Proposed Rule2022-01204
Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 24, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to revise its rules governing spectrum sharing among non- geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) systems. The FCC proposes that its existing spectrum sharing mechanism for NGSO FSS systems will be limited to those systems approved in the same processing round. The FCC also proposes to adopt a rule providing that later-round NGSO FSS systems will have to protect earlier-round systems, and invites comment on how to define such protection. In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether to sunset, after a period of time, the interference protection afforded to an NGSO FSS system because of its processing round status.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3481-3487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01204]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 21-456; RM-11855; FCC 21-123; FR ID 66659]
Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-
Satellite Service Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
proposes to revise its rules governing spectrum sharing among non-
geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS)
systems. The FCC proposes that its existing spectrum sharing mechanism
for NGSO FSS systems will be limited to those systems approved in the
same processing round. The FCC also proposes to adopt a rule providing
that later-round NGSO FSS systems will have to protect earlier-round
systems, and invites comment on how to define such protection. In
addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether to sunset, after a period of
time, the interference protection afforded to an NGSO FSS system
because of its processing round status.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 25, 2022; reply comments are
due on or before April 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 21-456,
by any of the following methods:
[[Page 3482]]
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
Filings may be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations for
filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6e0e5e5939692e6c0c5c588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55131616606561153336367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a> or call 202-
418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 21-123, adopted December 14, 2021, and
released December 15, 2021. The full text is available online at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-123A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-123A1.pdf</a>. The document
is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities,
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7a7f7f090c087c5a5f5f125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc9a9f9fe9ece89cbabfbff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Comment Filing Requirements
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Ex Parte Presentations
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission builds
upon its efforts to update rules governing a new generation of non-
geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS)
systems. In an accompanying Order, we grant in part a petition for
rulemaking filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX). In the
NPRM, we seek comment on further revisions to the spectrum sharing
requirements among NGSO FSS systems. We propose that the Commission's
existing spectrum sharing mechanism for NGSO FSS systems will be
limited to those systems approved in the same processing round. We also
propose to adopt a rule providing that later-round NGSO FSS systems
will have to protect earlier-round systems, and invite comment on how
to define such protection. In addition, we seek comment on whether to
sunset, after a period of time, the interference protection afforded to
an NGSO FSS system because of its processing round status. This
rulemaking will continue to facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS
systems capable of providing broadband and other services on a global
basis, and will promote competition among NGSO FSS system proponents,
including the market entry of new competitors.
II. Background
In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented
number of applications for NGSO space station licenses, including for
NGSO FSS systems.
Applications for NGSO FSS system licenses are considered in groups
based on filing date, under a processing round procedure. The
Commission reviews each application in the processing round and all the
pleadings filed in response to each application. Based upon this review
and consideration of such other matters as it may officially notice,
the Commission will grant all the applications for which the Commission
finds that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise
qualified, that the proposed facilities and operations comply with all
applicable rules, regulations, and policies, and that grant of the
application will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.
[[Page 3483]]
The Commission has adopted rules for spectrum sharing among NGSO
FSS systems. NGSO FSS operators must coordinate with one another in
good faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies. Absent a
coordination agreement between two or more NGSO FSS satellite systems,
a default spectrum-splitting procedure applies. Under the default
spectrum-splitting procedure, whenever the increase in system noise
temperature of an earth station receiver, or a space station receiver
for a satellite with on-board processing, of either system, [Delta]T/T,
exceeds 6 percent due to interference from emissions originating in the
other system in a commonly authorized frequency band, such frequency
band will be divided among the affected satellite networks in
accordance with the following: (1) Each of n (number of) satellite
networks involved must select 1/n of the assigned spectrum available in
each of these frequency bands; (2) the affected station(s) of the
respective satellite systems may operate in only the selected (1/n)
spectrum associated with its satellite system while the [Delta]T/T of 6
percent threshold is exceeded; and (3) all affected station(s) may
resume operations throughout the assigned frequency bands once the
threshold is no longer exceeded.
In the NGSO FSS Report and Order, the Commission stated that it
will ``initially limit'' sharing under the [Delta]T/T of 6 percent
threshold to qualified applicants in a processing round. The Commission
explained that treatment of later applicants must necessarily be case-
by-case based on the situation at the time, and considering both the
need to protect existing expectations and investments and provide for
additional entry as well as any comments filed by incumbent operators
and reasoning presented by the new applicant.
On April 30, 2020, SpaceX filed a petition for rulemaking to revise
and clarify the Commission's spectrum sharing rules for NGSO FSS
systems. SpaceX proposes that the Commission codify protection rights
for NGSO FSS systems from those systems authorized through a later
processing round.
III. Discussion
After review of the SpaceX Petition and the comments and opposition
filed, we conclude that the record on the Petition discloses sufficient
reasons to justify the institution of a rulemaking proceeding seeking
further comment on such a proposal. Indeed, the Petition raises
fundamental issues affecting the spectrum access rights of NGSO FSS
systems. When the Commission recently considered and revised several
important elements of NGSO FSS licensing, it left to ``case-by-case''
evaluations how NGSO FSS applications filed after a processing round
would be treated. Since then, the Commission has initiated second NGSO
FSS processing rounds in frequency bands subject to a prior processing
round and gained further experience implementing a case-by-case
approach to NGSO FSS applications filed after a relevant processing
round. The time is ripe to consider updating the Commission's rules
concerning these issues.
We therefore initiate a notice of proposed rulemaking to consider
revisions to the treatment of NGSO FSS systems authorized through
different processing rounds. We also seek comment on the application of
any rule changes in this proceeding to existing licensees, grantees,
applicants, and market access petitioners. Further consideration of
these issues is appropriate because of the strong interest shown not
only in multiple NGSO FSS applications, but also in the comments on the
Petition. Given the Commission's 2017 rulemaking on NGSO FSS issues and
the ideas already submitted in response to the petition for rulemaking,
we believe that proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking at this
stage will allow for fulsome comment of the issues without forcing the
delay associated with an initial notice of inquiry.
In its Petition, SpaceX requests that the Commission revise or
clarify the spectrum sharing obligations that apply among co-frequency
NGSO FSS systems authorized through different processing rounds. SpaceX
proposes that the default spectrum-splitting procedure be expressly
limited to those NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same processing
round. Among systems authorized through different processing rounds,
SpaceX proposes that later-round NGSO FSS systems protect earlier-round
systems up to a specified interference-to-noise (I/N) level to be
developed and adopted by the Commission, but that this protection
should sunset after a period of time. SpaceX also argues that sharing
of beam-pointing information should be explicitly required among NGSO
FSS operators to facilitate interference analyses. We address and
invite comment on these proposals, and also seek comment on alternative
proposals raised in the comments, below.
A. Limiting the Default Spectrum-Splitting Procedure to Systems
Authorized Through the Same Processing Round
While the Commission stated in the NGSO FSS Report and Order that
it will ``initially limit'' the spectrum-splitting procedure to
qualified NGSO FSS applicants in a processing round, there is no such
limitation in the relevant rule text. SpaceX contends that NGSO FSS
operators have planned, invested, and begun deploying based on their
assessment of the specific characteristics of other participants in
their processing round, and that these characteristics allow licensees
to estimate the amount of spectrum likely to be available during a
situation governed by the spectrum-splitting procedure. To provide
greater certainty to NGSO FSS operators as to their future sharing
environment, SpaceX proposes that the Commission adopt a rule providing
that the existing spectrum-splitting procedure applies only to NGSO FSS
systems authorized within the same processing round.
This proposal is consistent with Commission licensing decisions. In
each recent NGSO FSS system license and grant of market access, the
requirement to apply the default spectrum-splitting procedure has been
limited to among NGSO FSS systems filed within the same processing
round. We believe that adopting a rule limiting the existing spectrum-
splitting procedure to only NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same
processing round will provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty
to NGSO FSS system licensees and market access recipients, and
therefore propose to adopt it. We invite comment on this proposal. This
approach, if adopted, would eliminate the ``case-by-case''
consideration of how to treat later applicants relative to approved
systems, which the Commission previously explained would take into
account various factors, including the potential for additional entry.
We seek comment on how limiting the existing spectrum-splitting
procedure to NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same processing
round will impact later applicants, including the potential for
additional entry.
B. Protection of Earlier-Round Systems From Later-Round Systems
For an NGSO FSS licensee to invest potentially billions of dollars
in a new system, SpaceX argues it must have some certainty that its
spectrum rights will be maintained as later-filed NGSO FSS applications
are considered. SpaceX therefore proposes that NGSO
[[Page 3484]]
FSS systems filed in a later processing round be required to protect
NGSO FSS systems authorized through an earlier processing round.
We believe that adopting this principle in our rules would clarify
the rights and obligations of NGSO FSS system grantees. The protection
of an NGSO FSS system from systems authorized through a subsequent
processing round goes to the heart of the stability of interference
environment the Commission intended to create through use of the
processing round procedure. Indeed, the Commission's licensing of a
later-round NGSO FSS system has confirmed that it must protect earlier-
round systems from harmful interference.
We therefore propose to adopt a rule that NGSO FSS licensees and
market access recipients are entitled to protection from NGSO FSS
systems authorized through later processing rounds. Specifically, we
propose to adopt a rule providing that, prior to commencing operations,
an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either certify
that it has completed a coordination agreement with any operational
NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in an earlier
processing round, or demonstrate that it will not cause harmful
interference to any such system with which coordination has not been
completed. We also discuss below alternative, specific protection
criteria that could be developed for this proposed rule.
Notwithstanding a requirement to protect earlier-round NGSO FSS
systems, we expect that coordination among NGSO FSS operators,
including those authorized through different processing rounds, offers
the best opportunity for efficient spectrum sharing. Accordingly, we
also propose to adopt a rule providing that the good-faith coordination
requirement applies among all NGSO FSS grantees, including those
authorized through different processing rounds. We invite comment on
these proposals, including on the burdens associated with any technical
demonstrations of compatibility. In particular, we invite comment on
how best to establish the protection of authorized NGSO FSS systems
under deployment while encouraging competition and new entrants into
the market.
C. Level of Protection for Earlier-Round Systems
To quantify the level to which a later-round NGSO FSS system would
have to protect an earlier-round system, SpaceX recommends the
Commission develop and adopt an appropriate interference-to-noise (I/N)
limit. While not proposing a specific I/N value, SpaceX suggests that
such a limit incorporate a standard reference antenna mask and standard
noise temperature. Applicants in a later processing round would be
required to demonstrate that their proposed systems could comply with
the I/N limit based on a probabilistic analysis. In addition, such an
I/N limit could specify a percentage of time during which the limit may
be exceeded.
Beyond the initial difficulty of developing such an I/N limit for
protection of NGSO FSS systems, commenters raise potential shortcomings
of an I/N approach. Because the I/N limit would reflect generic NGSO
system parameters and not the parameters of the NGSO system to be
protected, it could provide insufficient protection to an NGSO system
with especially sensitive antennas. Adoption of an I/N limit could also
discourage coordination if either the earlier-round licensee or later-
round licensee preferred to operate within the I/N limit rather than a
negotiated alternative. Requiring applicants to perform interference
analyses for the potentially thousands of satellites authorized through
previous processing rounds, many of which may never be launched, could
also place undue burdens on new entrants, especially those with limited
resources.
Commenters propose alternatives to an I/N limit that would provide
for the protection of earlier-round NGSO FSS systems from later-round
systems. ViaSat suggests the use of network performance degradation as
an interference criterium. AST recommends the Commission consider an
approach that is harmonized with Recommendation ITU-R S.1323-2 or RR
No. 22.5L of the ITU Radio Regulations, which use for a protection
criterion the increase of the percentage of the time allowance for the
carrier-to-noise (C/N) value associated with the shortest percentage of
time specified in the short-term performance objective of the system to
be protected. O3b proposes that NGSO FSS systems authorized through
different processing rounds make use of the existing spectrum-splitting
mechanism, but that the earlier-round system be entitled to use 75% of
the available spectrum and the later-round system be entitled to use
25% of the available spectrum, instead of the equal split applicable to
NGSO FSS systems authorized through the same processing round.
We believe that quantifying a level of protection for earlier-round
systems would clarify the rights and obligations of NGSO FSS licensees
in different processing rounds. We invite specific comment on what an
appropriate I/N limit would be to protect NGSO FSS systems, what an
appropriate percentage of time would be during which the I/N limit may
be exceeded, and what the standard reference antenna mask and noise
temperature should be in developing an appropriate I/N value or other
criteria. In addition, we invite comment on the alternative proposals
above and on any other appropriate means to ensure protection of
earlier-round NGSO FSS systems from later-round systems, while allowing
meaningful new entry and encouraging operator-to-operator coordination
as the first resort.
In particular, we invite comment on whether to adopt criteria based
upon the percentage of degraded throughput experienced by the NGSO FSS
system. Considering the degraded throughput may be appropriate because
most, if not all, modern NGSO systems will use adaptive coding and
modulation (ACM) to allow maintaining a satellite connection in spite
of signal degradation, but at lower throughput rates. Such criteria
could be developed consistent with Recommendation ITU-R S.2131-0,
``Method for the determination of performance objectives for satellite
hypothetical reference digital paths using adaptive coding and
modulation.'' That recommendation suggests that satellite systems using
ACM should be designed to meet performance objectives stated as either
the packet error ratio or the spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz) as a
function of C/N. While this Recommendation does not provide specific
values for the percentage of degraded throughput that should not be
exceeded, we invite comment on establishing a limit under such a
criteria. We also seek comment on specific values and on the
suitability of this approach in general, including on the burdens of
computing any limit that may be adopted under the alternatives set
forth above. Should a degraded throughput analysis consider
unavailability as well?
D. Sharing Beam-Pointing Information
The Commission's rules require NGSO FSS operators to coordinate in
good faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies. Beyond this
general requirement, SpaceX proposes that earlier-round NGSO FSS system
operators be specifically required to share data on their beam
locations with later-round NGSO FSS system operators to facilitate
analysis of and compliance with its proposed I/N metric. SpaceX argues
that confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements could ensure that
[[Page 3485]]
data is not used by competitors for any purpose other than avoiding
interference, such as marketing. Several commenters raise concerns that
a requirement to share beam data may be inefficient, impractical, or
overly competitively sensitive in certain cases. One commenter also
suggests the Commission adopt broader information sharing requirements
for operator-to-operator coordination.
We believe that information sharing among NGSO FSS operators is
essential to their efficient use of spectrum. Beyond our existing,
flexible, good-faith coordination requirement, we invite comment on
whether to specify sharing of certain types of information, such as
beam-pointing information, that may be necessary for the implementation
of any spectrum-sharing solution or protection criteria between NGSO
FSS systems. Such information sharing requirements could involve NGSO
FSS systems authorized through the same processing round or different
processing rounds. We also seek comment on any practical concerns
associated with such information sharing, and how best to address any
associated, potential, competitive harms. For example, should the
Commission adopt rules or mechanisms, for example, a protective order,
to facilitate the sharing of the information? More broadly, should we
add a definition of ``good faith'' coordination in our rules? If so,
what elements should it include? For example, should NGSO FSS operators
specifically be required to share all necessary technical information
to perform an interference analysis, and do so in a timely fashion upon
request, to meet the ``good faith'' coordination standard? We also seek
comment on how the Commission might encourage NGSO FSS operators to
build and deploy systems capable of sharing beam-pointing data and
enabling other methods of spectrum sharing through coordination. How
could the Commission encourage the development and deployment of
systems that are more spectrally efficient? How might the Commission
modify its NGSO sharing rules to incentivize flexible and efficient
deployment?
E. Sunsetting of Protection
SpaceX proposes that the protection of earlier-round systems from
later-round systems sunset after a period of time. SpaceX argues that a
sunsetting provision would encourage earlier-round licensees to
coordinate with later-round licensees, and avoid entrenching incumbents
and stymieing future innovation. One commenter similarly argues that
processing rounds may be ``condensed'' and protections sunset over
time. Sunsetting could occur, for example, six years after licensing to
coincide with the first NGSO system deployment milestone, ten years
after licensing, or fifteen years after licensing. Other commenters
argue that any sunsetting provision would be arbitrary, premature, or
unnecessary given the Commission's existing good-faith coordination
requirement.
We invite comment on sunsetting of protections applied to NGSO FSS
systems, including the timing of such sunsetting. In particular, we
seek comment on whether sunsetting protection for NGSO FSS systems
under deployment would unduly disrupt their operations. Should we
consider sunsetting protections for an NGSO FSS system before the
expiration of its 15-year license term? Would a shorter sunset period
better promote competition? If so, when should the trigger/start date
for sunsetting begin? At the date of the license grant, the beginning
of the license period, or some other time? Should we expect that
advances in technology for second-generation NGSO FSS systems will make
sharing with new entrants easier? Or, conversely, would allowing new
entrants to take advantage of technological enhancements in incumbent
systems dull the incentives for incumbents to invest in such upgrades?
What protection should apply to an NGSO FSS system after any
sunsetting? How would sunsetting of protections affect the willingness
to invest in NGSO FSS system development, and the likelihood of robust
services being deployed to the public by such systems? Would a
sunsetting provision promote competition, including the market entry of
new competitors? Are there other ways to fashion a sunsetting provision
that would maintain the reasonable expectations of earlier licensees
and at the same time further the goal of promoting competition?
F. Application of Rule Changes
NGSO FSS systems and system proposals currently have a variety of
Commission approval statuses, including pending applications for new
systems and authorizations for systems that were filed for in a
previous processing round. Because of the large investments already
made and planned for these novel and ambitious systems, we seek comment
on whether to apply all, or some, of the rule changes adopted in this
proceeding, including changes to the good-faith coordination
requirement, only to new license applications, license modification
applications, application amendments, and market access petitions filed
after the new rules go into effect. Maintaining the expectations of
current licensees, market access recipients, applicants, and market
access petitioners may serve the public interest by providing
regulatory stability upon which these systems may continue to develop.
However, we invite comment on whether applying rule changes to existing
grantees or pending applicants would advance competition and encourage
new entry into the market. If we did apply new rules to existing grants
or pending applications, should we allow the grantees and applicants a
period of time to request modification of their authorizations or to
amend their applications before the new rule changes take effect? To
the extent that we apply the revised rules to existing grants or
pending applications, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of
applying the rule changes to existing grantees or pending applicants
that are part of already-closed processing rounds. How would this
affect expectations of existing grantees or applicants who have filed
by specific deadlines to gain entry into a particular processing round?
If we decide not to apply new rules to existing grantees, what impact,
if any, would that have on existing grant conditions already
incorporated into NGSO FSS system authorizations, including those
grants conditioned on compliance with rules or policies adopted by the
Commission in the future?
G. Digital Equity and Inclusion
Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities by
[[Page 3486]]
the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. We request written public
comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as
responses to the IRFA and must file the comments on or before the dates
indicated in the DATES section above and in accordance with the comment
filing requirements. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented
number of applications for NGSO space station licenses, including for
NGSO FSS systems. Traveling closer to the Earth than a traditional GSO
satellite, low- and medium-orbit NGSO FSS satellite constellations are
capable of providing broadband services to industry, enterprise, and
residential customers with lower latency and wider coverage than was
previously available via satellite. This rulemaking will continue to
facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS systems capable of providing
broadband and other services on a global basis, and will promote
competition among NGSO FSS system proponents, including the market
entry of new competitors.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on proposed
revisions to the Commission's rules governing the treatment of NGSO FSS
systems filed in different processing rounds. In particular, the NPRM
proposes that the Commission's existing spectrum sharing mechanism for
NGSO FSS systems will be limited to those systems approved in the same
processing round. The NPRM also proposes to adopt a rule providing that
later-round NGSO FSS systems will have to protect earlier-round
systems, and invites comment on how to define such protection. In
addition, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to sunset, after a period
of time, the interference protection afforded to an NGSO FSS system
because of its processing round status.
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a), 303,
308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers
are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The NPRM invites comment on potential changes to the spectrum
sharing requirements among NGSO FSS satellite systems. Because of the
costs involved in developing and deploying an NGSO FSS satellite
constellation, we anticipate that few NGSO FSS operators affected by
this rulemaking would qualify under the definition of ``small entity.''
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
The NPRM invites comment on different means to protect NGSO FSS
systems licensed through the Commission's processing round framework,
including, as one option, whether those NGSO FSS systems authorized
through a later processing round should be required to submit technical
demonstrations that they will not interfere with NGSO FSS systems
authorized through an earlier processing round. The NPRM invites
specific comment on the burdens associated with such submissions, and
also seeks comment on alternative means of protection of NGSO FSS
systems.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
V. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.407, that the
petition for rulemaking filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,
Revision of Section 25.261 of the Commission's Rules to Increase
Certainty in Spectrum Sharing Obligations Among Non-Geostationary Orbit
Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, RM-11855, is granted in part and
deferred in part, the opposition filed by WorldVu Satellites Limited is
denied in part and deferred in part, and the opposition filed by Theia
Holdings A, Inc. is deferred.
It is further ordered, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303,
308(b), 316, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a
copy of this Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with
Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
[[Page 3487]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 25 as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.261 by revising paragraph (b), revising the first
sentence in paragraph (c)(1), and adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.261 Sharing among NGSO FSS space stations.
* * * * *
(b) Coordination. NGSO FSS licensees and market access recipients
must coordinate in good faith the use of commonly authorized
frequencies regardless of their processing round status, unless
otherwise provided by the Commission.
(c) * * *
(1) Each of n (number of) satellite networks involved that were
licensed or granted market access through the same processing round
must select 1/n of the assigned spectrum available in each of these
frequency bands. * * *
* * * * *
(d) Protection of earlier-round systems. Prior to commencing
operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either
certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any
operational NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in
an earlier processing round, or demonstrate that it will not cause
harmful interference to any such system with which coordination has not
been completed.
[FR Doc. 2022-01204 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 24, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.