Proposed Rule2023-07214
Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage From Space; 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
April 12, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks by proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). Through this novel approach, satellite operators collaborating with terrestrial service providers would be able to obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on currently licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services. This would enable expanded coverage to a terrestrial licensee's subscribers, especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas, and would increase the availability of emergency communications.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21944-21960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07214]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
[GN Docket No. 23-65, IB Docket No. 22-271; FCC 23-22; FR ID 134735]
Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage From Space; Space
Innovation
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would
facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks by
proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from
Space (SCS). Through this novel approach, satellite operators
collaborating with terrestrial service providers would be able to
obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on currently
licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services. This
would enable expanded coverage to a terrestrial licensee's subscribers,
especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas, and would
increase the availability of emergency communications.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before May 12, 2023;
and reply comments on or before June 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 23-65
and IB Docket No. 22-271, by any of the following methods:
<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 choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[[Page 21945]]
Filings can 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), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9afcf9f9afaaaedafcf9f9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6808585d3d6d2a6808585c8818990">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Melissa Conway of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2887 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f123a33362c2c3e711c3031283e261f393c3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcb19990958f8f9dd2bf93928b9d85bc9a9f9fd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>,
or Merissa Velez of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at
(202) 418-0751 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81cce4f3e8f2f2e0afd7e4ede4fbc1e7e2e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29644c5b405a5a48077f4c454c53694f4a4a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN Docket No. 23-65, IB Docket No. 22-
271; FCC 23-22, adopted on March 16, 2023 and released on March 17,
2023. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-22A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-22A1.pdf</a>.
Synopsis
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
facilitates the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks by
proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from
Space (SCS). Through this novel approach, satellite operators
collaborating with terrestrial service providers would be able to
obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on currently
licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services, thus
expanding coverage to the terrestrial licensee's subscribers,
especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas. This framework
could play a key role towards fulfilling Commission goals that include
facilitating ubiquitous wireless coverage across the nation; expanding
the availability of emergency communications to consumers and the
geographic range of first responders to provide emergency services; and
promoting competition in the provision of wireless services to
consumers.
2. There is an evolving trend of partnerships between satellite
service providers and terrestrial wireless service providers to
facilitate this type of enhanced capability. Some collaborations rely
on the use of spectrum currently allocated to satellite services to
provide expanded service options to subscribers. A growing number of
satellite companies are seeking to partner with mobile service
providers to provide mobile satellite services through interoperable
technologies. Such an approach proposes to rely on satellite operators
using spectrum currently allocated for terrestrial mobile service that
is exclusively-licensed to terrestrial service providers and subject to
an existing terrestrial service regulatory framework, and therefore
requires further Commission action to enable satellite use. Some
satellite-terrestrial collaborations have requested waivers of various
Commission rules in part 25 and the United States Table of Frequency
Allocations (U.S. Table) to implement their proposed service. Other
companies have received Commission authority to test communications
between satellites and mobile devices.
A. Adding a Co-Primary Mobile-Satellite Service Allocation to Certain
Bands Allocated to Terrestrial Services
3. Given the complexity of this undertaking, and particularly due
to technical considerations, we confine our initial proposal to
spectrum and locations where (1) there is only a single terrestrial
entity that holds, either directly or indirectly, all co-channel
licenses for the relevant frequencies in a given geographically
independent area (GIA); and (2) there are no primary, non-flexible-use
legacy incumbent operations (whether federal or non-federal) in the
band. We seek comment on potentially extending our proposed framework
to a range of alternative licensing scenarios.
4. Specifically, the Commission proposes to add a non-federal
footnote to the U.S. Table authorizing mobile-satellite service
operations on a co-primary basis with existing allocations in a number
of terrestrial flexible-use bands. We propose to add the footnote
allocation in bands where we are aware of at least one block of the
band with an incumbent terrestrial licensee that holds all co-channel
licenses throughout a GIA, sufficient to satisfy our proposed entry
criteria. Under this proposal, the footnote would be used in each
relevant band in lieu of adding a mobile-satellite service listing
(i.e., a ``direct table entry''). We seek comment on whether the
proposed footnote allocation should be on a secondary basis as opposed
to a co-primary basis. We also seek comment on adding direct
allocations to the U.S. Table for the mobile-satellite service on a co-
primary basis in the applicable bands and creating an associated
footnote that would limit such use to SCS operations.
5. The flexible-use terrestrial bands for which we propose at this
time to add a non-federal mobile-satellite service footnote allocation
are: 600 MHz: 614-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz; 700 MHz: 698-758 MHz, 775
MHz-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz; 800 MHz: 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz;
Broadband PCS: 1850-1915 MHz and 1930-1995 MHz; AWS-H Block: 1915-1920
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz; and WCS: 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz. We
believe these flexible-use terrestrial bands can benefit from provision
of SCS because commercial wireless services have been deployed on these
bands and because the bands include at least one spectrum block with an
existing licensee that holds rights sufficient to provide the basis for
a satellite applicant to satisfy our proposed entry criteria. We seek
comment on the inclusion of each band (or block within a band) in our
proposed framework. We also seek comment generally on this approach and
any alternative methods of selecting bands that may be better suited to
achieving the Commission's goals as set forth in this NPRM, or any
additional bands that commenters believe should be included in our
proposal. For example, we seek comment on whether to include within the
SCS framework certain 700 MHz spectrum dedicated to public safety use.
6. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a footnote allocation
that would permit mobile satellite use to communicate with fixed, as
well as mobile, devices, and on whether we should expressly include an
allocation for the proposed bands authorizing fixed-satellite service
(FSS) operations in an SCS context or whether, as
[[Page 21946]]
proposed, we should only adopt a mobile-satellite service (MSS)
allocation for those bands.
7. To inform our review of the overall record, commenters should
indicate the flexible-use bands in which they are currently, or are
interested in, testing SCS capabilities. We seek comment on the status
of such testing and prospective timelines for each proposed band. We
also ask commenters to identify the type of communication contemplated,
e.g., voice, SOS/emergency communications, texting, service to Internet
of Things (IoT) devices, 4G/5G broadband, as well as the type of
technology or infrastructure needed to support such use.
B. Closing Terrestrial Service Area Coverage Gaps Through Supplemental
Coverage From Space
8. We propose initially to limit our SCS framework to non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) operators with an existing part 25
license or an existing part 25 grant of market access (for non-U.S.
licensed satellite operators) (together, ``authorization''), because
such satellite operators are likely to rapidly deploy these space
stations after receiving any needed modification to their existing
authorizations to implement SCS. We believe that proposing this initial
step presents the fewest practical and technical complexities and
provides the most efficient path for enabling SCS in the near-term.
9. Geographically Independent Area. To minimize the possibility for
interference between geographically adjacent markets, we propose, as an
initial step in this proceeding, to limit the provision of supplemental
coverage from space to instances where a single terrestrial licensee
holds all co-channel licenses in the relevant band throughout one of
six GIAs. The proposed GIAs are: (1) the contiguous United States
(CONUS); (2) Alaska; (3) Hawaii; (4) American Samoa; (5) Puerto Rico/
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI); and (6) Guam/Northern Mariana Islands.
Notably, there are no Commission licensed land areas adjacent to each
proposed GIA, and there is a significant geographic separation between
GIAs. By applying these proposed criteria to satellite use of
terrestrial spectrum, we seek to ensure that collaborating satellite
and terrestrial licensees may provide SCS without the presence in each
GIA of co-channel terrestrial licensees requiring interference
protection. We seek comment on this proposal, including the associated
costs and benefits.
10. Assigning New Mobile-Satellite Service Rights for Supplemental
Coverage from Space. To effectuate SCS in certain flexible-use bands
allocated solely for terrestrial use, we propose to authorize mobile
satellite operations (downlink/space-to-Earth and uplink/Earth-to-
space) in these bands (when newly allocated for such use) by allowing
an NGSO satellite operator with an existing part 25 authorization to
apply to modify such authorization where that entity meets certain
prerequisites, or ``entry criteria.'' Specifically, we propose that
such a licensee may apply to modify its part 25 authorization only if
it has: (1) an application on file with the Commission to lease the
exclusive-use spectrum throughout an entire GIA, allocated for MSS
provision of SCS, of a terrestrial licensee that holds all co-channel
licenses, either directly or indirectly, throughout the GIA; (2) a
current part 25 space station license or part 25 grant of market access
for NGSO satellite operation sufficient to cover the leased GIA; and
(3) proof of an application on file from the satellite operator's
terrestrial partner for a part 25 blanket earth station license
covering all of its subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be
transmitting and receiving from the space station in conjunction with
the provision of SCS. We seek specific comment on these criteria and
whether other criteria would be better suited to facilitate SCS.
11. Under our proposed framework, meeting certain entry criteria
would allow an entity to apply to modify its existing satellite
authorization. We propose that this modification application (using FCC
Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S) include a comprehensive proposal
for each space station in the applicant's SCS system, together with
applicable certifications regarding related pending SCS applications.
We further propose that applications that are acceptable for filing be
placed on public notice to provide interested parties an opportunity to
file pleadings in response to the application. We seek comment on this
proposed approach and on whether there is specific technical or other
information that should be requested from applicants seeking a
modification of a space station authorization to provide SCS.
12. We note that the bands we initially include in the proposed
framework do not conform to the International Table. Given this non-
conformance, we propose to modify Sec. 25.112(a)(3) of our rules to
permit the filing of applications notwithstanding the non-conformance.
We seek comment on this approach, including the associated costs and
benefits.
13. We seek comment as to whether an SCS framework should permit
the filing of applications from licensees holding authorizations for
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) operation. Further, we seek comment
on what part 25 rule amendments are necessary to reflect our proposed
eligibility limitations placed on applicants seeking authority to
provide SCS.
14. We propose to require the satellite operator's use of a
terrestrial licensee's exclusive-use spectrum to be subject to a lease
arrangement with that terrestrial licensee, coupled with the satellite
operator's part 25 authorization. We seek comment on this proposal,
including any associated costs and benefits. In the alternative, we
seek comment on a similar entry criterion where the satellite operator,
in lieu of a leasing arrangement pursuant to part 1 of the Commission's
rules, has an operating agreement with a terrestrial licensee holding
all necessary geographic area co-channel licenses. We also seek comment
on other approaches for satellite operators to seek such authority
particularly related to the timing for acquiring such rights.
15. Further, although we limit our initial proposal to
modifications of existing NGSO satellite authorizations, we seek
comment in the alternative on other approaches that might permit new
satellite entrants to participate in this framework. We seek comment on
what changes to existing part 25 rules would be necessary to facilitate
the receipt and processing of applications for new entrants seeking to
provide SCS in collaboration with a terrestrial partner, consistent
with our proposed entry criteria that preclude the filing of mutually
exclusive applications.
16. In addition to authorizing space station operations, we must
also consider the appropriate method for authorizing terrestrial
devices communicating with a space station. In this respect, the
terrestrial devices would be operating as earth stations in a space
radiocommunication service. We propose that a terrestrial licensee
seeking to collaborate with a satellite operator to offer SCS must
apply for and obtain a blanket earth station license for all of its
subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be transmitting to space
stations for SCS operations, and we seek comment on this approach and
any other approaches that will be consistent with our statutory and
international obligations. We also seek comment on how we can
streamline earth station licensing processes and forms for SCS blanket
earth station applications to eliminate any undue burden. We propose to
modify our part 25 rules to
[[Page 21947]]
require a terrestrial licensee that has partnered with a satellite
operator to seek a blanket earth station license for all of its
subscribers' terrestrial devices that will operate with space stations,
and are otherwise authorized under the terrestrial license. Further, we
propose to include such terrestrial devices within our part 25 blanket
earth station licensing regime, but seek comment on what portions of
that regime are necessary in the context of the proposed framework in
this proceeding.
17. We seek comment on whether the terrestrial partner should be
required in all cases to hold the part 25 blanket earth station
license, or whether we should permit the space station licensee also to
hold the earth station license associated with the terrestrial devices,
provided other proposed entry criteria are met to give additional
flexibility to the parties based on their business needs. We also
propose that once the terrestrial licensee receives a part 25 blanket
earth station license for its subscribers' terrestrial devices, it may
avail itself of the minor modification procedures for blanket earth
station licenses under part 25 to add additional terrestrial devices
without prior Commission approval, and we seek comment on this
approach. We also seek comment whether there is an alternative to the
blanket earth station licensing approach that could more efficiently
and effectively authorize SCS communications from terrestrial devices
consistent with our international obligations and statutory mandates.
18. Leasing. We seek comment on the extent to which our leasing
rules require amendment to effectuate SCS. Our proposal to authorize
SCS through a leasing component would involve permitting a terrestrial
licensee to lease to an expanded group of potential lessees that
includes satellite operators. A terrestrial licensee currently has the
right to serve the identical geographic area on the same spectrum under
its existing licenses, and SCS would simply involve a new method
(through a combination of part 25 licensing and part 1 lease
arrangement) of providing gap coverage. We therefore tentatively
conclude that our proposal would not be a modification of any
terrestrial licenses under section 316 of the Communications Act. We
seek comment on this analysis.
19. Under certain leasing arrangements, our current rules allow a
lessor to attribute the construction activities of its lessee to the
lessor's performance requirements. We seek comment on whether such
attribution rules should remain available to terrestrial licensees
where SCS is intended to supplement existing terrestrial service to
fill coverage gaps. Also, in the proposed framework, the license term
of the part 25 licensee is unlikely to consistently align with the
license term (and concomitant lease term) of the underlying terrestrial
license. Given the integral nature of the lease-based collaboration
between satellite operator and terrestrial licensee, we ask how we
should account for differences in the length of a part 25 space station
authorization to transmit and receive signals and the length of the
associated lease, which is tied to the remaining term of the underlying
terrestrial license.
20. We seek comment on whether to retain existing interference-
related leasing rules in the context of our proposed SCS framework, and
on how our proposed SCS framework should address the potential for
severability of a lease agreement. We also seek comment on whether
subleasing is appropriate in the proposed framework, which relies on
the direct collaboration between the lessee and the lessor.
21. In July 2022, the Commission established the Enhanced
Competition Incentive Program (ECIP), which among other things,
modified the Commission's leasing rules to provide incentives for
stakeholders to engage in qualifying transactions that make spectrum
available in rural areas for advanced wireless services. Given that our
proposed framework is primarily intended to facilitate SCS to existing
consumer handsets, and ECIP was adopted with requirements tailored
specifically towards provision of service through terrestrial base
stations, we seek comment on whether to make SCS participants,
necessarily engaged in leasing arrangements, eligible for ECIP
benefits.
22. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should modify existing
leasing rules related to the provision of 911 service.
23. Service Rules. Regarding existing service rule obligations for
satellite operators and terrestrial wireless providers, the Commission
proposes to apply certain relevant rules, and seeks comment on the
applicability of other rules in the context of the proposed part 25
licensing framework to authorize SCS. First, we propose that the space
station licensee would retain its existing regulatory status when
applying to modify its license to provide SCS. We seek comment on what
circumstances might warrant a change in the space station licensee's
regulatory status.
24. Second, we seek comment on how best to facilitate access to our
nation's emergency response system for consumers using SCS. We seek
comment on the technical and operational challenges, costs, and public
interest benefits of extending wireless 911 requirements to CMRS
providers and satellite providers that offer SCS. We also seek comment
on whether it is technically or otherwise feasible for terrestrial
service providers to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 9.10 when
incorporating their satellite operator collaborator's supplemental
service, and if not, which particular requirements are not feasible and
why. We also seek comment on whether we should revise our rules to
require specific satellite operator compliance with certain 911
requirements.
25. We seek detailed information on the process by which SCS is
activated when a consumer attempts to access 911 services during
emergencies, including when no cellular or Wi-Fi service is available.
We ask commenters to discuss how satellite providers would route 911
services, including voice and text-to-911. In addition, we seek comment
on consumer expectations for using SCS to reach 911, and any consumer
privacy concerns with SCS. We seek comment on standards development and
best practices needed to facilitate 911 services using SCS, including
who should develop them and required timelines. We also seek comment on
the feasibility, availability, and cost of provisioning consumer
devices to support SCS for 911. We seek comment on congestion issues
that could be associated with SCS supporting 911 calls and texts.
26. The Commission's rules also require that providers of MSS to
end-user customers comply with certain requirements regarding emergency
call centers in certain circumstances and annual reporting requirements
on call center traffic. We seek comment on how we should apply these
current obligations in the context of an SCS offering.
27. We also seek comment on how satellite operators participating
in anticipated collaborations with terrestrial licensees intend to
support Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and any accompanying public
safety benefits. Conversely, we seek comment on whether satellite
operators that supplement terrestrial wireless providers' coverage
areas could adversely affect WEA's reliability and availability or
change the nature of a provider's participation in WEA from in whole to
in part if the SCS satellite operators were to not participate in WEA.
We seek comment on satellite operators' technical capability to
geographically target (geo-target) WEAs
[[Page 21948]]
and limit overshoot. We also seek comment on whether the proposed SCS
framework is compatible with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS).
28. Next, we seek comment on applying our existing secondary market
policies on spectrum attribution and aggregation to the proposed
satellite-terrestrial leasing framework. In other words, to the extent
that a satellite operator leases spectrum that is attributed to the
lessor for purposes of our existing secondary market aggregation
policies, we ask whether that spectrum should be attributed to the
satellite operator for the same purposes. We ask whether there are any
additional competitive or public interest concerns that we should
consider that would weigh in favor of placing limits on collaborations.
We ask to what extent would authorizing SCS as proposed impact current
commercial agreements (e.g., secondary markets and/or roaming
arrangements), particularly those involving smaller carriers, or impact
stakeholders' prospective participation in the Commission's recently
adopted ECIP program. We seek comment on whether and to what extent the
proposed SCS framework, if adopted, could impact marketplace incentives
to negotiate such future commercial agreements.
29. Further, consistent with our proposed framework, a part 25
space station license that is modified to add SCS would retain whatever
license term remains under its existing license, and a new part 25
blanket earth station license granted to provide SCS would be granted
for a term of 15 years. A modification of an existing part 25 grant of
market access to add SCS would not alter the effectiveness of that
grant, but to continue operations to provide SCS in the United States,
there would need to be a valid blanket U.S. earth station license for
purposes of communicating with the non-U.S.-licensed space station with
SCS market access. We seek comment on applying this approach in the SCS
context, including its costs and benefits. Regarding renewal, we
propose to apply current part 25 rules for modified part 25 licenses
and for new blanket earth station licenses, and we seek comment on this
approach.
30. We note that for terrestrial wireless service providers, Sec.
1.949 of the Commission's rules provides that a licensee seeking
renewal must file a renewal application and satisfy a renewal standard.
We seek comment on whether we should amend our part 25 rules to require
a similar renewal showing for a satellite operator seeking to renew a
part 25 license that was modified under our proposed SCS framework. In
addition, we seek comment on any relevant changes to the terrestrial
licensee renewal rules.
31. Section 25.164 of the Commission's rules describes the
milestones applicable to recipients of licenses for an NGSO satellite
system. We propose to retain the satellite spectrum milestones
applicable to current part 25 NGSO satellite operators to provide SCS.
We seek comment on our proposal, including its costs and benefits. We
also propose to apply the bond requirements applicable to current part
25 NGSO satellite operators to the satellite operators seeking to
provide SCS. We seek comment on the applicability of a performance
requirements for the earth stations licensed under the SCS framework.
32. We propose to retain the current part 25 rules regarding
automatic termination of station authorizations to satellite licensees
seeking to provide SCS jointly with a terrestrial collaborator. We also
tentatively conclude that it is unnecessary to revise our parts 22, 24,
and 27 rules related to permissible communications to enable the
provision of SCS. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
33. Finally, we seek comment on whether any other existing service
rule obligations applicable to terrestrial providers offering
commercial service in the relevant flexible-use bands need to be
addressed in our proposed part 25 licensing framework. We propose to
apply current part 25 obligations to an applicant seeking authorization
modification as part of a collaboration with a terrestrial licensee,
such as Sec. 25.114 requirements regarding applications for space
station authorizations, including submitting a plan describing the
design and operational strategies that will be used to mitigate orbital
debris. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on
whether--in jointly authorizing SCS through a satellite authorization
modification and a lease of terrestrial exclusive-use licenses--the
Commission should consider creating new or additional obligations in
the public interest.
34. Technical Issues. Under our proposed framework, a satellite
operator would enter into a lease arrangement with a terrestrial
licensee. Under our current secondary markets rules, a lessee would
typically be subject to the same technical requirements as the lessor,
as set forth in band-specific service rules (e.g., complying with out-
of-band emission limits to protect adjacent band licensees). We seek
comment on the sufficiency of an approach that relies on a terrestrial
licensee, in collaboration with a satellite operator to provide SCS, to
protect its pre-existing lessees from harmful interference through
engineering solutions specified in lease terms and conditions.
35. We note that part 25 does not provide Power Flux Density (PFD)
limits in terrestrially allocated bands at issue in this NPRM, and
parts 24 and 27 base station power limits would not be appropriate to
regulate satellite downlinks. Therefore, we seek comment on an
appropriate in-band PFD limit that should be applied to each of the
bands in which SCS is contemplated. We also seek comment on our belief
that it is not necessary to amend the existing market area boundary
limits in parts 22, 24, and 27 of the Commission's rules, respectively,
in the context of SCS.
36. To protect against harmful interference to adjacent band
licensees, we propose to apply the existing Out of Band Emission (OOBE)
limits for the relevant band of operation for satellite transmitters
providing space-to-Earth transmissions. While Sec. 25.202 provides a
range of OOBE limits, from relaxed narrowband emissions to stringent
emissions for other bands, we propose to implement the current
terrestrial service rule OOBE limits deemed necessary to protect
adjacent operations in the relevant bands of operation. We seek comment
on how satellite downlinks meeting existing terrestrial OOBE limits
would affect adjacent channel operations if the satellite downlinks
become widespread. We also seek comment on the applicability of other
technical limits that currently apply to terrestrial operations in each
of the subject bands proposed for SCS.
37. The novel aspects of our proposal introduce new spectrum
management challenges that warrant consideration, including the
introduction of satellite downlinks and the continuing need to protect
radio astronomy and other services that may be susceptible to signals
emanating from the sky. We seek comment on whether existing rules
addressing the protection of sensitive operations would be adequate in
the context of the provision of SCS, and whether we should consider
updated approaches to maintaining the unique characteristics of the
areas covered by Sec. 1.924 of our rules. We seek comment on all
aspects of this issue so that we might facilitate SCS while preventing
harmful interference to sensitive passive services, such as radio
astronomy and Earth exploration.
38. We propose to maintain the current power limits applicable in
each
[[Page 21949]]
band to a range of terrestrial devices that would also be licensed as
earth stations under SCS operation. We therefore propose to amend Sec.
25.204 (power limits for earth stations) to reflect that SCS earth
stations would be required to meet the power limits applicable to
terrestrial transceivers for the bands in which they seek to operate.
We seek comment on this proposal, in particular how such existing power
limits would work, in practice, for the proposed SCS, given that
consumer devices often do not operate at maximum power limits currently
permitted because of other limiting factors, such as battery life.
39. Our terrestrial (parts 22, 24, and 27) and satellite (part 25)
service rules require all transmitting devices to meet the relevant
technical rules and receive equipment authorization. Accordingly, for
new devices certified after the effective date of any rules adopted in
this proceeding, we propose to require that the equipment certification
applicant specifically seek certification under part 25 as well as the
relevant terrestrial rule part(s) for all intended uses of the device.
We seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives, including the
costs and benefits. Also, we propose to treat as authorized-by-rule
under part 25 existing terrestrial devices designed for use in the
relevant flexible-use bands that are intended for SCS use, and we
propose not to require a separate equipment authorization for such
existing devices under part 2. However, if the Commission adopts rules
for terrestrial devices that differ from existing rules that permit
terrestrial operation (e.g., additional power for SCS), devices
modified to operate under any new rules where the new rules would
permit emissions to exceed current technical limits would be required
to be recertified under the relevant rule part(s). We also propose to
direct OET to use its delegated authority to administer the Equipment
Authorization program to take all appropriate actions to implement our
decisions.
40. We are aware that the 3GPP standards group is exploring similar
applications of satellite service to handsets, which it refers to as
NTN for broadband and narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT)
applications. We seek comment and stakeholder input on the status of
any work being done by 3GPP to address interference and other concerns
associated with satellite-based operations in flexible-use spectrum
currently designated for terrestrial networks, and whether any such
work should be incorporated by the Commission through this proceeding.
We seek comment on other efforts, both domestically and
internationally, to establish standards or conduct related work
regarding satellite service to handsets.
C. International Coordination
41. We propose to apply to SCS operations all existing signal level
limits and coordination requirements that apply to the subject
terrestrial bands. Any limit we ultimately adopt will be subject to
current and future agreements reached with border countries. Further,
as many of the terrestrial bands proposed for SCS are not allocated for
mobile-satellite service use internationally, any such use would be
considered a non-conforming use under the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. Further, use of the
bands identified in this NPRM in the United States or its territories
near international borders are subject to international agreements,
with various rules and restrictions depending on the spectrum band and
type of operation.
42. We also recognize that interference metrics are different
between satellites and terrestrial stations and that any interference
analysis must be band-specific. Therefore, we seek comment on
appropriate procedures for these analyses, as well as the relevant
factors to include for specific bands. In implementing our proposal, we
also seek comment on the viability of coordination between domestic
satellite operators and terrestrial operators in bordering countries.
43. Finally, we note that certain bands under consideration in this
NPRM involve licenses that cover Alaska (including the Aleutian
islands), Puerto Rico, Florida and the USVI, respectively. Depending on
the scope of deployment and the bands ultimately permitted to provide
SCS, satellite operations could impact co-channel or adjacent band
operations, if any, in Russia, Cuba, and the British Virgin Islands. We
seek comment on the appropriate protections in instances where
countries do not have a common land border, but are adjacent over
nominal water distances.
D. Extension of Supplemental Satellite Framework to Additional
Scenarios
44. We seek comment on the potential for expanding our proposal to
permit these innovative new operations in bands and in locations that
do not meet the proposed entry criteria. Commenters are encouraged to
address technical and legal concerns with each deviation from our
proposal, and to offer suggestions on ways we can modify our proposed
framework in a given scenario to enable increased provision of SCS.
45. Spectrum Bands With Non-Flexible-Use Incumbent Licensees. We
seek comment on whether it is possible to enable SCS in any bands that
host non-flexible-use legacy incumbent operations other than those of
the wireless licensee(s) seeking to offer SCS. We recognize that each
such band will require individual analysis of the technical
characteristics of the spectrum to be deployed, as well as the nature
and location of the relevant incumbent operations, but we seek comment
on whether there are common features among different bands that would
allow us to enable SCS with similar rules.
46. Geographically Independent Areas Where Collaborating
Terrestrial Licensees Hold All Co-Channel Licenses and Seek to Provide
SCS. We seek comment on whether we should extend our proposal to
include scenarios in which there are multiple unaffiliated flexible-use
licensees in a given GIA, but all licensees in that area agree to
jointly provide supplemental coverage from space to their customers in
cooperation with a satellite provider. We seek comment on the
likelihood, in this scenario, of stakeholders reaching agreements where
all relevant terrestrial network operators would be coordinating to
enable this innovative new capability without causing harmful
interference. We seek comment on how to address issues where parties to
a consortium withdraw from the collective agreement, resulting in non-
participating co-channel licensees requiring protection in the
geographic area.
47. We also seek comment on the unique circumstances regarding the
2.5 GHz band. Although some licenses from Auction 108 have been issued
for the 2.5 GHz band, the results indicate that T-Mobile may ultimately
hold most licenses for a given co-channel block in some GIAs. We note,
however, that the band also hosts a large number of Educational
Broadband Service licensees, many of which lease their spectrum rights
to T-Mobile. Further, the Commission enabled Tribal Nations to obtain
access to the band through a priority window prior to commencement of
the 2.5 GHz auction. Accordingly, the auction results may not fully
indicate the nature of T-Mobile's holdings in the band. Given these
complexities, we did not include the 2.5 GHz band in our proposal, but
we seek comment on whether SCS would be viable in the 2.5 GHz band.
48. Adjacent Geographic Areas Containing Non-Collaborating
Licensees. We seek comment on
[[Page 21950]]
scenarios where the geographic area subject to potential SCS contains
non-partner, co-channel licensees in adjacent markets located within a
GIA. For example, a terrestrial wireless licensee that does not hold
all co-channel licenses within a GIA, for example, CONUS, may
nonetheless seek to collaborate with a satellite licensee to offer
supplemental coverage to some portion of CONUS. Such scenarios can
present complex legal and technical challenges, and we seek comment on
how these challenges, particularly the potential for harmful
interference to adjacent market, co-channel licensees that are in no
way collaborating with the joint providers of supplemental satellite
coverage, can be overcome. We also seek comment on whether the
provision of such supplemental coverage is technically and/or
financially viable without 100 percent CONUS coverage.
49. Of particular technical concern in these scenarios is the
difficulty with which satellite-based transmissions can abide by our
field strength limits at license area boundaries. Further, depending on
the angle of transmission between the satellite and the ground, the
limit on emissions may in fact be exceeded above ground level, even if
it not exceeded at ground level. We also note that where the area for
which supplemental coverage is sought contains non-partner co-channel
licensees, our current rules would require that the signal transmitted
by the satellite satisfy the service-specific field strength limit or
power flux density at the boundary of the co-channel licensee's
adjacent license area. Our rules, however, specifically provide for
adjacent market co-channel licensees to reach agreement to establish an
alternative limit. We seek comment on whether this is a feasible option
to overcome technical challenges presented in the context of newly
introduced satellite-based transmissions where non-collaborating
licensees are present.
50. Finally, in the event that we were to expand the scope of the
SCS framework, we seek comment on how to assign responsibility for
mitigating harmful interference between non-partner, co-channel
terrestrial licensees and SCS operators in adjacent markets located
within a GIA.
E. Space-Based Coverage to Consumer Devices in Spectrum Already
Allocated for Mobile Satellite Service Communications
51. The framework for SCS proposed in this NPRM would allow
transmissions between satellites and terrestrial devices on spectrum
licensed for terrestrial flexible-use wireless networks. However, there
are other models for providing service to consumer devices via
satellite. From a regulatory perspective, we believe that such
proposals are distinguishable from the SCS framework discussed in this
NPRM and may not raise the same novel legal and technical complexities
as providing supplemental coverage from space using terrestrial
spectrum. However, from a consumer perspective, these two scenarios
appear identical; in each case a consumer device is able to receive
service via satellite in areas where the terrestrial network does not
provide coverage. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether there are any
particular considerations or actions needed related to providing
supplemental satellite coverage to terrestrial devices besides the SCS
framework proposed in this NPRM. We seek specific comment on how we can
promote access to emergency 911 services and the availability of WEA in
models that use currently allocated satellite spectrum and are
therefore outside of the proposed SCS framework.
F. Other Issues
52. 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
any potential benefits that may be associated with the various
approaches and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment
on how the various approaches that the Commission may consider may
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
53. This NPRM may contain new or modified information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission
adopts any new or modified information collection requirements, they
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and
other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce
the information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.''
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
54. 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
potential rule and policy changes contained in the Ninth Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is contained in Appendix B of the
NPRM.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
55. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (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 the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments as specified in the NPRM.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
56. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes a new regulatory framework
for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) in which satellite operators
collaborating with terrestrial mobile service providers would be able
to obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on
currently licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial
services, thus expanding coverage to the terrestrial licensee's
subscribers, especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas.
This framework could enable innovation and investment in nascent
satellite and terrestrial interoperable technologies and cross-industry
stakeholder partnerships to flourish in the United States. The goals of
the proposed framework include facilitating ubiquitous wireless
coverage across the nation; expanding the availability of emergency
communications to consumers and the geographic range of
[[Page 21951]]
first responders to provide emergency services; and promoting
competition in the provision of wireless services to consumers. The
proposal also enables more intensive spectrum use and would be
consistent with the Commission's goal to allocate increasingly scarce
spectrum resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
The Commission anticipates that the proposed SCS approach will
incentivize creative partnerships between terrestrial network and space
station operators and will provide additional tools to close wireless
coverage gaps while at the same time retaining high service quality
among 4G and 5G terrestrial networks, protect spectrum usage rights,
and avoid harmful interference.
57. The Commission's rules require the use of frequencies and
frequency bands to be in accordance with the United States Table of
Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table). To permit SCS to the subscribers of
the relevant terrestrial networks using certain terrestrial bands, the
Commission proposes to modify the U.S. Table to authorize mobile-
satellite service (space-to-Earth and Earth-to-space) operations in
certain terrestrial bands that have no primary, federal or non-federal
satellite allocations. The Commission proposes to add a non-federal
footnote to the U.S. Table authorizing mobile-satellite service
operations on a co-primary basis with existing allocations in a number
of terrestrial flexible-use bands. Specifically, given the complexity
of the proposed approach (particularly in terms of technical
considerations), the Commission limits its initial proposal to spectrum
and locations where (1) there is only a single terrestrial entity that
holds, either directly or indirectly, all co-channel licenses for the
relevant frequencies in a given geographically independent area (GIA);
and (2) there are no primary, non-flexible use legacy incumbent
operations (whether federal or non-federal) in the band. The flexible-
use terrestrial bands for which the Commission proposes at this time to
add a non-federal mobile-satellite service footnote allocation are: 600
MHz: 614-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz; 700 MHz: 698-758 MHz, 775 MHz-788
MHz, and 805-806 MHz; 800 MHz: 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz; Broadband
PCS: 1850-1915 MHz and 1930-1995 MHz; AWS-H Block: 1915-1920 MHz and
1995-2000 MHz; and WCS: 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz.
58. The NPRM discusses features of each band in detail, including
the status of incumbents and relevant service rules that may impact the
band's potential use under the proposed framework. The allocation is
limited to transmissions between a space station and an end user device
(e.g., smartphone or IoT device) of a subscriber of a terrestrial
service that is designed to be used in the relevant terrestrial
flexible-use band.
59. The Commission strives to realize the public interest benefits
of SCS as rapidly as possible, while minimizing the risk of harmful
interference. To avoid technical complexities that could arise where
SCS is introduced in areas where multiple co-channel licensees are
present on a particular spectrum block, the Commission proposes to
initially authorize SCS only in cases where a single terrestrial
licensee holds all co-channel licenses on the relevant band in one of
the following GIAs: (1) the contiguous United States (CONUS); (2)
Alaska; (3) Hawaii; (4) American Samoa; (5) Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin
Islands; and (6) Guam/Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, the
Commission proposes initially to limit the SCS framework to non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellite operators with an
existing part 25 license or an existing part 25 grant of market access
(for non-U.S. licensed satellite operators) (together,
``authorization''), because such operators are best positioned for
rapid implementation of supplemental coverage from space. To apply for
authorization to provide SCS, a satellite operator with an existing
part 25 authorization for NGSO operation must be able to certify that
it has: (1) an application on file with the Commission to lease the
exclusive-use spectrum, allocated for mobile-satellite service (MSS)
provision of SCS, of a terrestrial licensee that holds all co-channel
licenses throughout a GIA; (2) a current part 25 space station license
or part 25 grant of market access for NGSO satellite operation
sufficient to cover the GIA specified in the lease; and (3) proof of an
application on file from the satellite operator's terrestrial partner
for a part 25 blanket earth station license covering all of its
subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be transmitting and
receiving from the space station in conjunction with the provision of
SCS. In addition to the proposed approach to authorizing space station
operations, the NPRM proposes to authorize earth station operations by
modifying the Commission's part 25 rules to require a terrestrial
licensee that has partnered with a satellite operator to seek a blanket
earth station license for all of its subscribers' terrestrial devices
that will operate with space stations, and are otherwise authorized
under the terrestrial license.
60. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes a novel framework to
facilitate SCS, a service offering that leverages currently licensed
terrestrial, flexible-use spectrum. The Commission addresses existing
service rule obligations for satellite operators and terrestrial
wireless providers, by proposing to apply certain relevant rules, or
seeking comment on the applicability of other rules in the context of
the proposed part 25 licensing framework to authorize SCS.
Additionally, the Commission notes that SCS operators would be required
to protect adjacent band operations to the same extent required today
under current rules for terrestrial use, and seeks to facilitate SCS
through operations that are fully capable of complying with current
technical rules and restrictions intended to prevent harmful
interference. The Commission does not seek to modify the current, long-
standing and carefully considered protection requirements, but instead
seeks comment on this approach in the NPRM, and on whether there are
alternatives to ensure that any SCS offerings in these previously
terrestrial-only allocated bands preserve the spectrum landscape to
prevent harmful interference.
B. Legal Basis
61. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and
310.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
62. 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 that: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
63. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First,
[[Page 21952]]
while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses
that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data
from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an
independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of
small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States
which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
64. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
65. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly,
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
66. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry 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 SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
67. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
68. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
69. To effectuate SCS in certain flexible-use bands previously
allocated solely for terrestrial use, the Commission proposes to
authorize satellite-to-terrestrial (uplink and downlink) operations in
these bands by allowing an NGSO satellite operator with an existing
part 25 authorization to apply to modify such authorization where that
entity meets certain prerequisites, or ``entry criteria.'' The proposed
framework and requirements upon which the Commission seeks comment, if
adopted, may impose new and/or additional reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements on small entities as well as other
licensees to allow those licensees seeking to provide SCS.
70. Specifically, the Commission proposes that a satellite operator
authorized for NGSO satellite operation may apply to modify its part 25
authorization only if the satellite operator has: (1) an application on
file with the Commission to lease the exclusive-use spectrum, allocated
for MSS provision of SCS, of a terrestrial licensee that holds all co-
channel licenses, directly or indirectly, throughout a GIA; (2) a
current part 25 space station license or part 25 grant of market access
for NGSO satellite operation sufficient to cover the leased GIA; and
(3) proof of an application on file from the satellite operator's
terrestrial partner for a part 25 blanket earth station license
covering all of its subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be
transmitting and receiving from the space station in conjunction with
the provision of SCS.
71. Under the proposed framework, meeting the entry criteria would
allow an entity to apply to modify its existing satellite
authorization. However, all related applications including those
seeking modification, lease applications, and blanket earth station
applications--must first be granted to provide supplemental coverage
from space. Thus, the requirements proposed in the NPRM are in addition
to the existing underlying reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements. The
[[Page 21953]]
Commission seeks comment on our proposed approach, including the costs,
benefits, and burdens associated with alternative methods of
authorizing SCS, and any incremental burdens associated with adding
SCS, such as additional recordkeeping that may be required.
72. At this time, the Commission is not in a position to determine
whether the proposed rules and associated requirements raised in the
NPRM would require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals, and cannot quantify the cost of
compliance with the potential rule changes and compliance obligations
raised herein. The Commission invites comment on the costs and burdens
of the proposals in the NPRM and expects the information received in
comments including, where requested, cost and benefit analyses, to help
the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for
small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may
result if the proposals and associated requirements discussed in the
NPRM are adopted.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
73. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives for small businesses 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 rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
74. The Commission has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that
the country's scarce and valuable spectrum resource is put to its
highest and best use. Consistent with this commitment, in the NPRM, the
Commission has proposed a novel framework for SCS that would allow,
through a collaboration between a terrestrial mobile service provider
and satellite operator, transmissions directly from satellites to
terrestrial devices on spectrum that is currently allocated and
licensed exclusively on a terrestrial basis. In the discussion of the
proposals and matters upon which the Commission seeks comment, the NPRM
raises alternatives and seeks input such as costs and benefits analyses
from small and other entities. By requesting such information, the
Commission has given small entities the opportunity to broaden the
scope of the Commission's understanding of impacts which may not be
readily apparent, and offer alternatives not already considered that
could minimize the economic impact on small entities.
75. Although the Commission limits its initial SCS framework
proposal to NGSO operators with an existing part 25 license or an
existing part 25 grant of market access (for non-U.S. licensed
satellite operators) because these operators are in the best position
to rapidly implement supplemental coverage from space, the Commission
considered that there may be other alternatives, and in the NPRM seeks
comment on other approaches that might permit new entrants to
participate in this framework. Current part 25 authorization for NGSO
systems typically involves a processing round procedure whereby
applicants for licenses or petitioners for U.S. market access are
considered in groups based on frequencies requested and filing date.
The issuance of a modified part 25 satellite authorization, coupled
with a leasing requirement included in the proposed entry criteria,
would appropriately encompass the necessary arrangement for the
provision of supplemental coverage from space. Thus, the initial
proposal would not allow a satellite operator to be granted an
independent part 25 co-channel authorization to use terrestrial
spectrum in a GIA without an arrangement with the terrestrial license
holder.
76. In the NPRM, the Commission considered and asked whether a
satellite operator with an existing part 25 space authorization should
be permitted to apply for a conditional license to modify its
authorization (in order to provide terrestrial coverage) without first
having identified a terrestrial license partner. The Commission further
considered and asked whether such an approach would provide additional
flexibility to facilitate the participation of small businesses. Using
a measured approach will allow the Commission to fully develop a robust
record to consider policies and rules that may ultimately permit
expansion to new or other types of satellite entrants collaborating
with terrestrial licensees such as small entities authorized on
additional spectrum blocks that do not meet the proposed SCS framework.
77. As part of the SCS framework, the Commission proposes that a
terrestrial licensee seeking to collaborate with a satellite operator
to offer SCS must apply for and obtain a blanket earth station license
for all of its subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be
transmitting to space stations for SCS operations, and we seek comment
on this approach and any other approaches that will be consistent with
our statutory and international obligations. The Commission also seeks
comment on how we can streamline earth station licensing processes and
forms for SCS blanket earth station applications to eliminate any undue
burden. For example, the NPRM asks to what extent approval of devices
in the equipment certification process would render information
ordinarily required in a blanket earth station application unnecessary.
To streamline the licensing process, the NPRM seek comment on what
information currently collected in Schedule B might be eliminated and
perhaps be replaced by a certification(s). If a certification approach
is adopted, the NPRM seeks comment on what certifications would be
necessary. For example, instead of listing the devices that would be
covered, the NPRM asks whether it would be sufficient to require a
certification stating that: (1) the earth station applicant meets all
SCS requirements; (2) the blanket earth station license will cover all
of the current and future subscribers' devices activated in the
relevant terrestrial network; and (3) the devices covered by the
blanket earth station license have already received equipment
authorizations under Commission rules.
78. The NPRM also seeks comment on eligibility for the Enhanced
Competition Incentive Program (ECIP), which the Commission established
in July 2022 to facilitate new opportunities for small carriers and
tribal nations to increase access to spectrum, while incorporating
provisions to ensure against program waste, fraud, and abuse. Given
that the proposed framework is primarily intended to facilitate
provision of SCS to existing consumer handsets, and ECIP was adopted
with requirements tailored specifically towards provision of service
through terrestrial base stations, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to make SCS participants, necessarily engaged in leasing
arrangements, eligible for ECIP benefits which could reduce the
economic impacts for small carriers and tribal nations.
79. The ECIP rules were designed to facilitate broader access to
wireless spectrum under two prongs: one focused on transactions with
small carriers or tribal nations and one focused on transactions
resulting in
[[Page 21954]]
construction in rural areas. The program benefits include lengthened
license terms and extended timeframes to meet program requirements, but
the program also incorporates recordkeeping elements designed to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission considered and the NPRM
seeks comment on how to integrate these safeguards and the ECIP
program's goals with the expansion of SCS. Specifically, the NPRM
requests comment on how to apply ECIP rules requiring specific lessee
action under the rural transactions-focused prong, as stated above, to
a part 25 satellite-licensed lessee, with particular focus on the
requirement that a lessee provide service for the entire Qualifying
Geography for three continuous years and that service must commence no
later than two years after entering the lease. The Commission also
considered and seeks comment on how to address any potential conflict
between these ECIP obligations and part 25 milestones applicable to a
satellite licensee, and asks whether parties can meet ECIP requirements
in an SCS context, or whether the tailored conditions of ECIP
participation would reduce the flexibility of potential terrestrial-
satellite collaborators and thus operate as a disincentive for SCS
providers to participate in the ECIP program regardless of whether it
is permitted.
80. Further, the Commission asks whether there are any additional
competitive or public interest concerns that we should consider that
would weigh in favor of placing limits on the proposed collaboration.
The NPRM seeks comment on the extent to which authorizing SCS as
proposed would impact current commercial agreements (e.g., secondary
markets and/or roaming arrangements), particularly those involving
smaller carriers, or impact stakeholders' prospective participation in
the Commission's recently adopted ECIP program. The NPRM also seeks
comment on whether and to what extent the proposed SCS framework, if
adopted, could impact marketplace incentives to negotiate such future
commercial agreements.
81. Allowing smaller entities to collaborate to provide SCS service
could facilitate increased small business participation. The Commission
considered extending the provision of SCS to geographically independent
areas where collaborating terrestrial licensees hold all co-channel
licenses and seek to provide SCS and seeks comment on this alternative
in the NPRM. Specifically, the Commission asks whether it should extend
its proposal to include scenarios in which there are multiple
unaffiliated flexible-use licensees in a given GIA, but all licensees
in that area agree to jointly provide a supplemental coverage from
space to their customers in cooperation with a satellite provider. The
NPRM also seeks comment on the likelihood, in this scenario, of
stakeholders reaching agreements where all relevant terrestrial network
operators would be coordinating to enable this innovative new
capability without causing harmful interference, the market
arrangements that might be required, and the types of changes to the
proposed SCS framework that such a change would entail.
82. In addition, the Commission considered scenarios where the
geographic area subject to potential SCS contains non-partner, co-
channel licensees in adjacent markets located within a GIA, which could
impact small businesses. For example, a terrestrial wireless licensee
that does not hold all co-channel licenses in a given GIA, for example
CONUS, may nonetheless seek to partner with a satellite licensee to
offer supplemental coverage in a part of CONUS. Such scenarios can
present complex legal and technical challenges and the NPRM therefore
seeks comment on how these challenges, particularly the potential for
harmful interference to adjacent market, co-channel licensees that are
not seeking to collaborate with the joint providers of supplemental
satellite coverage, and that could include small businesses, can be
overcome. Consequently, the NPRM seeks comment on the technical and/or
financial viability of SCS expansion in scenarios without 100 percent
CONUS coverage. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether it is
possible to enable SCS in bands that have non-flexible use legacy
incumbent operations entitled to protection under our rules, which
could consist of small business incumbent licensees. The Commission
recognizes that each such band will require individual analysis of the
technical characteristics of the spectrum to be deployed, as well as
the nature and location of the relevant incumbent operations. The
Commission therefore considered and seeks comment on whether there are
common features among different bands that would allow provision of SCS
with similar rules. For example, the NPRM seeks comment on whether
there are bands for which non-flexible use incumbent operations are
sufficiently localized such that protection zones would provide
sufficient protection and, if so, what are those zones and protection
requirements.
83. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of
comments and costs and benefits analyses filed in response to the NPRM.
The Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any
final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
84. None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Communications, Satellites, Telecommunications.
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 parts 2 and 25 as
follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 2.106 by:
0
a. Revising the paragraph (a) Allocation Table pages 30, 36, 37, and
38.
0
b. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, adding, in
numerical order, footnote ``NG33A.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
(a) * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 21955]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP23.033
[[Page 21956]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP23.034
[[Page 21957]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP23.035
[[Page 21958]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP23.036
[[Page 21959]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *
Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes
* * * * *
NG33A The bands 614-652 MHz and 663-758 MHz, 775 MHz-788 MHz, and
805-806 MHz, 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz, 1850-1920 MHz and 1930-2000
MHz, and 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz are allocated to the mobile-
satellite service (MSS) on a co-primary basis. MSS operations in these
frequency bands are subject to the Commission's rules for Supplemental
Coverage from Space set forth in part 25 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
3. 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
4. Amend Sec. 25.103 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions
of ``Geographically independent area (GIA)'' and ``Supplemental
Coverage from Space (SCS)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 25.103 Definitions.
* * * * *
Geographically independent area (GIA). Any of the following six
areas: (1) CONUS; (2) Alaska; (3) Hawaii; (4) American Samoa; (5)
Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands; and (6) Guam/Northern Mariana Islands.
* * * * *
Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). The provision of coverage
to a terrestrial mobile service licensee's subscribers operating in
underserved and/or unserved areas within a terrestrial mobile service
licensee's license area, comprising a GIA, only through a collaboration
between an existing NGSO operator and a terrestrial mobile service
licensee involving transmissions between space stations and mobile end-
user devices. NGSO operators and terrestrial mobile service licensees
seeking to provide SCS must be authorized in compliance with Sec.
25.125.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 25.109 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.109 Cross-reference.
* * * * *
(f) Space and earth stations providing Supplemental Coverage from
Space are subject to technical rules in parts 22, 24, and 27 of this
chapter where applicable.
0
6. Amend Sec. 25.112 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.112 Dismissal and return of applications.
(a) * * *
(3) The application requests authority to operate a space station
in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such
operations under the Radio Regulations of the International
Telecommunication Union, unless the application is filed pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 25.122, 25.123, or 25.125.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 25.115 by adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.115 Applications for earth station authorizations.
* * * * *
(q) A blanket license application for an earth station
authorization to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space must comply
with Sec. 25.125.
0
8. Amend Sec. 25.117 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.117 Modification of station license.
* * * * *
(i) An application for modification of a space station
authorization to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space must comply
with Sec. 25.125.
0
9. Add Sec. 25.125 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.125 Applications for supplemental coverage from space (SCS).
(a) SCS entry criteria. This section shall only apply to applicants
seeking to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). An applicant
for SCS space station authorization must be a holder of either an
existing part 25 NGSO license or grant of U.S. market access
collaborating with a terrestrial mobile service provider that holds all
co-channel licenses throughout a Geographically Independent Area (GIA)
in a band allocated to Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) operation through
footnote NG33A in the United States Table of Frequency Allocations
under Sec. 2.106 of this chapter. Applicants for SCS space stations
must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this
section. Applicants for SCS earth stations must comply with the
requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) SCS space station application requirements. An applicant
seeking a space station authorization for the provision of SCS shall
submit an application requesting modification of a current part 25 NGSO
license or grant of U.S. market access.
(1) The application shall include a certification to the following:
(i) an application is on file with the Commission to lease spectrum
allocated for MSS provision of SCS from a terrestrial mobile service
provider that holds, either directly or indirectly, all co-channel
licenses throughout a GIA;
(ii) the current part 25 space station license or part 25 grant of
market access for NGSO satellite operation is sufficient to cover the
leased GIA; and
(iii) a blanket license application is on file, pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, from the satellite operator's
terrestrial licensee partner for earth stations, covering all of its
subscribers' terrestrial devices that will be transmitting and
receiving from the space station in conjunction with the provision of
SCS.
(2) The application shall include a comprehensive proposal for each
space station in the proposed SCS system on FCC Form 312, Main Form and
Schedule S, as described in Sec. 25.114(a) through (d), together with
the certification described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Applications that are acceptable for filing will be placed on
public notice pursuant to Sec. 25.151 to provide interested parties an
opportunity to file pleadings in response to the application pursuant
to Sec. 25.154.
(4) The Commission will review the application and all the
pleadings filed in response to the application, and will grant
applications that meet the standards of this section, Sec. 25.156(a),
and are otherwise in accordance with applicable Commission rules.
(5) Applications to modify a part 25 authorization to provide SCS
will not be subject to the processing round procedures in Sec. Sec.
25.137 and 25.157.
(c) SCS earth station application requirements. A terrestrial
licensee collaborating with an NGSO satellite operator to provide SCS
shall submit an application for a blanket earth station license for all
of its subscribers' terrestrial end-user devices that will communicate
with the NGSO operator's space stations.
(1) The terrestrial licensee must file for such earth station
authorization using FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, as
described in Sec. 25.115(a), specifying the number of units to be
covered by the blanket license.
(2) Applications that are acceptable for filing will be placed on
public notice pursuant to Sec. 25.151 to provide interested parties an
opportunity to file pleadings in response to the application pursuant
to Sec. 25.154.
(3) The Commission will review the application and all the
pleadings filed in response to the application, and will grant
applications that meet the
[[Page 21960]]
standards of this section, Sec. 25.156(a), and are otherwise in
accordance with applicable Commission rules.
(4) Once the terrestrial licensee receives a part 25 blanket
license for its subscribers' terrestrial devices, it may avail itself
of the minor modification procedures for blanket earth station licenses
pursuant to Sec. 25.118 to add additional terrestrial devices without
prior Commission approval.
(d) SCS joint licensing requirement. Authorization to provide SCS
requires grant of three applications: part 25 modification application
or request for modification of a grant of market access; part 1 lease
application; and part 25 blanket earth station license application.
(e) Equipment authorization for SCS earth stations.
(1) Each SCS earth station used for the provision of SCS under this
section shall meet the equipment authorization requirements under Sec.
25.129 and all equipment authorization requirements for all intended
uses of the device as specified in parts 22, 24, and 27 of this chapter
(e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.377, 24.51, 27.51).
(2) Terrestrial devices with existing equipment authorizations
under parts 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter as of [[EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]] are authorized by rule for SCS use under this section,
consistent with their existing equipment authorizations.
0
10. Amend Sec. 25.129 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.129 Equipment authorization for portable earth-station
transceivers.
* * * * *
(e) Earth station transceivers used for the provision of SCS shall
comply with Sec. 25.125.
0
11. Amend Sec. 25.137 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.137 Requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S.-licensed
space stations.
* * * * *
(f) A non-U.S.-licensed space station operator that has been
granted access to the United States market pursuant to a declaratory
ruling may modify its U.S. operations under the procedures set forth in
Sec. Sec. 25.117(d), (h), and (i) and 25.118(e).
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 25.202 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits.
* * * * *
(k) Space station downlinks operating as SCS under the provisions
of NG33A of the U.S. Table of Allocations and Sec. 25.125 are subject
to the following rules.
(1) Out of band emission limits. Space station downlink emissions
on spectrum allocated for mobile-satellite service and used in
providing SCS shall meet the out-of-band emission limits applicable to
the terrestrial base stations of its terrestrial partner, as set forth
in parts 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter (e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.917,
24.238, 27.53), respectively.
(2) Reserved.
0
13. Amend Sec. 25.204 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.204 Power limits for earth stations.
* * * * *
(g) Earth stations operating in conjunction with the provision of
SCS pursuant to Sec. 25.125 shall comply with the power requirements
for the respective band of operation of the terrestrial partner for
terrestrial transceivers in parts 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter (e.g.,
Sec. Sec. 22.913, 24.232, 27.50).
0
14. Amend Sec. 25.208 by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.208 Power flux-density limits.
* * * * *
(w) SCS operations in bands authorized by NG33A in the Table of
Frequency Allocations and Sec. 25.125 must meet the relevant boundary
signal level limits and coordination requirements for the relevant
terrestrial band of operation, as specified by treaty and in parts 22,
24, and 27 of this chapter (e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.169, 22.983(c), 24.236,
27.55, 27.57), at applicable international borders. Conversion from
field strength to PFD shall be done using accepted engineering
techniques.
[FR Doc. 2023-07214 Filed 4-11-23; 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 April 12, 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.