petroleum Reserve is the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP). After ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. requested that the BLM prepare the Willow MDP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on May 10, 2018, the BLM initiated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on August 7, 2018 (82 FR 38725). Following a Record of Decision (ROD) in October 2020, litigation ensued, and the court ultimately vacated the ROD and remanded the matter to the BLM in 2021. The BLM then prepared a Supplemental EIS to address the District Court's decision. After completing the Supplemental EIS, the BLM then issued a new ROD approving the plan—which authorized development—in March 2023. Agency review of proposed development under the Willow MDP proceeded over an almost 5-year period that included the BLM's initial NEPA review, a change in administration, litigation that resulted in a supplemental EIS, and additional analysis before issuance of the final ROD in March 2023. By comparison, the streamlined process proposed in this rule would establish a 60-day decision window for qualifying production site applications, reflecting the BLM's intent to provide a more predictable and timely approval framework for development activities with well-understood environmental effects. This approach would reduce the delays in project permitting—demonstrated by the Willow MDP—by setting clear eligibility criteria for streamlined review; requiring all compliance steps and data up front, establishing strict timelines for BLM review and approval; and relying on an EIS, which is being developed as part of this rulemaking, to avoid repetitive NEPA analyses.

In support of this rulemaking, the BLM identified and reviewed the applicable oil and gas development environmental assessments and EISs completed within the NPR-A since 1998. The ePlanning website ( https://eplanning.blm.gov/ ) contains a comprehensive list of environmental assessments and EISs completed within the NPR-A, which can be accessed by searching for the EIS supporting the rule under NEPA number “DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS.” By comparison, the streamlined process proposed in this rule would establish a 60-day decision window for qualifying production site applications, reflecting the BLM's intent to provide a more predictable and timely approval framework for development activities with well-understood environmental effects.

While the Willow project involves full field development of the most comprehensive type in the NPR-A to date, the review process and timeline are not atypical for other more modest development proposals with similar known environmental effects in the area. In particular, the BLM's experience approving the Greater Mooses Tooth 1 pad, supported by the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite for the Proposed Development Project (DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2013-0001-EIS), demonstrates that even smaller-scale projects may require extensive and time-consuming NEPA review, reinforcing the need to streamline decision-making for certain development activities. The proposed rule would reduce delays experienced in projects like Greater Mooses Tooth 1 by establishing clear eligibility criteria for streamlined review, requiring all compliance information up front, setting firm timelines for the BLM's review and approval, and relying on an EIS to avoid repetitive, project-specific NEPA analyses. The BLM published the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Production Site Development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska on May 19, 2026 (91 FR 29155), which initiated the BLM's EIS to evaluate the environmental effects of this rulemaking.

President Warren G. Harding originally designated the area of the Petroleum Reserve in 1923 as Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, Executive Order No. 3797-A (Feb. 27, 1923). It was one of several naval petroleum reserves established in the aftermath of World War I intended to serve as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. Encompassing approximately 23 million acres of public land extending from the north slope of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Coast—an area nearly the size of the State of Indiana—the Petroleum Reserve's primary purpose was rooted in securing a domestic source of petroleum for national defense, rather than in resource preservation. Between 1944 and 1953, the Navy conducted exploratory programs in the Petroleum Reserve that discovered two small oil fields (Simpson and Umiat), one prospective oil field (Fish Creek), a gas field (South Barrow), and four prospective gas fields (Meade, Square Lake, Titaluk, and Wolf Creek). The Navy also pioneered numerous methods for oil exploration in the Arctic and collected a significant amount of scientific information regarding northern Alaska.

Motivated by private industry's 1968 discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay and the increasing price of oil due to the embargo that started in 1973, Congress passed the NPRPA in 1976. The NPRPA transferred administrative jurisdiction over the Petroleum Reserve from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior and redesignated the “Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4, Alaska” as the “National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.” At the time the NPRPA was enacted, the NPR-A remained largely unexplored and almost completely undeveloped (H.R. Rep. No. 94-156, at 3). Between 1974 and 1977, the Navy drilled seven test wells in the northeast corner of the NPR-A. These early explorations were significant undertakings that involved public funds, with a single test well costing the Federal Government approximately $100 million.

Congress recognized that accelerating exploration, that would eventually lead to production, of the NPR-A was vital to the national interest to assess the amount and location of the potential oil and gas available in the NPR-A, particularly considering the national need for energy independence. H.R. Rep. No. 94-81, at 8. Congress also acknowledged that the wildlife and other surface values in the NPR-A would have to be considered within the context that the NPR-A be managed for oil and gas exploration activities. Congress determined that the Secretary of the Interior is best qualified to make judgments regarding these other values. Id.

Congress provided certain directives within the NPRPA, including for the Secretary of the Interior to commence petroleum exploration within the NPR-A as soon as the administration of the NPR-A was transferred to the Interior Department. Congress further set forth the purpose that the development of the NPR-A be regulated in a manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation. The NPRPA established a management priority for oil and gas exploration activities within the NPR-A and, as a result, is considered a dominant-use statute.

Within that context, the NPRPA also authorized the Secretary to promulgate such rules and regulations necessary and appropriate for the protection of environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values within the Petroleum Reserve. Public Law 94-258, codified at 42 U.S.C. 6503(b). This provision provides the Secretary with discretion to protect surface resources within the Petroleum Reserve but not in contravention of the overriding purpose of the NPRPA to provide for the energy needs of the Nation.

The NPRPA as originally enacted also directed the Secretary to assure the maximum protection of significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value within special areas, as determined by the Secretary, but only insofar as that protection is consistent with the requirements of the NPRPA for the exploration of the Petroleum Reserve (42 U.S.C. 6504(a)). The BLM promulgated regulations soon after enactment of the NPRPA to govern management and protection of surface resources in the NPR-A that implement the direction in Act (43 CFR part 2360).

In promulgating this rule, the BLM has also been mindful that, under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), a reviewing court will exercise independent judgment in determining whether this rule falls within the authority Congress conferred by the NPRPA. The rule is fully consistent with the statutory language and structure of the NPRPA. Section6506a(b) expressly delegates to the Secretary the discretion to determine what conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions are “necessary or appropriate” to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources within the Petroleum Reserve. Separately, section 6503(b) delegates to the Secretary the discretion to promulgate rules and regulations she deems “necessary and appropriate” to protect the Petroleum Reserve's environment, fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values. Finally, section 6506a(o) expressly authorizes the Secretary to issue implementing regulations. Through this rule, the BLM is appropriately exercising the discretion in that delegated authority in a manner that gives effect to the NPRPA's dominant-use purpose without contravening the Secretary's additional statutory obligation to protect surface resources. Because the discretion exercised here is one Congress expressly conferred, this rule reflects the type of delegation that Loper Bright confirms, while ensuring that the BLM has acted within the bounds of that delegation.

In 1979, the BLM completed a comprehensive “Study of the Reserve,” as required by the NPRPA. The study determined the best overall procedures to be used in the development, production, transportation, and distribution of petroleum reserves in the NPR-A, the alternatives to those procedures, and the environmental consequences. The BLM submitted the results of that study to Congress.

In response, Congress amended the NPRPA through the Department of the Interior (DOI) Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981, which directed the Secretary to conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the NPR-A, while providing for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources in the NPR-A (Pub. L. 96-514, tit. I, 94 Stat. 2957, 2964). The Fiscal Year 1981 Appropriations Act also exempted management of the NPR-A from two sections of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA): section 202 (43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the BLM to prepare resource management plans to guide management of public lands; and section 603 (43 U.S.C. 1782), which required the BLM to complete wilderness reviews and describes the procedures for managing any lands recommended to Congress for wilderness designation pending congressional action. Id.

In doing so, Congress explained that exempting the NPR-A from FLPMA sections 202 and 603 was necessary because both sections would otherwise inhibit expeditious leasing. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1147, at 33 (1980). This legislative history gives further support to the position that the purpose of the NPRPA is primarily to facilitate oil and gas leasing and associated activities and that the direction to protect surface values, both within and outside special areas, is a secondary purpose of the NPRPA. Moreover, the only provision of the NPRPA requiring an EIS (for the first lease sale after enactment) provides that an EIS is only needed “if such is deemed necessary under the provisions” of the NEPA—providing clear discretion to the Secretary to make such determination of the level of environmental review required. The NPRPA highlights specific areas (Utukok River, Teshekpuk Lake) as requiring “maximum protection of surface values” but also contains the limiting proviso that such protections must be “consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration of the reserve.” Finally, the Act contains provisions that, compared to other organic statutes pertaining to oil and gas exploration, leasing, and development implemented by the BLM, are unique; these include an expeditious leasing program, generous lease terms, and exploration incentives to “encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of oil or gas, or in the interest of conservation . . ., ” 42 U.S.C. 6506a(k)(1)(A).

Combined with the original direction in the NPRPA, the 1981 Interior Appropriations Act amendments emphasize that Congress intended to dedicate management of the NPR-A to the primary purpose of supporting an expeditious program of oil and gas activities in the NPR-A, while providing the Secretary with discretion to take into consideration the protection of surface resource values as appropriate and consistent with that overriding purpose. Id. Because Congress dedicated management of the NPR-A to a single overriding purpose, the BLM's role centers on facilitating oil and gas development while applying protective measures only as consistent with that mandate. The IAP provides the framework BLM Alaska uses to manage surface resources in the NPR-A, identifying required operating procedures and stipulations that guide where and how development may occur. However, because it is not subject to section 202 of FLPMA, the IAP, which the BLM has long used to guide the management of the NPR-A, addresses a narrower range of uses than a FLPMA resource management plan and does not provide a framework for management under broader principles of multiple use and sustained yield. See 43 U.S.C. 1732(a). By establishing these protective measures up front, the IAP ensures that oil and gas activities proceed in a manner consistent with the NPRPA's dominant-use purpose while safeguarding key surface values.

Before development occurs, operators in the NPR-A generally undertake exploration activities to better understand potential oil and gas resources. These efforts usually include geophysical surveys, constructing temporary (seasonal) ice roads and pads, and drilling exploratory wells. This up-front work helps confirm the existence of oil and gas resources and informs the lessee in determining whether to pursue permanent development and production. In the NPR-A, exploration work is generally seasonal and temporary in nature, leaving behind little to no permanent infrastructure, and it occurs before—and indeed it is often carried out to inform—future development work that is the subject of this rule. As such, exploration work in NPR-A has always received its own standalone NEPA analysis. This analysis supports exploration-specific permitting actions which generally include applications for permits to drill (APD) with associated surface use plan of operations and ROWs. These approvals and their associated NEPA analyses, even though they involve the same geography of a potential future development proposal, are distinct from development level NEPA analyses.

For development level permitting, the BLM's decision-making process begins when an operator submits an initial APD (or sometimes, as in the case of Willow, a broader development proposal may precede the actual APD) for each permanent pad, along with any needed ROW applications. These applications outline the proposed infrastructure such as roads, pads, and wells. These early submissions establish the basic scope of the proposed project and initiate the BLM's review process.

Once the operator submits its applications, the BLM begins preparing the appropriate environmental documents to comply with the NEPA. Historically, the BLM has prepared an EIS for each development plan in the NPR-A, separate from the prior exploration-level NEPA documents which had likely been prepared in the same geographic area. The development EIS evaluates potential environmental effects and considers a range of alternatives. Concurrent with the EIS process, the BLM also completes required analysis and consultations under laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This environmental review phase has typically spanned several years and provided multiple opportunities for public input.

The NEPA process concludes when the BLM issues a ROD identifying the approved development alternative and outlining how the project may proceed under Federal law and management objectives. The operator then submits any remaining APDs and ROW applications, consistent with the approved plan. Because these are tiered to the development plan's EIS and ROD, no additional NEPA analysis is required. The BLM processes these permits under applicable regulations. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) requires that APDs are issued within 30 days of receipt if the requirements under NEPA and all other applicable laws have been completed. Of the 72 APDs BLM Alaska has issued in the NPR-A over the last 10 years as development has been increasing, processing has taken an average of 32 days from receiving a complete application. In reviewing the NEPA preparation and subsequent permitting application processing time, the BLM Alaska State Office completes review and approval of full field development plans in approximately three to five years. For this reason, and as a result of Alaska's unique construction/project window as a result of weather, applicants often initiate their development plans/applications years in advance.

Following permit approval, on-the-ground work may begin. Construction of roads and pads typically occurs during winter, when frozen ground facilitates access and reduces surface impacts. Production-phase drilling usually begins following initial construction of at least some permanent gravel roads and pads, and the combined construction and drilling phases often extend over several years. Once drilling is complete and production facilities are operational, oil production begins. From permit approval through construction and to first oil, the post-NEPA development cycle in the NPR-A commonly spans up to 6 years.

Throughout development, operators continue technical work such as seismic data reprocessing, reservoir modeling, engineering design, and refining subsurface drilling plans.

The BLM proposes this more efficient means of project review and approval to ensure the Secretary better meets his NPRPA statutory direction for “expeditious” oil and gas leasing and development while also ensuring the BLM achieves the same level of protection of the surface values in the NPR-A. The proposed rule establishes a streamlined permitting process for qualifying oil and gas production sites in the NPR-A, focusing on projects located relatively near existing permanent infrastructure with well-understood environmental effects. It consolidates multiple approvals into a single coordinated review, requires all environmental compliance information up front, and sets firm timelines to expedite decision-making. The rule will be supported by a detailed EIS that evaluates the foreseeable impacts of qualifying projects, eliminating the need for repeated project-specific NEPA analyses. Overall, it aims to provide a predictable, efficient approval framework while maintaining appropriate protection for surface resources, subsistence, and environmental values.

As outlined above, the environmental review process has routinely been unpredictable, redundant, and excessively time consuming, with uncertain outcomes for the applicant and agency alike. Therefore, the logical focus of an effort at overall process improvement should be on streamlining and reducing redundancy in the environmental review process, leading to less regulatory burden and more predictable outcomes, while informing the decisionmaker of the environmental consequences of the action and maintaining compliance with the NPRPA, including necessary and appropriate mitigation measures, and other applicable law. The proposed rule would create a single, coordinated review process for qualifying production infrastructure located within 25 miles of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure in the NPR-A, allowing applicants to proceed directly to submitting applications for permits to drill, ROWs, and associated authorizations. This 25-mile criterion applies to any permanent oil and gas infrastructure as defined in this rule, including infrastructure constructed after the rule is finalized. By allowing future infrastructure to serve as an anchor for streamlined review (whether that infrastructure qualified under this rule or underwent its own standalone NEPA and permitting processes), the rule enables a gradual westward progression of development from existing NPR-A facilities, without limiting eligibility only to infrastructure analyzed in prior NEPA documents.

This action responds to the Petition requesting a uniform, predictable process for development projects that share common, well-studied characteristics with existing NPR-A infrastructure. The proposed rule is supported by decades of environmental review and mitigation experience in the NPR-A. It has been developed in parallel with and will be analyzed by an EIS evaluating detailed information regarding the potential effects of the rule and the qualifying development activities expected to be authorized under its streamlined permitting process. The proposed rule also draws on the extensive analysis conducted in the Willow MDP and its accompanying EIS, which together represent the most comprehensive evaluation of development effects in the NPR-A to date. In addition, the 2025 IAP provides updated planning guidance, Required Operating Procedures (ROP), and surface-resource protections that further inform the environmental baseline supporting this predictable permitting framework.

The defined criteria for projects that may qualify for the streamlined permitting process in the proposed rule is intended to limit the application of this rule to projects that share common, well-studied characteristics and that are located adjacent to existing NPR-A infrastructure. By doing so, the BLM intends to tailor the scope of the environmental analysis supporting the proposed rule to those types of projects for which the BLM can better predict the potential environmental impacts in a manner that lends itself to a more detailed and specific environmental analysis than is available through an IAP.

In drafting the proposed rule, the BLM maintained the streamlined permitting concept suggested in the Petition but included additional safeguards and agency oversight. Compared to the Petition, the BLM's version adds stronger environmental and subsistence protections, clarifies Federal discretion in approving or modifying permits, and incorporates additional compliance requirements. Overall, the BLM proposal offers a faster, more predictable process than the current regulations while maintaining protections for land, wildlife, subsistence, and local communities. Additionally, the Petition requested that the BLM amend 43 CFR part 3160 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations) by adding a new subpart 3166, titled “Permitting Procedures for Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.” The BLM decided instead to amend the regulations at 43 CFR part 3130, “Oil And Gas Leasing: National Petroleum Reserve,” to add a new subpart 3139, entitled “Streamlined Permitting Procedures for Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.” Since part 3160 contains nationwide onshore operating regulations that apply broadly across all BLM-managed oil and gas areas, the BLM decided that this proposed rule more appropriately aligned with part 3130, as it is the regulatory framework that specifically governs oil and gas activities in the NPR-A.

The BLM will also comply with consultation requirements under ESA section 7 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and NHPA section 106 with Alaska's State Historic Preservation Office. The EIS supporting this proposed rule will also include the subsistence evaluation and hearing procedures required under section 810 of ANILCA. The intent is that the proposed rule will identify requirements that would allow qualified production sites to comply with all applicable environmental compliance statutes. Because the EIS will still be under development when the NPRM is published, the BLM will release draft Chapters 1 and 2 to provide the public a meaningful opportunity to review the purpose and need, the range of alternatives, and the analytical framework that will guide the environmental review. These chapters contain the elements which could be adjusted based on comment and so directly influence the scope of the rule; they describe the framework that the BLM will use to evaluate potential environmental impacts, subsistence considerations, and resource protections under the NPRPA. Chapters 3 and 4, which will be part of the Final EIS will address affected environment, environmental consequences, cumulative effects, required consultations, and responses to public comment. Although those later chapters will not be available during the NPRM comment period, they will apply established methods and data sources routinely used in NPR-A development analyses and will not introduce new concepts essential for understanding the proposed rule. By making the early chapters public at the NPRM stage and clearly describing the topics that will be addressed in later chapters, the BLM ensures that commenters have sufficient context to provide informed input while the agency continues developing the remaining EIS components.

The BLM encourages commenters to review the proposed rule and the draft EIS chapters together and to identify any conditions, restrictions, or requirements the BLM should consider as it refines both the EIS and the regulatory text. The BLM will publish the proposed rule and draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2 simultaneously and will accept comments on both, but comments will be collected separately. Comments on the proposed rule should focus on the regulatory framework and be submitted at www.regulations.gov through the process detailed in this preamble (see ADDRESSES earlier). Comments on the draft EIS chapters 1 and 2 should address the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns the BLM should consider as it completes the environmental review process and be submitted through the BLM's ePlanning EIS website ( https://ePlanning.blm.gov ).

The proposed rule is consistent with the NPRPA, which dedicated management of the NPR-A to oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production, while allowing the Secretary of the Interior to impose conditions that protect surface resources so long as they remain consistent with that primary purpose.

Additionally, the proposed rule aligns with recent national energy policy directives, including Executive Order (E.O.) 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, and E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, which direct the DOI to streamline permitting and reduce delays for energy development projects. The NPR-A Production Site Development rule advances these directives by establishing a predictable and expedited process for reviewing production site applications, thereby reducing administrative barriers and supporting responsible development of the NPR-A's significant energy resources. Consistent with E.O.14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, the rule is designed to enhance timely access to domestic energy supplies through improved procedural efficiency. The rule also reflects the objectives of E.O.14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, by identifying targeted revisions that remove unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining requirements needed to ensure compliance with applicable environmental statutes.

First, the BLM proposes to revise the title for part 3130. Currently, the heading for part 3130 is “Oil and Gas Leasing: National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.” In order to better reflect statutory language and the subparts, including the addition of a new subpart 3139 for the streamlined permitting procedures for production sites, the BLM is proposing to revise the heading of part 3130 to state, “Oil and Gas Leasing Program: National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.”

Second, the BLM has reflected the proposed changes to the authority section of part 3130 from the Oil and Gas Leasing proposed rule, 91 FR 38084 (6/24/2026), which would remove the citation to FLPMA in the authority statement. As background, E.O. 14270, Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash American Energy, directs the BLM to incorporate a sunset provision into regulations promulgated under FLPMA. While the Department's oil and gas leasing regulations refer to FLPMA for management of the land, this part is primarily established under the NPRPA and its authority for promulgating regulations. As a result, the BLM did not include a sunset date for these regulations. The BLM also proposes to update the authority section for part 3130 to reference the full NPRPA by replacing “42 U.S.C. 6508” with “42 U.S.C. 6501, et seq.”

The BLM proposes to add 14 sections into the proposed subpart 3139 for streamlined decisions on oil and gas development in the NPR-A. The title for this subpart would be “Streamlined Permitting Procedures for Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.” Under the NPRPA, the BLM intends these proposed regulations to support an expeditious program of oil and gas development in the NPR-A, while still protecting the surface resource values as appropriate and consistent with that overriding purpose of the NPRPA.

The following discussion addresses each section of the proposed new subpart 3139.

The BLM proposes this section to clearly identify the purpose of the new subpart. This provision is intended to inform readers that the proposed regulations in this subpart would establish a streamlined permitting process specifically for qualifying oil and gas sites, as well as associated ROWs, within the NPR-A. By including this statement of purpose, the BLM aims to ensure that the scope and application of the subpart are transparent and easily understood.

The BLM proposes this section to clearly articulate the objective of the new subpart. Consistent with the NPRPA, the objective of this rule is to promote orderly and efficient energy production from Federal oil and gas leases within the NPR-A. At the same time, the BLM must appropriately mitigate adverse effects on surface resources and subsistence activities. Therefore, this section specifies that development conducted under this subpart would be subject to necessary or appropriate conditions and restrictions designed to minimize such impacts. Clearly stating the objective ensures transparency regarding the intent and scope of the proposed regulations.

The BLM proposes to include several definitions in this section to ensure clarity and consistency in the application of this subpart. In addition to the definitions already established in 43 CFR parts 2880, 3130, and 3160, this proposed rule adds definitions for “Applicant,” “Approval,” “Integrated activity plan (IAP),” “Pad,” “Permanent oil and gas infrastructure,” “Production site,” and “Required operating procedure (ROP).”

The proposed definition of “Applicant” would clarify that only an NPR-A leaseholder or a designated operator may apply for an approval under this subpart. This ensures that applicants would have an existing legal interest and operational responsibility for Federal oil and gas development within the NPR-A.

The proposed definition of “Approval” would describe the BLM's authorization of the construction and operation of a production site. Depending on the project, an approval may consist of one or more APDs (with an associated surface-use plan of operations), one or more ROW grants, or both. This definition is intended to streamline the permitting process by allowing applicants to pursue combined or multiple approvals under a single regulatory framework.

The proposed definition of “Integrated activity plan (IAP)” would describe the type of land use management plan developed by the BLM to guide the appropriate management of BLM-administered lands and minerals within the NPR-A. As discussed above, the Fiscal Year 1981 Appropriations Act exempted management of the NPR-A section 202 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the BLM to prepare resource management plans to guide management of public lands. Because of that exemption and that the NPRPA is a dominant-use statute, the IAP is not developed as a resource management plan and does not consider sustained yield and multiple use. While the IAP analyzes a range of possible future BLM management practices for NPR-A in a manner similar to that done in a resource management plan and is conducted consistent with NEPA regulations, it historically addresses a narrower range of management than a FLPMA resource management plan ( e.g., it makes no decisions on opening lands to hard rock or coal mining because the lands within the Petroleum Reserve are withdrawn from those uses). This definition is intended to be consistent with the term historically used in past IAPs, including the definition used in the glossary of the current IAP on page 9.

The proposed definition of “Pad” is intended to be the common term used to describe the location upon which an operator can drill wells in the NPR-A. This proposed definition is consistent with the term “pad” used in the glossary of the current IAP on page 5.

The proposed definition of “Permanent oil and gas infrastructure” would describe the facilities that establish the geographic parameters to allow applications to qualify for submission under this proposed rule in 43 CFR 3139.4(b). In crafting this definition, the BLM sought to ensure that only enduring, pad-based production facilities serve as anchors for proposed production sites. To qualify, these facilities would remain in place for more than one winter season and would be integral to ongoing production operations. For roads, the BLM would anticipate that only roads or pipelines connected to producing pads would qualify based upon the language that the roads would be “supporting ongoing production activities.” For example, an applicant could not propose three separate 25-mile roads to stretch 75 miles into the NPR-A without also including the construction of pads and drilling of wells. The definition intentionally excludes facility types that are temporary, seasonal, or otherwise outside the scope of the development footprint for the pad and supporting transmission lines or roads. This definition would exclude the following: material sites such as sand and gravel, exploration wellheads, seawater treatment plants, ice roads, ice pads, and over-summering ice pads for exploration purposes—even when pads are designed for use in successive winters. These exclusions would reflect the BLM's determination that such features do not exhibit the permanence, functional characteristics, or environmental profile necessary to define the established production corridors and developed nodes on which this rule relies. By limiting “permanent oil and gas infrastructure” to production pads, production facilities, pipelines, and certain all-season gravel road connections, the definition would support a consistent application of the 25-mile eligibility criterion and would reinforce the rule's focus on authorizing development only when environmental conditions, operational impacts, and mitigation strategies are well understood and appropriately bounded.

The proposed definition of “Production site” would identify the types of infrastructure that may qualify for streamlined review under this rule. A production site would include the facilities and infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit Federal oil and gas resources to market, such as gravel pads and roads, wells, and pipelines. Although the term “Production site” may appear to refer solely to facilities directly involved in oil and gas production, the BLM intentionally defines the term more broadly to include roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure necessary to transmit production to market. This approach aligns with existing BLM permitting practices, in which an APD commonly includes associated roads and pipelines located on the lease or unit. Retaining the term “Production site” therefore provides consistency with established regulatory usage while ensuring that the streamlined approval process applies to the complete footprint required to support production activities. The BLM is requesting comments on changes to the production-site definition that may allow broadening or tightening the production-site definition to ensure the definition is appropriate for the streamlined approval process proposed under this rule.

Finally, the proposed definition of “Required operating procedure (ROP)” would mean the identified requirements in the IAP that must be carried out during proposal implementation and is based on laws, regulations, E.O.s, BLM planning manuals, policies, instruction memoranda, and applicable planning documents. The BLM derived this proposed definition from the term ROP used in the glossary of the current IAP on page 14.

The BLM proposes this section to identify the criteria that an application must meet to qualify as a production site eligible for streamlined review under this subpart. These criteria are designed to ensure that activities processed under this rule fall within the scope of development analyzed in the EIS and other environmental reviews and consultations conducted in conjunction with this rulemaking. The criteria will be informed by the public comments received on the proposed rule and the draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2. By establishing clear eligibility requirements, the BLM intends to confirm that proposed activities have been sufficiently analyzed to meet the agency's obligations under applicable environmental statutes.

Paragraph (a) would require that an application meet the definition of “Production Site” in § 3139.3. This would ensure that only the types of development contemplated in the EIS may be considered under this proposed streamlined process.

Paragraph (b) would require that the application demonstrate that the entire location of the production site is located within 25 miles of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure. In evaluating this distance, the BLM considered current lease holdings and found that a 25-mile limit would allow five lessees to qualify under this subpart, compared to only three lessees at a 15-mile limit. The BLM selected 25 miles to ensure that the streamlined permitting process is not initially limited to only a few operators, while still focusing development in areas where environmental conditions and impacts are well understood and where permanent, year-round roads and pipelines already support ongoing production. To provide clarity and ensure consistent application of this criterion, the BLM intends the 25-mile measurement to begin at the outer edge of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure, such as the edge of a production pad or the edge of an all-season gravel road connected to year-round pipelines. The entire footprint of the proposed production site must fall within this 25-mile boundary. This approach would ensure that qualifying projects remain tightly linked to established, year-round infrastructure where environmental conditions and impacts are well understood. The BLM would not consider legacy well locations as “permanent oil and gas infrastructure.” Permanent oil and gas infrastructure would only include locations that are connected to year-round roads and pipelines. This limitation would focus streamlined permitting on areas where environmental conditions and impacts are well understood and where development can occur with reduced incremental disturbance. The BLM requests comment on whether the 25-mile limitation should be expanded or reduced, including how any adjustment would affect environmental impacts and operational flexibility or whether paragraph (b) should be adjusted to include only the nearest point of the project.

Paragraph (c) would require that an application includes either wells or infrastructure necessary to transport production from existing or proposed wells. This requirement would limit the use of the streamlined process to projects tied directly to oil and gas production. The BLM could potentially expand this paragraph to specify components that would not be considered a part of production sites, such as runways for airplanes or housing for workers. The BLM requests comments related to this section on if and how the definition of production site should be narrowed or broadened to support streamlined decision making in the NPR-A under this proposed rule.

Paragraph (d) would clarify that production sites located within lands designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) in the applicable IAP are generally not eligible for streamlined permitting of surface infrastructure, except for NSO areas where essential road and pipeline crossings are allowed in the IAP. The IAP provides the management framework for surface-resource protections and land allocations in the NPR-A, including NSO designations. Because NSO areas prohibit permanent surface-disturbing infrastructure, development proposed within those areas would not meet the criteria for predictable, well-understood effects that form the basis of this streamlined permitting process. Projects within NSO lands therefore remain subject to standard permitting and project-specific NEPA review, outside the scope of this rule's coordinated and expedited procedures. For those lands closed to new infrastructure except for essential roads and pipeline crossings under the IAP, the BLM would allow roads and pipelines to be located in those lands and be permitted under the proposed rule. The BLM will verify eligibility by comparing this spatial information in the complete APD or complete ROW application to the official NSO boundaries using current IAP maps and geospatial datasets maintained by the BLM Alaska State Office.

The proposed rule anticipates that § 3139.4 would establish a set of objective criteria that applicants must satisfy for a production site to qualify under subpart 3139. The existing criteria in the regulatory text will be refined in response to the environmental impact parameters, resource considerations, and project design elements evaluated in the EIS being prepared in support of this rulemaking. The criteria could include items such as confirming proximity to existing permanent infrastructure, verifying that proposed facilities match the types of development modeled in the EIS, and documenting that anticipated impacts remain within the bounds evaluated for the rule. The BLM is also contemplating limiting the number of facilities that could be approved under this rule or limiting production sites that qualify under this rule to those proposed on lands outside special areas in the NPR-A. As the BLM develops the EIS analysis, it will refine the criteria that may be used to determine which proposed projects will qualify under the rule to ensure that qualifying production sites remain within the scope of impacts evaluated for the rule and that no new circumstances or potential effects fall outside the bounds considered in the EIS. The BLM requests comment on this criteria-based approach; whether additional safeguards or criteria should be incorporated to improve clarity and predictability. The purpose of these criteria would be to identify and address potential permitting challenges early in the process, improving efficiency while ensuring environmental and subsistence protections are maintained. The BLM is also soliciting comments on whether there are other limitations that should be placed on applications or development under this rule.

The BLM proposes this section to establish a clear, predictable, and streamlined process for reviewing and approving production-site applications under this rule. This section would set firm timelines for the BLM's initial review and completeness determinations, applicant response periods, and issuance of a decision by the BLM to ensure that qualifying projects would provide applicants with greater certainty while maintaining the BLM's ability to verify that proposed production sites meet the proposed definition in §§ 3139.3 and 3139.4 and comply with applicable environmental and operational standards.

Paragraph (a) would require an applicant to clearly request review under subpart 3139 when submitting an APD or a ROW application. The BLM anticipates that applicants would identify this request prominently on the face of the application to ensure that BLM staff would promptly recognize the applicable review process while still receiving all information required for a complete submission.

Paragraph (b) would require the BLM to review each application to determine whether it meets the proposed definition of a “Production site” in § 3139.3, qualifies under proposed § 3139.4, and is complete under proposed § 3139.6. Under paragraph (c), if any of these criteria are not met, the BLM would be required to notify the applicant in writing within 21 days of receipt of the application. The BLM would provide the applicant with the specific grounds of disqualification and each item of missing information. This early screening step would help ensure that only eligible projects proceed into the streamlined approval process.

Paragraph (d) would require an applicant to submit the missing information within 30 days of receiving the BLM's notification that the application is incomplete. If the applicant does not provide the required information within that timeframe or request an extension of time within 30 days, the BLM would return the application unapproved. The applicant may resubmit a new application, which would restart the review timeline.

Paragraph (e) would require the BLM to issue an approval, or an approval with conditions, within 60 days of receiving a complete application. In the event of a conflict between this 60-day timeframe and any regulatory timeframe associated with individual components of a complete application that provides a shorter timeframe, this 60-day timeframe will prevail. As described previously, depending on the project, an “approval” may consist of one or more APDs (with an associated surface-use plan of operations), one or more ROW grants, or both. Once an application satisfies the criteria in this subpart, the BLM's decision would be limited to issuance of approval or an approval with conditions. The BLM requests comment on whether this timeframe is appropriate. Although a complete application may meet the proposed procedural requirements of § 3139.6, the BLM would still be required to verify that the project qualifies as a production site under §§ 3139.3 and 3139.4. In some cases, this could leave only a short period to address un-qualified production site-related issues after the applicant responds to an incompleteness notification. Establishing a full 60-day period would provide the BLM with sufficient time to conduct a review, confirm eligibility, and ensure that the proposed production site meets the proposed technical and environmental parameters contemplated under this proposed streamlined process.

Finally, paragraph (f) would clarify that, in issuing approvals under this section, the BLM would comply with existing regulatory requirements at existing §§ 3162.3-1(g), 2804.25, and 2884.20(a) through (c). This would ensure consistency with established procedures governing APDs and ROWs and would reaffirm that the streamlined process under subpart 3139 would not replace or diminish these existing obligations. Instead, this provision would integrate the streamlined decision-making structure into the broader regulatory framework that governs on-the-ground development activities.

The BLM proposes this section to clearly define the required information for a complete application under subpart 3139. The BLM would not require applicants to submit additional information beyond the requirements of this section. A complete application is essential for the BLM to determine whether a proposed production site meets the eligibility criteria in proposed § 3139.4 and complies with existing applicable environmental and operational standards. If an application were to lack one or more required elements, the BLM would notify the applicant and provide 30 days to supply the missing information. If the applicant does not respond within that timeframe, the BLM would return the application unapproved. This approach would ensure efficient review while maintaining the rigor necessary to support responsible development in the NPR-A.

Paragraph (a) would require the application to identify the size and location of the proposed gravel pad. Although this information is already submitted under existing APD and ROW requirements, restating it in proposed subpart 3139 would ensure that it is prominently included for the BLM's initial completeness review.

Paragraph (b) would require the applicant to identify the anticipated number of wells to be drilled from the proposed pad. While the BLM could determine this from submitted APDs, including it directly in the subpart 3139 application ensures that the agency can efficiently evaluate the scope of the proposed production site.

Paragraph (c) would require the application to demonstrate compliance with the current NPR-A IAP, including the ROPs and the conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse impacts in §§ 3139.9 through 3139.14. The application would only need to comply with the NPR-A IAP in effect when the application is submitted. This would ensure that any proposal submitted under the proposed streamlined process would be fully aligned with the environmental protections and operating standards identified through the IAP process. The BLM anticipates that future IAPs may modify these requirements and has therefore proposed flexible incorporation language at § 3139.9. The BLM requests public comments on whether subpart 3139 should be limited to only applications made under the 2025 IAP and include a sunset provision based upon the 2025 IAP or whether subpart 3139 should also account for future IAPs as well.

Paragraph (d) would require applicants to submit all underlying APDs and ROW applications, as applicable. These existing requirements would remain fully in effect under subpart 3139, and the streamlined process could not proceed without complete APD or ROW submissions under 43 CFR subparts 2804, 2884, 3162, and 3171. The BLM identified the requirement to add compliance with subpart 3171 to ensure the applicant complies with all downhole requirements set by the BLM for well construction and integrity. This proposed rule does not address the downhole design of wells. Instead, the complete application under § 3139.6(d)(1) must include a complete APD. The APD would not be deemed complete if there are outstanding concerns with the well's design or construction.

Paragraph (e) would ensure that applicants provide sufficient data for the completion of the cultural resource review and consultation process required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act before submitting an application. During this early completion of the section 106 process, the applicant and their cultural resource consultants would work with the BLM to secure permits and authorizations, define the APE, conduct field surveys, consult with the SHPO and federally recognized Tribes, identify historic properties, and, if necessary, finalize agreement documents required to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Conducting and completing the section 106 process prior to submitting an application would allow the BLM to comply with heritage resource statutory requirements without delaying the permitting timeline in the proposed rule. This would support the rule's broader goal of streamlining agency review and decision-making by ensuring that all necessary information is available, and statutory requirements are finalized, at submission. This would reduce the need for delays owing to revisions and would ensure that development proceeds in compliance with Federal historic preservation requirements.

Paragraph (f) would require applicants to provide sufficient data for the BLM to complete a Plan of Action under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) prior to filing an application, if the proposed project is likely to result in a discovery of Tribal ancestral human remains or cultural items. Oil and gas development in the NPR-A may encounter NAGPRA human remains and cultural items. A Plan of Action (POA) is required for the disposition of all NAGPRA materials that have been encountered on Federal lands since 1990, whether prepared ahead of time or following an inadvertent discovery. If a POA is not prepared ahead of time, construction and development can be delayed until completion of regulatory-required consultations and the signing of a POA. Completing a POA prior to submitting an application would ensure that these statutory and regulatory requirements are met and provides clarity upon the inadvertent discovery of NAGPRA materials for applicants, the BLM, and affected Tribes. This requirement would support the proposed rule's goal of streamlining review and preventing delays during construction, and it strengthens the Federal Government's commitment to consultation and co-stewardship with Tribes.

The BLM proposes adding paragraph (g) to ensure applicants supply the biological information and survey data needed to ensure compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Completion of wildlife and habitat surveys prior to application submittal would allow the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate potential effects to listed species and critical habitat more quickly and with greater accuracy. This requirement would align with the rule's purpose of creating a more predictable permitting process by ensuring that applications include adequate environmental information at the outset. Providing this information early would reduce delays, would support conservation of threatened and endangered species, and would allow the BLM to make decisions that fully comply with ESA obligations.

The BLM considered requiring applicants to demonstrate completion of the MMPA process to obtain a letter of authorization for incidental take. However, the BLM elected to not include MMPA since it is an applicant driven process. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a 5-year MMPA incidental take regulation that covers the area and many of the operators and their activities in the NPR-A. The BLM requests comments on whether the BLM should propose a paragraph, similar to paragraph (g) for MMPA.

Finally, the BLM requests comment on whether additional elements should be included to ensure that applications submitted under this rule contain sufficient environmental, technical, and operational information and the appropriate timing for consultation. For example, specific surveys or monitoring data might warrant inclusion as part of the complete-application requirements to support the streamlined review process.

The BLM proposes this section to clarify the regulatory effect of an approval issued under subpart 3139. This section would explain how an approval functions within the broader legal framework that governs oil and gas development in the NPR-A, including how it would interact with the existing regulations in part 2800, Rights-of-Way Under the Federal Land Policy And Management Act; part 2880, Rights-of-Way Under the Mineral Leasing Act; part 3160, Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; and subpart 3171, Approval of Operations. In addition, this section would explain the process for modifying an approved production site. Overall, § 3139.7 is intended to provide applicants with regulatory certainty while ensuring that the BLM continues to meet its environmental and operational oversight responsibilities.

Paragraph (a) would provide that an approval under § 3139.4 would obviate the need for additional approvals of a production site under the NPRPA and under 43 CFR parts 2800, 2880, and 3160, and subpart 3171. This paragraph is intended to confirm that all necessary authorizations for constructing and operating the production site would be encompassed within the approvals issued under this subpart. Therefore, by consolidating these authorities, the BLM would establish a unified permitting mechanism while maintaining compliance with the applicable statutory framework.

Paragraph (b) would allow an applicant to modify a production site by following the same procedures used to obtain the initial approval under proposed § 3139.4. This would ensure that modifications would undergo the same qualification and completeness review as the original application before benefiting from the streamlined process. The paragraph would also complement § 3139.8(d), which requires that any changes to an approved APD or ROW must still be submitted to and approved by the BLM as required under parts 2800, 2880, and 3160. Therefore, the applicant must request changes to APD and ROW approvals as required by the other parts; however, the applicant would still need to comply with the requirements in subpart 3139.

The EIS being prepared in support of this rulemaking will establish an analyzed design envelope that encompasses the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects associated with constructing and operating qualified production sites in the NPR-A. The BLM has already initiated preparation of the EIS, as announced in the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2026 (91 FR 29155). Paragraph (c) would clarify that when the BLM determines under § 3139.5 that an application qualifies under this subpart, the agency would be confirming that the anticipated impacts of the proposed production site fall within that analyzed design envelope. Because the EIS would fully evaluate those effects, no additional project-level NEPA analysis would be required for the BLM to issue its approval. This approach is intended to provide predictability and efficiency while ensuring that the scope of the EIS is sufficiently broad to encompass all activities eligible under the rule.

The BLM is also requesting comments on whether certain provisions in the existing regulations under parts 2800, 2880, 3160, or 3170 should not apply. For example, § 3162.3-1(h) establishes specific timelines and procedural requirements for reviewing APDs. These procedural requirements may conflict with the completeness and approval process created in proposed §§ 3139.5 and 3139.6, which would include defined timeframes (21 days, 30 days, and 60 days) tailored specifically for the streamlined NPR-A production site review process. The timeframes within subpart 3139 would supersede any conflicting timeframes in the regulations; therefore, the BLM does not believe the timeframes in § 3162.3-1(h) apply under this proposed rule; however, we request comments on whether that should be specified in the final regulatory text.

Finally, the BLM is soliciting comment on whether this rule should include a specific limit on the number of applications that may be approved and whether there are any other limitations that should be placed on the scope or extent of applications or development approved under this rule.

The BLM proposes this section to clarify the conditions that apply to all production sites approved under this subpart. These conditions are intended to ensure that development authorized through the streamlined permitting process remains consistent with the underlying lease terms, the ROPs and stipulations in the IAP, and other environmental protections and operational standards that apply in the NPR-A. This section would also establish a timeframe for initiating construction and outlines how the BLM may apply additional conditions of approval or require subsequent modifications. Together, these provisions would ensure that while the permitting process would be streamlined, the BLM would maintain adequate oversight to minimize environmental impacts and ensure compliance with governing regulations.

Paragraph (a) would require that all approved production sites comply with applicable lease terms, lease stipulations, and the relevant ROPs from the 2025 IAP. These instruments establish the baseline environmental, subsistence, and operational protections that apply to oil and gas development in the NPR-A. Although proposed subpart 3139 would streamline the approval process for production sites, it would not alter these foundational requirements. This provision would ensure that the protections and planning framework already established through the NPR-A leasing program and the IAP remain applicable to any development authorized under this subpart.

Paragraph (b) would require construction of an approved production site to begin no later than 4 years after the date of approval, with construction defined as the first day of construction activity—occurring within the boundaries of the NPR-A—associated with installation of the gravel pad or the access road. The BLM proposes a 4-year period because it matches the standard term for an approved APD at 43 CFR 3171.14(a). This would provide consistency between the existing APD framework and the streamlined approval process that would be established under this proposed subpart. This requirement would ensure that authorized development proceeds in a timely manner. A defined start-construction window would help the BLM ensure that site-specific environmental conditions have not materially changed since approval. If construction were delayed beyond this period, the BLM may need to reevaluate the project before it could proceed. The BLM also requests comment on the BLM's definition as to the start of construction, which the proposed rule currently defines as “the first day of activity, occurring within the boundary of the NPR-A, to construct the pad or the access road.”

Paragraph (c) would clarify that the BLM may apply site-specific conditions of approval (COAs) to APDs and site-specific terms and conditions to ROWs where necessary to mitigate surface or downhole impacts associated with the production site. This would reflect longstanding BLM practice under parts 2800, 2880, and 3160, under which COAs and ROW terms are tailored to address environmental, technical, or subsistence considerations unique to each project. Although subpart 3139 would streamline the decision-making process, it would not limit the BLM's ability to impose appropriate mitigation measures. Instead, this provision would ensure that the streamlined process would incorporate the same protective tools normally available under the BLM's existing authorities.

Paragraph (d) would require that any changes to an approved permit be requested and approved by the BLM in accordance with existing regulatory requirements in parts 2800, 2880, and 3160. This provision would reinforce that modifications to an APD or ROW granted under subpart 3139 would still be required to follow established procedures for amending BLM-issued authorizations. While applicants could seek modifications through the streamlined path in proposed § 3139.4, this provision would clarify that the BLM retains full authority to review and approve changes through standard regulatory processes whenever necessary. This would help maintain consistency between subpart 3139 approvals and the BLM's broader permitting and operational oversight responsibilities.

The BLM proposes this section to specify that the applicant would comply with the IAP's ROPs and identify the overarching conditions and restrictions that all applicants would be required to follow to mitigate adverse effects from oil and gas development in the NPR-A. The BLM identified additional mitigation measures from the conditions applied to development under the Willow MDP and other requirements applied to existing development within the NPR-A. The BLM plans to further analyze the rule conditions and restrictions in the EIS supporting this rule, and the BLM will most likely refine the conditions and restrictions further based upon public comments received on the draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS and on the proposed rule. Together, these measures would satisfy the mitigation directives in sections 6504(a) and 6506a(b) of the NPRPA, including the direction that oil and gas exploration and development “be conducted in a manner which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration of the reserve.”

In addition, the BLM proposes to incorporate the existing ROPs from the IAP with § 3139.6(c) and 3139.9. Therefore, to remove duplication, the BLM did not include the ROPs in the proposed sections on conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse effects, even though NPR-A lessees and designated operators would still need to comply with the ROPs from the IAP.

This section would also establish a process through which the authorized officer may approve deviations or exemptions where appropriate. Consistent with similarly motivated longstanding practice under the IAP framework, this would ensure that the rule would remain responsive to technological advances, site-specific conditions, and the evolving environmental context of the NPR-A. The applicant would need to request an exemption or deviation from the conditions and restrictions for the BLM to consider. The BLM proposes three specific bases for such flexibility. Under proposed paragraph (a), the BLM could grant an exemption or deviation if a substitute measure would be equally or more effective in mitigating adverse effects. This provision would allow the BLM to adopt improved mitigation measures as new data or community input becomes available. Under proposed paragraph (b), the BLM may approve a deviation if technological advancements render a specific condition unnecessary. Under proposed paragraph (c), the BLM may grant an exemption when the condition is not applicable to the proposed production site. The BLM would make a decision on these requests within 30 days. This framework would provide regulatory stability while allowing the BLM to apply the most current and effective mitigation tools available.

The BLM reviewed the Petition and elected to reorganize this last section into multiple themed sections to boost clarity. The BLM requests comments on how it should organize the conditions and restrictions. The BLM organized the proposed rule's conditions and restrictions to focus on development; however, the BLM also considered organizing the conditions and restrictions based upon the surface resource values being protected by each condition and restriction. Since some conditions and restrictions would protect multiple surface resource values, the BLM elected to organize the conditions and restrictions as proposed.

Finally, the BLM requests feedback on whether the proposed requirements sufficiently address site-specific environmental, cultural, and subsistence considerations. Should additional conditions or restrictions beyond those outlined in the Willow MDP provisions be incorporated into this rulemaking? Does the BLM need to consider other conditions or restrictions to ensure maximum protection of Special Areas or other particularly sensitive resources? Ultimately, the BLM seeks input on any further measures that should be evaluated to enhance safeguards and minimize impacts associated with production site development.

The BLM proposes the following general conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this proposed section effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible development in the NPR-A. The BLM based many of the conditions and restrictions identified in this provision on the design features in the Willow MDP's 2023 record of decision, which can be found on the BLM's ePlanning website at https://eplanning.blm.gov under the NEPA Number of “DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2018-0004-EIS.” In the Willow MDP, the BLM adopted many applicant-proposed design features as part of its decision. Design features are impact-reducing actions or designs that the proponent committed to in their permit applications and supporting documents. After review, the BLM decided to carry forward these specific design features into the proposed rule.

In addition to the requirements identified here, all production sites must also comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These proposed provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect cultural resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 78.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect wetlands, vegetation, birds, terrestrial mammals, and marine mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 21.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect birds and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 50.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect birds and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 55.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect cultural and paleontological resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 65.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in the IAP ROPs H-1 and H-4 and Willow MDP Design Feature No. 68 and 69. The BLM seeks comment on how best to structure the process to ensure applicants effectively engage affected communities, Tribes, and Alaska Native corporations within the North Slope.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to address local community concerns. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 75. The BLM broadened the statement in the rule to ensure it could apply across the NPR-A for all local community residents.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to protect subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 77. The BLM proposes to require permittees under this rule to provide access to NPR-A leaseholders and designated operators to facilitate future development across the NPR-A.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (i) to ensure coordinated use of transportation corridors and other production-related infrastructure, thereby reducing surface disturbance and minimizing impacts to resources and uses within the NPR-A. Ensuring that certain oil and gas infrastructure is co-located will reduce disturbance within the NPR-A, diminishing impacts to resources and uses in the NPR-A. This paragraph would ensure that all NPR-A lessees and designated operators would collocate or share, as much as feasible, their road, pipeline, and associated infrastructure to reduce the impact of future development in the NPR-A.

The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed general conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational feasibility.

The BLM proposes the following pad and road design conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the proposed pad- and road-design requirements identified here, all production sites would also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These proposed provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect soils, permafrost, gravel resources, wetlands, vegetation, birds, and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 37.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect soils, permafrost, gravel resources, wetlands, vegetation, birds, and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 39.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect wetlands, vegetation, birds, and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 43 as an outgrowth from the IAP ROP C-2.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect fish. The BLM identified this requirement in the IAP ROP E-5 and Willow MDP Design Feature No. 26.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect soils, permafrost, gravel resources, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, and birds. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 27.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect water resources, wetlands, vegetation, fish, and birds. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 23.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to protect water resources, wetlands, vegetation, and fish. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 28.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to protect soils, permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 34.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (i) to protect soils, permafrost, gravel resources, air quality, visual resources, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, fish, birds, terrestrial mammals, and public health. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 36.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (j) to protect soils, permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 42.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (k) to protect subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 72.

The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed pad and road design conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational feasibility.

The BLM proposes the following pipeline and utility design conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the pipeline- and utility-design requirements identified here, all production sites would also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These proposed provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect birds, wetlands, and vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 9.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect birds. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 54.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect birds, wetlands, vegetation, terrestrial mammals, and spill risk. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 11.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect soils, permafrost, gravel resources, water resources, wetlands, and vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 31.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect soils, permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 44.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect visual resources, birds, terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, and subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 59.

The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed pipeline and utility design conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational feasibility.

The BLM proposes the following spill prevention and remediation conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the proposed spill prevention and remediation requirements identified here, all production sites would also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which would apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect all resources. Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 95.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect all resources. Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 38. This would ensure that the permittees install pipeline crossings with insulation and design features, which would inhibit heat transfer to permafrost, contain fluids in the event of a pipeline leak, and provide structural integrity to the pipeline crossing.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect all resources. Spill remediation protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface environment. The BLM identified this requirement in the IAP ROP A-4 and Willow MDP Design Feature No. 100.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect all resources. Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 102.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect all resources. Spill remediation protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 106.

The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed spill prevention and remediation conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational feasibility.

The BLM proposes the following operational conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the operational conditions and restrictions identified here, all production sites would also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which would apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect wetlands and vegetation by using single season ice roads to support winter construction. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 5.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect all resources. As ice roads and pads do not cause permanent disturbance to the permafrost, this paragraph will protect all resources in the NPR-A. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 10.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect water resources; wetlands and vegetation; fish; birds; terrestrial mammals; marine mammals; subsistence and sociocultural systems; and public health. The BLM identified this requirement in the Willow MDP Design Feature No. 20.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect soils, permafrost, and gravel resources; water resources; wetlands and vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 31.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect birds; terrestrial mammals; subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 58.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 76.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to protect air quality and public health. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 85.

The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to reduce the natural gas emissions from oil and gas facilities by requiring the use of electric solenoids or instrument air driven pneumatics. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 122.

The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed operational conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational feasibility.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the OMB will review all significant rules. This rulemaking would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. The Proposed Rule is expected to lead to benefits and costs through three mechanisms including reduced environmental review costs, increased development and production, and increased demand for leases. Eliminating the need to develop an EIS for individual projects is estimated to result in cost savings to either the BLM or the developer, depending on who would incur the cost of preparing the analysis. Increased supply of oil may impact the market price for oil and related products resulting in changes to consumer and producer surplus. Increased development and production resulting from the Proposed Rule is expected to result in increased production-related government revenues, which would be transfers from industry to the U.S. treasury or the State of Alaska. Greater levels of development and reduced Design Features may increase disturbance-related costs stemming from impacts on subsistence resources and public safety. Finally, the Proposed Rule would reduce costs and uncertainty for leaseholders to develop their leases. This would increase the value of current undeveloped leases and the demand for new leases in future lease sales.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

For more detailed information, refer to the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared for this proposed rule. The RIA has been posted in the docket for the proposed rule on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, enter Docket number “BLM-2026-0133”, click the “Search” button, open the Docket Folder, and look under Supporting Documents.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) (RFA) requires that Federal agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. ) if the rule would have a significant economic impact, whether detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. Refer to 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Congress enacted the RFA to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises.

The BLM has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to determine if this rule would result in significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small businesses that are most likely to be impacted by the Proposed Rule are those holding oil and gas leases in the NPR-A. Through a search of publicly available information and on-the-ground knowledge, the BLM estimates that six of the ten businesses holding leases in the NPR-A may be small entities according to the size standards. Identification is uncertain as employment numbers and annual receipts for some companies are unavailable. There may be indirect impacts on businesses that provide goods and services to leaseholders such as construction contractors, engineering firms, and transportation firms. The BLM identified the number of small firms operating in Alaska in several oil and gas supporting industries. In addition, five government jurisdictions in the area are small.

After an initial one-time familiarization cost, the Proposed Rule would reduce costs and time needed for approving oil and gas development projects in the NPR-A, which would benefit leaseholders and operators and could indirectly benefit small government jurisdictions. The BLM has estimated the potential economic impacts to small entities using best available information. Based on this analysis, the BLM does not expect the Proposed Rule to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, but small businesses could benefit by capturing a share of the revenue from increased production. Please refer to the RIA for more information. At this stage, the BLM does not expect there to be a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; nevertheless, the BLM solicits comments from potentially affected small entities on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The BLM is working with SBA's Office of Advocacy to ensure that small business impacts are properly assessed and considered according to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Please refer to the RIA for more information.

DOI has examined this proposed rulemaking and has tentatively determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would promote prudent financial management and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Therefore, the BLM expects the rule to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector as there is no direct implementation of action as a result of this rule. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. The proposed rule would add a new permitting subpart into part 3139. The proposed provisions in this rule would not cause a taking of private property because the operations that would be subject to these rules are already subject to existing lease terms, which expressly require that subsequent lease activities must be conducted in compliance with subsequently adopted Federal laws and regulations.

This proposed rule conforms to the terms of the existing leases and applicable statutes and, as such, the rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under E.O. 12630.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism impact statement is not required.

The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It would not apply to States or local governments or State or local governmental entities. The rule would affect the relationship between operators, lessees, and the BLM, but it would not directly impact the States. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Further, it is the policy of the Department to recognize and fulfill its obligations to consult with ANCSA Corporations on the same basis as Indian Tribes under E.O. 13175.

The BLM evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 to identify possible effects of the rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations. The NPR-A contains several communities that include Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporations and also involves a regional Alaska Native Tribal Government and a regional ANCSA Corporation. Nuiqsut is the community closest to current development in the NPR-A, that, along with the additional communities within the NPR-A of Atqusuk, Wainwright, and Utqiagvik that experience—directly or indirectly—the beneficial and adverse effects of oil and gas development.

Therefore, the BLM has provided an opportunity for consultation with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations during scoping of the Notice of Intent for the EIS and will continue to provide an opportunity for consultation with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. The Tribes and ANCSA Corporations may request individual consultation regarding the proposed rule throughout the rulemaking process. The BLM will fully consider the views of Tribes and ANCSA Corporations in the final rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Collections of information include any request or requirement to obtain, maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose information to a third party or to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

This proposed rule contains a new information-collection requirement that is subject to review by OMB under the PRA. OMB has approved the existing information-collection requirements contained in 43 CFR part 3130 under OMB control number 1004-0196. The proposed new information collection requirement along with the resulting public reporting burdens are outlined below.

Any applicant may request an approval by filing an APD or ROW application with BLM's regional state office in Alaska and request approval under this subpart. These requests are optional and the applicant can still apply under the existing APD (OMB Control Number 1004-0220) and/or ROW (SF-299/OMB Control Number 0596-0249). The applicant would only need to provide the new additional information if applying under the streamlined decision process in the proposed rule. The proposed new additional information for an application under § 3139.5 includes:

• the size and location of the proposed pad;

• the number of wells anticipated on the proposed pad;

• demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the current NPR-A IAP, including the required operating procedures, and compliance with the Conditions and Restrictions to Mitigate Adverse Impacts in §§ 3139.9 to 3139.14;

• any applicable information required by subparts 3162 and 3171 (OMB Control Number 1004-0220);

• any applicable information required by subpart 2884 for issuance of a pipeline ROW and subpart 2804 for any other ROW (SF-299);

• demonstration that the applicant has complied with the requirements for completing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966, as amended; 54 U.S.C. 306108) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800;

• demonstration that the applicant has complied with the requirements for completing a Plan of Action under the NAGPRA (1990, as amended; 25 U.S.C. Chapter 32) and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR 10.4(b); and

• demonstration that the applicant collaborated with the BLM to support section 7 consultation under the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).

The above new information collection requirement would not revise information collected for an APD or a ROW. It would be additional optional information to accompany an application under subpart 3139. This additional new information will support the streamlined decision-making process outlined in this proposed rule for oil and gas development within the NPR-A.

Currently, there are 24 annual responses, 223 annual burden hours, and $1,320 annual non-hour cost burdens approved under OMB Control Number 1004-0196. The new information collection requirements in § 3139.5 of this proposed rule are estimated to add 1 annual response and 10 annual burden hours resulting in a total of 25 annual responses and 233 annual burden hours. The non-hour cost burdens would remain unchanged.

The resulting new estimated total information collection burdens for OMB Control Number 1004-0196 are provided below.

Title of Collection: Oil and Gas Leasing: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (43 CFR part 3130).

OMB Control Number: 1004-0196.

Form Numbers: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Participants in the oil and gas leasing program within National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 25.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes to 80 hours, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 233.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $1,320.

If you want to comment on the information-collection requirements of this proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions as indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

The BLM is preparing an EIS for the proposed rule in accordance with the NEPA. You may review the draft chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS at https://eplanning.blm.gov. The NEPA Number is DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS. In the EIS, the BLM will evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed rule, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could be authorized pursuant to the rule, on BLM-managed lands in the NPR-A. The BLM will consider reasonably foreseeable effects on subsistence resources and uses; wildlife and habitat, including caribou, polar bear, migratory birds, and fish; surface water, wetlands, and permafrost; air quality; noise; cultural and historic resources; visual resources; and socioeconomic conditions. The BLM will prepare an EIS before we publish a final rule.

The EIS for this rulemaking is analyzing four alternatives. Under the no action alternative, the BLM would continue using the existing permitting framework, relying on project-specific NEPA reviews without streamlined approvals. Another alternative will reflect the proposed rule. Under a third alternative, streamlined permitting would be more limited, applying only to satellite pads under narrower geographic conditions, with additional design features and mitigation requirements, longer timelines for construction initiation, and a hard cap of 14 production pads that could be approved under the rule. Under the final alternative, streamlined permitting eligibility would expand to a broader set of facility types and a wider geographic area, with shorter construction initiation timelines and no additional design features beyond existing IAP requirements, resulting in the greatest development potential among the action alternatives. The BLM has considered but dismissed other alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need or were otherwise impracticable; these are briefly described in draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS. The BLM will publish the proposed rule and draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2 simultaneously and will accept comments on both, but comments will be collected separately. Section 1.3(d) of the DOI NEPA Handbook provides that the public comment period for draft environmental assessment or environmental impact statement associated with a rulemaking “should generally run concurrently with the public comment period for the proposed rule.” However, publication of a draft environmental document is not mandated by NEPA, the DOI NEPA regulations, or the DOI NEPA Handbook. Instead, Section 3.3 of DOI NEPA Handbook allows the BLM to publish “draft, pre-decisional materials as in the bureau's judgment may assist in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA.” Consistent with the President's direction in E.O. 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, to reduce obstacles to energy development in Alaska with all due haste, the BLM is publishing drafts of Chapters 1 and 2 of the environmental impact statement in order to ensure the public has a chance to provide comment on the purpose and need and alternatives being considered, while not delaying publication of the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule should focus on the regulatory framework and be submitted at www.regulations.gov through the process detailed in this preamble (see ADDRESSES earlier). Comments on the draft EIS chapters 1 and 2 should address the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns the BLM should consider as it completes the environmental review process and be submitted through the BLM's ePlanning EIS website ( https://ePlanning.blm.gov ).

The BLM has also considered Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025), which held that NEPA requires an agency to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable effects of an action but does not require the agency to evaluate effects of separate projects that are remote in time or place, fall outside the agency's regulatory authority, or depend on the independent action of third parties. Because the Approval process established in § 3166.5 is the mechanism by which BLM authorizes construction and operation of Production Sites—rather than a preliminary step preceding a later site-specific NEPA review—the EIS being prepared in support of this rule will analyze the reasonably foreseeable effects of Production Sites subject to the streamlined approval process under this rule. That analysis, however, does not extend to the downstream effects which are separate in time and place from, and outside the BLM's regulatory authority over, the Production Sites that are subject to the streamlined approval process of this rule. See Id.; Center for Biological Diversity v. United States BLM, 141 F.4th 976 (9th Cir. 2025); 16 DM 1 section 6.1(k) (providing a definition of “effects”).

The BLM would appreciate comments that identify alternatives or criteria, conditions, restrictions, or other requirements that could be incorporated into alternatives to be considered in the EIS.

Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions. This statement is to include a detailed statement of “any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies)” for the action and reasonable alternatives and their effects.

Section 4(b) of E.O. 13211 defines a “significant energy action” as “any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by OIRA as a significant energy action.”

Any changes in oil or gas production estimated to result from the rule's enactment would increase the total U.S. gas production and U.S. oil production from the increased production in the NPR-A. For these reasons, we do not expect the proposed rule to adversely impact the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As such, the rulemaking is not a “significant energy action” as defined in E.O. 13211.

We are required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1988, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To help the BLM revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

E.O. 14219 requires agencies to prioritize the executive branch's limited enforcement resources on regulations that are authorized by constitutional Federal statutes. In accordance with this directive, the BLM conducted a review of its proposed rule and concluded that it does comply with the NPRPA and does not undermine the national interest.

E.O. 14270 requires the BLM to incorporate a sunset provision into regulations promulgated under the Mining Act of 1872, FLPMA, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While 43 CFR part 3130 references FLPMA at 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740, these regulations are primarily established under the NPRPA and its authority for promulgating regulations. As a result, the BLM did not include a sunset date for this proposed rule and proposes to remove any reference to FLPMA from part 3130's authority.

However, the BLM is also considering whether to include a sunset provision for subpart 3139. As previously noted, the BLM could link this rule directly to the 2025 IAP and specify that subpart 3139 would sunset when the existing 2025 IAP is replaced or superseded. The BLM requests comment on if or how the BLM should apply a sunset provision. Potential benefits may include ensuring that this streamlined permitting process remains consistent with future IAP decisions, reducing the need for later revisions, and providing a clear regulatory endpoint. Potential costs could include reduced long-term predictability for operators, the potential need for new rulemaking when future IAPs are issued, and administrative effort associated with transitioning to updated regulatory frameworks. Commenters are encouraged to address whether a sunset provision would support or hinder implementation of the NPRPA and the effective management of development in the NPR-A.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3130 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in ET Docket No. 26-169, FCC 26-51, adopted on August 6, 2026, and released on August 7, 2026. The full text of this document, is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-51A1.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 Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

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 the 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 potential impact of the rule and policy proposals in this document on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B to the 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 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicated in the DATES section above and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 3521. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

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 .

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.”

Introduction. Direct-to-device (D2D) technology has undergone a transformative wave of investment and innovation in recent years, with American companies leading the way yet again. Since the Commission adopted its pioneering framework to enable Supplemental Coverage from Space, consumers have benefitted from the ubiquitous—and often lifesaving—connectivity that D2D provides in areas with inadequate cellular coverage. And as advances in D2D technology occur at a faster clip each day, innovators and entrepreneurs have adopted diverging theses on the likelihood of intermodal convergence and the need for predictable D2D spectrum access. Some analysts project more than $100 billion in revenues across all D2D and IoT segments by 2034. Predictions like these have translated into frothy dealmaking over the last 18 months, as more than $40 billion has coursed through the American space economy for D2D. In 2025, SpaceX acquired 65 megahertz of D2D spectrum from EchoStar for $19.6 billion. AST announced a $550 million agreement to use L-band spectrum licensed to Ligado. And most recently, Amazon and RocketLab struck separate deals collectively totaling nearly $20 billion to acquire Globalstar and Iridium respectively, including their D2D spectrum portfolios. To enable healthy market discovery, the Space Bureau recently issued long-awaited legal clarity to reaffirm American innovators' exclusively-held D2D spectrum rights.

The Commission intends to allow the current wave of D2D experimentation and dynamism to unfold, consistent with the principles of technological neutrality and regulatory humility. So, today the Commission take the next step to secure America's leadership in D2D by exploring proposals that would allow devices operating in more than 200 megahertz of spectrum available for unlicensed devices to communicate with satellites authorized to provide service in the United States. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), the Commission examines potential reforms to enable devices operating in some of the part 15 bands to communicate with FCC-authorized satellites, whether on an uplink or downlink basis. The Commission also proposes to clarify that using equipment authorized under the part 15 rules is permitted within FCC-authorized spacecraft. Unlicensed spectrum may be suitable to support the capacity requirements and complement other bands for D2D services. Devices operating under the part 15 rules are widely used by businesses and consumers and include Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters for wireless local area connectivity, medical imaging devices, wireless microphones, automobile and garage door opener remote controls, and IoT sensors. By eliminating the burden and cost to obtain a Commission spectrum license, the Commission's part 15 rules have spurred innovation in new devices and applications that successfully coexist with other licensed and unlicensed services. Unlocking unlicensed bands for D2D promises to open up new services that seamlessly integrate devices across terrestrial and satellite platforms and provide consumers with another option for connectivity.

In this document, technological neutrality and regulatory humility—principles that have long shaped the Commission's approach to unlicensed spectrum—will guide its analysis. As an initial matter, in considering new unlicensed services, the Commission intends to preserve the operational status quo of the spectral environment for incumbent and authorized services, as well as for the terrestrial part 15 devices that consumers and businesses rely upon every day. The Commission also recognizes that technical standards and coordination mechanisms for space-based use of these bands remain in an early and evolving stage, and the Commission does not believe it would be prudent to lock in prescriptive technical rules before the record and industry practice have had the opportunity to mature. And consistent with the Commission's history of light-touch regulation of unlicensed spectrum, the Commission intends to afford industry the breathing room to experiment within a regulatory sandbox, allowing new entrants and incumbents alike to develop and test new services under flexible, non-interference-based rules rather than a rigid licensing framework designed for a different era of satellite operations or even incumbent unlicensed protocols. The Commission believes that adherence to these principles may allow us to responsibly expand the universe of spectrum available for direct-to-device and other space-based applications while safeguarding the interference-free environment that has made part 15 spectrum such a valuable and productive resource for the American public.

Background. Part 15 of the Commission's rules contains technical specifications, administrative requirements, and other conditions relating to the marketing of radio frequency (RF) devices that may be operated without an individual license. Part 15 contains technical regulations for two broad categories of radio frequency devices: (1) intentional radiators, which intentionally generate and emit RF energy by radiation or induction, and (2) unintentional radiators, which intentionally generate RF energy for use within the device or send signals by conduction to associated equipment via connecting wiring, but which are not intended to emit RF energy by radiation or induction.

Intentional radiators may operate on an unlicensed basis under part 15 in almost any frequency band at very low power levels, with the exception of designated restricted bands where only spurious emissions are permitted. The restricted bands are designated to protect sensitive radio services, such as those that protect safety-of-life or those that use very low received signal levels, such as satellite downlinks or radio astronomy. The power levels permitted under part 15 in most frequency bands are suitable for communication only over very short ranges, such as a few meters, or with low data rates. In addition, part 15 specifies a number of frequency bands where intentional radiators may operate at significantly higher power levels, subject to technical requirements to protect authorized services from harmful interference, including the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands. These bands, unlike many other bands where unlicensed devices can operate at higher power, do not have airborne restrictions or satellite allocations, with the exception of the 5830-5850 MHz band, which contains an amateur satellite downlink allocation. Unlicensed devices may generally transmit with up to 4 watts (36 dBm) EIRP in these bands. By taking advantage of this higher power, unlicensed devices can provide high data rate connectivity over substantial distances. These higher power part 15 bands are the home to vast numbers of consumer devices that successfully coexist without the need for licensing or frequency coordination.

Because unintentional radiators do not intentionally emit radiation, they do not have the same constraint as intentional radiators to avoid restricted frequency bands. In general, they must comply with radiated emission limits at frequencies of 30 MHz and above. Regardless of the type of device, e.g., intentional or unintentional radiator, part 15 device operations are subject to the conditions that they do not cause harmful interference to authorized services and must accept any interference that occurs. The operator of a radiofrequency device is required to cease operating it upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference, and operation may not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

Part 15 devices must generally be authorized under either the certification or the Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedure prior to importation and marketing. Most intentional radiators require authorization under the certification procedure, and most unintentional radiators may take advantage of the SDoC procedure, but may also use the certification procedure. Devices authorized under the certification procedure must be tested by an FCC-recognized accredited testing laboratory to demonstrate that they comply with the FCC rules.

Discussion. In this document, the Commission explores making frequency bands commonly used by devices operating under the part 15 unlicensed rules available for space-based communication applications. Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on rule modifications to enable devices operating consistent with the part 15 technical rules to communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions that are United States-licensed or non-United States-licensed and have been granted market access by the Commission, as well as on the appropriate regulatory model and technical requirements necessary to prevent harmful interference to authorized services and adverse impacts on terrestrial part 15 devices. The Commission also proposes to clarify that the use of equipment authorized under the part 15 rules is permitted on board spacecraft, subject to any other applicable restrictions, such as those of federal agencies and international treaties. Additionally, the Commission seek comment on other scenarios and types of applications in which devices operated under the part 15 rules could be used in space, including the specific frequency bands that would be suitable for their operation, and whether the current part 15 requirements would be appropriate for these applications.

Legal Authority. The Commission has maintained rules governing non-licensed operation of certain types of RF devices, such as receivers and low power transmitters, for more than 80 years. Such devices must adhere to the specifications found in part 15 of the Commission's rules, which do not explicitly address whether part 15 devices may be operated in space.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), the Commission has broad jurisdiction over “all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmissions of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio.” Furthermore, the Commission is charged with regulating radio spectrum across the United States in a manner that serves the public interest. Section 301 of the Act provides the Commission with jurisdiction over radio-communication stations, including those operating “upon any . . . mobile stations within the jurisdiction of the United States.” The Commission has long held that its jurisdiction under these provisions is not affected when such radio activity involves a station, instrumentality, apparatus, or facility that happens to be in space. Indeed, the FCC has long exercised jurisdiction over apparatus used for radiocommunications in space under part 25 of the Commission's rules governing satellite communications. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over apparatus otherwise regulated under part 15 of the Commission rules when such apparatus are operating in, or intended to be operated in, space.

Earth-to-Space and Space-to Earth Operations. The recent growth in the satellite, space, and AI industries is significantly increasing demand for spectrum to support new applications in space and between Earth and space, including traditional communications links, D2D services, as well as nascent applications, such as in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM). The Space Bureau recently approved an application that uses satellite uplinks in the 2400-2483.5 MHz frequency band that is heavily used by part 15 devices, noting that these bands would only be used from specific gateway locations for these uplinks. It previously approved other applications for satellites to receive signals from terrestrial devices operating in frequency bands available under the part 15 rules, but for infrequent use from a single United States location. In the interest of making more intensive and efficient use of spectrum to satisfy growing industry needs, including D2D communication services, the Commission seeks comment on allowing new types of satellite operations under part 25, both downlinks (space-to-Earth) and uplinks (Earth-to-space), in the bands where the part 15 rules permit higher power operation.

The approach on which the Commission seeks comment is somewhat similar to what is being done in Europe, where a frequency band used for short range (unlicensed) devices is being used on a limited basis for communications between short range (unlicensed) devices and satellites. The Commission also seeks comment on how it could reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers to permit new types of satellite applications to operate under the part 15 framework.

Unlicensed access points operating under part 15 have become ubiquitous within buildings to provide connectivity to portable devices, such as smartphones, laptops, smartwatches, and IoT devices. Unlicensed access points are also often deployed to provide connectivity in outdoor locations and can have an outdoor range of several kilometers. Permitting Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth communications with space stations authorized under part 25 using devices operating consistent with the existing part 15 technical rules would allow consumer-grade equipment—such as smartphones, laptops, and IoT sensors—additional connectivity options where there is no terrestrial coverage. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption. This concept mirrors the Commission's actions in providing for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS), in which satellites provide service on a secondary basis in spectrum bands that are licensed to terrestrial wireless carriers (600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, Broadband PCS, and AWS-H Block), but without imposing additional licensing burdens on end-user equipment. By leveraging certain bands where higher power unlicensed device usage is permitted under part 15 ( e.g., 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz), but which do not have airborne restrictions or satellite allocations, satellites could receive signals from devices operating under the current part 15 limits and transmit to these devices using similar signal levels.

The Commission seeks comment on whether satellite uplinks present a more manageable coexistence environment than satellite downlinks in the candidate bands. The Commission also asks whether unlicensed D2D services would be concentrated in rural, underserved, or unserved areas. The Commission believes, and seeks comment on whether, any change to the terrestrial radio environment could be at a level low enough so as to not increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized services or adversely impact terrestrial-based part 15 devices' ability to successfully communicate. If possible, such an innovation could enable billions of existing devices that comply with the part 15 unlicensed rules using protocols such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to connect to satellites using existing communication protocols. The Commission seeks comment on the foregoing. Allowing part 15 devices to connect with satellites in these bands on a non-interference basis would promote effective and efficient spectrum utilization. The Commission therefore proposes and seeks comment on satellite use of these two bands, i.e., 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz and seek comment on whether there are any other bands that the Commission should consider. The Commission's goal is to develop a record of how to enable such operations without adversely impacting other users in these or other bands, and a framework that might be used to authorize them.

Allocation Matters. While the part 15 rules contain requirements for devices that can be operated without an individual license, part 15 is not a radio service. Thus, there are no allocations in the Table of Frequency Allocations for devices operating under the Commission's part 15 rules. Rather, part 15 devices operate on a non-interference basis, meaning that they cannot cause interference to authorized services and must accept any interference received.

The part 15 rules do not prohibit using terrestrial-based equipment to transmit to satellites, but they also do not contain any provisions that explicitly permit this type of operation. Similarly, part 15 does not prohibit operation from satellites in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands, but for various reasons, e.g., power limitations, satellite licensing requirements, and international regulations, no parties are operating satellite links under the part 15 rules. In addition, the technical parameters governing part 15 devices were devised assuming terrestrial operations, not operations in space or to devices in space. The Commission seeks comment on possible rule changes that would support satellite services in these three frequency bands, as well as other frequency bands where the part 15 rules permit higher power operations. In this Section III.B.1, the Commission considers the cases of Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth operations and what changes might be necessary to the Table of Frequency Allocations to accommodate both types of operation.

Earth-to-space. Recently, parties have developed systems that use transmitters operating in accordance with part 15 of the rules for transmissions from Earth-to-space. Specifically, Hubble Network, Inc. (Hubble) was granted a satellite license to receive signals from 100 milliwatt (20 dBm) terrestrial devices operating in the 2482.710675-2483.424 MHz portion of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band with technical parameters consistent with part 15 Bluetooth Low Energy device operations. Because there is no allocation for satellite operation in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band and Hubble's operations were licensed as earth stations under the part 25 rules, a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations was required. This waiver was granted for infrequent use from a single United States location.

The Commission believes that streamlining the rules to permit satellites to receive signals from terrestrial devices operating under the part 15 technical rules in certain bands would benefit the public by facilitating the development of new and innovative wireless communication products and services, such as those developed by Hubble. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion. As discussed below in the section on licensing requirements, the Commission is seeking comment on several alternatives for authorizing terrestrial devices operating consistent with the part 15 rules to transmit in the Earth-to-space direction, including licensing them by rule to communicate with FCC-licensed satellites or non-US-licensed satellites that have been granted market access by the Commission, or by licensing them as earth stations under part 25 of the Commission's rules.

Because satellite earth station and space station licenses require a satellite frequency allocation for each frequency band in which they operate, it is currently necessary to grant a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations for each license application that requests operation in any other band, including those available for higher powered part 15 operations, as was done for Hubble. A simpler long-term approach would be to modify the Table of Frequency Allocations to include satellite (Earth-to-space) frequency allocations in bands where the Commission would permit such uplinks to operate.

Accordingly, to provide the ability for earth and space stations to obtain operating authority (either on a licensed or unlicensed basis) in a more streamlined manner without the need for a waiver, the Commission proposes to add a new footnote to the Table of Frequency Allocations that will allow Earth-to-space operations in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band. Additionally, to make more spectrum available for uplink purposes, the Commission proposes to add a satellite uplink allocation via this new footnote in the 5725-5850 MHz band as well. The Commission limits its proposal to these two bands because part 15 devices are generally permitted to operate with power levels up to 4 watts (36 dBm) EIRP in these bands, which makes it potentially feasible to transmit to satellites. These bands, unlike other bands where higher power operation is permitted, also currently have no satellite uplink or downlink allocations, with the exception of the 5830-5850 MHz band. The Commission further proposes that devices licensed to operate under these allocations would be on a non-interference basis to other authorized services in the bands, the same requirement that applies to part 15 unlicensed device operations for these bands whether transmitting between terrestrial stations or to a satellite. That is, they may not cause harmful interference to authorized services and must accept any interference received, including from devices operating under part 15 of the rules and ISM equipment. Further, as discussed in the technical requirements section below, the Commission proposes no change to the current part 15 power limit for devices transmitting to satellites whether the devices operate on a licensed or unlicensed basis, thus there will be no change to the interference environment as a result of this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on the proposals in this paragraph.

Is it necessary to add an allocation for satellite operations in the Earth-to-space direction to either or both of these bands, and if so, in which bands or portions of these bands? What type of satellite service allocations should be added, e.g., FSS, MSS, or other? Do commenters agree or disagree with the Commission's proposal that all satellite operations in the proposed bands would be on a non-interference basis; even if licensed? Commenters that advocate for a different allocation status—primary or secondary—should provide justification for their position, including analysis for how such communication links would operate vis-à-vis other links, both licensed and unlicensed, and what effect a higher allocation status might have on existing part 15 operations. What is the appropriate method for adding an allocation? The Commission proposes to add a footnote allocation, but seeks comment on whether a direct table allocation would be a better regulatory approach. How much operational and technical detail should be in any added footnote? What other factors should the Commission consider in deciding what changes are appropriate? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

Space-to-Earth. Space-to-Earth transmissions can have a larger area of impact than terrestrial transmissions because the space-to-Earth signal can cover a much wider area than terrestrial-based equipment due to the higher altitudes of satellites compared with terrestrial devices. However, given the proper technical and operating parameters, it may be possible that frequency bands available for higher-power operation under the part 15 rules could be used for satellite downlink operations while co-existing with authorized services and terrestrial part 15 users, similar to what was recently permitted in Europe. In that case, the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations released a decision document describing the conditions under which low power devices operating in the 862-870 MHz band may be authorized to communicate with satellites, and satellites may may be authorized to communicate with terrestrial devices in this band. Since numerous unlicensed devices share spectrum on a non-interference basis, the Commission believes that any satellite downlink operations in the bands available under the part 15 rules should also be on a non-interference basis, consistent with these rules and the Commission's proposal for satellite uplinks. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion. Under this approach, the Commission would establish technical rules for satellite operations ( e.g., PFD limits, beamwidth limits, or other technical requirements) designed to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on terrestrial part 15 devices as discussed in more detail in the technical requirements section below.

The Commission seeks comment on whether the U-NII-3 band (5725-5850 MHz) could be used for satellite downlink operations because it has no existing satellite uplink or downlink allocations except as noted above. The Commission seeks comment on this particular band because the higher frequency and correspondingly shorter wavelengths, as compared to the 2400-2483.5 MHz band, would allow for the use of smaller, more directional satellite antennas that could help limit the satellite beam footprint on Earth. However, the Commission recognizes that other frequency bands could be useful for satellite downlinks as well and seeks comment below on whether there are other frequency bands that could be used for this purpose.

If the Commission were to allow space-to-Earth satellite operations in the U-NII-3 band, what type of amendments to the Table of Frequency Allocations would be necessary? Would FSS and/or MSS allocations in the space-to-Earth direction be appropriate? The Commission seeks comment on whether operation, including licensed operation, under a satellite allocation in this band would be on the same non-interference basis as part 15 devices, as the Commission proposed above for the Earth-to-space links. Are there alternatives that the Commission should consider? Could the Commission make allocation changes through a new footnote, which could clearly state what services devices would have to protect, e.g., that satellite downlink operations are on a non-interference basis to other services and users that share the band with part 15 devices? Should the Commission also includes an allocation for inter-satellite links, and if so, what allocation changes would be necessary to accommodate that use? What other factors should the Commission consider? Alternatively, could such operations be conducted on a purely part 15 unlicensed basis? If so, how could the Commission address foreign operators and compliance with other requirements such as ITU filings and orbital debris showings? If the Commission were to authorize inter-satellite links, should they be authorized under the same mechanism as the space-to-Earth links or is a different mechanism needed?

Other frequency bands. While the Commission proposes and seeks comment on making more spectrum available for D2D satellite operations in certain frequency bands where higher-power unlicensed part 15 operations are permitted, the Commission recognizes that these bands contain a finite amount of spectrum. Over time, as satellite use increases, these bands may not have enough spectrum to accommodate future satellite applications. The Commission therefore seeks comment on any additional frequency bands that could be used to accommodate expanded D2D satellite operations under an operational and technical framework consistent with part 15 technical rules.

Are there any other bands that are used by unlicensed devices where the Commission could add satellite allocations, either uplinks, downlinks, or both? For example, should the Commission add a satellite downlink allocation in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a satellite downlink allocation in that band as opposed to the U-NII-3 (5725-5850 MHz band)? Are there any other U-NII bands, i.e., in the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands, where the Commission could possibly add either satellite uplink or downlink allocations? The Commission notes that other U-NII bands contain satellite allocations as well as other services that must be protected, so parties that suggest the use of additional frequency bands should provide an analysis of how communications with satellites could operate in those bands without causing harmful interference to authorized services or adversely affecting the operation of terrestrial part 15 devices. Similarly, if the Commission were to authorize inter-satellite links, what other bands might be appropriate for such transmissions under the framework the Commission is proposing here?

Licensing Framework. The Commission seeks comment on whether devices designed consistent with existing part 15 technical requirements intending to operate under the allocations proposed above need to do so under a licensed approach and what would be an appropriate licensing framework. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment below on whether to modify its rules to permit equipment certified under the Commission's part 15 rules to communicate with certain categories of satellites through a “license by rule” framework under part 25 of the Commission's rules governing satellite communications. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to use a streamlined licensing approach for such equipment under the Commission's part 25 rules governing earth station blanket licensing. For an apparatus that is intended to transmit and/or receive radiocommunications in space, the Commission seeks comment on using its existing part 25 rules to license such operations, as well as on potential alternatives. The Commission discusses these potential licensing frameworks in detail below.

Background. As previously observed, section 301 of the Act requires a license from the FCC for radiocommunication stations, including “any mobile station within the jurisdiction of the United States.” A device operating pursuant to part 15 of the Commission's rules is also a “station” under its rules, which define a station as “[o]ne or more transmitters or receivers or a combination of transmitters and receivers, including the accessory equipment, necessary at one location for carrying on a radiocommunication service, or the radio astronomy service.” Although the Commission has long authorized users to operate radiocommunication stations under part 15 of its rules based on equipment certification rather than station licensing, devices either communicating with stations in space or communicating with stations on Earth from space themselves appear to fall within the definitions of “earth station” or “space station” under the Commission's rules and are required to be authorized under part 25 as satellite communications, which generally requires a license from the Commission.

The Commission has excepted certain categories of stations authorized under part 25 from having to obtain individual station licenses. For example, the Commission does not require licenses for receive-only earth stations communicating with U.S-licensed space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS), but instead permits voluntary registration of such stations in order to protect them from harmful interference in frequency bands shared co-equally with terrestrial fixed service. The Commission also permits a large number of technically-identical stations to be authorized under certain circumstances as part of a single “blanket license” that permits those stations to deploy anywhere within the geographic area specified in the license without site-specific coordination. In addition, under its Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) framework adopted in 2024, the Commission adopted a “license by rule” framework that permits terrestrial wireless equipment that meets the equipment certification requirements in other parts of the Commission's rules ( e.g., part 24 or part 27) to communicate with satellites as a satellite earth station under part 25 of the Commission's rules, but without requiring an individual earth station license for the equipment.

User Equipment. The Commission seeks comment on whether to modify its part 25 rules to permit devices certified under the Commission's part 15 regulatory framework to communicate with certain categories of satellites on a licensed-by-rule basis. This “license by rule” framework would be similar to the approach taken for SCS, under which equipment meeting the equipment certification requirements under other parts of the Commission's rules are permitted to communicate with United States-licensed space stations or non-United States-licensed space stations that have received a grant of United States market access as satellite earth stations under part 25. Under this “license by rule” framework, a device operating consistent with the part 15 rules and within certain bands ( e.g., 2400-2483.5 MHz or 5725-5850 MHz) would be also licensed as an earth station by rule without the need to file and receive approval for a part 25 earth station application for additional authority, provided that the device is operating within the technical parameters of its equipment authorization. As noted, the Commission's intent in seeking to permit devices that meet part 15 technical parameters to communicate with satellites is to expand such devices' reach and scope without changing their regulatory status regarding harmful interference. Thus, all such devices would operate on a non-interference basis. The Commission seeks comment on this possible regulatory framework.

The Commission also seeks comment on whether, as an alternative to the “license by rule” framework, it would be appropriate to adopt a blanket license framework under part 25 for devices certified under the Commission's part 15 regulatory framework and operating in one of the designated bands to communicate with satellites. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what application and operational requirements should govern such blanket licenses. What information about the devices would be required to be provided in an application for such a blanket earth station license? Would the information provided need to be the same as currently required for earth station applications under part 25, or would a streamlined “light touch” approach be appropriate? What informational requirements under the Commission's current or proposed rules governing earth station applications is unnecessary under such a “light touch” approach to blanket licensing of earth stations? Who would be the license holder for the user equipment, and would such a license holder be required to have operational control over the devices, which is an essential characteristic of a licensee? Should there be a numerical limit on the number of user equipment devices that could be applied for under a single blanket earth station license? What would be the appropriate geographic area for deployment of user equipment? What are the comparative benefits and costs of each approach ( i.e., license by rule versus blanket licensing)? Finally, as with the license-by-rule approach, devices operating under a blanket license approach would similarly be required to operate on a non-interference basis. The Commission seeks comment on these questions. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any other alternative regulatory frameworks would be appropriate for permitting certified part 15 devices to communicate with certain categories of satellites. Could these devices be permitted to communicate with satellites under the part 15 rules without also requiring operators to obtain a license under a different rule part? For example, could the Commission develop a new license-by-rule construct under which equipment certified as compliant with the part 15 technical rules is automatically authorized as a part 25 earth station when communicating with Commission-authorized space stations? If so, what part 15 and part 25 rule modifications would be required to accomplish this? Could a lightweight licensing system satisfy national-security considerations? Are there any other licensing and sharing frameworks beyond pure part 15 or hybrid part 15/part 25 models that the Commission should consider, including fully licensed approaches, alternative secondary or opportunistic frameworks, and any other others that could accelerate investment and deployment for D2D? If so, commenters should describe suggested frameworks and their benefits.

The Commission also seeks comment on whether any build-out requirements would be necessary under the proposed framework. Because devices operating in the designated bands would operate on a non-interference basis and would not preclude use of the bands by other potential spectrum users, it may not be necessary to apply to any blanket license the build out requirements of § 25.133 of the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks comment on such an approach. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should apply a similar build-out period to ensure prompt use by the public. Commenters advocating an alternative approach should provide their thoughts on how the Commission would apply build-out requirements for part 15-compliant devices functioning as earth stations. The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

Satellites. The Commission seeks comment on using the part 25 licensing regime to authorize space stations to transmit and receive in frequency bands where part 15 unlicensed devices are permitted to operate at higher power levels. This licensing regime could follow the general framework for authorizing space stations to provide SCS. The Commission seeks comment on allowing applicants to apply for an initial geostationary-orbit (GSO) or NGSO space station authorization, or to modify an existing authorization, to include a space station operating in specific bands consistent with the Commission's proposals to update the Table of Frequency Allocations by including satellite allocations where none exist today. Relatedly, this would include space stations included in a petition for declaratory ruling to obtain United States market access for a non-United States-licensed space station. Further, consistent with the approach taken here, the Commission proposes that any such operations would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis, consistent with part 15 operations. The Commission also expects that in most, if not all, instances satellites will not operate exclusively using these designated frequency bands, but rather they will operate primarily using frequencies allocated for the provision of other satellite services, such as FSS, mobile-satellite service (MSS), or Space Operation Service. As such, operations under the Commission's proposed framework would, similar to SCS, provide satellite operators and consumers with capacity where none may otherwise be available for devices designed for part 15 operations. The Commission seeks comment on these views and whether satellite operators would plan on taking advantage of this low cost connectivity alternative. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is possible to authorize any space station operations—for example, receive-only operations that downlink using frequency bands separately licensed by the FCC—through a license-by-rule provision, analogous to the framework envisioned for terrestrial devices above, without an individual license for the space station. Would such a license-by-rule framework for space station operations in bands used by unlicensed devices be applicable to requests for United States market access by non-US-licensed space stations in such bands? Would the Commission still be able to obtain information about orbital debris mitigation plans of the applicant, as required by the Commission's rules?

The Commission also seeks comment on what processing and service rules should be applied to space stations operating in the designated frequency bands. If such stations are required to operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis, the Commission seeka comment on whether such stations could be authorized outside of the Commission's processing frameworks for GSO-like and NSGO-like space stations, since neither first-come, first-served nor processing round procedures appear necessary to establish priority vis-à-vis other space station licensees. Proposed operations of the satellite in traditional satellite frequency bands, however, would still be subject to first-come, first-served or processing round requirements, as applicable. The Commission seeks comment on these processing frameworks. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt or modify any service rules in part 25 to take into account space stations communicating with devices certified under part 15. For example, although § 25.289 of the Commission's rules protects GSO systems from NGSO systems, the Commission has pointed out that this provision only applies to FSS and Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) operations and does not apply to satellite operations in MSS bands. Accordingly, because the operations the Commission proposes would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis, the Commission does not expect that any such provisions would apply. The Commission seeks comment on this approach to satellite licensing and on any alternative processing and service rules for space stations operating in the designated frequency bands.

The Commission also seeks comment on what technical information must be supplied as part of an application to operate a space station in the designated frequency bands. Because the Commission expects that these new frequency bands would be included in addition to traditional satellite bands, which would need to go through normal processing procedures, the Commission does not believe that any extra information beyond listing the bands and associated power levels and emissions are necessary, as any other requirements, such as orbital debris mitigation plans, should already be accounted for as part of any space station application to operate in traditional satellite bands. The Commission seeks comment on this view. However, should any satellite operator intend to launch a satellite that operates solely in the designated frequency bands, then the Commission believes full satellite-relevant information, as required under part 25, such as a plan for orbital debris mitigation, an ITU satellite network filing, and a brief description of the coverage areas that will be served, would be necessary. The Commission seeks comment on this view. What information would need to be provided to demonstrate compliance with the technical and service rules discussed below, and in what format should that information be provided? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether any certifications need to be provided by an applicant as part of its application to operate in any of the designated frequency bands? Is it sufficient for the applicant to certify that the space station operations in the designated frequency bands will comport with any technical parameters that the Commission adopts for such operations? In addition, is it sufficient for applicants to certify compliance with any technical and service rules adopted as part of this document, or is a demonstration of compliance necessary? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

The Commission also seeks comment on allowing the satellite operator to choose its regulatory status as either a common carrier or non-common carrier, as is allowed under the Commission's part 25 rules and its SCS framework. Similar to the Commission's view regarding technical information, because the Commission expects that the proposed operations would be ancillary to traditional satellite frequency bands, the Commission believes that minimal conditions need be placed on satellites pursuant to such operation. The Commission seeks comment on this view. For example, such operation would automatically be extended for whatever license terms, including renewals and extensions, as approved for any other frequency bands on the satellite. However, if any satellite operator intends to launch a satellite that operates only in the designated bands, then the Commission would need to separately impose such requirements. In such cases, the Commission seeks comment on subjecting those space stations to its existing part 25 license term rules, as well as the Commission's part 25 rules governing renewals or extensions of license terms. Similarly, in such cases, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's rules governing milestones and bonds for space stations should be applicable. Should any performance requirements be imposed to ensure that spectrum is intensely and efficiently used. Should milestones on when GSO and NGSO space stations must be launched and operated be imposed, and should the requirement to post a surety bond within a certain time period after grant of the license be imposed. The Commission seeks comment on these issues.

Finally, the Commission seeks comment on an alternative approach and ask whether it is feasible to create a framework for space stations authorized to communicate with devices certified under the Commission's part 15 regulatory framework similar to its “Permitted Space Station List.” Under such a framework, a list could be maintained on the FCC website identifying all satellites authorized to include a space station offering communication links in any of the designated frequency bands. Similarly, the Commission also seeks comment on whether a viable approach would be to adopt a rule that would permit any user equipment certified to part 15 requirements and licensed by rule to communicate with satellites on this list without further authorization from the Commission

Technical and Service Rules. In this Section III.B.3, the Commission proposes to amend its rules to permit devices to communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands under the same technical requirements that apply to part 15 intentional radiators. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the general types of technical requirements that would be required for satellite communications to devices in the space-to-Earth direction in the 5725-5850 MHz band or any other frequency bands available where part 15 rules permit higher power. The Commission's intent is to enable new uses of these frequency bands without adversely impacting existing uses of the bands, both licensed and unlicensed.

Earth-to-Space. The Commission proposes to allow terrestrial devices certified as compliant with the part 15 technical requirements that operate in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and/or 5725-5850 MHz bands to communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction. These rules protect authorized services from harmful interference and have enabled effective spectrum sharing between billions of unlicensed devices. The Commission proposes no increase in the maximum permissible power or antenna gain, and no changes to any of the other technical rules ( e.g., bandwidth, OOBE) that apply to unlicensed devices in these bands.

The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would allowing devices operating under the part 15 technical rules to transmit from Earth-to-space increase the likelihood of harmful interference to authorized services or adversely affect spectrum sharing by unlicensed devices? Commenters should provide specific examples and analysis to support their position. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether this proposed change could impact radio astronomy observations, which are carried out in specific remote, low population density areas and currently use spectrum on an opportunistic basis? What would be the impact of expanded use of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band on S/X Celestial Reference Frame observations? Are there technical measures that could address concerns about radio astronomy, such as requiring devices to incorporate a geofencing system to facilitate compatibility with radio astronomy receive sites? Are the current part 15 technical requirements suitable for communications with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction in these bands? If the Commission were to allow Earth-to-space transmissions in any frequency bands besides the three discussed above, would the current part 15 technical requirements be suitable in those bands? Should the requirements for frequency hopping and digital modulation techniques apply to devices transmitting to satellites in these bands, and if not, what requirements should apply? Are the current out-of-band emission limits adequate? How would part 15 devices determine whether they are communicating with another terrestrial device or a satellite? Would permitting communication with satellites encourage increased usage of devices at the highest permissible power level? Would this affect frequency reuse by part 15 operation and what would be the overall impact to the wide range of part 15 devices sharing these bands? Do the Commission needs to place any limitations on the operation of devices transmitting to space from high altitudes to avoid changing the interference environment, such as prohibiting operation on aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems? As the number of LEO satellites grows, what will be the expected impact on the large number of unlicensed part 15 terrestrial devices? Should the Commission require part 15 devices authorized to communicate with space stations to use a contention-based protocol, or implement other techniques to facilitate coexistence with existing and other terrestrial unlicensed devices? For example, in the Commission's 6 GHz rules, the Commission uses an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system to facilitate coexistence between low power unlicensed and higher power licensed services, including satellite earth stations. Would a similar sharing framework for coexistence between unlicensed terrestrial and NGSO earth stations facilitate a wider range of beneficial services than a framework limited to the current part 15 rules? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

While the Commission proposes no changes to the part 15 technical requirements for devices used to communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction, the Commission recognizes that there are certain tradeoffs regarding device design, simplicity, and performance for satellite communications. The current part 15 technical requirements could potentially limit or preclude certain types of satellite-based services, e.g., those that require high throughput such as video transmissions, or where satellites orbit at higher altitudes above the Earth. If there is a need to enhance communication performance to enable, for example, better uplink throughput, what changes should the Commission consider? What technical rules could the Commission develop that are more tailored to satellite D2D links and that could unlock higher-value services without compromising the non-interference character of the bands? For example, should the Commission permit higher power levels than 4 watts (36 dBm) EIRP in D2D applications? Should the Commission have specific antenna requirements such as gain and directivity limits in both the horizontal and vertical planes? Since it does not appear necessary for a device that transmits to satellites passing overhead to radiate full power at all angles above the horizon, is there a need to place limits on the radiated power at lower angles above the horizon to enable more efficient use of the spectrum? If so, what antenna gain or power limits, and at what angles above the horizon, are necessary, and would such limits be practical for non-fixed devices? Could requiring devices to direct more of their energy upward potentially impact aviation or other transportation operations? Should the Commission place any additional requirements on such devices to avoid adversely affecting spectrum sharing between unlicensed devices? Could devices be designed such that they are able to use additional power or different antennas for D2D satellite communications, but revert to current part 15 limits for communicating with other terrestrial-based part 15 devices? In all cases, the Commission proposes that such operations are on an unprotected, non-interference basis. The Commission seeks comment on these questions.

Space-to-Eartth. The Commission seeks comment on the types of technical parameters that would be necessary to facilitate the sharing of spectrum between space stations communicating in the space-to-Earth direction and terrestrial operations, both licensed and unlicensed, when communicating in the designated bands ( e.g., the 5725-5850 MHz or other bands contemplated above) with devices that operate consistent with part 15 technical rules. Satellite downlink communications present unique characteristics that are not fully addressed by the existing part 15 rules. For instance, terrestrial devices are generally designed to receive communications from a horizontal direction with a relatively smaller footprint. Because satellites illuminate larger geographical areas than terrestrial devices, sharing between satellite downlink and terrestrial devices involves additional sharing considerations. The Commission therefore seeks comment on a number of issues to develop a record on how to enable space-to-Earth operations without causing harmful interference to authorized services or adversely affecting part 15 device operations. To develop a complete record on these issues, the Commission seeks comment with regard to all of the frequency bands contemplated above for Earth-to-space operations.

Terrestrial part 15 device coexistence with satellite operations. As evidenced by their prevalence in all facets of the Commission's lives, terrestrial devices operating under the part 15 rules provide many benefits to businesses and for personal use. The Commission's intent here is to provide more opportunities for connectivity without adversely affecting their use and ask commenters to provide analysis and data regarding the best way to achieve such coexistence. As noted in the NPRM, the Commission proposes to develop rules that would enable terrestrial part 15 devices to coexist with new satellite services without adverse impacts. Satellite operators could implement various methods to enable coexistence, including limiting the maximum PFD on the ground, limiting the size of the satellite beam on Earth, adhering to aggregate emission limits, and other technical limits or requirements, such as using a contention-based protocol ( e.g., listen-before-talk) requirement. Each of these methods is discussed in greater detail below. In considering the potential impact of satellite operations on terrestrial part 15 devices, parties should consider two important points. First, many part 15 devices are used indoors where satellite signals are significantly attenuated by buildings, so the likelihood of adverse impacts on them from new satellite operations appears low. Second, in densely populated areas there are likely to be multiple communication services available through either licensed or unlicensed access and in many cases buildings and other structures will block signals from reaching the ground, so new satellite services are unlikely to be competitive or cost effective in those areas. Thus, the Commission expects that any new satellite services in frequency bands proposed here would be used primarily outside of densely populated areas.

Power Flux Density and Antenna Beam Limits. Power flux density (PFD) limits are often used as a mechanism to facilitate spectrum sharing between satellite downlink and terrestrial services. These limits restrict the signal power a satellite is permitted to project onto the Earth's surface per unit area and bandwidth. Under part 15 of the Commission's rules, all unlicensed devices operate on non-interference basis, meaning that these devices may not cause harmful interference and must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operations. The Commission seeks comment on how this non-interference status should shape the formulation of PFD limits for satellite downlinks transmitting in the designated frequency bands.

What PFD limits would be necessary to maintain the continued operational utility of the part 15 ecosystem while protecting authorized users in the designated bands? For example, would PFD limits similar to those in part 25 be appropriate? Would these limits be sufficient to protect the incumbent federal radiolocation operations in the 5725-5850 MHz band? Could the Commission require PFD limits similar to those that the ECC specifies for space-to-Earth transmissions in the 862-870 MHz band? Would those limits be appropriate, considering that they were designed for a lower frequency range with a smaller amount of available spectrum and to protect different incumbent spectrum users? Given that the PFD on the ground varies as a function of angle above the horizon (elevation angle), and considering that the antenna gain of terrestrial devices also exhibits angular dependencies, should the PFD limit be expressed as a function of elevation angle? Would a PFD limit that is low enough to prevent harmful interference to authorized users and enable coexistence with terrestrial users be sufficient to close a link with targeted terrestrial devices, and if so, with what expected data rates? How many devices would be within a satellite downlink spot beam and how will desired communications with targeted devices impact other operators in the band? What would be the impact on frequency reuse in the band of operation and how would equipment operating under a listen-before-talk protocol be affected by satellite signals? What would be the impact on sharing protocols that have been implemented in part 15 equipment that was designed to accommodate low power short range terrestrial operations? Given that terrestrial receivers typically have antenna nulls directed toward space, could this factor allow for higher PFD limits? Should the Commission mandate specific operational requirements for satellite transmissions, such as a minimum elevation angle of operation? If the Commission were to adopt PFD limits, should those limits be codified in part 25 as with other satellite operations or in part 15? Is there an advantage to using either rule part?

As the PFD is related to a specific antenna beam or combination of beams, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the on-the-ground footprint for any given beam should be limited. Because a satellite beam illuminates much more area than a terrestrial-based antenna, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should set a maximum limit either for single entry or aggregate PFD levels from the satellite. Such a requirement could help protect terrestrial unlicensed operations from any adverse impact by limiting the level of in-band noise received by unlicensed devices. Commenters in favor of such limits should provide details both on the size and technical justification for any requested limits. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether such satellite transmissions should be restricted to certain geographic areas. For example, because the Commission believes that such operations would extend the reach of devices certified to part 15 limits to areas with little or no terrestrial infrastructure, should only those areas be served by satellites operating in the designated bands? If so, how would the Commission determine those areas ( e.g., by population density)? The Commission seeks comment on these issues.

Aggregate Emission Limits. The Commission seeks comment on how it could address issues arising from multiple satellite constellations operated by different operators. In the Commission's recently adopted framework governing SCS, the Commission established limits in certain frequency bands on the aggregate field strength at the Earth's surface produced by all visible beams and satellites within a single constellation. Tshe Commission notes that SCS involves communications in bands that are fully licensed, while the Commission is focusing on other options such as a licensed-by-rule approach, which may result in the need for differing requirements due to factors such as the number of satellite operators and constellation sizes. Is there a need for an aggregate field strength or PFD limit to maintain the continued operational utility of the part 15 ecosystem and protect authorized users in the designated bands? If so, what should that limit be and what specific technical factors should determine it? Should there be any limit on the number of beams allowed to illuminate the same geographical area simultaneously, and what factors should be included in an aggregate calculation? Should an aggregate limit apply to each satellite system individually or to the combined energy of all satellite systems? If a limit applies collectively, how should the calculation account for multiple independent operators? How could compliance with a limit be enforced, and would this require a real-time coordination mechanism?

Out-of-Band Emission (OOBE) Limits. The Commission seeks comment on what OOBE limits would be necessary for devices operated in space-to-Earth applications in the designated bands. Should devices be required to meet the existing part 15 OOBE limits, which specify a limit of −27 dBm/MHz EIRP at 75 MHz above or below the edge of the 5725-5850 MHz band, with higher levels permitted closer to the band edge? Alternatively, should the Commission establishes a limit consistent with the part 25 rules which require specific levels of attenuation below the mean output power of the transmitter at specific frequency separations from the assigned frequency of operation? Should the Commission establishes OOBE limits in terms of PFD, and if so, how could a PFD limit be derived from the current part 15 or part 25 limit? What factors should the Commission consider in determining the appropriate emission limit? The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a need to establish an aggregate OOBE limit as the Commission did for SCS, e.g., a PFD limit of −120 dBW/m 2 /MHz at 1.5 meters above ground level? In seeking comment on this issue, the Commission notes that SCS is a fully licensed service, whereas in this document the Commission have been focusing on other options such as a licensed-by-rule approach. Parties that believe that an aggregate OOBE limit is necessary should consider this distinction and should also address the issues described above concerning aggregate in-band limits.

Other Technical Requirements. The Commission seeks comment on whether all of the technical limits that currently apply to terrestrial operations under the part 15 rules should apply to devices used for space-to-Earth transmissions. For example, should the Commission applies the existing minimum bandwidth, frequency hopping, and power spectral density rules to devices operated on satellites? Are there provisions in the existing technical rules that could hinder satellite uses? Are there any additional requirements that would be necessary to prevent harmful interference to authorized services such as radio astronomy observations as discussed above or to better enable coexistence with existing unlicensed applications? For example, is there a need for limits on frequency stability, transmit duty cycle, or maximum bandwidth? Should the Commission require a contention-based protocol mechanism whereby a satellite contends for terrestrial spectrum usage before transmission and possibly limits or modifies its transmissions based on the amount of available spectrum? Noting the longer transmission paths to satellites compared to terrestrial-only operations, advocates for using a contention-based-protocol should address what requirements would be necessary and how it could work given that disparity. Could terrestrial devices implement the contention-based-protocol sensing and relay that information to a satellite? In such a scenario, do the protocols support any scheduling mechanisms which can account for the differences in transmission time to avoid packet collisions? If multiple parties develop satellite systems that share spectrum, is there a need for time synchronization between time division duplex (TDD) systems, or frequency usage between frequency division duplex (FDD) systems, and if so, how could that be accomplished? If existing technical limits are insufficient or additional requirements appear necessary, commenters should offer specific suggestions for modifications, including a justification for why those changes are needed.

Equipment Authorization. Part 15 intentional radiators must generally be approved under the equipment certification procedure. This procedure requires that equipment be tested at an FCC-recognized accredited laboratory to demonstrate that it complies with the requirements in the rules, and then approved by an FCC-designated Telecommunication Certification Body. A certification requirement also applies to terrestrial transmitting devices under the part 22, 24, and 27 rules, as well as portable earth station transceivers under the part 25 rules. Equipment used on satellites for space-to-Earth transmissions must be licensed by the Commission under part 25 and must comply with all requirements and conditions of the license, but it does not go through an equipment certification process.

Under the SCS framework, the Commission requires that terrestrial wireless equipment operating under at least one of parts 22, 24, or 27 that also communicates with a satellite must be certified as a satellite earth station under part 25. The Commission also established a streamlined process for applicants to expand existing part 22, 24, and 27 equipment certifications to include part 25.

The Commission does not propose any changes to the existing requirement that intentional radiators operating under the part 15 rules must generally be certified before they can be imported, marketed and operated, nor do the Commission proposes any changes concerning equipment it has included on the Covered List of equipment it has determined to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons. However, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a need to adopt any additional requirements for terrestrial devices that comply with the part 15 rules and are intended to communicate with satellites. Specifically, is there any need for devices that are designed to comply with part 15 technical requirements, but also intended to communicate with satellites under the framework proposed herein, to also be certified under part 25? If the Commission were to require a part 25 certification in addition to a part 15 certification, the Commission proposes that it would be applied only to new equipment authorizations or authorizations being updated through the permissive change process. Equipment already certified for part 15 would be permitted to communicate with satellites under their existing equipment authorizations. What would be the benefits of that requirement to consumers and the Commission, and would these benefits outweigh the burdens of requiring an additional certification? In this context, to simplify the certification process the Commission proposes that no additional device testing would be necessary to obtain the part 25 certification in addition to the part 15 certification, and that simply meeting the part 15 technical rules would render the device also eligible for the part 25 certification. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how such an approach might or might not work if the Commission were to modify certain rules either for terrestrial or space-based equipment ( e.g., power, out-of-band-emissions, and antenna gain) to facilitate communications between these terrestrial devices and satellites. Are there options for permitting or requiring different approaches based on the authorization framework— i.e., fully licensed versus licensed by rule versus unlicensed? In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how various equipment certification requirements combined with different authorization requirements and the Commission's prospective application of the certification requirements have implications for currently certified equipment that also meets the criteria for covered equipment on the Commission's Covered List as such equipment is not eligible for new certifications or permissive changes. Are there alternative approaches that would be simpler, and if so, what would they be? Are any specific requirements necessary beyond the existing part 15 certification requirements, and if so, how could the Commission make these the least burdensome possible?

International Issues. The Commission seeks comment on how the framework discussed in this document for permitting devices that meet part 15 technical parameters to communicate with satellites could be implemented consistent with international obligations of the United States as a Member State of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

ITU. The United States is a Member State of the ITU. As an ITU Member State, the United States adheres to the ITU Radio Regulations. Under the framework discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on authorizing space stations and earth stations to operate in certain frequency bands where part 15 devices are permitted to operate with higher power pursuant to a satellite allocation in the United States, but also on an unprotected, non-interference basis. While adding a satellite allocation to the designated bands would render such operations consistent with the United States Table, these operations would not conform with the International Table which does not currently include such satellite allocations, and operation, particularly with respect to the potential for harmful interference to or from cross-border stations, would be governed by ITU Radio Regulation No. 4.4. This provision states that “Administrations of the Member States shall not assign to a station any frequency in derogation of either the Table of Frequency Allocations in this Chapter or the other provisions of these Regulations, except on the express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Convention and these Regulations.” Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on what steps should be taken to ensure that any frequency assignments that are made as a result of this document that are not consistent with the International Table do not cause harmful interference to, or result in claims of protection from harmful interference from, stations that are operating in accordance with ITU provisions, including the International Table. The framework discussed above includes requiring that operations be conducted on an unprotected, non-interference basis, in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions. In addition, it envisions requiring that appropriate materials be submitted to the ITU as part of any space station application that seeks to operate in bands available for unlicensed devices in addition to operations in bands licensed for traditional satellite services. The Commission seeks comment on how these requirements can be implemented consistent with the Commission's obligations under the ITU Constitution and Convention, including those pertaining to the ITU Radio Regulations, particularly ITU Radio Regulation No. 4.4. The Commission also seeks comment on what analyses or other showings could be required as part of a space station application to demonstrate that the operations would not cause harmful interference to stations operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. In addition, to the extent that space station applicants licensed under part 25 of the Commission's rules plan to communicate with areas outside of the United States, pursuant to a market access authorization issued by another jurisdiction, the Commission seeks comment on what measures should be disclosed as part of the application to eliminate immediately any harmful interference concerns. Should the authorization include a condition that communications with areas outside of the United States are only permitted if the governing administration has authorized such communications and must be subject to that authorization? Should documentation of such authorization be provided to the Commission prior to when a United States-licensed space station begins operations in an area outside of the United States?

International Harmonization. We also seek comment on what measures could be taken to promote international harmonization, particularly with Canada and Mexico. Although the framework discussed in this document would authorize satellite communications in the United States only, a United States satellite license includes all operations of that United States-licensed space station—including authorization of transmission or reception at the space station to/from stations located outside of the United States. As observed in the SCS proceeding, such communications are subject to the laws, regulations, and requirements of any country in connection with communications in that country, including but not limited to, authorization to communicate with earth stations in that jurisdiction. The Commission seeks comment on whether United States-authorized space stations that can be used to communicate with equipment meeting part 15 technical parameters (or the foreign equivalent) outside of the United States should require a licensee to ensure that all of its operations are duly authorized by the country in which such communications will occur and that it will satisfy all terms and conditions of any foreign license or authorization, as was adopted for SCS.

National Security Issues. The Secure Networks Act is designed to protect the nation's communications infrastructure from foreign security threats. It established a comprehensive framework to identify, block, and remove untrusted equipment from American networks. The Secure Networks Act requires the Commission to publish a list of equipment and services that pose “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons” based on specific determinations made by certain enumerated sources (Covered List). Through the Secure Equipment Act, Congress directed the Commission to “no longer review or approve any application for equipment authorization for equipment that is on the [Covered List][.]” In the EA Security R&O and FNPRM (insert FR cite, date publish), the Commission established several new rules to prohibit authorization of equipment identified on the Commission's Covered List developed pursuant to the Secure Networks Act. In the EA Security Second R&O and FNPRM, the Commission provided further guidance on the prohibition on authorization of covered equipment, prohibited the authorization of devices that contain certain component parts identified on the Covered List, and adopted a procedure to implement prohibitions on the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment.

The Commission seeks comment on national security concerns associated with any of the proposals above. Would permitting satellites that can transmit and/or receive in frequency bands available under the part 15 rules pose any national security concerns? As discussed above, any proposed new satellite operations would fall under a part 25 authorization framework. Would the part 25 space station licensing framework sufficiently address potential national security concerns? If not, what new types of concerns would be raised? Would allowing satellite uplink or downlink operations in frequency bands that are widely used by part 15 unlicensed devices provide any new openings for bad actors to exploit or state sponsored espionage? Are there devices (including modules) or classes of devices that should be prohibited from communicating with satellites? Would there be national security risks posed by such communication with devices that have already been granted equipment authorizations? What steps could the Commission take to address any potential new national security concerns?

Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether allowing terrestrial equipment that communicates with satellites in frequency bands available under part 15 raises any new national security issues that the Commission needs to address. Is there a need to require manufacturers to take any additional steps to secure their equipment, and if so, what steps would be necessary? Would the Commission need to place additional requirements on certain types of equipment or certain manufacturers to address any national security concerns?

The Commission notes it has acknowledged that Covered List entities could operate in a manner analogous to blanket domestic section 214 authority by offering non-common carrier service without advance review by the Commission if they use equipment that meets the technical criteria of the Commission's Part 15 rules. Could expanding the Part 15 rules to allow for satellite D2D as discussed herein inadvertently facilitate Covered List entities' ability to offer non-common carrier service by means of satellite technology? Should the Commission explicitly exclude entities identified on the Covered List from, by default, being able to offer service to the public or other third parties by utilizing unlicensed operations enabled by satellite? Should Covered List entities be explicitly prohibited from any non-Part 15 licensing framework discussed above, such as license-by-rule or blanket licenses for earth stations or receive-only space stations?

Within Spacecraft. Various devices that operate under part 15 of the rules, particularly those containing transmitters such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, can prove useful for essential functions on the growing number of crewed missions. For example, laptop computers can be used in scientific experiments, for communication with other personnel, and for entertainment purposes on long missions. Smartphones can be used for taking pictures and also for communicating with families on earth and smart watches can monitor the health of the space crews while using Wi-Fi or Bluetooth protocols. The part 15 rules do not specifically prohibit or allow the use of these devices within spacecraft. Today, these devices are allowed to be used by astronauts in the ISS via close coordination with NASA. A list of devices that will be brought onto the ISS is provided to the FCC before each mission and the Office of Engineering and Technology of the FCC confirms that these devices are certified and compliant to the part 15 rules. NASA administers the overall process for the electronic devices that can be brought into the ISS.

To provide clarity on the requirements for unlicensed devices aboard spacecraft, the Commission proposes to modify the part 15 rules to confirm that the operation of certified unlicensed devices within spacecraft is a permissible use, subject to any other applicable restrictions, such as those of federal agencies and international treaties. The Commission is limiting this proposal to operation within spacecraft because the Commission believes that there are a number of factors that make the potential interference from part 15 devices within spacecraft to authorized users of the spectrum on earth extremely unlikely. For example, the distance separation from Earth will significantly attenuate any signals from a spacecraft, thus significantly reducing the potential to cause harmful interference to authorized services on Earth. Also, the spacecraft shielding that protects occupants and equipment inside from radiation and temperature extremes will also act as RF shielding to severely attenuate signals radiating outside of the spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on these views.

Operation of part 15 devices on board spacecraft would be subject to the same non-interference requirement in section 15.5 as terrestrial devices. Unintentional radiators emit significantly lower signal levels than intentional radiators, so unintentional radiators used within spacecraft will have an even lower potential for causing harmful interference than intentional radiators. The Commission is therefore proposing to confirm that the use of unintentional radiators within spacecraft is also a permissible use under part 15 of the rules. The proposed changes would benefit crew members and passengers by making clear that both intentional and unintentional radiators, such as smartphones, smart watches, notebooks and tablets, could be operated within spacecraft, subject to any other applicable restrictions, such as those of federal agencies and international treaties. The Commission emphasizes that this proposal applies solely to operation within a spacecraft, such as a wireless connection from a portable device to a wireless access point within a spacecraft.

The Commission proposes to add a new section to part 15 confirming that the operation of intentional and unintentional radiators that comply with the technical and authorization requirements is permissible within spacecraft ( i.e., within a fully shielded environment, but remains subject to any other requirements for equipment used in space. For example, the Commission could as part of its part 25 licensing process impose requirements, such as specific limitations on the types of equipment or operating frequencies that can be used on board spacecraft. Does the Commission's proposal sufficiently limit the likelihood of harmful interference to authorized services on Earth? Are the current part 15 rules sufficiently protective in this scenario? Should the Commission limit the types of devices that can be operated on spacecraft? Do the Commission needs to place restrictions on the frequency bands in which they can operate, and if so, in which bands? Conversely, does the fact that devices would operate within an enclosed spacecraft mean that the Commission could in some cases permit higher power or other types of operations not currently permitted under the part 15 rules? If so, what particular technical requirements could be modified? Should the Commission consider a different interference management policy for part 15 devices operating within spacecraft than for terrestrial operation? If so, how can such processes be managed? How could the Commission ensures that equipment specifically designated for use within a spacecraft which might have different operating parameters from terrestrial based devices are not used on Earth where the potential for causing harmful interference might be much greater than within a controlled spacecraft environment?

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and Communications Between Spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on what rule changes it could make to facilitate extravehicular activity (EVA) and communications between spacecraft or other space-based devices ( e.g., equipment used for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) applications) to support developing space industries. The types of applications that might be used in EVA and communications between spacecraft could include voice, video, and data communications, especially for use of robotic arms and other apertures, and could also include radars and field disturbance sensors to help locate and position personnel, spacecraft, satellites, or other objects. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment and what other types of applications for EVA and communications between spacecraft could use equipment operating in the bands available for part 15 devices.

The Commission believes that unlicensed devices could play a pivotal role in unleashing new applications related to ISAM. The Commission seeks comment on this view. The Commission, in 2024, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed a new framework for licensing space stations engaged in ISAM. ISAM refers to a set of capabilities used in-orbit, on the surface of space objects and celestial bodies, and in transit between these regimes. The Commission seeks comment on the potential use of devices operating under the part 15 technical requirements for various uses, including EVA and communications between spacecraft, that may be considered as part of ISAM capabilities.

While the Commission recognizes the potential benefits of making more spectrum available for EVA and communications between spacecraft, the Commission will not at this time propose specific rule changes to facilitate these applications for devices operating under the part 15 rules. Devices must operate under the part 15 rules on a non-interference basis, and transmissions from space can potentially impact terrestrial operations over a wide area. However, to build a record on the possibility of using frequencies available under part 15 for EVA and communications between spacecraft, the Commission is seeking comment on a number of issues, including potential frequency bands, power levels, antenna requirements, and other technical issues. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are any international treaties or agreements that must be considered in permitting communications in space in these frequency bands, as discussed above in the context of Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth transmissions in these bands.

The Commission seeks comment on the frequency bands that could be used for communications or other transmissions ( e.g., field disturbance sensors, radars, Ultra-Wideband devices) in EVA and between spacecraft. Would any of the currently available frequency bands described above be suitable? Are there other frequency bands that could be used for these purposes? Are there certain frequency bands that should be excluded, such as the current part 15 restricted bands or bands with satellite allocations, and why? What is the potential for harmful interference to authorized services or adverse impacts to other part 15 intentional radiators, either in space or on Earth? Could potential interference be mitigated through appropriate antenna pattern design or other approaches? If so, what specific antenna characteristics are necessary? With respect to power levels and OOBE limits, the Commission notes that the current part 15 rules were developed for a terrestrial environment that has significantly more clutter losses than the space environment, as well as significant temperature and other differences. With that in mind, the Commission seeks comment on whether the current power and antenna gain limits are suitable. Are the current OOBE limits adequate to prevent harmful interference? Do any of these parameters need to be adjusted for operation in the space environment? Commenters should provide specific technical proposals as well as reasoning for each to justify any recommended changes. Would enough devices operate in this scenario such that the Commission should consider an aggregate interference limit for them? Would any additional requirements for devices operated in EVA or communications between spacecraft be necessary to limit the likelihood of harmful interference, such as antenna directivity requirements or limits on the operational time in orbit?

Unintentional Radiators. While many commonly used part 15 devices are intentional radiators, part 15 also requires unintentional radiators to comply with emission limits. Unintentional radiators include computers and other devices with digital circuitry that generate and use high frequency timing signals, power supplies associated with computers and digital devices, as well as radio receivers that generate radio frequency signals used in their tuning circuitry. The Commission is aware of reports of satellites emitting signals that are impacting ground based receivers, and may possibly be impacting other satellites as well. For example, some parties state that they have detected both wideband and narrowband signals from a satellite constellation at frequencies between 40 and 70 MHz and between 110 and 188 MHz. These reports suggest that the signals in question are being generated unintentionally, such as through power supplies or digital circuitry. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Working Party 7D is currently studying this issue. Depending on the source of the signals that various parties have observed, it is possible that they are of a type that would be subject to the part 15 unintentional radiator limits in terrestrial-based equipment.

The Commission seeks comment on the issue of unintentional emissions generated by satellites or other spacecraft. What is the extent of the observed problems? What types of ground-based services are being impacted and where? Are unintentional emissions from satellites and spacecraft affecting radio astronomy observations? Are there also concerns about effects to satellite systems in orbit and if so, which ones? What is the likely source of the unintentional emissions in question? Are there any observed problems that seem to be worsening over time? Does there appear to be a need for actions to reduce unintentional emissions from satellites or other spacecraft? If so, what actions could be taken? As noted above, the environmental differences create disparities in signal attenuation between those emanating from space and those being transmitted from terrestrial-based stations. If the Commission were to require unintentional radiators operating in space to comply with emission limits, would the current part 15 unintentional radiator limits be appropriate? Do they cover the required frequency range, or would the Commission needs higher or lower frequency cutoffs for measuring radiated emissions, e.g., at frequencies below 30 MHz? Are the part 15 emission limits sufficiently protective to prevent harmful interference to potentially impacted services or would the Commission needs tighter limits in any frequency ranges? If so, in what instances and frequency bands would this be necessary, and what limits should apply? Due to the potentially large number of devices that could be emitting simultaneously, would the Commission needs to consider aggregate interference from unintentional radiators in space? If so, how could the Commission set and enforce aggregate interference limits?

Costs and Benefits. The Commission estimates that the economic benefits of the proposed rule changes to enhance space-based communications for part 15 devices will substantially outweigh the costs, which the Commission expects to be minimal. The Commission seeks comment on this view. The expanded ability to use part 15 devices for Earth-to-space applications could result in new and innovative wireless communication products and services by lowering barriers to entry. For example, Hubble and Spire were granted satellite licenses in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band through the grant of a waiver of the Commission's rules, whereas the proposed rules changes could eliminate the need for such waivers and lower entry barriers for new technologies. The Commission lacks information to precisely estimate the economic value of these yet-to-be developed new products and services, but the Commission expects that such uplinking capabilities could be valuable for IoT services, especially in rural areas. The Commission seeks comment on this expectation. In addition, the Commission's proposal to formally allow part 15 devices to communicate within spacecraft could eliminate the current practice of ad hoc approvals for each within-space vehicle use of devices like laptops. The Commission judges the cost of these approvals to be modest given that allowing earth-to-space communications in these bands are not expected to change the interference environment for other licensed or unlicensed users of these bands. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption. The proposed rule changes allowing EVA and communications between spacecraft could foster innovation and encourage the development of new services, including in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing. Finally, the proposed rules might aid in managing interference from unintentional radiators either withing spacecraft or more broadly.While the Commission lacks information to precisely quantify each of these benefits, in terms of relative magnitudes, the Commission expects the most benefits to flow from Earth-to-space applications, since the user base of part 15 Earth-based devices is larger than the user base of devices in spaces. The Commission seeks comment on this judgment, in addition to data and quantitative estimates on the magnitude of benefits. The Commission seeks information about potential new applications in Earth-to-space, within spacecraft, for EVA, and between spacecraft communications that may generate such benefits. Of particular interest would be estimates of the potential number of users and devices impacted and the magnitudes of use of these new applications.

The Commission recognizes that rule changes to allow part 15 space-to-Earth communications may have substantial benefits due to the large number of terrestrial part 15 devices that could benefit from such communications without the requirement for new hardware. However, the Commission also recognizes there are potentially significant technical challenges in minimizing interference issues with other licensed and unlicensed devices for any new space-based communications in these bands. Implementation will require careful consideration of technical safeguards, including power flux density limits, out-of-band emission controls, and potentially aggregate interference limits to ensure coexistence with incumbent services and terrestrial part 15 operations. In addition, coordination with international obligations under the ITU Radio Regulations and the Outer Space Treaty will be necessary to avoid creating harmful interference for devices authorized in other countries and to ensure space station operators conform with all relevant international requirements. Benefits of any part 15 rule change for space-to-Earth communications will therefore be dependent on their exact technical implementation and whether the potential interference issues with terrestrial devices can be resolved. As the Commission proposes no rule changes for part 15 space-to-Earth communications here and lack information on how part 15 space-to-Earth communications would be implemented, the Commission does not estimate expected benefits at this time. However, the Commission seeks information on how part 15 space-to-Earth communications would be implemented and estimates of the potential number of users and devices impacted and the benefits that may flow from these new applications.

The Commission estimates costs of the proposed part 15 rule changes to be minimal or non-existent. The Commission seeks comment on this view. The Commission expects that the proposed rule changes here and in any future proposal will not disturb incumbent use of the associated spectrum and that frequency interference will be minimal to non-existent. The Commission seeks comment on this expectation. The rule changes for Earth-to-space and within spacecraft communication simply remove a purely regulatory ban on a technical capability to receive signals that satellites have always had. The Commission expects final rules changes for EVA and between spacecraft communications to minimize interference with incumbent users. Costs may increase with compliance obligations may also increase for some stakeholders. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether part 15 devices intended to communicate with satellites should also obtain certification under the Commission's part 25 licensing rules. However, the Commission expects that these compliance costs would be relatively small and invoked on a largely voluntary basis. As voluntary actions, the compliance costs would then be outweighed by private value-added from the newly certified uses. The Commission seeks comment on the expectation of minimal or no cost impact, especially with regards to expanded Space-to-Earth interference and potential interference concerns. The Commission also seek information on costs of these proposed rule changes in the form of data and quantitative estimates.

It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302a, 303, 307, that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

For the reasons discussed in the document above, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: