Proposed Rule2023-00780
Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications; Space Innovation
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 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on changes to our rules, policies, or practices to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station applications. We propose to revise a procedural rule to formally allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions that request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in a frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications. This document will help Commission processing stay apace with the unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new space age.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2590-2595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00780]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket Nos. 22-411, 22-271; FCC 22-95; FR ID 121634]
Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station
Applications; Space Innovation
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on changes to our rules, policies, or
practices to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and
earth station applications. We propose to revise a procedural rule to
formally allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions
that request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in
a frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek
comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications.
This document will help Commission processing stay apace with the
unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new
space age.
DATES: Comments are due March 3, 2023. Reply comments are due April 3,
2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 22-411
and 22-271, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> FCC Website: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7919494e2e7e397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf898c8cfafffb8fa9acace1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's notice
of proposed rulemaking, FCC 22-95, adopted December 21, 2022, and
released December 22, 2022. The full text is available online at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-95A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-95A1.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#04424747313430446267672a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d99f9a9aece9ed99bfbabaf7beb6af">[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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by
[[Page 2591]]
accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] 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.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554.
[cir] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), <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>.
<bullet> 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#98dedbdbada8acd8fefbfbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="266065651316126640454508414950">[email protected]</span></a> or
call 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
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
1. The notice of proposed rulemaking, seeks comment on changes to
the Commission's rules, policies, or practices to facilitate the
acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station applications under
47 CFR part 25. We propose to revise a procedural rule to formally
allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions that
request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in a
frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek
comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications.
This Notice will help Commission processing stay apace with the
unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new
space age.
II. Background
2. The Commission's rules establish filing criteria for satellite
and earth station applications submitted under 47 CFR part 25. An
application that does not meet these criteria will be deemed
unacceptable for filing and will be dismissed and returned to the
applicant, with a brief statement identifying the omissions or
discrepancies, unless the application requests a waiver of any
conflicting rule or requirement or the Commission grants such a waiver
on its own motion. A satellite application or petition that has been
found defective and must be re-submitted will receive a later filing
date under the Commission's first-come, first-served licensing process
for geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO)-like satellite applications, or
in some instances may result in an applicant missing the cut-off date
of a processing round for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)-like
satellite applications, both consequences that may negatively affect
the ultimate spectrum sharing conditions of the satellite system. In
general, a delay in acceptability for filing may result in a delay in
action on the application. The Commission also adopted procedural
safeguards against applications that are considered more likely to be
speculative or intended to warehouse spectrum resources, including the
prohibition on multiple NGSO-like applications or unbuilt NGSO system
licenses in the same frequency band. Commission staff conducts an
initial review of applications for acceptability for filing and
compliance with procedural and substantive rules before they are placed
on public notice for comment. Typical issues that prolong staff review
and delay acceptance for filing include internal inconsistencies in the
application, omission of information required by the rules, omission of
waiver requests, missed filing deadlines, and novel issues being
raised.
A. Acceptability for Filing
3. Under the rules, an application filed under 47 CFR part 25 is
considered unacceptable for filing if:
(1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of
answers to questions, informational showings, internal inconsistencies,
execution, or other matters of a formal character;
(2) The application does not substantially comply with the
Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional
information, or other requirements;
(3) The application requests authority to operate a satellite in a
frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such
operations under the Radio Regulations of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), unless the application is a streamlined
small space station application filed pursuant
[[Page 2592]]
to 47 CFR 25.122 or a streamlined small spacecraft application filed
pursuant to 47 CFR 25.123; or
(4) The application is identical to a pending satellite application
that was timely filed pursuant to the processing round procedure in 47
CFR 25.157 or the first-come, first-served processing procedure in 47
CFR 25.158.
4. Applications found defective under criteria (1) or (2) may be
accepted for filing if the application requests a waiver, with
supporting rationale, of any rule or requirement with which the
application is in conflict or if the Commission grants such a waiver
upon its own motion. Satellite applications found defective under
criteria (3) or (4), under current rules, will not be considered.
5. Under our part 25 rules, the standard for determining whether an
application is acceptable for filing is not ``letter perfection.'' The
Commission may place on public notice applications with minor
inaccuracies that are not material to the Commission's or the public's
review. However, the rules require all applications under 47 CFR part
25 to be substantially complete when they are filed. As a practical
matter, in some recent instances, staff has found it efficient to aid
applicants to address discrepancies or omissions in their pending
applications before placing them on public notice, resulting in fewer
applications being dismissed prior to being accepted for filing.
B. Acceptability for Filing of Satellite Applications Not in
Conformance With International Frequency Allocations
6. As noted above, unlike most application defects, an application
requesting authority to operate a satellite in a frequency band that is
not allocated internationally for such operation under the ITU Radio
Regulations is deemed unacceptable for filing regardless of whether a
waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is requested. When the
Commission adopted this rule in 2003, it explained that it would
dismiss satellite applications without prejudice as ``premature'' if
the application is filed before the ITU adopts a necessary frequency
allocation because it can take several years for the ITU to adopt a new
allocation. Furthermore, the Commission reasoned that when an applicant
files its application ``years before it will be possible to provide
service,'' it is likely that the application may be a ``place holder.''
7. Drawing on more recent experience, the Commission has observed
that, in the context of small satellites, there may be benefits
associated with operations not consistent with the current
International Table of Frequency Allocations in certain circumstances.
Accordingly, in 2019 the Commission modified the acceptability for
filing rule to provide an exception, so that streamlined small
satellite applications requesting to operate in bands not allocated
internationally, and which include an appropriate waiver request, can
be considered on their merits without being deemed unacceptable for
filing.
8. If a waiver is granted for satellite operations not in
conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations,
international provisions also apply. Specifically, Article 4.4 of the
ITU Radio Regulations states that an administration shall not assign
any frequency in derogation of the International Table of Frequency
Allocations except on the express condition that the station 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 ITU Constitution, Convention and Radio
Regulations. In addition, ITU Rule of Procedure 1.6 provides that an
administration, prior to bringing into use any frequency assignment to
a transmitting station operating under No. 4.4, shall determine: (a)
that the intended use of the frequency assignment to the station under
No. 4.4 will not cause harmful interference into the stations of other
administrations operating in conformity with the Radio Regulations; and
(b) what measures it would need to take in order to comply with the
requirement to immediately eliminate harmful interference.
C. Limit on Unbuilt NGSO Systems
9. Another provision that may forestall or delay processing of NGSO
applications is the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems. This rule prevents a
party from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite system
license in a particular frequency band if that party already has an
application for an NGSO-like satellite system license on file or a
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. The rule
was adopted, in addition to bond and milestone requirements, as a means
to restrain speculation without restricting applicants' business plans
and to give licensees an incentive to turn in licenses for satellite
systems that they do not intend to build.
D. Application Processing Timelines
10. In 2015, before the recent surge in applications for NGSO
systems, the Commission noted the following expected processing periods
for what it described as ``straightforward'' satellite applications
that are not contested, barring any complication:
(1) applications for initial space station authorization or for
modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within 45
days of receipt, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the
comment period; and
(2) applications for special temporary authority (STA) for a space
station will be placed on public notice within 14 days of receipt, if
public notice is required, and acted upon within 30 days after close of
the comment period. For space-station STA requests that do not require
public notice, we expect to act within 30 days of receipt.
11. In 2016, the Satellite Division of the International Bureau
announced the following expected processing times for straightforward,
uncontested earth station applications, barring any complication:
(1) Applications for an initial earth station authorization or for
a modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within
45 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not defective per 47
CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the comment
period.
(2) Applications for initial registration of receive-only earth
stations or for a modification of registration will be placed on public
notice within 30 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not
defective per 47 CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 45 days after close
of the comment period.
(3) Applications for special temporary authority for earth stations
will be placed on public notice within 14 days of confirmation of
receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and if compliant
with 47 CFR 25.120, and acted upon within 30 days after close of the
comment period. For such requests that do not require notice to the
public before action, if they are not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and
are compliant with 47 CFR 25.120, we expect to act within 30 days of
receipt subject to confirmation of receipt of payment.
The Commission has not subsequently updated estimates on processing
times, although the volume and complexity of applications has
increased.
III. Discussion
12. As the Commission experiences increasing satellite licensing
activity we must keep pace with demand and reassess our processes to
identify opportunities for streamlining. We tentatively conclude that
it is in the public interest to move quickly on
[[Page 2593]]
license application processing and specifically to begin building a
public record on applications early in the process of evaluating them.
In this respect, we note that placing an application on public notice
as accepted for filing should not be seen as implying that the
Commission has no questions regarding the application or that the
application is being looked upon favorably for grant.
13. We propose one initial action to streamline the acceptability
for filing of satellite applications. As the Commission concluded in
the context of small satellites, we believe there are some cases in
which a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is warranted to
permit operations not in conformance with current international
allocations. These may, for example, be operations that can be
conducted immediately on an unprotected and non-harmful interference
basis and do not represent a ``placeholder'' for future service after a
new international allocation is adopted. We believe waiver requests for
satellite operations not in conformance with the International Table of
Frequency Allocations, with sufficient supportive reasoning, should be
considered on their merits rather than being automatically deemed
unacceptable for filing as under current rules. Therefore, we propose
to amend the acceptability criteria to place these waiver requests on
an equal procedural footing with other requests for waiver of
substantive rules, and allow them to be accepted for filing. We invite
comment on this proposal, and on any alternatives.
14. In addition, we seek comment on whether to provide guidance, in
a rule or otherwise, on the conditions under which a waiver of the
International Table of Frequency Allocations is more likely. For
example, we could specify that waiver applicants should provide a
sufficient electromagnetic compatibility analysis to support a
Commission finding that the intended use of the frequency assignment
will not cause harmful interference to all other stations operating in
conformance with the ITU Radio Regulations. We would indicate that the
applicant must make a good-faith effort to demonstrate compatibility at
the time of filing its application, with the understanding that it may
need to supplement that showing in response to additional information
about existing operations provided in the record by conforming spectrum
users. We could also specify that an applicant should state its
willingness to accept an assignment on a non-interference, unprotected
basis. We could additionally indicate that waiver is more likely if
there are ongoing, favorable studies and activities in the relevant ITU
study group in support of a potential future allocation at a World
Radiocommunication Conference. We seek comment on these proposals, and
on whether there is other information applicants should submit in
support of a waiver request, on other limitations that should be
adopted, or alternative means to ensure that the Commission has a full
record on which to evaluate requests for waiver of the Table of
Frequency Allocations in these instances.
15. We also seek comment on whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO
systems rule may be a hinderance to the acceptability of legitimate
satellite applications and if so, whether it should be amended. For
example, given that this rule was adopted in the context of processing
rounds for NGSO applications, should we revise our rules such that it
will not apply to NGSO applications that are granted outside of a
processing round? Are there other ways in which the rules limiting
unbuilt systems should be updated to reflect the current state of
development of NGSO systems? Are the rationales underlying the rules
equally relevant today? We seek comment generally on updates to our
unbuilt NGSO systems rules. Should these rules be revised or eliminated
altogether?
16. In the context of overall application processing under 47 CFR
part 25, in recent years Commission staff have assisted applicants to
correct certain omissions or inconsistencies in their applications that
need to be corrected in order for an application to be deemed complete
and acceptable for filing under our rules. We seek comment on this
approach in several respects. Would it speed application review and
ultimately encourage better-prepared applications if we instead dismiss
applications containing internal inconsistencies or omissions under 47
CFR 25.112(a)(1)? These applications would be dismissed without
prejudice to refiling. We note that in those cases where we do dismiss
applications, our approach has been to issue a decision detailing the
specific deficiencies in the application. We seek comment on the
benefits and drawbacks of the alternative approaches. Alternatively, if
we were to loosen the standards for acceptability for filing, would
this result in a faster overall processing time for applications? For
instance, how should we balance the speed of processing with the
completeness and coherence of an application when it is placed on
public notice for comment? Is there information that applicants should
be able to correct or cure during the public notice period, and how
would such an approach affect the ability of interested parties to
review and comment on applications? Should we provide additional
specificity in our acceptability for filing criteria? Given that
internal inconsistencies and omissions are a source of delay in initial
application processing, are there any part 25 application rules or
application filing guidance that would assist applicants in overcoming
this hurdle? For instance, if applicants were to submit relevant
technical and other information in only one place in an application,
would that reduce the risk of inconsistency? Would any such changes
lower the reliability of information provided to the Commission? Is
there any technical information currently required to be provided which
is more likely to be overlooked or omitted from applications, and
therefore delay their processing, that actually is not necessary for
Commission or public evaluation of the application? Should certain
inconsistencies, for example, in the description of frequency bands
being requested, result in dismissal? Is there additional guidance or
other assistance we should provide to applicants to avoid required
information being omitted in their initial filings? Are there
additional ways to reduce the number of errors, omissions, or
inconsistencies in application filings, such as by incorporating
additional completeness and compliance checks directly into the initial
application process, or by introducing additional certifications in
place of certain narrative information? Should applications omitting
necessary waiver requests be dismissed? How well-supported should a
waiver request need to be to overcome the acceptability for filing
requirements, including waivers of filing deadlines or waivers that
raise novel issues? Are there rules, policies, or practices for other
licensing activities at the Commission that could helpfully be applied
to satellite or earth station application processing? Are there ways in
which we can better streamline inter-Bureau reviews in shared spectrum
bands? Are there other areas where the Commission can streamline
processing for initial or modification applications including the
elimination of duplicative processing requirements, for example
duplicative coordination requirements in satellite and earth station
licensing? We also seek comment broadly on other process updates, rule
changes, or policy reforms the Commission could adopt to help
streamline application processing.
[[Page 2594]]
17. Finally, we invite comment on the anticipated processing times
for straightforward, uncontested satellite and earth station
applications noted above, which types of applications (including
modification applications) the Commission should consider
``straightforward,'' and therefore fall under these guidelines, and
whether, given the rapidly changing environment of operations in space
and associated requests for Commission satellite authorizations, it
would make sense to codify or otherwise better highlight our expected
processing times for such applications. Or, given the pace of change in
space activities and corresponding number of applications presenting
unique or complex issues, would identification of a limited number of
``straightforward'' or ``routine'' applications result in improved
processing times overall? Or would a more flexible approach to
processing timeframes allow for the Commission to take into
consideration other factors such as anticipated launch dates, and
whether the request is an extension of a previously granted
application?
18. Specifically regarding applications to add points of
communication to existing earth station licenses, should these qualify
as ``straightforward'' so long as the satellite system to be added is
either U.S.-licensed or has been granted U.S. market access within the
parameters requested in the earth station application and the applicant
identifies either the satellite call sign or the earth station
license(s) in which the satellite was granted market access? What steps
can the Commission take to ensure applicants provide enough information
regarding the requested satellite points of communication to facilitate
its review, confirm that no additional market access is being sought
for any non-U.S.-licensed point of communication, and otherwise
expedite these types of applications? For any ``straightforward''
applications to add an earth station point of communication, would it
be appropriate to automatically deem them granted 60 days after they
are filed absent other Commission action? To address cases where an
earth station applicant may wish to be licensed before it identifies
any specific satellite points of communication, should we make any
changes to our rules, policies, or practices to permit these cases?
19. Should we consider creating deadlines for certain satellite or
earth station applications for making a determination about
acceptability for filing, with the alternative being dismissal, and
would this result in overall shorter processing times? If so, what
deadline might be reasonable? Should the deadline vary depending on the
type of application (e.g., GSO, NGSO)? Should there be limitations on
the applicability of this deadline--for example, where an operator
requests operations not consistent with the International Table of
Frequency Allocations, or where the application could involve
initiation of a new NGSO processing round, or for contested
applications? Would a deadline for making a determination potentially
result in more dismissals of applications, since a decision would need
to be made on the acceptability of an application within that specific
timeframe? Should we adopt broader ``shot clocks'' for ultimate action
on certain types of satellite or earth station applications?
20. We seek comment generally on these issues, and on any other
guidance that may assist applicants and speed application processing.
21. 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
22. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
Notice. We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters
must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the
comments by the deadlines provided on the first page of the Notice and
as instructed above in paragraph 21. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including the 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
23. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on ways
to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station
applications under 47 CFR part 25 to keep pace with growing demand for
satellite services. The NPRM specifically inquires whether to change
the acceptability rules regarding satellite applications that request
to operate a service in a frequency band for which there is no
international allocation, and whether to alter the limit of one
unbuilt, non-geostationary system application or license in a
particular frequency band.
B. Legal Basis
24. The proposed action is authorized under Sec. Sec. 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 Will Apply
25. 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).
26. 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
[[Page 2595]]
estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers
are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
27. The NPRM invites comment on potential changes to the
acceptability for filing requirements for satellite and earth station
applications in order to expedite their processing. Rule changes
adopted as a result of this inquiry would be likely to decrease, or
leave unaffected, the compliance requirements for small entities due to
any streamlining of the Commission's application processing rules.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
28. 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.''
29. The NPRM invites comment on ways to expedite and streamline the
initial processing of satellite and earth station applications, which
might also benefit small entities such as earth station operators.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
30. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
31. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, and 308(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
157(a), 303, 308(b), that the notice of proposed rulemaking is Adopted.
32. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a
copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Sec. 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites, Earth stations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
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. 25.112 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3) and
revising the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.112 Dismissal and return of applications.
* * * * *
(b) Applications for space station authority found defective under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section will not be considered. Applications
for authority found defective under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this
section may be accepted for filing if:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-00780 Filed 1-13-23; 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 17, 2023.
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.