Proposed Rule2023-12802
Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 21, 2023
Effective
August 7, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) seeks comment on revisions to its rules governing spectrum sharing among a new generation of broadband satellite constellations to promote market entry, regulatory certainty, and spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on which metrics should be used to define the protection afforded to a non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) system authorized through an earlier processing round from an NGSO FSS system authorized through a later processing round, including the implementation of a degraded throughput methodology.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40142-40146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12802]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 21-456; FCC 23-29; FR ID 147722]
Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit,
Fixed-Satellite Service Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or we) seeks comment on revisions to its rules governing
spectrum sharing among a new generation of broadband satellite
constellations to promote market entry, regulatory certainty, and
spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
which metrics should be used to define the protection afforded to a
non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS)
system authorized through an earlier processing round from an NGSO FSS
system authorized through a later processing round, including the
implementation of a degraded throughput methodology.
DATES: Comments are due August 7, 2023. Reply comments are due
September 5, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 21-456,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> FCC website: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">http://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#02444141373236426461612c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e585d5d2b2e2a5e787d7d30797168">[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,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a18e839bcca687a1878e8ea2848181cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d1e313c247319381e3831311d3b3e3e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 23-29, adopted April
20, 2023, and released April 21, 2023. The full text is available
online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-29A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-29A1.pdf</a>. To
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities,
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e6e3e3959094e0c6c3c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6b0b5b5c3c6c2b6909595d8919980">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Procedural Matters
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 accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
[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
[[Page 40143]]
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#adebeeee989d99edcbcece83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2a4a1a1d7d2d6a2848181cc858d94">[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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' We have prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in the FNPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in Section IV below. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM
indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this document, we seek comment on revisions to the
Commission's rules governing spectrum sharing among a new generation of
broadband satellite constellations to promote market entry, regulatory
certainty, and spectrum efficiency through good-faith coordination.
Specifically, we seek comment on which metrics should be used to define
the protection afforded to an earlier-round NGSO FSS system from a
later-round system, including the implementation of a degraded
throughput methodology. This document will continue the Commission's
efforts to promote development and competition in broadband NGSO
satellite services made possible by the new space age.
II. Background
2. This proceeding continues the Commission's recent efforts to
update and refine its rules governing NGSO FSS systems. Constellations
of NGSO FSS satellites traveling in low- and medium-Earth orbit may
provide broadband services to industry, enterprise, and residential
customers with lower latency and wider coverage than has previously
been available via satellite. The number of applications filed in
recent years for NGSO FSS system authorizations, and the number of
satellites launched, are unprecedented.
3. Processing Round Procedure Overview. Applications for NGSO FSS
system licenses and petitions for declaratory ruling seeking U.S.
market access for non-U.S.-licensed NGSO FSS systems are considered in
groups based on filing date, under a processing round procedure.
Pursuant to the Commission's rules, a license application for ``NGSO-
like'' satellite operation, including operation of an NGSO FSS system,
that satisfies the acceptability for filing requirements is reviewed to
determine whether it is a ``competing application'' or a ``lead
application.'' A competing application is one filed in response to a
public notice initiating a processing round. Any other application is a
lead application. Competing applications are placed on public notice to
provide interested parties an opportunity to file pleadings in response
to the application. Lead applications are also placed on public notice.
The public notice for a lead application initiates a processing round,
establishes a cut-off date for competing NGSO-like satellite system
applications, and provides interested parties an opportunity to file
pleadings in response to the application.
4. The Commission reviews each application in the processing round
and all the pleadings filed in response to each application. Based upon
this review and consideration of such other matters as it may
officially notice, the Commission will grant all the applications for
which the Commission finds that the applicant is legally, technically,
and otherwise qualified, that the proposed facilities and
[[Page 40144]]
operations comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and policies,
and that grant of the application will serve the public interest,
convenience and necessity. The Commission will deny the other
applications.
III. Discussion
5. In the Report and Order in FCC 23-29, we adopt a requirement
that, prior to commencing operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market
access recipient must either certify that it has completed a
coordination agreement with any operational NGSO FSS system licensed or
granted U.S. market access in an earlier processing round, or submit a
showing for Commission approval that it will not cause harmful
interference to any such system with which coordination has not been
completed using a degraded throughput methodology. In this FNPRM, we
propose to finalize the details of the degraded throughput methodology
and invite specific comment on the appropriate values and assumptions
to be used in this requirement and whether we should adopt a rule
limiting aggregate interference from later-round NGSO FSS systems into
earlier-round systems.
6. We expect that the degraded throughput analysis should consist
of three steps. The first step is to establish a baseline of
performance. To do this, an operator models the earlier-round NGSO
system's performance without any additional interference by computing
the earlier-round NGSO system's probabilistic C/N level using its
published system parameters and a rain-attenuation model. This provides
the baseline in terms of: (1) the earlier-round system's time-weighted
average throughput (derived by computing the spectral efficiency from
the C/N results), and (2) the earlier-round system's link
unavailability time percentage (i.e., the percentage of time when the
earlier-round system's expected C/N will fall below its minimum usable
level). The second step is to repeat the analysis above, adding in the
effect of the later-round system's interference into the earlier-round
system. This produces a second measurement of time-weighted average
throughput and link unavailability time-percentage. The third step is
to compare these two sets of figures to measure the effect of any
additional interference. If the resulting performance impact exceeds
the permissible limits, then the later-round system must adjust its
operations to mitigate interference to a permissible level. We seek
comment on this process.
7. Specifically, noting that 3% has been suggested as an
appropriate value for several aspects of the degraded throughput
analysis, we invite comment on the appropriate values for these limits,
including their technical justification. What is the appropriate
baseline to consider for the earlier-round system, and should it
include existing sources of interference, such as interference from GSO
networks or intra-system interference? Should a degraded throughput
methodology compare an incumbent's baseline level of performance given
only natural degradation to that same incumbent's expected performance
given a single new entrant's operations? Should we use standardized
antenna patterns and noise temperatures for the computation of C/(I+N)
in a degraded throughput method? A degraded throughput methodology
would rely on detailed technical data about the relevant NGSO FSS
systems. How many locations should be evaluated in the methodology, and
should the locations include sites outside the United States? How
should rain fade conditions in different locations be incorporated into
the degraded throughput analysis? What other technical data is needed
to appropriately evaluate degraded throughput effects, and how can the
Commission ensure that any degraded throughput analysis appropriately
protects the specific characteristics of an NGSO system's operations?
What role should Schedule S information play in the analysis? Are
additional means needed to protect earlier-round systems against loss
of synchronization due to potentially high levels of short term
interference? Should the earlier-round operator be able to specify two
C/N objectives--one relative to the C/N level below which the victim
modem would lose lock and another relative to the C/N level below which
the victim link would become unavailable because it is not able to
offer the minimum wanted throughput? What mitigation techniques would
be appropriate if degraded throughput thresholds were not otherwise
satisfied?
8. We also note concerns on the record about aggregate interference
from multiple NGSO systems. What is a permissible aggregate
interference level for protecting priority NGSO systems in a frequency
band, as part of an earlier processing round? Should we expect that
there will be a maximum number of NGSO FSS systems that can be
accommodated in a given frequency band and if so, how should that
affect any inter-round protection criteria and the opening of
additional processing rounds? How does this methodology accommodate
multiple NGSO systems that span multiple processing rounds?
9. Additionally, we seek comment on what criteria should be applied
among NGSO systems after the sunset period. We recognize that our
default spectrum splitting process is intended to encourage negotiation
between systems in the same processing round. Should that also be the
default procedure applicable between systems after the sunsetting of
interference protection in order to facilitate coordination, or is
there an alternative better suited to systems that may be at different
stages of deployment? We seek comment on the fit of the default
spectrum splitting process to the post-sunset environment. What does
co-equal mean when there are established operators on a co-equal basis
with newer entrants?
10. 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
11. 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
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). The Commission requests
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 in the DATES section above and as instructed under
Comment Filing Requirements above. The Commission will send a copy of
the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
[[Page 40145]]
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
12. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented
number of applications for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)
space station licenses, including for NGSO fixed-satellite service
(FSS) systems. Traveling closer to the Earth than a traditional
geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) satellite, low- and medium-orbit
NGSO FSS satellite constellations are capable of providing broadband
services to industry, enterprise, and residential customers with lower
latency and wider coverage than was previously available via satellite.
This rulemaking continues to facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS
systems capable of providing broadband and other services on a global
basis, and will promote competition among NGSO FSS system proponents,
including the market entry of new competitors.
13. This FNPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the
Commission's rules governing the treatment NGSO FSS systems filed in
different space station processing rounds. Specifically, this FNPRM
seeks comment on details regarding the implementation of a degraded
throughput methodology. It also seeks comment on what criteria should
be applied among NGSO systems after the sunset period.
B. Legal Basis
14. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a),
303, 308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rulemaking Will Apply
15. 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 and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
16. 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 $35 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.
17. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category 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. Establishments providing internet services or
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to
$49, 999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can
be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
18. The Commission seeks comment on potential changes to the
spectrum sharing requirements among NGSO FSS satellite systems.
Specifically, comment is sought on how to implement the degraded
throughput methodology. Because of the costs involved in developing and
deploying an NGSO FSS satellite constellation, we anticipate that few
NGSO FSS operators affected by this rulemaking would qualify under the
definition of ``small entity.''
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
19. 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.''
20. The Commission adopted a requirement that, prior to commencing
operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either
certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any
operational NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in
an earlier processing round, or submit a showing for Commission
approval that it will not cause harmful interference to any such system
with which coordination has not been completed using a degraded
throughput methodology. This FNPRM invites comment on which specific
metrics should be used to define the protection afforded to an earlier-
round NGSO FSS system from a later-round system.
21. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate values and
assumptions to be used with the degraded throughput requirement. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt a rule limiting
aggregate interference from NGSO FSS systems that were authorized in a
later processing round into NGSO FSS systems authorized in an earlier
processing round. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative
means of
[[Page 40146]]
protection of earlier-round NGSO FSS systems.
22. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
expect that there will be a maximum number of NGSO FSS systems that can
be accommodated in a given frequency band and if so, how should that
affect any inter-round protection criteria and the opening of
additional processing rounds. The FNPRM also seeks comment on how the
degraded throughput methodology accommodates multiple NGSO systems that
span multiple processing rounds.
23. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in
the FNPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the
Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated with
the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above
can be minimized for small entities. Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether any of the costs associated with any of the proposed
requirements to eliminate unlawful robocalls can be alleviated for
small entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the
economic impact and alternatives for small entities based on its review
of the record and any comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this
IRFA.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
24. None
V. Ordering Clauses
25. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 10, 303,
308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 160, 303, 308(b), 316, that this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with
Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12802 Filed 6-20-23; 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 June 21, 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.