Rule2023-26699
Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications
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
December 6, 2023
Effective
January 5, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts changes to its rules aimed at expediting the initial license application processing for satellite operators. The Commission establishes timeframes for placing satellite and earth station applications on public notice, eliminates a procedural rule that prevents consideration of requests for waiver of the International Table of Frequency Allocations, and removes the prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) operators. Additionally, the Commission creates a new, streamlined processing framework for earth station operators to add satellite points of communication under certain circumstances. Finally, the Commission lays the groundwork for a broader Transparency Initiative led by the Space Bureau to provide clarity and access to applicants when interfacing with the Commission's license application processes and filing system.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84737-84754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26699]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket Nos. 22-411; 22-271; FCC 23-73; FR ID 188451]
Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station
Applications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts changes to its rules aimed at expediting the
initial license application processing for satellite operators. The
Commission establishes timeframes for placing satellite and earth
station applications on public notice, eliminates a procedural rule
that prevents consideration of requests for waiver of the International
Table of Frequency Allocations, and removes the prohibition on
licensed-but-unbuilt systems for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO)
operators. Additionally, the Commission creates a new, streamlined
processing framework for earth station operators to add satellite
points of communication under certain circumstances. Finally, the
Commission lays the groundwork for a broader Transparency Initiative
led by the Space Bureau to provide clarity and access to applicants
when interfacing with the Commission's license application processes
and filing system.
DATES: Effective January 5, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Malette, Attorney Advisor,
Satellite Programs and Policy Division, Space Bureau, at 202-418-2453
or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81ebf4ede8e0afece0ede4f5f5e4c1e7e2e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28425d444149064549444d5c5c4d684e4b4b064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, FCC 23-73, adopted September 21, 2023, and released
September 22, 2023. The document is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-73A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-73A1.pdf</a>. To request materials
in accessible formats for people with disabilities, (e.g., Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74323737414440341217175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ec8cdcdbbbebacee8ededa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), or 202-418-0432 (TTY). A proposed rule relating
to further expediting satellite and earth station application
processing is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
[[Page 84738]]
Final 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.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the
possible impact of the rule changes contained in this document on small
entities. The FRFA is set forth in Section IV below.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Congressional Review Act
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
concurs that this rule is ``non-major'' under the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and
Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) advances opportunities for innovation in the new space age
by taking measures to expedite the application processes for space
stations and earth stations, consistent with the Commission's objective
to ``promote a competitive and innovative global telecommunications
marketplace via space services.'' Applications for space services
before the Commission continue to increase in complexity and number.
Concrete measures to expedite the initial processing of applications
for authority to operate space and earth stations under part 25 of the
Commission's rules are vital to supporting U.S. leadership in the
growing space economy. Accordingly, the rule updates and policy changes
the Commission adopts today will: (1) improve the process that
Commission staff uses to review space and earth station applications
for acceptability for filing and to place the applications on public
notice; (2) eliminate processing rules that are no longer necessary;
(3) establish timeframes for placing space and earth stations on public
notice; and (4) advance other initiatives to expedite the processing of
applications. In addition, as part of the Space Innovation agenda, the
Space Bureau will undertake a Transparency Initiative. The goal of this
initiative is to provide information and guidance, in a variety of
forms, to interested parties so they can understand the Commission's
procedures and what is needed to obtain authorization for their
proposed space station and earth station operations. The Commission
believes that this initiative will reduce administrative burdens on
both applicants and staff and will further expedite the processing of
applications.
II. Background
2. To facilitate application filing and processing, the Commission
has improved the standard forms for satellite and earth station
applications (FCC Form 312, 312R, and Schedules A and S) and is
currently working on improvements to its online filing system for such
applications, the International Communications Filing System (ICFS). In
addition, the Commission has regularly taken steps to streamline its
part 25 rules. As part of previous streamlining efforts, the Commission
adopted a 45-day expected period for placing on public notice
applications both for initial space station authorizations and for
modification of a space station authorization. The Commission also
adopted an expected time of 60 days for acting on space station
applications after the close of the comment period. For applications
for special temporary authority (STA) for a space station, the
Commission expected the application would be placed on public notice
within 14 days of receipt (if public notice is required) and acted on
within 30 days after the close of the comment period, or within 30 days
of receipt if public notice is not required. In addition, expected
processing times were also announced for earth station applications.
These times were 45 days from confirmation of receipt of payment for
placing applications for initial earth station authorizations or
modifications on public notice, and 60 days after close of the comment
period for action; 30 days from confirmation of receipt of payment for
placing initial registrations of receive-only earth stations or
modifications on public notice, and 45 days after close of comment
period for action; and 14 days from confirmation of receipt of payment
for applications for special temporary authority for earth stations,
and 30 days after close of comment period for action, unless the
application does not require public notice before action, in which case
the expected time for action is 30 days of receipt. In all cases, the
Commission's expectations applied to ``straightforward applications
that are not contested'' and were set ``barring any complication.''
3. As we enter the new space age, applications for space services
before the Commission continue to increase in complexity and number. In
response to this unprecedented era of growth in the space industry, the
Commission launched the Space Bureau on April 11, 2023. Space
activities are increasing in almost every industry sector. The
Commission must, therefore, make expediting the processing of
applications a priority of its Space Innovation Agenda. If the current
rate of filings for applications continues in 2023, the Commission will
receive approximately four times the number of space station
applications and three times the number of earth station applications
than it received in 2015. In addition, the complexity of applications
continues to increase as new and novel space technologies are presented
for consideration. The commercial space industry is evolving at a rapid
pace, and it is critical that the Commission keeps up with the cadence
of applications and complexity of regulatory issues presented.
4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sought comment broadly
on changes to Commission rules, policies, or practices to facilitate
the acceptance for filing of space and earth station applications under
part 25. In particular, the NPRM proposed to remove a procedural rule
that formally prevents consideration of waiver requests for operations
not in conformance with the International Table of Frequency
Allocations. It also sought comment on whether the limits on
applications for NGSO systems and unbuilt NGSO systems should be
amended, and whether the Commission should provide greater transparency
or certainty with respect to its expected application processing
timelines. In response to the NPRM, 24 comments, 11 reply comments, and
multiple ex parte notifications were filed.
[[Page 84739]]
III. Discussion
a. Facilitating the Application Process
5. An essential element of expediting the application process is to
make it easier for applicants to understand what is required to have an
application accepted for filing and to avoid the dismissal of an
application. Accordingly, the Commission discusses the steps it takes
today, and will take in the future, to provide transparency and
guidance regarding Commission licensing procedures, as well as to
reduce the risk of an application being dismissed, without considering
the merits of the application, due to filing requirements that the
Commission deems are no longer needed to serve the public interest.
i. Transparency and Guidance
6. The NPRM sought comment on whether there is additional guidance
or other assistance that the Commission should provide to applicants to
avoid required information being omitted in their initial filings.
Omission of required information can result in delays in processing an
application, or even in the dismissal of an application. Commenters who
responded to the Commission's procedural and technical inquiries
overwhelmingly support the proposal of the Commission issuing guidance
on the application process.
7. The Commission believes that the licensing process for space and
earth station applications can be expedited by making it more
transparent and providing applicants with further guidance on the
initial application stages, as several commenters have suggested. The
Commission agrees with commenters that clarity and guidance on what is
required for an application to be acceptable for filing will result in
an increase in complete filings that can be swiftly accepted for
filing, which will in turn expedite the processing of space and earth
station applications. Clear and transparent guidance to the applicant
will aid in expediting application processing for both the applicants
and staff. Accordingly, the Space Bureau will undertake a Transparency
Initiative to provide such guidance. The goal of this initiative is to
provide information and guidance, in a variety of forms, to interested
parties so they can understand the Commission's procedures and what is
needed to obtain authorization for their proposed space station and
earth station operations. The Commission believes that this initiative
will reduce administrative burdens on both applicants and staff and
will further expedite the processing of applications. The guidance will
take a variety of forms, including ``frequently asked questions'' or
helpful links on the FCC's website. In other cases, public workshops
may be held to explain certain requirements.
8. The initiative will cover a variety of topics, for example,
application completeness and orbital debris requirements. Additionally,
when the Commission releases the updated International Communications
Filing System (ICFS), the system will include multiple forms of
guidance for users, including training videos for the ICFS application
process and a helpful links page. The Commission believes that this
Transparency Initiative will address many of the specific requests that
commenters have identified in this record, facilitate new entrants into
the space economy, and further expedite the Commission's processes to
meet the needs of the innovative and expanding space sector.
9. In addition, the Commission will continue to consider various
ways in which the Space Bureau can provide more clarity and guidance on
the application process moving forward, including, for example, various
methods for increasing transparency around the inter-bureau and inter-
agency coordination process. The Commission expects this to be a
continuing process and believes that this investment of time and
resources will pay off in reducing staff time in reviewing and
correcting incomplete applications and applicant time responding to
staff requests for missing information, which will in turn expedite the
processing of space and earth station applications. The Commission
encourages stakeholders to discuss their needs for information and
guidance directly with Space Bureau staff in order that they may be
considered and addressed in ways that do not require a change in
Commission rules.
10. The Commission received a wide variety of comments related to
the NPRM's various procedural and technical streamlining questions
including suggestions to provide certifications or fill-in template
forms in lieu of narratives to the extent possible and SpaceX suggests
this could be done as a way of standardizing orbital debris showings.
The Commission declines to change showings that require a narrative to
certifications at this time, noting that the Commission has recently
taken additional steps to utilize certifications where appropriate,
such as in the 2020 unified licensing proceeding, which included new
certification options for earth station operators. Moreover, as
EchoStar noted in its comments, certain showings require a more
thorough and nuanced explanation than what could be contained in a
certification. But the Commission agrees that providing applicants with
more clarity and guidance on orbital debris plans will aid in
Commission review, as SpaceX points out, and plans to incorporate such
guidance into the Commission's Transparency Initiative.
ii. Reducing Risk of Dismissal
11. The Commission finds that expediting the processing of space
and earth station applications requires reducing the risk that an
application will be dismissed before full consideration of the merits
of the application, thereby necessitating refiling the application and
restarting the application process anew. The Commission takes several
actions below to address these issues in light of existing reasons for
dismissal.
1. Omissions, Inconsistencies, and Errors
12. Existing rules provide that a space or earth station
application is considered unacceptable for filing if the application is
defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions,
informational showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other
matters of a formal character. The requirement that applications be
``substantially complete'' when filed has been in place since 1998 and
ended the practice of reviewing the accuracy or merits of specific
information in an application before placing it on public notice. Under
the ``substantially complete'' standard, an application is reviewed to
ensure that it contains all information required by the Commission's
rules and, if an application fails to include any of the required
information, the application is returned without prejudice as being
unacceptable for filing.
13. The NPRM noted that in recent years, Commission staff have
worked with applicants to correct omissions or inconsistencies in their
applications in order for an application to be deemed acceptable for
filing under Commission rules. The NPRM sought comment on this practice
and potential alternatives that might speed up application review, such
as dismissing applications that contained internal inconsistencies or
omissions without prejudice to refiling or, conversely, loosening the
standards for acceptability of filing.
14. After consideration of the record, the Commission will maintain
the practice of not immediately dismissing applications that contain
omissions or internal inconsistencies and instead working with
applicants to correct such
[[Page 84740]]
omissions or inconsistencies so that the application may be acceptable
for filing. Most comments encourage the continuation of the practice of
communicating with applicants and allowing them opportunities to cure
small mistakes or omissions, instead of issuing dismissals. The
Commission finds that dismissing space and earth station applications
for even minor omissions and inconsistencies, without an opportunity to
correct the deficiencies, is inconsistent with the Commission's goal of
expediting the processing of space and earth station applications,
since substantial time is required to dismiss and refile a corrected
application. The Commission agrees that the same result can be achieved
in less time by promptly reviewing the application for any deficiencies
and communicating these deficiencies to the applicant, and by giving a
limited time for the applicant to make corrections or to provide
missing information.
15. In order to achieve the goal of expediting application
processing, the Commission expects the Space Bureau will provide
applicants with limited timeframes to respond to requests for
additional information or to promptly rectify inconsistencies or
omissions in the application. Limiting the time to respond will
encourage applicants to file applications that are as complete and
accurate as possible, with only minor errors or omissions that require
correction in the limited timeframe for responding and will help ensure
that a request for information does not result in unnecessary delay of
processing the application if the applicant does not respond in a
timely manner. Several comments support time limits for applicants to
respond to Commission staff with additional information or corrections
so as to avoid a drawn-out initial review process. Failure to respond
within those timeframes will risk dismissal of the application under
existing rules. Although some comments proposed specific deadlines for
applicants to respond to staff inquiries, the Commission declines to
adopt specific deadlines at this time. Space and earth station
applications can vary greatly depending on the nature of the operations
or whether the activities are novel or involve new technology. As such,
it is important to allow some flexibility and case-by-case
determinations on setting time limits for responses from applicants.
The deadline for response will be communicated clearly to applicants as
part of requests for additional information or notices to the applicant
that there are errors, omissions, or inconsistencies that need to be
resolved before finding the application to be acceptable for filing.
16. The Commission finds that it is unnecessary to change its rules
in order to implement this practice. Although the existing rules state
that an applicant will be dismissed for various omissions or internal
inconsistencies, it does not preclude staff from allowing applicants
the opportunity to cure omissions or internal inconsistencies before
accepting the application for filing. The Commission expects that there
will be prompt communications between staff and applicants in order to
expedite the application process.
17. The Commission also received several comments on whether to
loosen the standard for accepting applications for filing. AWS and
OneWeb put forth what they deem to be faster processes for placing
applications on public notice. AWS suggests that, at least for earth
station applicants, applications could be automatically placed on
public notice after a designated period and applicants could work to
cure any errors or omissions during the public notice period. OneWeb
advocates for a ``check box'' determination method for placing
applications on public notice and proposes revisions to Sec.
25.112(a)(1) to enable quicker determination. Boeing also suggests that
the Commission could place applications on public notice without
necessarily first finding them to be acceptable for filing. Conversely,
Viasat asserts that loosening the acceptability for filing standards
would not lead to streamlining, but rather, would result in larger
numbers of deficient or incomplete applications being reviewed by
Commission staff and third parties, wasting limited resources.
Similarly, Verizon/AT&T assert that more stringent standards would
reduce processing times by incentivizing applicants to submit complete
and accurate applications in the first instance if they believe the
Commission is more likely to dismiss an application if it is not
complete. Kuiper asserts that applications should be complete at the
time of filing to avoid inefficiencies in review and suggests that the
Commission require applicants to include a checklist table in their
application demonstrating completeness and compliance with all relevant
rules. Others do not advocate for strengthening or loosening standards,
but rather assert that the Commission could streamline the
acceptability for filing process through guidance, by more clearly
articulating the Commission's ``substantially complete'' threshold.
18. The Commission finds that it is not necessary to loosen its
acceptability for filing standards in order to expedite the processing
of space and earth station applications. The Commission has previously
explained what is meant by ``substantially complete,'' and continues to
hold to this understanding: ``[t]he applications must be complete in
substance, and must provide all the information required in the
application form.'' This is a reasonable standard for finding that an
application is acceptable for filing, and acceptance for filing has
legal consequences for a GSO-like space station's place in the queue or
an NGSO-like space station's place in a processing round. As such, the
Commission continues to find that there is merit to holding
applications to a ``substantially complete'' standard and to review an
application to ensure that it complies with this standard before
accepting the application for filing. The Commission is not convinced
that looser standards will result in an expedited process, and agrees
with commenters who note that looser standards on the front end of
application review will likely lead to a more burdensome review of
incomplete applications at later stages of the application process.
Although the Commission recognizes the interest in straightforward
review, such as via a ``check box'' determination, part 25 applications
cover many types of operations, which makes it infeasible to capture
all elements of such diverse operations in a ``check box'' format. The
Commission is also not convinced that more stringent acceptability for
filing standards will expedite application processing. Rigidity in the
initial application review can lead to premature dismissals, which in
turn will take more of staff and applicants' resources. Instead, the
Commission believes that the process can be expedited by providing
applicants at the initial application stages with greater transparency
and guidance, which applicants will be able to access on the
Commission's website as part of the Space Bureau's Transparency
Initiative.
19. Finally, numerous commenters support changes to the license
application forms that would reduce duplication and the need to
manually input technical information in various locations, which would
reduce the risk of missing or inconsistent information being submitted.
Likewise, commenters generally support the inclusion of compliance
checks into the application process. Specifically, numerous commenters
have suggested that the Commission consider these types of updates to
specific licensing forms,
[[Page 84741]]
including the Form 312, the Schedule S, and the Schedule B.
Additionally, although the Commission did not specifically ask about
updates to ICFS, several commenters suggest that the Commission
consider updates or a general overhaul of the filing system.
20. The Commission observes that the electronic filing system used
for space and earth station applications, ICFS, is already being
updated in ways that respond to many of the issues that commenters
raise regarding the technicalities of the application process. As a
result of these updates, ICFS will have several new features for
application forms, including automatic error notifications in the Form
312, data entry alerts to misinformation, and an overall validation
prior to submitting a filing. There also will be some pre-filled
sections of the application form based on previously entered data. With
regard to modification or amendment applications, applicants will be
presented with a pre-filled form including the information from their
current authorization or pending application that they seek to modify
or amend. This pre-filled form can then be adjusted in the areas that
the applicant seeks to modify or amend. Additionally, the Schedule B
and Form 312 will allow users to delete or remove sections or data that
are no longer needed. The Commission is also updating the fields in the
Schedule S to better align with technical rules. The Commission finds
that these updates address many, but not all, of the changes
recommended by the comments. The Space Bureau expects to continue
dialogue with system users about possible further improvements after
the initial modifications of ICFS are introduced.
2. Conformance With International Frequency Allocations
21. Currently, with the exception of applications for streamlined
small satellite and small spacecraft applications, applications will be
dismissed if they request 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. The Commission adopted this rule in 2003, with
the purpose of eliminating premature applications filed prior to the
ITU adopting a necessary frequency allocation, which can take several
years. At the time, the Commission had reasoned that applications that
were filed far in advance of adoption of an ITU allocation had a
likelihood of being placeholder applications for purposes of
warehousing spectrum.
22. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to amend the license
application acceptability for filing criteria to place waiver requests
for satellite operations not in conformance with the International
Table of Frequency Allocations on an equal procedural footing with
other requests for waiver of substantive Commission rules. Comments
widely support adoption. Furthermore, the limitation on acceptance of
applications has caused delay in review of applications for
acceptability for filing and has complicated review of space station
applications, which is contrary to the goal of expediting the space
station application process. In addition, as the Commission observed
when it adopted streamlined rules for the processing of applications
for small satellites, there may be benefits associated with operations
not consistent with the current International Table of Frequency
Allocations in certain circumstances. Finally, Commission experience
over the last twenty years since the rule was adopted supports the
finding that the concerns about warehousing of spectrum and orbital
resources through placeholder applications have been effectively
addressed through the Commission's milestone and bond requirements,
which makes this rule unnecessary. The Commission finds that adoption
of this proposal will help avoid the dismissal of an application for
failure to meet a rule that is no longer needed to protect against
placeholder applications that warehouse spectrum resources.
23. Accordingly, the Commission amends Sec. 25.112 of Commission
rules to delete subparagraph (a)(3) and will no longer immediately
dismiss applications that request authority to operate a space station
in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such
operations under the ITU Radio Regulations when the applications
include a request for waiver of the allocation. Section 25.112(b) also
is revised accordingly to remove reference to paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.
25.112. The Commission emphasizes that this decision to allow the
Commission to review such applications is not intended to alter the
allocation status of these bands. In considering the merits of such
requests, the Commission recognizes its obligations as a ratifying
member of the ITU, and as the regulatory body that allocates spectrum
for commercial use in the United States. Accordingly, any application
that includes waiver requests for satellite operations not in
conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations would
need to demonstrate sufficient justification to support the waiver
request in light of Article 4.4 of the International Telecommunication
Union Radio Regulations (ITU R.R.), which states that Administrations
shall not assign frequencies to a station in derogation of the
International Table of Frequency Allocations, except on the express
condition that the station's use of the frequencies shall not cause
harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful
interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the ITU
R.R. For example, the Commission agrees with comments that urge, to the
extent that there are co-channel operations that might be the subject
of potential interference, the request for waiver should address those
operations. The Commission may also consider, on a case-by-case basis,
as some have suggested, opening rulemaking proceedings and accounting
for any relevant ITU process to address potential related allocation
issues if appropriate. Moreover, the Commission expects that such
applicants would be engaged contemporaneously in activities to work
toward modification of the International Table of Allocations at the
ITU, and the applicants should consider describing the status of such
efforts in their application. The Commission also encourages entities
that are considering making a request for authorization for a non-
conforming operation to discuss the request with Commission staff prior
to filing.
24. A few commenters suggest that the Commission adopt specific
requirements related to these non-conforming operations beyond the
Commission's rules for considering waivers, and propose other
limitations, including for protecting against potential interference to
operations in the radioastronomy service (RAS) and earth exploration-
satellite service (EESS). Other commenters argue that interference
concerns to such services can be managed through coordination. The
Commission declines to adopt such proposals and is not convinced that
adopting strict engineering protocols is a necessary or appropriate
means for preventing interference for every operation, or for
operations in certain services. Further, it will not result in
expediting the licensing process for applicants or the Commission.
Instead, the Commission can process such requests on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the facts and circumstances of individual
waiver requests and the potential for harmful interference in
[[Page 84742]]
specific cases. Based on the Commission's experience in instances where
applicants have been granted limited non-conforming operations, such as
in the small satellite context, any waivers that the Commission
determines to grant would include non-interference conditions and
coordination conditions as necessary.
25. Furthermore, the Commission is not convinced that caps on the
number of waivers it grants or on the duration of operations will
prevent the potential for harmful interference, and such caps will not
further Commission goals to streamline the licensing process. Rather,
the Commission emphasizes its review on technical showings of non-
interference and on coordination requirements, which will better
prevent harmful interference in these circumstances. Similarly, the
Commission will not exclude entire bands from consideration for non-
conforming use, as some commenters suggested. To preemptively exclude
certain bands from possible waiver request consideration would undercut
goals of fostering innovation in the satellite industry since the
Commission cannot predict what bands will support future development.
The Commission believes that the requirements for demonstrating non-
interference and coordination, along with the Commission's waiver
standards, will provide sufficient protections to existing services.
3. Unbuilt NGSO Systems
26. Commission rules currently contain procedural safeguards
against applications that are considered more likely to be speculative
or intended to warehouse spectrum resources, including the prohibition
on one party having multiple NGSO-like applications or licensed but
unbuilt NGSO systems in the same frequency band. This prohibition
prevents a party from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite
system license in a particular frequency band if that party already has
an application for an NGSO-like satellite system license on file or a
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. The
Commission adopted the unbuilt systems rule, in addition to bond and
milestone requirements, as a means to restrain speculation without
restricting applicants' business plans and to give licensees an
incentive to surrender licenses for satellite systems that they do not
intend to build. Recognizing that the unbuilt NGSO systems rule can
lead to delays in processing applications by adding complexity to the
review in determining whether an applicant has violated the rule, and,
considering the current rapid state of development of NGSO systems, the
Commission sought comment on whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems
may be a hinderance to the acceptability of legitimate satellite
applications and if so, whether the Commission should amend or
eliminate such limitation.
27. After review of the record, the Commission concludes that the
goal of expediting the initial processing of space station applications
will be advanced by eliminating the part of the Commission's rules in
Sec. Sec. 25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5) that prohibits a licensee or
market access grantee respectively from applying for another NGSO
license or grant of market access where the party has an already
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO system for the same frequencies. The
Commission finds that it is often time consuming to determine whether
the relevant applicant violates this prohibition, for example when
there are disputes in the record regarding whether a system is
``unbuilt,'' and the need to make this determination prior to accepting
an application for filing can delay placing an application on public
notice to permit consideration of the application on the merits. In
situations where it was not clear whether the prohibition has been
violated by the proposed application, the Space Bureau (and the former
International Bureau) has accepted the application for filing, without
prejudice to a determination And the Commission is not convinced, as
some commenters suggest, that its elimination will lead to speculative
license applications or spectrum hoarding. The Commission's current
bond and milestone requirements, which were also put in place to deter
speculative license applications and spectrum warehousing, remain in
place, and the Commission agrees with many commenters who note that
these requirements serve as adequate deterrents. The Commission's
experience has been that the restriction on unbuilt NGSO systems is
unnecessary to deter warehousing of spectrum and orbital resources, in
light of the bond and milestone requirements and other safeguards, and
the restriction on unbuilt NGSO systems could delay processing times
without a corresponding benefit to the public. However, the Commission
retains and revises the portion of the rule that prohibits operators
from filing multiple applications in the same frequency band where such
applications are subject to NGSO-like processing round rules, which
require that in the event there is insufficient spectrum in the
requested frequency band or there is harmful interference between NGSO
FSS licensees, the available spectrum is divided equally among
licensees.
28. Several commenters suggested that instead of eliminating the
prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems, the Commission could
``soften'' the rule, amend it, more broadly interpret the meaning of
``unbuilt'', or issue waivers on a case-by-case basis. The Commission
finds that these suggested changes for nuanced, case-by-case approaches
in interpretation would not result in an expedited review process on
the whole. Rather additional review, and therefore a more-lengthy
application processing timeframe, would be required. Kuiper suggests
that the Commission amend the rule to focus on investment and progress.
The Commission's current bond and milestone requirements are set up for
such purpose. When the Commission adopted the bond requirements in
2003, the Commission reasoned that requiring satellite licensees to
make a financial commitment to construct and launch their satellites
would help deter speculative applications and thus prevent valuable
spectrum resources from lying fallow. When the Commission adopted a
revised escalating methodology for bond and milestone rules in 2015,
which increases operators' liability over time, the Commission aimed to
further incentivize satellite operators to construct and launch
spacecraft expeditiously or surrender their authorization early. The
Commission agrees with comments that state that the Commission's bond
and milestone rules have been effective in deterring speculative
applications, and the Commission finds that the licensed-but-unbuilt
NGSO-like systems prohibition on filing an application for another
NGSO-like satellite system license in that frequency band in Sec.
25.159(b) has become redundant, while also creating an additional
hurdle to the application process for NGSO operators. While the
Commission agrees that a focus on investment and progress towards
completing a system is prudent, it does not agree that amending the
unbuilt systems rule to focus on investment is necessary. Rather, the
most effective method for streamlining the application process is to
eliminate the prohibition on applying for another NGSO system license
when an applicant already has a licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like system
and rely on the Commission's longstanding bond and milestone
requirements.
29. Several commenters suggest that at the very least EESS
operators should
[[Page 84743]]
be exempt from the unbuilt NGSO systems rule given their views that
EESS operators often have the ability to share spectrum without causing
interference. This point is moot given the decision to eliminate the
prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems and therefore there is no
longer any need to expressly exempt EESS operators from it. However,
the Commission agrees with commenters that EESS NGSO operators provide
a relevant example for why the one-size-fits-all unbuilt NGSO systems
rule did not account for the nuance of certain NGSO satellite
operations, or the way NGSO systems have developed in the 20 years
since the rule was implemented. As both Spire and a group of EESS
operators point out, EESS operations licenses are routinely granted
outside of processing rounds, which the unbuilt systems rule was
designed for. Again, the Commission's experience and the record
demonstrate that eliminating the prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt
systems is the most efficient method for streamlining, and because of
the bond and milestone requirements, the Commission can do so without
jeopardizing its goals to prevent spectrum warehousing and speculative
applications. Additionally, by revising the remaining language in
Sec. Sec. 25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5) to clarify that the prohibition
on filing multiple applications in the same frequency band is tied to
being subject to the Commission's ``modified processing round rules,''
found in Sec. 25.157, EESS operators who are granted licenses or
market access outside of processing rounds will not be subject to
Sec. Sec. 25.159(b) or 25.137(d)(5) at all.
30. Several commenters suggest that the Commission take into
account how to ensure that elimination of the unbuilt systems rule does
not result in the potential for interference for other operators and
ensure that ITU Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits are adhered
to. ViaSat cautions that, if this rule were eliminated, applicants
might ``propose to operate multiple NGSO `systems' that would use the
same frequency bands as a way of circumventing the Commission's
substantive EPFD limits'' or ``attempt to game the default `band-
splitting' mechanism set forth in Sec. 25.261 of the Commission's
rules (which divides spectrum equally among the `systems' involved in
an inline interference event).'' Intelsat raises a similar concern
regarding EPFD limits and suggests that the Commission clarify that
NGSO systems must continue to adhere to the EPFD limits incorporated in
Sec. 25.146(c) of the Commission's rules. This decision to eliminate
the unbuilt systems rule does not alter Sec. 25.146(c), which remains
in place. Moreover, applicants will continue to be held to Commission
and ITU rules on EPFD limits. And, as stated above, the Commission is
retaining the portion of the rule that prohibits operators from filing
multiple applications in the same frequency band in specific
circumstances to avoid the possibility of a single operator receiving
unequal division of spectrum in cases where band-splitting is required.
31. SES, while supporting the removal of the unbuilt systems
prohibition in Sec. 25.159 so long as other protections are in place,
suggests that the Commission ensure that NGSO operators must be limited
to one application per processing round. SES argues that ``[p]ermitting
an applicant to submit two or more system designs in a [processing]
round would multiply the burden on Commission staff and other round
participants, who would be forced to evaluate each possible
configuration, even if it is clear that the applicant only intends to
build and launch one of its proposed options.'' EchoStar disagrees and
suggests that applicants might plan to use different NGSO systems for
different applications, and given the financial commitments that are
necessary, companies are unlikely to file applications frivolously.
EchoStar appears to go even further and suggest that the Commission
eliminate Sec. 25.159(d), which states, among other things, that
``[i]n the event that a licensee misses three or more milestones within
any three-year period, the Commission will presume that the licensee
obtained one or more of those licenses for speculative purposes.'' The
Commission declines to consider this suggestion further as it is beyond
the scope of the Commission's queries related to paragraph (b), and the
Commission finds that paragraph (d) in Sec. 25.159 plays a distinct
and important role in deterring speculative applications. The
Commission agrees with SES that there are different considerations
related to its rules on the number of applications per applicant per
processing round versus whether the applicant has a licensed-but-
unbuilt system. Although NGSO systems have evolved and an operator may
have two distinct purposes for seeking multiple applications in the
same processing round, the Commission is not convinced that doing away
with this aspect of the rules will expedite the application or review
process for processing rounds, but rather would require heightened
review and consideration that might delay the processing of the
application. Additionally, this aspect of the rule serves to ensure
that in the event there is insufficient available spectrum in a
frequency band, the available spectrum will truly be shared equally
among the licensees, as required by Sec. 25.157(e) of Commission rules
on NGSO processing rounds. Although commenters state that an applicant
could have a legitimate reason to apply for separate systems in the
same processing round, the commenters do not provide any concrete
examples of what these reasons might be or how, as a general matter,
the benefits of allowing multiple applications in the same processing
round outweigh the identified potential harms. As a result, there is no
basis in the record to determine that the potential harms identified by
the Commission in adopting the rule, and identified by comments in this
proceeding, could be outweighed by unspecified potential benefits. In
sum, the Commission adopts revisions to Sec. 25.159(b) and its
equivalent for market access grantees in Sec. 25.137(d)(5) by
eliminating the prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt systems in these
rules, but the Commission retains the limitation on the number of
applications per NGSO operator per processing round. The Commission has
also clarified the text related to the number of applications to
demonstrate this limit is tied directly to being subject to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 25.157 and 25.261. The Commission notes that
it has eliminated references to Sec. Sec. 25.122 (small satellites
streamlined licensing procedure) and 25.123 (small spacecraft
streamlined licensing procedure) as exceptions to Sec. 25.159(b) and
Sec. 25.137(d)(5) because licenses granted under these streamlined
procedures are made outside of a processing round and thus not subject
to Sec. Sec. 25.157 and 25.261. Additionally, the Commission revises
Sec. 25.159(c) of the rules for clarification and to reflect these
changes.
4. Waiver Requests
32. Current rules state that an application will be unacceptable
for filing and will be returned to the applicant if it is defective,
internally inconsistent, or incomplete, or if it does not substantially
comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for
additional information, or other requirements. Current rules also,
however, specifically allow the Commission to accept for filing an
application that is defective for these reasons if the application
contains a request for waiver of any rule, regulation, or requirement
with which the application is in conflict. Alternatively, the
Commission may
[[Page 84744]]
accept the application if the Commission, upon its own motion, waives
(or allows an exception to), in whole or in part, any rule, regulation
or requirement. Thus, the current rules allow an otherwise defective
application to be accepted for filing if it contains a request for
waiver of a rule that it is in conflict with, or the Commission waives
the rule on its own motion.
33. The NPRM asked whether applications omitting necessary waiver
requests should be dismissed, and how well-supported should a waiver
request need to be to overcome the acceptability for filing
requirements, including waivers of filing deadlines or waivers that
raise novel issues. This is an important question, given the risk of an
application being delayed from being accepted for filing while the
applicant and opposing parties argue whether an application complies
with Commission rules, where the application did not explicitly request
a waiver of the rule in question. As a result of this argument, a
decision on the merits of the application instead becomes a procedural
question that inhibits accepting the application for filing and placing
the application on public notice for comment, which is a prerequisite
for acting on the application.
34. The Commission finds that no change to its rules is necessary
to address the potential delay of an application being accepted for
filing because of a failure to request a waiver of Commission rules.
Instead, the Commission encourages applicants to remember to request
any necessary waivers of Commission rules or policies in order to avoid
dismissal of applications or delay in accepting applications for
filing. By filing a waiver request, the applicant removes a potential
obstacle to accepting the application for filing and placing the
application on public notice. Likewise, the Commission does not need to
change any rules in order to answer the question of how well-supported
a waiver request needs to be to overcome the acceptability for filing
requirements. The current rules simply state that a defective
application can be accepted for filing if it is ``accompanied by a
request which sets forth the reasons in support of a waiver of (or an
exception to), in whole or in part, any specific rule, regulation, or
requirement with which the application is in conflict.'' Because the
waiver request must seek a waiver of a ``specific rule, regulation, or
requirement,'' an application cannot satisfy Sec. 25.112(b)(1) with a
blanket request for waiver of any unspecified rule that the Commission
might find the application in conflict with. The rule does not impose
any separate requirements on how well-supported the waiver request
needs to be, so the general requirement for any waiver request to show
``good cause'' under Commission rules applies.
35. Some comments suggest that the Commission adopt requirements
for, or limitations on, requests of waivers of specific rules. The
Commission finds that these suggestions go beyond the generalized goal
of expediting the processing of space and earth station applications
and are better addressed in the context of specific applications and
rulemakings. Accordingly, the Commission will not address them here.
b. Expediting Public Notice of Acceptability for Filing
36. The Commission establishes timelines for Space Bureau staff to
either: (1) determine that an application for authority to operate a
space or earth station is acceptable for filing and place it on public
notice; or (2) notify the applicant that staff has identified
questions, errors, or omissions, and that the application will not be
placed on public notice until after these questions, errors, or
omissions are addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the
Bureau. For all earth stations and GSO space station applications, the
Commission concludes that a 30-day timeline is appropriate. For all
NGSO space station applications, the Commission concludes a 60-day
timeline is appropriate. In all cases, the timeline is measured in
calendar days, starting on the day after the application is filed in
ICFS. The Commission finds that expressing clear goals for accepting an
application for filing or notifying the applicant of deficiencies will
establish expectations for expedited processing of applications for
both staff and applicants.
37. The NPRM asked whether the Commission should have deadlines for
accepting certain space or earth station license applications for
filing or dismissing them as unacceptable for filing. It also sought
comment on what a reasonable deadline might be and whether deadlines
should depend on the type of application filed. Additionally, it asked
whether there should be limitations on any acceptability for filing
deadline the Commission might adopt, such as for applications
requesting operations not consistent with the International Table of
Frequency Allocations, or where the application could involve
initiation of a new NGSO processing round, or for contested
applications. Finally, it queried whether instituting a deadline would
result in more dismissals.
38. Most comments welcome the establishment of timeframes for
placing applications on public notice, however, commenters differ on
whether the timelines should be definitive deadlines, such as ``shot
clocks,'' or more flexible goalposts. Commenters are generally wary of
automatic dismissals. AWS explains that a shot clock resulting in
automatic dismissal if not approved before the deadline would not
streamline the process, rather it would require an additional review
burden on both the applicant and the Commission staff. Instead of an
automatic dismissal approach, AWS suggests that earth station
applications could be automatically placed on public notice after 30
days if the Commission does not deem them acceptable for filing sooner.
Inmarsat and SIA also suggest a 30-day shot clock for placing earth
station applications on public notice. Boeing puts forth a similar
suggestion, proposing that all earth station applications be placed on
public notice after 30 days of filing and space stations after 90 days
of filing, except in the event the staff determines that the
application is incomplete or defective (thus requiring additional time
for inquiry to the applicant). EchoStar also generally suggests a 30-
day timeline for placing applications on public notice, unless they are
deemed incomplete. However, EchoStar disagrees with the notion of
making this timeline a shot clock and suggests that extensions to the
timeline should be allowed when staff identify genuine issues that
require more time to address. Globalstar and Viasat also advocate
against firm shot clocks for placing applications on public notice,
especially for space station license applications. Globalstar suggests
that Commission staff will likely require at least 90 days for making
the necessary technical assessments to find space station licenses
acceptable for filing. SpaceX advocates for the Commission to adopt the
anticipated timeframes the Commission contemplated in 2015 and 2016 for
placing applications on public notice as firm shot clocks.
39. The Commission believes that establishing specific timeframes
for finding applications to be acceptable for filing and placing them
on public notice will aid in expediting the licensing process.
Additionally, the Commission agrees with those comments that highlight
the need for the Commission to have sufficient time to review
applications and notify and engage in dialogue with applicants whose
applications may require additional communication between Commission
[[Page 84745]]
staff and the applicant due to the novel nature or complexity of the
application. Given these considerations, the Commission concludes that
maintaining a level of flexibility for dialogue with applicants is
necessary when the Space Bureau staff discover errors, omissions, or
unclear information. In these cases, the Commission includes an
alternative to the specified timelines for determining acceptability
for filing. However, in the spirit of transparency, the Commission
directs the staff to notify applicants regarding their application
status if those applications will not go on public notice within the
specified timelines and offer the reasons why the application is not
acceptable for filing. Applicants can expect, therefore, that they will
receive some form of application status confirmation within the
specified timelines, either with the application appearing on an
accepted for filing public notice, or with a communication notifying
the applicant that the application requires the submission of missing
information. The Commission anticipates that the most common form of
this communication will be a letter to the applicant from Space Bureau
staff, but does not preclude the use of other forms of communication
that provide adequate notice to the applicant of the need to submit
missing information. The Commission also notes that it has a weekly
schedule for placing applications that are accepted for filing on
public notice: the earth station public notice is released each
Wednesday, and the space station public notice is released each Friday.
Therefore, in some circumstances, Space Bureau staff might determine an
application is acceptable for filing within the 30- or 60-day
timeframe, yet the application might not appear on public notice until
the next possible public notice release date following the
determination.
40. Notably, the Commission does not require that an application be
automatically dismissed if Space Bureau staff does not find it
acceptable for filing within the specified timelines. Such a
requirement could result in more applicants having to resubmit
dismissed applications simply because of expiration of time, which
would delay, rather than expedite, the earth and space station
application process. The Commission also does not require automatically
placing an application on public notice as acceptable for filing if
Space Bureau staff does not act within the specified timelines.
Although the Commission expects Space Bureau staff to act on
applications consistent with the specific timelines established today,
the Commission recognizes that unusual circumstances may prevent such
timely action. For example, new information may be placed into the
record at a very late date that calls into question whether the
application is acceptable for filing and does not allow time for Space
Bureau staff to notify the applicant that the application is not
accepted for filing. It would not serve the public interest to
automatically accept the application for filing in such circumstances,
simply because of expiration of time.
41. The Commission is mindful that different applications have
different levels of complexity, and Commission rules require various
considerations depending on the type of application. The Commission
appreciates observations that space station applications in particular
can require significant time to review, even for acceptability for
filing. For NGSO applications, there is often a need for a longer time-
period of initial review to reflect the greater complexity related to
those applications. For example, deciding whether to accept an
application as the lead application in a processing round requires a
more substantive review than GSO applications which are not subject to
a processing round because opening a new processing round affects not
only the lead applicant, but also any other applicants that would apply
in that processing round as well as applicants and grantees from prior
processing rounds and, potentially, future processing rounds; further,
potential lead applicants have often requested waiver of the processing
round requirement altogether, which, if granted, would obviate the need
to open a new round. Similarly, an application for NGSO space stations
can include thousands of satellites in a single application, which
greatly increases the amount of information that Space Bureau staff
will need to review for acceptability for filing. Additionally, in the
Commission's experience, NGSO applicants typically request a larger
range of frequencies and utilize more complex and numerous beam
patterns than GSO applicants, which again necessitates a longer review
period than that for GSO and earth station applications.
42. The Commission also recognizes that the timelines it
establishes today differ from some previously established, which did
not distinguish between applications for GSO and NGSO space stations,
and were for applications considered to be ``straightforward'', ``not
contested'', and ``barring any complications.'' The Commission finds
that applying these new timelines across application types will provide
greater certainty to applicants, and that the initial review timelines
for GSO space stations of 30 days and initial review timeline for NGSO
space stations of 60 days, reflects the differences identified above in
the amount of time required to review the different types of
applications. By establishing timelines for initial review that the
Commission believes it can consistently meet, the Commission helps to
mitigate regulatory uncertainty.
43. The Commission also finds that it is unnecessary to limit these
timelines to applications for initial authorizations and for
modifications. The remaining categories of filings--amendments,
transfers of control, and assignments--to the extent that they require
public notice, are not inherently more complex or review intensive than
applications for initial authorizations and for modification with
respect to determining acceptability. The Commission also applies these
timeframes across the board, rather than limiting them to a smaller
category such as ``straightforward'' applications. The decision to
accept an application for filing need not consider the underlying
merits of the application and is generally done prior to receiving
comments and objections from other parties, which results in a simpler
process than deciding whether to grant or deny an application. In any
event, the Commission believes that any staff time spent on determining
whether an application is straightforward or not, for example, would be
better spent on reviewing the application for public notice and
resolving issues that prevent it from being accepted for filing.
44. Although some commenters suggest that the Commission consider
longer timeframes for initial space station review, the Commission
notes that the initial review, while thorough, is focused on an
acceptability for filing determination, not on the merits of the
application, and generally does not require the evaluation of comments
and oppositions to the application, and the Commission believes that
the revised timelines adopted here can be achieved. These new timelines
strike a balance between the need to place applications for earth and
space station operations on public notice expeditiously, and the time
needed for staff to make the determination of whether an application is
acceptable for filing under Commission rules.
[[Page 84746]]
c. Action on the Merits
45. The NPRM sought comment generally on whether the Commission
should adopt broader shot clocks for ultimate ``action taken'' on
certain types of space station or earth station applications. The
Commission received a wide variety of comments and suggestions on this
issue and the record is divided on support for ``action taken'' shot
clocks. Some commenters approve of shot clocks for certain types of
applications (for example, just for earth station applications), while
others argue that all types of space and earth station applications
should have shot clocks for Commission action taken. Suggested shot
clock timeframes range from 45 days after the close of public notice to
one year for ``action taken'' on an application.
46. A number of commenters oppose shot clocks for actions taken,
cautioning that the institution of shot clocks for taking action on
licenses could jeopardize the thorough review of complex technical
issues that the Commission's rules require. Some commenters point out
that considering action taken shot clocks is ``premature'' or that the
Commission could consider the possibility of shot clocks in the future,
after the Space Bureau has been well-established and resourced, but
that implementing them should at least be deferred for the time being.
As with the acceptability for filing issue, some commenters suggest
that the Commission issue timelines instead of shot clocks, which would
serve more as goals than obligations for action taken, or that the
Commission can toll the shot clocks as needed. Several commenters offer
specific suggestions for alternatives to action-taken shot clocks.
Intelsat argues for an ``auto grant'' procedure for straightforward
applications, and AWS suggests that uncontested earth station
applications could begin operations on a non-inference basis after six
months, if action is not yet taken on their application.
47. Consistent with several of the commenters' views, the
Commission recognizes the need to process applications promptly after
accepting them for filing. Nevertheless, the Commission declines at
this time to adopt a general, one-size-fits-all shot clock for taking
action on license applications. At this point in the proceeding, the
record does not show that any timeframe in particular would accommodate
these complexities while also accelerating action on more
straightforward applications. However, the Commission is dedicated to
fostering innovation in the satellite industry and to preserving the
United States as an attractive and competitive licensing destination
for satellite services. The Commission believes it is important to
further consider and address issues raised by commenters regarding
timelines for taking action on the merits of an application. The
Commission therefore seeks further comment in the FNPRM on proposals
regarding action on the merits such as shot clocks and/or timeframes
for action.
48. The Commission also finds that certain earth station
applications are suitable for a more streamlined application review
process, and the Commission discusses in more detail below its decision
to expand the category of applications that may be deemed granted after
a specific period of time.
49. Within the scope of the inquiry regarding whether the
Commission should consider adopting any shot clocks or processing
deadlines, the Commission sought comment on which types of license
applications the Commission should consider ``straightforward'' and
whether to implement processing timelines for such applications in
particular. The Commission pointed to its 2016 public notice that
identified expected processing timelines for straightforward,
uncontested earth station applications, barring any complication, and
asked whether these guidelines should be codified, whether a more
flexible approach and considerations of other factors was warranted, or
whether given the pace of change in space activities and corresponding
number of applications presenting unique or complex issues, the
Commission should limit the scope of ``straightforward'' applications.
After considering the record, the Commission declines at this time to
further identify or otherwise separate out processing timelines for
``straightforward'' applications.
50. The record was divided on this issue. Numerous commenters
generally support the notion of identifying ``straightforward''
applications and creating processing timeframes for those applications.
However, only a few commenters specifically propose examples of
applications that the Commission consider as ``straightforward.'' RBC
Signals suggests including: (1) applications for earth stations
operating with a U.S.-licensed satellite and consistent with standard
technical characteristics for the relevant bands; (2) earth station
modification applications when it is an application to add a U.S.-
licensed satellite or market access grantee operating in previously
authorized bands; and (3) a new earth station license that is at a site
within a defined distance of similar earth station operations (e.g., 1
mile) and operating within same parameters as pre-existing earth
stations within the ``straightforward'' category. Intelsat proposes
that uncontested earth or space station applications that pose minimal
interference risk should be considered ``straightforward.'' Boeing,
TechFreedom, and SpaceX suggest that the Commission should not make
such a distinction, and rather should apply shot clocks to all types of
applications, regardless of whether they are ``straightforward.''
51. The Commission does not believe the divided record supports the
creation of a category of ``straightforward'' applications at this
time. The Commission recognizes the potential benefit to creating such
categories so long as they are well-defined, and so long as their
development and application in specific cases do not hinder the goal of
processing applications promptly. At the same time, the Commission
recognizes the points made by SpaceX and TechFreedom that creating a
carve-out for only ``easy'' or uncontested applications might
incentivize the filing of oppositions and increase the number of
contested applications. In the same vein the Commission agrees with
commenters that the Commission can streamline its rules to expedite
processing of routine and novel or complex applications. The Commission
is currently faced with an unprecedented influx of earth station and
space station applications. The Commission finds that the other
concrete steps it is taking today, including removing no longer
necessary rules that slow down the application process, committing to
issue numerous forms of guidance for streamlining application filing,
and creating a 30 and 60-day timeframe for determining acceptability
for filing, are the types of practical and necessary processing
improvements that the Commission can quickly implement. Additionally,
the Commission notes that it will further consider timeframes and/or
shot clocks for actions taken on the merits of applications in the
FNPRM. Taking into account the divided record on this issue, the
Commission concludes that it would not serve the Commission's goals to
further identify or carve-out certain types of applications as
``straightforward'' at this time.
[[Page 84747]]
d. Expediting Earth Station Applications To Add Points of Communication
52. The Commission takes action to expedite the processing of a
common category of earth station applications: applications to modify
existing earth station licenses by adding new space stations as points
of communication. Specifically, the Commission adopts a new rule, under
which applications to add space station points of communication to
existing earth station licenses will be deemed granted 35 days after
being placed on public notice, under certain conditions described below
and provided that no objection to the application is filed. This rule
is added as a new paragraph, (i) in Sec. 25.117, which governs
modifications of station licenses that require Commission
authorization. While the Commission declines to draw lines based on
whether to consider this type of application to be ``straightforward,''
the Commission finds that, under a specific set of conditions, the
process of adding space station as additional points of communication
to existing earth station licenses can be significantly expedited.
53. Commission rules allow earth stations to transmit to any space
station in the same radio service that is listed as a point of
communication in the earth station license, provided that permission
has been received from the space station operator to access that space
station. The NPRM specifically asked whether applications to add points
of communication to existing earth station licenses should qualify as
``straightforward'' so long as the space station to be added is: (1)
either U.S.-licensed, or (2) has been granted U.S. market access within
the parameters requested in the earth station application, and the
applicant identifies either the call sign of or the earth station
license(s) in which the space station was granted market access. The
NPRM sought comment on whether these types of applications should be
automatically deemed granted 60 days after they are filed, absent other
Commission action.
54. Numerous commenters support the consideration of earth station
operators' applications to add previously authorized space stations as
points of communication as ``straightforward'' and to allow for
applications to be deemed granted after 60 days, absent other
Commission action. AWS suggests that the Commission consider various
benchmark shot clocks within the 60-day period for placing the
application on public notice and coordination. Several commenters
suggest that the Commission go even further and allow the addition of
previously authorized points of communication through notification,
such as via Sec. 25.118 of Commission rules, instead of through a
license application process. SpaceX proposes that notification, instead
of authorization, should be allowed when a space station operator is
also the earth station licensee and is requesting to add one of its own
previously authorized space stations as a point of contact. Microsoft
suggests that earth station operators could add any space station as a
point of communication, so long as a certain set of conditions are met.
EchoStar suggests that the Commission should permit earth station
operators to specify in their application that they will communicate
with all FCC-authorized NGSO systems (just as is done with GSO systems
currently), which will reduce the number of modifications requiring
filing.
55. In contrast, several commenters suggest the Commission proceed
with caution on this proposal. For example, Iridium cautions that in
the case of earth stations subject to Sec. 25.203(k) of the
Commission's rules, applicants must either complete coordination or
demonstrate that they will not cause unacceptable interference and
therefore proposes that given these requirements, such applications
should not be considered ``straightforward'' or subject to the proposed
60-day timeline for being deemed granted. Viasat asserts that adding
NGSO systems as points of communication could ``upset'' the EPFD limit
calculations and coordination agreements in NGSO system authorizations.
Viasat proposes that if the Commission allows for streamlining in
adding points of communication, earth station operators should be
required to include a certification that the addition will not result
in operations or impacts inconsistent with the EPFD analysis or
coordination agreements of the NGSO operator.
56. After consideration of the record, the Commission concludes
that, in a specific set of instances, it is feasible and appropriate to
adopt a licensing procedure by which an application to add a point of
communication can be deemed granted 35 days after the application has
been found acceptable for filing and also placed on public notice if no
sooner action is taken by the Commission. The Commission notes that in
some instances an application might be found acceptable for filing
within 30 days, but might not be placed on public notice exactly within
30 days due to the weekly schedule of releasing public notices. This
timeline takes into account the Commission's new timeframe for finding
earth stations to be acceptable for filing within 30 days (or notifying
the applicant of the need for further information). Therefore, a
substantially complete application to add a point of communication
would be found acceptable for filing and placed on public notice within
30 days, starting on the day after the application is filed in ICFS,
and then would be deemed granted 35 days after public notice, a total
of 65 days for processing. The Commission agrees with commenters that
applications requiring coordination, including Federal coordination,
require additional time.
57. Initially, this expedited process is premised on the following
conditions, which are necessary to balance faster processing for adding
points of communication and protecting other spectrum users from
interference. First, the Commission notes that Commission staff will
retain discretion to remove the application from the deemed-granted
process if merited. Additionally, the Commission requires that these
modifications be limited in nature, and not part of a larger set of
modifications, which might require more lengthy review. Therefore, the
modification can be only to add space stations as points of
communication. Next, applications will need to demonstrate that the
addition of a new point of communication will not cause earth station
transmissions to exceed the highest equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP), EIRP density, and bandwidth prescribed for any already
authorized emission. Finally, this option will only be available in
frequency bands that are not shared with Federal or terrestrial
wireless users and are not subject to coordination requirements with
other non-Federal satellite services. The Commission does, however,
seek comment in the FNPRM regarding some additional circumstances in
which an earth station modification to add a point of communication
could be expedited.
58. The Commission is not convinced, as some have suggested, that
all applications for adding a point of communication are appropriate
for notification-only consideration. The Commission observes that
applications to add space stations as points of communication are only
required for space stations that are not on the Permitted List, and for
operations that fall outside ``routine'' earth station technical
parameters. If a GSO space station is licensed by the Commission, or
has been granted access to the U.S. market, and operates in specified
frequency bands where GSO FSS has
[[Page 84748]]
primary status, then the space station is a Permitted List space
station and is automatically included as a point of communication for
all U.S.-licensed earth stations that list the Permitted List as a
point of communication, provided that the earth station operations with
the space station fall within the existing technical parameters and
conditions of the earth station license. The Permitted List already
represents the Commission's judgment as to which space stations can be
added as points of communications to an earth station's license without
requiring an application and approval by the Commission. Allowing the
addition of any space station as a point of communication, without
prior application or approval, in any orbit or service or frequency
band, and without regard to whether the operations fall within existing
technical parameters would essentially render the Permitted List
meaningless, which is an outcome outside the scope of this proceeding
to expedite the processing of space and earth station applications. The
Permitted List is limited to GSO space stations providing fixed-
satellite service, and the Commission has not so far determined that it
is possible to include NGSO space stations within the definition of the
Permitted List. In the accompanying FNPRM, however, the Commission
seeks comment on commenter proposals to create a process for allowing
U.S.-licensed earth stations to have automatic authority to communicate
with certain approved NGSO space stations, in a manner similar to the
how the Permitted List functions for approved GSO space stations.
e. Other Suggestions
59. The NPRM sought comment generally on the issues the Commission
identified for streamlining and on other guidance that may assist
applicants and speed application processing. In response to the
Commission's general questions, some commenters advocate for additional
rule changes that they believe will reduce the need to file
modification applications, but which are either outside of the scope of
this proceeding or which the Commission declines to take action on at
this time. Additionally, some of the comments and suggestions more
appropriately align with other ongoing Commission proceedings and, as
such, are not further considered in this document. Finally, several
comments can be addressed by clarifying and explaining existing Space
Bureau practices. The Commission values the input that it received in
response to the NPRM, and the absence of action today or inclusion in
the accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in no way
precludes consideration of these ideas as part of other existing
proceedings or as part of future rulemaking proceedings.
64. Suggestions for Modifications without Prior Authorization.
Spire proposes that the Commission adopt a new provision in Sec.
25.118 for EESS spacecraft, permitting operators to notify the
Commission of these set of changes. SpaceX suggests that the Commission
expand Spire's proposal to include all NGSO systems, not just EESS. The
Commission declines to adopt Spire's proposal at this time. While the
Commission believes expanding notification-only modifications could
have merit, the Commission remains concerned that this proposal in
particular would leave important determinations, such as the evaluation
of interference risk, solely to the applicant. The Commission notes
that it is not creating a new requirement here, rather the Commission
is declining to adopt a proposal to amend Sec. 25.118 to include
certain additional changes to satellites. Commission rules on
modifications remain the same. The Commission notes, however, that some
satellite design changes may not require Commission review or
notification at all if they create no change to radio frequency, do not
affect orbital debris mitigation plans, or otherwise affect the
parameters or terms and conditions of the station authorization.
65. Spire additionally proposes that discrepancies related to
whether an applicant can make a minor modification through notification
or via prior authorization can be alleviated to some degree if the
Commission codifies a broad definition of the term ``technically
identical.'' Spire proposes that ``[t]he Commission should formally
codify the explanation it provided in the 1994 MSS Order that
`technically identical' spacecraft are those that have `identical
satellite antenna footprints and transmission parameters' but which may
have de minimis variation among them--including the physical structure
or microelectronics.'' Additionally, Spire suggests that the Commission
should expressly exempt ``technically identical'' components from
modification rules. The Commission declines to adopt a specific
definition of ``technically identical'' in the rules at this time
because such a definition may become outdated as technology advances.
The Commission aims to amend its rules in technologically-neutral and
performance-based ways, and in light of this framework the Commission
finds it inappropriate to adopt such a definition in the rules based on
the current record.
66. Suggested Changes to the Space Bureau's Special Temporary
Authority Process. Several commenters suggest various approaches to
further streamline the license application process for STAs. SpaceX
proposes, and other commenters agree, that STAs with an underlying
request for full authorization should renew automatically while the
underlying application is pending. RBC Signals suggests that the Space
Bureau adopt a procedure which allows STA operations to continue while
a license application with identical parameters to the STA is under
review. And Intelsat suggests that the Commission ``adopt the [Sec. ]
1.62 policies previously employed'' for Earth station applications
``wherein operators were not required to file a new STA extension
request prior to the grant of the previous STA extension request.''
67. Here the Commission finds that an explanation of the Space
Bureau's STA process is merited when considering these comments.
Commission rules for special temporary authorizations under part 25
allow operators to apply for STAs for various amounts of time, and
state that STAs expire at the end of those allotted terms. These rules
stem from the Communications Act, which allows the Commission to grant
STAs for up to 180 days if they are placed on public notice per section
309(f) of the Act, and allows the Commission to grant up to 30 and 60-
day STAs in certain circumstances without public notice per section
309(c)(2)(G) of the Act. The reasoning behind these rules is simple:
special temporary authorizations are meant to be used under exceptional
or ``extraordinary'' circumstances, as the Act states and as Commission
rulemakings have emphasized. The Space Bureau has applied Sec. 1.62 to
special temporary authorizations in that if an applicant with an STA
files a new STA application to extend its temporary authorization three
days prior to the end of its current license term, it may continue its
temporary operations while the new STA application is pending. As such,
an operator with an STA may continue its temporary operations while a
new application to extend the time period for their authorization is
under review and the Commission acknowledges this in its license
grants. The Commission notes that the rules allow for STAs for up to
180 days at a time. Despite this, many applicants still file shorter-
term STA applications for up to 30 days, which the Commission can issue
without placing on public notice, or 60-day durations, which the
Commission has the discretion to not
[[Page 84749]]
place on public notice if the applicant plans to file an underlying
request for regular authority of the service. Additionally, because
requests for special temporary authority are meant to be granted under
exceptional circumstances and for relatively short duration, any
coordination that is needed for the temporary authorization is
generally limited to the time period requested by the applicant, or no
more than up to 180 days. Additional requests then require additional
coordination for the new time period.
68. For all these reasons, the Commission declines to adopt the
suggested changes to the STA rules at this time. The Commission
recognizes that STA applications are often accompanied by an underlying
license or modification application for regular operations, and it can
be difficult for applicants to determine the full timeframe for which
they might require special temporary authorization. However, the
Commission notes that applicants may consider a variety of time frames
for their STA needs, including the 180-day STA. The Commission also
notes that it does not wish to circumvent the 180-day STA requirements,
which is distinguished by the 30 and 60-day STAs only in so far that
the Act requires the Commission to place applications for STAs beyond
60 days and up to 180 days on public notice. Therefore, the Commission
has discretion to place 30 and 60-day STA applications on public
notice, and may choose to do so in the event an individual applicant
files numerous shorter-term STA requests that result in longer than a
180-day use. Ultimately, the Commission is hopeful that the
Commission's continued streamlining efforts will lead to faster
processing of underlying applications and a reduction in the need for
extensions to STAs.
69. Additional Suggestions for Streamlining of Modifications.
SpaceX suggests that the Commission should permit and encourage
operators to submit a single modification application that applies an
identical change across multiple Earth station licenses. SpaceX
proposes, as part of its suggestion, that for any modification that
would require re-coordination with other commercial or Federal users,
``the Commission could require the modification application to attach
coordination information for each separate site.'' TechFreedom suggests
``a hybrid licensing approach under which the common elements
(technical parameters, points of communications, etc.) of a network of
earth stations could be licensed on a network basis under a single
license with only the individual elements (e.g., location) licensed
separately.'' Both SpaceX and TechFreedom assert that these types of
changes would dramatically cut down on the amount of modification
applications that would require filing and review.
70. The Commission is conscious of commenters' points regarding
large numbers of modification applications being filed for common
changes, and will consider this issue for future updates to the filing
system, which currently cannot support this modification. In response
to TechFreedom's suggestion, the Commission notes that it has made
similar efforts to streamline common changes, such as through C-band
earth station network licensing in Sec. 25.115(c)(2) of Commission
rules and the unified licensing system for space stations and blanket
earth stations adopted in 2020. In the 2020 order creating the unified
licensing system, the Commission declined to include individually
licensed earth stations in the process, finding that adding them would
``create more complexity than its streamlining benefit,'' given the
need for site-specific information and coordination. This reasoning
remains valid. However, the Commission may consider similar suggestions
such as TechFreedom's ``hybrid licensing'' approach as the Commission
gains more experience with some of the streamlining rules the
Commission has more recently put in place, such as the unified
licensing system, that have not yet been widely utilized. The
Commission may consider further streamlining in a future proceeding.
71. Emission Designators. Intelsat and SIA both suggest that the
Commission do away with requiring emission designators in earth station
applications. SIA asserts that requiring applicants to include emission
designators causes confusion, delay, and complexity to the application
process ``without providing any meaningful information.'' The
Commission declines to consider changes to the emission designator
requirements. Emission designators provide a variety of necessary
information to inform the licensing process and to make a determination
to authorize an operation under Part 25. For example, they provide
technical information that Commission staff use to verify and calculate
the power spectral density, occupied bandwidth, whether transmissions
are analog or digital, etc. Additionally, this information is typically
requested as part of the Federal coordination process with NTIA. The
Commission also notes that emission designators are required by OET in
their license applications as well for similar reasons.
72. Market Access and Orbital Debris Mitigation Showings. In
response to the NPRM, a few commenters suggest that the Commission
ensure market access operators and U.S. licensees are subject to the
same rules, in particular they suggest the Commission amend its rules
related to orbital debris showings. TechFreedom asserts that applicants
for market access are treated more favorably than U.S. licensees in
part because ``domestic applications are vetted at the acceptance stage
to determine whether their orbital debris showings are sufficient,
whereas such showings in market access petitions are not reviewed until
a later stage.'' Conversely, OneWeb notes that market access applicants
are effectively required to provide the same orbital debris showings as
license applicants, but because this is often done through requests for
information from Commission staff, OneWeb asserts the determination
process is delayed as compared with the process for U.S. licensees.
73. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that Sec.
25.114(d)(14)(v) of the Commission's rules, which addresses orbital
debris showings for market access grantees, is the subject of a pending
petition for reconsideration filed by SpaceX for the same reasons
raised by SpaceX in this proceeding. Therefore, the Commission will
consider any changes to that rule in the other proceeding. However, the
Commission takes this opportunity to emphasize that the Commission
applies the same scrutiny to orbital debris showings for market access
grantees and U.S.-licensees, and ultimately determines whether to grant
market access based on the same technical information that a U.S.-
licensee would provide for orbital debris considerations. The
Commission's current rules allow market access applicants to satisfy
the requirement to describe the design and operational strategies to
minimize orbital debris risk by demonstrating that their debris
mitigation plans are subject to direct and effective regulatory
oversight by the national authority that licensed their space station
operations. Such a showing requires market access applicants to provide
supporting documentation and respond to inquiries from Commission staff
in order for the staff to compare the foreign rules and determine
whether there is an effective regulatory regime in place. This includes
submitting an English language version of the debris mitigation rules
or regulations of the authority and indicating the current status of
the
[[Page 84750]]
national licensing authority's review. However, while this provision
allows the Commission to accept such equivalent regulatory oversight
showings, it does not preclude applicants from alternatively providing
the same orbital debris mitigation showings that are detailed elsewhere
in Sec. 25.114 of the rules. And, except for a few cases, applicants
have generally found it preferable to just provide the Commission with
a description of the design and operational strategies for orbital
debris mitigation instead of presenting all of the showings necessary
to demonstrate the effective regulatory oversight of another national
authority.
74. UMFUS Pre-Application Coordination. Verizon/AT&T assert in
their comments that the Commission could streamline the license
application process by requiring earth station operators in bands
shared with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) to engage
in additional pre-application coordination and certify conformance with
Sec. 25.136 of the Commission's rules and Space Bureau guidance in
addition to the Part 101 coordination requirements. Additionally, they
suggest that the Commission require earth station operators to provide
more than visual information about proposed earth station contours,
including the antenna gain at the horizon or the maximum equivalent
isotropically radiated power at the horizon to validate how the
contours were developed. OneWeb, Viasat, Intelsat, and EchoStar
disagree with this proposal. The Commission agrees with commenters'
assertions that these proposals fall outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Similarly, the Commission finds that Viasat's proposal to
amend the review process under Sec. 25.136 is also beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. The Commission agrees that operators must fully engage
in the coordination process identified for specific applications, but
does not believe this proceeding, which focuses on expediting the
license application process, is the pertinent forum for considering
additions to pre-application coordination requirements.
75. Redefining NGSO systems and EESS Licensing. Spire suggests that
the Commission consider expanding and altering its NGSO licensing
framework beyond the streamlined procedure carve out for small
satellites in Sec. 25.122. The Commission notes that Spire's
suggestions, which concern the overall licensing framework, operator
definitions, and NGSO processing rounds, are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Similarly, Spire's proposals related to amending the U.S.
Table of Frequency Allocations for space-to-space transmissions in the
S-Band and considering other frequencies for intersatellite links is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The Commission may consider these
suggestions when contemplating future rulemaking proceedings.
76. Other Ongoing Commission Proceedings. Several other commenters
raise issues that are beyond the scope of this proceeding but may be
more appropriate for consideration in other ongoing Commission
proceedings. For example, Kuiper suggests that the Commission can
streamline its licensing procedures in part by finishing its rulemaking
to revise Sec. 25.261 of the Commission's rules. SpaceX asserts these
issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We agree and we note
that the Commission adopted new rules for satellite system spectrum
sharing and issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking on April 20,
2023. Turion Space proposes that In-space Servicing, Assembly, and
Manufacturing (ISAM) operations should be authorized by service
category and the Commission should develop a new framework for space
stations that deploy third-party payloads. The Commission has issued a
Notice of Inquiry on ISAM operations and proposals related to these
novel operations are more appropriate for consideration in that
proceeding and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Myriota's
suggestions related to Space-as-a-service (SaaS) and licensing antennas
hosted at third-party facilities are also beyond the scope of this
proceeding, however the Commission notes that similar suggestions have
been raised in response to the Commission's ISAM NOI.
77. Station-keeping Requirements. Intelsat suggests that the number
of modification and STA requests could be cut down by revising Sec.
25.210(j) of the Commissions' rules to permit maintaining GSO
satellites within 0.1[deg] of their assigned orbital longitude, which
is consistent with the ITU's east-west station-keeping requirements as
opposed to the Commission's current rules, which require maintaining
satellites within 0.05[deg] of their assigned orbital longitude.
Intelsat suggests that this change would give operators increased
flexibility for conducting fleet management maneuvers and obviate the
need for requests for modifications or STAs in that situation. This
suggestion falls outside the scope of this proceeding, which is focused
on expediting the application process and not a review of all of the
Commission's technical rules. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that it
has amended the rule in the past to allow exceptions for end-of-life
operations, and has considered waiver requests to this rule for
applicants in the past. The Commission believes its current rules and
practice are prudent, while allowing operators to apply for a waiver if
needed under unique conditions.
78. Bureau Practices. Several commenters raise issues that can be
clarified by pointing commenters to current Space Bureau practices,
procedures, and policies. One commenter suggests that the Commission
waive, for good cause, NGSO-like processing rules for EESS operators.
This type of waiver has been granted where justified given the nature
of EESS operations and the ability for operators to share spectrum.
Similarly, requests for email notification when licenses are granted
and contact information for Bureau staff are already a part of Space
Bureau practice. However, the Commission notes that FCC emails are sent
to the designated point of contact on applications and, the Commission
reminds applicants to notify the Commission of any updates to their
designated point of contact details.
79. Timing of Orbital Debris Showings. The Swedish Space
Corporation asserts that the Commission should allow applicants to
address space debris mitigation plans and deorbiting strategy after a
license is granted because these matters require obtaining data from
manufacturers and may cause delay before licensing. The commenter could
raise this in the Commission's Orbital Debris Mitigation proceeding.
While orbital debris assessments are a key component in determining
whether to grant a license or market access, in some instances the
Commission has authorized licenses on the condition that the applicant
must submit its orbital debris plan through a modification and meet the
requirements in the Commission's rules prior to commencing operations.
80. License Conditions. A number of commenters raise suggestions
and observations about the Commission's practices related to license
conditions. Commenters suggest, for example, that the Commission could
cut down on the license processing time by also limiting the number of
conditions applied to each license. TechFreedom suggests this could be
achieved in part by adding a new rule to part 25 ``making clear that
all licenses are issued subject to any rule changes later adopted.''
Similarly, Intelsat asserts that current license grants are more
lengthy than needed due to restatements of various of FCC rule
requirements. SpaceX asserts that the Commission should avoid imposing
[[Page 84751]]
any conditions that conflict with Sec. 25.118. SpaceX also asserts
that the Commission has inconsistently applied conditions to similarly
situated applicants in the past and suggests that the Commission should
adopt ``consistent conditions--ideally with identical language--that
reduce the incentive for operators to claim heightened conditions for
their competitors and reduce the need for operators to contest their
competitors' applications to ensure equitable treatment.''
81. The Commission finds these comments to be outside the scope of
the queries on expediting application processing, and rather directly
concern the specifics of license operations. However, the Commission
recognizes that authorization conditions do at times include
restatements of Commission rules. As commenters point out, all
operators are subject to the rules in part 25, unless granted a waiver
of a specific rule section. Additionally, it is already well
established that licenses are subject to changes in rules that are the
result of Commission rulemaking proceedings. Nonetheless, the Space
Bureau may consider these suggestions when crafting future license
conditions. Regarding SpaceX's suggestion, the Commission notes that
certain conditions may apply generally, for example if applications are
requesting a particular frequency or waiver of a particular section of
Commission rules. In such instances, effort is made to have
standardized conditions that are placed in license grants where
possible, and the Commission expects the Space Bureau will continue to
review license conditions accordingly. Beyond that, however, the
Commission notes that each application presents individualized
circumstances and operations, and conditions will reflect those
differences. For example, the conditions placed on an applicant
requesting to launch and operate one NGSO satellite will be different
from an applicant requesting to launch and operate a fleet of
satellites. In turn, the number of satellites, the size and location of
the fleet, and other factors will all play a role in what conditions
are placed on an operator.
82. Experimental Licensing. Turion Space suggests that the
Commission's experimental licensing rules under part 5 of Commission
rules should be updated and that the Space Bureau, not OET, should
administer the experimental licenses. OET has delegated authority to
administer experimental licenses under part 5, in coordination with the
Space Bureau when necessary. The Commission notes that part 5 rules
cover all manner of experimental licenses and OET has the delegated
authority and expertise related to experimental licenses generally.
When OET receives experimental license applications for satellite
operations, OET and the Space Bureau coordinate given the Bureau's
subject-matter expertise on satellite operations.
83. Physical Characteristics of Spacecraft. SpaceX suggests that
the Commission should cease requiring operators to provide specific
dimensions for satellites, claiming requests for such information is
inconsistent with Commission rules and policy. The Commission disagrees
with SpaceX's interpretation of Commission rules and policy. In a past
licensing streamlining proceeding the Commission deleted a specific
requirement in Sec. 25.114(c)(10) requiring space station applications
to provide, among other things, specific dimensions and mass because
the Commission found that the information was either collected
elsewhere or was unnecessary. In the case of specific dimensions, this
information is often pertinent to the design and operational strategy
that operators submit to demonstrate compliance with orbital debris
mitigation under Sec. 25.114(d)(14). Although the Commission removed
the blanket requirement under Sec. 25.114(c)(10) in 2013, the
Commission retains authority under Sec. 25.114(d)(14) to ensure that
applicants submit sufficient showings to ensure compliance with orbital
debris mitigation requirements concerns and therefore may request or
expect operators to provide such information in individual cases.
84. Public Participation in the Application Process, Informal
Complaints, and Commission Discretion on Considering Comments.
TechFreedom and SpaceX suggest that the Commission can further
streamline the application process by dismissing any late-filed
informal complaints related to an application. Additionally,
TechFreedom suggests that the Commission hold informal complaints to
the standards set forth in Sec. 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Both
commenters suggest that the informal complaint procedure has been used
to frustrate and slow down application processing.
85. As commenters suggest, the Commission's rules offer multiple
avenues for public participation related to Commission licensing
actions: for example, through filing objections or petitions to deny
under Sec. 25.154(a), through informal objections under Sec.
25.154(b), as well as other avenues such as Sec. 1.1307 (actions that
may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared). Formal pleadings, such as
petitions to deny, must generally be made within the 30-day public
comment period, however, the Commission has authority to extend the
opportunity for public comment. Under FCC rules, pleadings that are not
filed in accordance with Sec. 25.154(a), including those not meeting
the 30-day deadline, are classified as informal objections under
subsection (b). The Commission recognizes that allowing informal
objections that are not subject to the 30-day public notice timeframe
may slow down the pace of application processing in some instances,
especially when a significant number of comments are generated due to
an application for innovative services and novel operations. However,
allowing public comment under the Commission's existing processes and
rules benefits the review process, especially when comments are well
thought out, and factually supported. TechFreedom cites to NetworkIP,
LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir.,
2008) and proposes that the Commission should extend the court's
reasoning in that case ``to the informal complaint procedures for
satellite applications'' and hold ``all parties to strict filing
deadlines''. The Commission finds the court's decision in NetworkIP to
be inapposite. In that case, the court found that the FCC's failure to
apply its six-month filing deadline by granting a waiver was arbitrary
and capricious. 548 F.3d at 128. Unlike the situation in NetworkIP,
here, by accepting a filing after the 30-day period and classifying it
as an informal objection, the Commission is complying with its rules,
not waiving them. The Commission believes the benefit of robust debate
and input as part of the record outweighs the concerns about delay, and
therefore decline to change the informal objection process. However, in
those cases where parties file frivolous pleadings, or pleadings meant
solely to delay the process, the Commission reminds them that such
filings are prohibited under Sec. 1.52 of the Commission's rules.
f. Digital Equity and Inclusion
60. In the NPRM, the Commission noted its continuing efforts to
advance digital equity for all, consistent with the Communications Act
and with Executive Order 13985. Specifically, the Commission asked how
its streamlining proposals may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope
of
[[Page 84752]]
the Commission's relevant legal authority. Both SIA and EchoStar assert
that efforts to expedite the licensing process will advance digital
equity. EchoStar notes that a simpler, more efficient application
process supports the Commission's digital equity and inclusion goals
and will make it easier for satellite operators to offer services and
lower costs to users across the country, including members of
historically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, EchoStar notes that a
streamlined process makes it more likely that a wide range of
applicants will be able to participate in space business. SIA similarly
emphasizes the effect of satellite broadband services in closing the
digital divide for rural communities in particular and highlights the
important role that satellite remote sensing services can play in
natural and cultural resource management on Tribal lands. SIA also
urges the Commission to ``continue to adopt rules that remain neutral
with respect to the business models of the satellite systems that the
Commission authorizes . . . [which] will ensure that the benefits of
broadband satellite services will continue to be available to all end
user groups, including underserved consumers, and the business,
industries, and government infrastructure that support them and their
communities.''
61. The Commission agrees with commenters that its efforts to
expedite the application process and increase transparency for
applicants will aid in lowering barriers to new entrants into the
satellite communications industry. The Commission also agrees that
supporting efforts to increase connectivity to historically underserved
communities is in line with the Commission's mandate under the
Communications Act and Commission efforts to comply with Executive
Order 13985. With this in mind, the actions the Commission takes today
to increase transparency and guidance for applicants are aimed at
increasing accessibility, supporting innovation, and furthering the
Commission's goal of increasing connectivity for all.
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and
Earth Station Applications Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
released in December 2022. The Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing
the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
a. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rule
63. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented
number of applications for earth and space station licenses. The final
rule facilitates and expedites the acceptance for filing of satellite
and earth station applications under 47 CFR part 25 and adopts other
streamlining measure to keep pace with growing demand for satellite
services and innovative satellite operations. This rulemaking continues
to and will promote competition and innovation among satellite and
earth station operators, including the market entry of new competitors
by removing barriers to applying for licenses.
64. This document changes to Commission rules aimed at reducing
barriers and burdens on satellite operators. Specifically, the document
removes and reserves Sec. 25.112(a)(3) thus allowing operators to seek
a waiver for operations not in conformance with the international table
of allocations. Additionally, the document removes the prohibition on
licensed-but-unbuilt systems for NGSO operators by amending Sec. Sec.
25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5), and creates a new, streamlined processing
framework for earth station operators to add satellite points of
communication under certain circumstances. Finally, the document lays
the groundwork for a broader transparency initiative led by the Space
Bureau to provide clarity and access to applicants when interfacing
with the Commission's license application processes and filing system.
b. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
65. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
c. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business
66. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission
is required to respond to any comments the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration (SBA) filed in this proceeding,
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any
comments in response to the proposed rules or policies in this
proceeding.
d. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
67. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
68. Below, the Commission describes and estimate the number of
small entities that may be affected by the adoption of the final rules.
69. 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
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.
[[Page 84753]]
e. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
70. The final rule amends rules that are applicable to earth and
space station operators requesting a license or authorization from the
Commission, or entities requesting that the Commission grant a request
for U.S. market access. The changes adopted in the final rule, as
described below, will decrease the burden for small entities and other
business operators. Specifically, this final rule eliminates the rule
requiring automatic dismissal of applications requesting operations not
in conformance with the international table of allocations, eliminates
the NGSO unbuilt systems rule, and creates an expedited licensing
process for certain earth station operators to add points of
communication. Further, in light of these limited changes and rule
reductions, the Commission does not believe that small entities will
have to hire professionals to comply with the final rule.
f. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Alternatives Considered
71. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy,
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.
72. The final rule amends the Commission's rules governing
acceptability for filing by removing and reserving Sec. 25.112(a)(3),
which led to automatic dismissals of applications that proposed
frequency operations not in conformance with the international table of
frequency allocations. By removing this barrier, applicants may now
apply for a waiver of the international table, just as operators
applying under the small satellite or small spacecraft streamlined
procedures have been able to do and just as all operators have been
able to apply for waivers of the U.S. table of frequency allocations.
73. As an alternative, the Commission could have left 25.112(a)(3)
in place. This would have potentially created a barrier to innovative
uses of spectrum and stifled the development of the industry, including
for small entities. The Commission allowed waivers of the international
table of frequency allocations for small satellites and small
spacecraft through its streamlined rulemaking processes, found at
Sec. Sec. 25.122 and 25.123 respectively. However, small entities as
defined for purposes of the RFA do not always align with the
requirements to apply for a license under the small satellite or small
spacecraft streamlined process. By removing 25.112(a)(3), all
applicants may now seek a waiver for nonconforming use instead of
risking automatic dismissal of an application that required time and
resources to file.
74. In addition, the final rule removes the prohibition on
applicants from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite system
license in a particular frequency band if that party already had a
licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. By
removing this prohibition the Commission eliminates an additional
barrier to applicants in moving forward with their satellite operations
while maintaining safeguards against speculative license applications
through the Commission's bond and milestone requirements.
75. As an alternative, the Commission could have allowed applicants
to seek waivers of the prohibition on a case-by-case basis. This
alternative would have been more costly to small entities, requiring
additional resources to craft a request for waiver as part of their
application or to engage with outside counsel to assist with crafting
the waiver request. Leaving the rule as is would have potentially
created a barrier to small entities to apply for a license and expand
their operations.
76. The final rule creates a new, streamlined review process under
Sec. 25.117 (Modification of station licenses) for earth station
operators to add points of communication under specific circumstances.
The Commission identified a set of circumstances under which the review
process can be expedited and applications for this modification can be
deemed granted 35 days after being placed on public notice. This new
process will allow applicants to add points of communication to their
operations at a quicker pace, thus creating an economic benefit to
operators as well as a benefit to the public who will be able to access
the services being provided sooner.
g. Report to Congress
77. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
V. Ordering Clauses
78. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307,
309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 332, that this Report
and Order is adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed
herein are adopted, Part 25 of the Commission's rules is amended as set
forth in Appendix A.
79. It is further ordered that Part 25 of the Commission's Rules is
amended as set forth in Appendix A and such rule amendments will become
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
80. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall
send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses, 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.
81. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of this Report and
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.112 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3) and
revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
The revision reads as follows:
[[Page 84754]]
Sec. 25.112 Dismissal and return of applications.
* * * * *
(b) Applications for space station authority found defective under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section will not be considered. Applications
for authority found defective under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section may be accepted for filing if:
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 25.117 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.117 Modification of station license.
* * * * *
(i) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, an application to
add a space station point of communication to an earth station
authorization will be deemed granted 35 days after the date of the
public notice that the application has been accepted for filing,
provided:
(1) The license modification is only to add one or more points of
communication;
(2) The modification will not cause the earth station transmissions
to exceed the highest EIRP, EIRP density, and bandwidth prescribed for
any already authorized emission; and
(3) The new space station point of communication will operate with
the earth station only in frequency bands that are not shared with
Federal or terrestrial wireless users and are not subject to
coordination requirements with other non-Federal satellite services.
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.137 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.137 Requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S.-licensed
space stations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Entities that have one market access request on file with the
Commission for NGSO-like satellite operations in a particular frequency
band will not be permitted to request access to the U.S. market for
another NGSO-like satellite system in that frequency band in the same
processing round subject to the procedures of Sec. Sec. 25.157 and
25.261.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 25.159 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 25.159 Limits on pending applications and unbuilt satellite
systems.
* * * * *
(b) Applicants with an application for one NGSO-like satellite
system license on file with the Commission in a particular frequency
band will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite
system license in that frequency band in the same processing round
subject to the procedures of Sec. Sec. 25.157 and 25.261.
(c) If an applicant has an attributable interest in one or more
other entities seeking one or more space station licenses or grants of
U.S. market access, the pending applications and licensed-but-unbuilt
satellite systems filed by those other entities will be counted as
filed by the applicant for purposes of the limits on the number of
pending space station applications or requests for U.S. market access
and licensed-but-unbuilt satellite systems in this section and in Sec.
25.137(d)(5). For purposes of this section, an applicant has an
``attributable interest'' in another entity if:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26699 Filed 12-5-23; 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 December 6, 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.