Proposed Rule2026-06865
Spectrum Abundance for Weird Space Stuff
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) looks to bring spectrum abundance for emergent space activities. "Emergent" or "emergent space operations" are those spacecraft or commercial operations in space that use radio spectrum for control of, or communications with, a spacecraft, but which are not communications satellites. Currently there is an acute shortage of usable and readily accessible spectrum for telemetry, tracking and command (TT&C) functions that are essential for operating emergent spacecraft. Accordingly, this document seeks to clarify and expand the Commission's traditional regulatory classifications so that emergent space operations have more predictable access to spectrum. Additionally, this document proposes to add a secondary allocation for the Space Operation Service (SOS) in spectrum bands that could support emergent space activities, particularly in frequency bands allocated for non-Federal use that may be lightly used in certain geographic areas. This document also proposes to allow existing licensees to lease their spectrum to earth station licensees to provide SOS in connection with emergent spacecraft.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17914-17931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06865]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
[SB Docket No. 26-54; FCC 26-13; FR ID 338749]
Spectrum Abundance for Weird Space Stuff
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or we) looks to bring spectrum abundance for emergent space
activities. ``Emergent'' or ``emergent space operations'' are those
spacecraft or commercial operations in space that use radio spectrum
for control of, or communications with, a spacecraft, but which are not
communications satellites. Currently there is an acute shortage of
usable and readily accessible spectrum for telemetry, tracking and
command (TT&C) functions that are essential for operating emergent
spacecraft. Accordingly, this document seeks to clarify and expand the
Commission's traditional regulatory classifications so that emergent
space operations have more predictable access to spectrum.
Additionally, this document proposes to add a secondary allocation for
the Space Operation Service (SOS) in spectrum bands that could support
emergent space activities, particularly in frequency bands allocated
for non-Federal use that may be lightly used in certain geographic
areas. This document also proposes to allow existing licensees to lease
their spectrum to earth station licensees to provide SOS in connection
with emergent spacecraft.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 11, 2026. Reply Comments are
due on or before June 8, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on
or before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may
be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 26-54, by
any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and
[[Page 17915]]
Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f696c6c3a3f3b4f696c6c21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c4c1c1979296e2c4c1c18cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Duall, 202-418-1103,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87f4f3e2f7efe2e9a9e3f2e6ebebc7e1e4e4a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7949382978f8289c98392868b8ba7818484c9808891">[email protected]</span></a> or Brandon Padgett, 202-418-1377,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdafbfaca3a9a2a3e3bdaca9aaa8b9b98dabaeaee3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfadbdaea1aba0a1e1bfaeaba8aabbbb8fa9acace1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in SB Docket No. 26-54; FCC 26-13,
adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection online at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf</a>. The full text
of this document is also available for inspection and copying during
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington,
DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5838686f0f5f185a3a6a6eba2aab3">[email protected]</a> or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM on small entities.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Commission document, <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf</a>. The Commission
invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment
on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments
indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM may contain new or proposed
modified information collections. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any
information collections contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires
agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an open license
and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine readable, open
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB. The term
``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained
by the federal government that has been, or may be, released to the
public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).'' A ``data
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.''
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of the NPRM will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
Introduction
1. In the geopolitical race to commercialize and dominate the Final
Frontier, historic levels of private investment have paved the way for
the engineering marvels and daring endeavors that now take place in
outer space. Once the province of science fiction, American companies
are now upgrading, relocating, and servicing satellites; manufacturing
pharmaceuticals in space; building private inhabitable spacecraft; and
conducting private robotic missions to the surface of the Moon.
Emergent space operations like these depend on the use of
radiocommunications for their spacecraft, but they are not the type of
communications satellites that have traditionally commanded much of the
Commission's regulatory attention.
2. Spectrum is a critical component of all space operations. Even
for spacecraft that do not provide radiocommunications services to the
public, reliable spectrum access is mandatory for safety functions like
telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) to control spacecraft in orbit.
American innovators, however, currently face an acute shortage of
usable and readily accessible spectrum for TT&C, and that spectrum
crunch threatens to delay--or even prevent--the growth of domestic
space technologies and jeopardize U.S. leadership in the booming global
space economy.
3. This shortage of spectrum is the product of several interlocking
factors. For one, spectrum for TT&C is largely unavailable on a
standalone basis, absent a separately authorized radiocommunications
service. Emergent space innovations like inhabitable spacecraft and
orbital laboratories, however, do not typically provide a separately
authorized radiocommunications service. For another, the spectrum bands
where TT&C may be available on a standalone basis tend to be congested
and occupied
[[Page 17916]]
primarily by Federal users. And for another, even when the Commission
does authorize a company's use of spectrum for standalone TT&C, it
occurs under a case-by-case review process that may involve extensive
coordination and delay.
4. The Commission is aggressively pursuing a policy of spectrum
abundance in outer space. Earlier this year, we launched a proceeding
to release up to 20,000 megahertz of spectrum for traditional
connectivity services, including high-speed broadband from
constellations in low-Earth orbit. The Commission has also begun a
comprehensive revisiting its licensing and regulatory framework for
space communications in the Space Modernization NPRM.
5. Now, with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we focus on
bringing spectrum abundance to support cutting-edge, emergent ventures
in space. The NPRM pursues two paths towards abundance. First, we seek
to clarify and expand our traditional regulatory classifications so
that emergent operations have more predictable spectrum access. Second,
we explore new spectrum bands that could support new use cases on a
dedicated basis. In each path, our goal remains the same: provide a
clear, reliable, and expeditious path to support the groundbreaking
technologies and services that companies are developing in space. With
the proposals in the NPRM, we look to find ways to use market-based
principles to see spectrum resources put to more intensive use in the
service of the space economy. By thinking creatively and expansively,
we have the opportunity to go from zero non-Federal spectrum available
today to support emergent space operations to at least 25 megahertz of
such spectrum, and potentially much, much more, if all the proposals in
the NPRM are ultimately adopted.
Background
A. Important Terminology and Definitions
6. To facilitate a precise discussion why emergent space operations
may not have sufficient spectrum availability, we first clarify key
terms and definitions currently used in our rules governing space
communications.
7. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), ``[n]o
person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of
energy or communications or signals by radio'' from or within the areas
specified in section 301 or on a mobile station within the jurisdiction
of the United States without a license issued by the Commission.
Although the Act does not define the term ``signals,'' it defines
``communication by radio'' as ``the transmission by radio of writing,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all
instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other
things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications)
incidental to such transmission.''
8. Consistent with the Act, our rules state that ``[n]o person
shall use or operate apparatus for the transmission of energy or
communications or signals by space or earth stations except under, and
in accordance with, an appropriate authorization granted by the Federal
Communications Commission.'' Under our rules, a ``space station'' is a
``station located on an object which is beyond, is intended to go
beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the Earth's
atmosphere.'' An ``earth station'' is a ``station located either on the
Earth's surface or within the major portion of Earth's atmosphere and
intended for communication: (1) With one or more space stations; or (2)
With one or more stations of the same kind by means of one or more
reflecting satellites or other objects in space.'' Our rules define
``radiocommunication'' as ``telecommunication by means of radio waves''
and ``telecommunication'' as ``any transmission, emission or reception
of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any
nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.''
Section 301 of the Act states that ``[n]o person shall use or operate
any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or
signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this Act and
with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this
Act.'' Accordingly, the transmission or reception of intelligence of
any nature to or from a station beyond the majority of the Earth's
atmosphere via radio waves is a space radiocommunication and, pursuant
to our rules, requires an authorization by the Commission.
9. Radiocommunications are classified and regulated as distinct
kinds of ``radiocommunication service,'' defined as ``a service . . .
involving the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio waves
for specific telecommunication purposes.'' Those specific purposes are
reflected in the radiocommunication services defined by our rules, such
as the fixed-satellite service (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS),
or broadcasting-satellite service (BSS). Whereas FSS, MSS, and BSS
licensees use radio waves to provide voice, video, or data to consumers
and businesses, other radiocommunication services do not. For example,
the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) uses radio waves to
obtain information about the Earth through active or passive sensors,
as well as to collect and distribute that information.
10. Some radiocommunication services, in particular, are critical
for the operation of a spacecraft, but do not provide a service to the
public. For example, the space operation service (SOS) is defined as
``[a] radiocommunication service concerned exclusively with the
operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry,
and space telecommand'' and uses radio waves for the operation of
spacecraft. Similarly, the space research service (SRS) is defined as
``[a] radiocommunication service in which spacecraft or other objects
in space are used for scientific or technological research purposes.''
In both instances, the radiocommunication services are used to control
and operate spacecraft, but are not themselves the services offered to
the public. Space telemetry is defined as ``[t]he use of telemetry for
transmission for a space station of results of measurements made in a
spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning of the
spacecraft.'' Space tracking is defined as the ``[d]etermination of the
orbit, velocity or instantaneous position of an object in space by
means of radiodetermination, excluding primary radar, for the purpose
of following the movement of the object.'' Space telecommand is defined
as ``[t]he use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals to
a space station to initiate, modify or terminate functions of equipment
on a space object, including the space station.''
11. Thus, there are numerous space radiocommunication services
provided for under our rules, some of which use radiocommunications to
provide service directly to the public, and some of which are used to
support operations of spacecraft. All of these services involve
transmissions of signals and thus require authorization from the
Commission under the Act, provided that the station at issue does not
belong to and is not controlled by the United States government.
12. Another important point of terminology is the distinction
between Federal and non-Federal operations and the effects of this
distinction on allocations of radio spectrum. The Commission authorizes
non-Federal operations, which include those by private commercial
entities. Operations
[[Page 17917]]
conducted by agencies or entities of the U.S. federal government are
Federal, and Congress has assigned the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), which is part of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, oversight of such operations. Together, the FCC and NTIA
jointly manage the nation's radio spectrum resources in the public
interest. The United States Table of Frequency Allocations (United
States Table) contains allocations for both Federal (that is, U.S.
federal government) and non-Federal (for example, private entities) use
of radiocommunication services and is codified in Sec. 2.106 of our
rules. An ``allocation'' is an entry in the Table of Frequency
Allocations (Allocation Table) of a given frequency band for the
purpose of its use by one or more terrestrial or space
radiocommunication services (or the radio astronomy service) under
specified conditions. Any segment of the radio spectrum may be
allocated to the federal and/or non-federal sectors either on an
exclusive or shared basis for use by one or more radio services.
Services may be allocated on a primary or secondary basis, and
operations on a secondary basis must not cause harmful interference to
operations on a primary basis and cannot claim protection from harmful
interference from operations of a primary service.
13. Non-federal operators may be authorized to use Federal
frequency allocations, subject to coordination with the appropriate
federal agency or agencies and conditions agreed upon by the Commission
and NTIA, provided that such operations shall not cause harmful
interference to Federal stations and that operations shall terminate
should harmful interference occur. Thus, applications to operate non-
Federal radiocommunication services in frequency bands that are
allocated to Federal operations must first be coordinated with federal
agencies and must not cause harmful interference to Federal operations.
14. Lastly, there are important differences in the terms
``spacecraft,'' ``satellite,'' and ``space station'' under our rules. A
``spacecraft'' is defined as a ``man-made vehicle which is intended to
go beyond the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.'' Although
``satellite'' is defined as a spacecraft in orbit, it is often used
informally to refer to the physical apparatus in space. A ``space
station'' is essentially a station on a spacecraft, and a ``station''
is the transmitters or receivers (or combination thereof) on the
spacecraft necessary for carrying on a radiocommunication service.
Furthermore, a station is classified by the service in which it
operates, so a space station operating in the fixed-satellite service
is classified as an ``FSS space station.'' Thus, a spacecraft can be a
satellite, and a satellite is a spacecraft, and there can be one or
more space stations on a satellite or spacecraft. But under our rules,
it is the transmitters and receivers that make up a space station that
must be authorized by the Commission.
B. The Spectrum Crunch for Emergent Space Operations
15. The Commission has observed a significant expansion in the
commercial space industry in recent years, as well as the need for
additional spectrum resources to conduct operations in space. Although
the Commission has initiated proceedings to make spectrum abundant for
satellites that provide radiocommunications services to the public,
such as FSS, longstanding regulatory gaps currently constrain the
availability of spectrum for new use cases. This ``spectrum crunch''
arises from several interlocking factors, discussed below.
16. Spectrum used for emergent space operations may not clearly
fall within an existing radiocommunication service. The Commission has
received a growing number of applications to transmit or receive
radiocommunications that do not involve the provision of
radiocommunication services to the public. In each of these instances,
the spacecraft is intended to provide services or engage in activities
that are not radiocommunication services, such as in-space servicing,
assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM), commercial habitable space
stations, and lunar orbiters and landers. The spectrum needs of such
applications are usually limited to radiocommunication services to
conduct TT&C functions necessary to command and control the spacecraft.
17. Under our current rules and the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) Radio Regulations, spacecraft conduct TT&C functions within
the same frequency bands in which they are authorized to provide other
radiocommunication services, such as FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS. For this
reason, licensees are generally authorized by the Commission to conduct
TT&C functions within frequency bands authorized for another allocated
radiocommunications service. Because spacecraft used for emergent
purposes such as lunar missions generally do not otherwise provide
radiocommunication services, applicants seeking an FCC license to use
spectrum to conduct TT&C to control these spacecraft cannot clearly
rely on the use of existing spectrum resources allocated for FSS, MSS,
or EESS to command and control their spacecraft.
18. Spectrum available for emergent space operations may be
prioritized for Federal operations and can be difficult to access. In
the past, activities in space were often conducted by governments,
rather than private entities. In the United States, space activities
that did not provide radiocommunication services to the public were
typically conducted through government agencies, such as the National
Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) or the Department of War
(DoW). As observed in our discussion of terminology and definitions
above, the Commission did not license these operations because these
operations were controlled by federal agencies. Accordingly, these
operations relied largely on spectrum allocated for Federal users in
the United States Table.
19. Today, as the American commercial space industry expands, there
is an increasing reliance on private entities to conduct activities in
space that in the past may have been conducted through government
agencies. These activities are increasingly conducted either
independently of government agencies, or under contractual arrangements
with, or with funding from, government agencies. Because these
activities are ultimately controlled by private entities, rather than
government agencies, applicants are seeking licenses from the
Commission for their use of radiofrequencies, particularly for
radiocommunications to command and control their spacecraft. In doing
so, the operations are categorized as non-Federal operations.
20. Because of the past reliance on the use of other allocated
radiocommunication services, such as FSS, for the conduct of TT&C
functions for private entities, there are few explicit separate
allocations for conducting command and control of spacecraft by non-
Federal operators in the United States Table. The Commission's rules
and the ITU Radio Regulations provide SOS and SRS allocations that
support command and control of spacecraft. Current spectrum allocations
for these services, however, are primarily for Federal use in the
United States Table and are heavily used by Federal operations,
including portions of the S-band allocated for Federal SOS operations
in the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space), 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-Earth)
bands, and portions of the X-band allocated for Federal SRS in the
8400-8450 MHz
[[Page 17918]]
(space-to-Earth) and 8450-8500 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands.
21. Many of the applications for Commission authority to operate
radiocommunications to support ISAM and lunar operations have requested
to operate in the same S-band and X-band allocations for SOS and SRS
that are primarily and heavily used by Federal operators, as these
bands support readily available, ``off-the-shelf'' antenna systems that
are significantly more cost effective than designing and building
customized antenna systems in-house. Access to these allocations by
non-Federal operators, however, is subject to coordination and sharing
requirements with Federal users, which can often take substantial time
and effort to complete. In addition, the absence of a clearly defined
regulatory path for access to SOS and SRS allocations used by Federal
operations on a primary basis has led to a case-by-case licensing
approach and to regulatory uncertainty.
22. Non-Federal spectrum bands that could support emergent
operations are also congested. To address and facilitate the
development of ISAM, the Commission previously sought comment in a
notice of inquiry (ISAM NOI) and a notice of proposed rulemaking (ISAM
NPRM) on the needs of ISAM operators and proposed a potential
streamlined regulatory framework for supporting such missions. The
Commission has previously acknowledged the increasing variety of space
missions and the need to modernize spectrum policies to accommodate
these operations. Furthermore, in the ISAM NPRM, the Commission
tentatively concluded that various communication activities in support
of ISAM could potentially operate within several existing service
allocations and proposed to continue to review ISAM operators' requests
for frequency use on a case-by-case basis. Although comments in
response to the ISAM NPRM support this tentative conclusion, they also
indicate that existing service allocations may not be sufficient for
ISAM, and that additional spectrum resources are needed, particularly
in frequency bands that are allocated for use by non-Federal operations
and that do not require extensive coordination with other spectrum
users.
23. Commenters have identified multiple frequency bands that might
be used to conduct TT&C functions for spacecraft that do not also
operate in other radiocommunication services, such as FSS or EESS.
Almost all of the identified frequency bands, however, are currently
used by a diverse range of existing non-Federal spectrum users, or are
shared with or primarily used by Federal operations, which would still
require extensive coordination with multiple spectrum users and would
not provide a clear and reliable path for licensing by the Commission.
We therefore focus the NPRM on proposals and alternatives that could
provide a clear and reliable path in the near future for accessing
additional spectrum resources for conducting TT&C operations for
spacecraft that are unable to conduct such operations under allocations
for other radiocommunication services.
Discussion
24. We seek comment on steps that the Commission can take to make
spectrum abundant for emergent space operations. These steps include
providing regulatory clarity and leveraging existing spectrum
allocations to support such operations. They also include unlocking new
sources of usable spectrum by allowing existing Commission spectrum
licensees to make their spectrum resources available in ways that are
not currently permitted under our rules. Although we recognize that
these are initial steps towards making spectrum abundant to support
innovative new endeavors in space, we seek comment on the extent to
which they may alleviate spectrum shortcomings, expedite the
Commission's licensing, and facilitate innovation.
25. We seek comment on a variety of proposals and ideas in the
NPRM. Building upon the record in the ISAM proceeding, we propose to
codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking. Another proposal
herein is to review requests to operate space stations within specific
service allocations on a case-by-case basis. Next, we seek comment on
conducting TT&C to support emergent operations in FSS bands on an
unprotected, non-interference basis subject to coordination with other
spectrum users, as well as what operations fall within our definition
of TT&C. We also seek comment on the types of applications that may
seek to operate within the SRS allocation. We also propose to add a
secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band for command
uplink and permit a version of de facto spectrum leasing of that band
to earth station licensees. We seek comment on alternatives to these
proposals and whether to extend this proposed leasing framework to
other frequency bands. Lastly, we seek comment on whether licensed
satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-
licensed satellites and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data
downlinks to support emergent operations. We also seek comment on any
alternatives that would be less burdensome for small entities.
26. As observed above, the Commission has previously sought comment
on radiofrequency use for non-communications satellites in the ISAM NOI
and NPRM. In this proceeding, we seek comment on proposals to make
available additional spectrum resources not only in support of ISAM
missions, but also for all emergent space operations. Because we are
not proposing here to create spectrum allocations specifically and
solely for use by ISAM or for lunar missions, we seek comment on
proposals to allow increased and more efficient use of spectrum to
support all space operations that do not otherwise provide
radiocommunication services to the public. Accordingly, we make
alternative proposals regarding spectrum availability for ISAM and
propose to no longer address spectrum use issues in the ISAM
proceeding. Rather, we seek comment on whether to address the issues of
spectrum availability to support ISAM missions through the proposals of
this proceeding, rather than as part of the ISAM NPRM. We are not
seeking comment in this proceeding on potential changes to how we
process applications for authority to provide radiocommunication
services or on other potential changes to our rules specific to the
needs of ISAM operations. Although the ISAM NPRM sought comment on
possible modifications to our rules in order to facilitate the
licensing and regulation of radiocommunications in support of ISAM
missions, our focus today is on proposals and alternatives related to
spectrum availability for all emergent space operations.
A. Establishing Regulatory Clarity for the Use of Existing Spectrum
Allocations
27. There is currently no radiocommunication service specifically
dedicated for use by emergent space operations domestically or
internationally. Accordingly, there is the need for clarity and
certainty in the ability of operators to access other
radiocommunication service allocations necessary to conduct their
emergent operations in space. To that end, in addition to the proposals
in the NPRM for specific frequency bands that might be utilized more
intensively to support TT&C functions for emergent space operations, we
propose to codify several
[[Page 17919]]
Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these
operators using existing radiocommunication service allocations.
1. Authorizing by Rule Spectrum ``Piggybacking'' for Emergent Space
Operations
28. In the ISAM NPRM, the Commission recognized commenters'
interest in allowing ISAM spacecraft to communicate in frequency bands
already authorized for use by another spacecraft while the two
spacecraft are connected or working together in close proximity to each
other, also known as frequency ``piggybacking.'' Additionally the ISAM
NPRM noted that the piggybacking option has been authorized under
existing part 25 rules in the past. There is unanimous support in
response to the ISAM NPRM for allowing frequency piggybacking for
radiocommunications in support of ISAM operations, and frequency
piggybacking has previously been authorized as an option for ISAM
operators on a case-by-case basis.
29. Accordingly, we propose to codify the potential use of
frequency piggybacking in our rules in order to provide regulatory
clarity. We seek comment on how to codify the potential use of
frequency piggybacking that provides regulatory clarity and certainty,
but also recognizes that piggybacking may not be suitable for all types
of operations. Furthermore, we seek comment on how such codification
could be worded to address a wide-range of potential scenarios for
frequency piggybacking, in order to provide both certainty and
flexibility. As an example, comments have asked the Commission to
clarify whether frequency piggybacking may be permissible for an
operator whose client is an EESS operator. We tentatively conclude that
this would be an acceptable scenario for frequency piggybacking. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
30. We propose to codify that the Commission may authorize a space
station to use the same frequencies as a separate, consenting
spacecraft (that is, a ``client'' spacecraft) that is also authorized
by the Commission or has obtained a grant of U.S. market access,
provided that the applicant for the space station authorization
certifies that the space station will be used for servicing,
monitoring, or collaborating with the client spacecraft and that the
operations will conform with the client spacecraft's ITU filings and
licensed frequency parameters. We seek comment on this proposal.
Specifically, we seek comment on how to define a client spacecraft and
whether there are other instances in which we should allow piggybacking
in addition to servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with a client
spacecraft. Additionally, should licensees or grantees of U.S. market
access engaged in spectrum piggybacking be required to provide the
specific frequency information required by our rules to allow Space
Bureau staff to confirm the operations are in conformance with the
client's license or market access grant and ITU filings? Or would
certification be sufficient? Similarly, should licensees or grantees be
required to provide evidence of the other space station operator's
consent to piggybacking operations, or is certification again
sufficient? Is there anything else we should consider requiring from
operators proposing to conduct piggybacking operations? We recognize
there may also be additional considerations for operators seeking FCC
authorization to conduct spectrum piggybacking with a non-U.S. licensed
client that has not sought U.S. market access, and we seek comment on
what certifications or demonstrations we should require in such
instances in order to fulfill our international obligations, protect
national security, and promote American innovation in space.
2. Authorizing Standalone TT&C Within Existing FSS Allocations
31. We also seek comment on permitting licensees and market access
grantees for emergent space operations to conduct TT&C in FSS bands
where TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication
service. As observed above, the Space Bureau routinely authorizes FSS
space station licensees to conduct TT&C in the same frequency bands
that are allocated for FSS. Thus, we are confident that it is
technically feasible to conduct TT&C in frequency bands that are
already allocated for FSS by non-Federal operators, and that there is
likely to be readily-available earth station facilities and equipment
to support TT&C in these frequency bands. TT&C operations licensed
outside of our processing procedures for GSO or NGSO FSS are unable to
claim protection from interference from, and are not permitted to cause
harmful interference to, other licensed operators that are authorized
within our processing procedures. Accordingly, we envision permission
for such TT&C operations licensed outside of processing procedures
would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to
coordination with other authorized spectrum users. We seek comment on
the appropriate status of such TT&C operations and whether such TT&C
operations can, in fact, be successfully coordinated with other
authorized spectrum users to avoid harmful interference. We also seek
comment on whether TT&C for emergent space operations could be provided
in frequency bands allocated for radiocommunication services such as
MSS or BSS, which often require use of frequency division or planned
bands in order to avoid interference among spectrum users. Would such
frequency bands also be able to accommodate TT&C for emergent space
operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis?
32. In addition, we seek comment on whether applicants could be
granted authority to provide TT&C as a form of FSS in bands allocated
for non-Federal FSS. We observe that FSS is defined as a
``radiocommunication service between earth stations at given positions,
when one or more satellites are used; the given position may be a
specified fixed point or any fixed point within specified areas; in
some cases this service includes satellite-to-satellite links, which
may also be operated in the inter-satellite service; the FSS may also
include feeder links of other space radiocommunication services.'' Is
the ability to provide TT&C within the definition of FSS analogous to
the ability to provide feeder links in such an allocation (that is, one
way uplinks that are not between earth stations)? We expect, however,
that TT&C provided as FSS would be limited to the provision of TT&C on
an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with
other spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first service procedure
or a processing round. We seek comment on this expectation.
33. We also seek comment to what extent operations on an
unprotected, non-interference basis are suitable for TT&C functions,
which may be critical to the command and control of a spacecraft. What
level of availability and reliability is needed for command and
control? Would it be in the public interest to facilitate TT&C
operations without providing absolute certainty of non-interference? As
an example, would TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference basis be
sufficient for certain operators, such as those conducting rendezvous
and proximity operations (RPO) and docking, or those operating
inhabitable spacecraft?
3. Refining the Definition of TT&C
34. Section 2.1 of our rules defines space telecommand as ``[t]he
use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals to a space
station to initiate, modify or terminate
[[Page 17920]]
functions of equipment on a space object, including the space
station.'' And space telemetry is defined as ``[t]he use of telemetry
for transmission for a space station of results of measurements made in
a spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning of the
spacecraft.'' The Commission has previously recognized that service
allocations for TT&C, may not be sufficient for certain operators, such
as those conducting RPO and docking, or those operating inhabitable
spacecraft. The Commission also tentatively concluded that the
definition of TT&C need not be so narrowly construed as to exclude data
downlink operations. We seek comment on a potential Commission
interpretation of the definitions of space telecommand and space
telemetry to include downlink of video and other data during maneuvers
such as RPO or docking with other spacecraft. Can such operations be
accommodated within the existing typical narrowband parameters of TT&C
bands? Can operations for inhabitable spacecraft be accommodated in
TT&C bands? What other operations besides RPO and docking could
function in TT&C bands? If the Commission adopts an interpretation of
the definitions of TT&C to include data downlink for RPO, docking, and/
or other operations, should we specifically modify the definitions in
our rules or add footnotes to the United States Table? We also seek
comment on whether explicitly permitting video and other wideband data
communications in allocations used for TT&C could crowd out existing
narrowband TT&C operations or make it more difficult to permit TT&C
operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis. We seek comment
on these questions.
4. Clarifying That Spectrum Use Supporting Emergent Space Operations
May Fall Within Existing Service Allocations
35. The Commission tentatively concluded in the ISAM NPRM that
radiocommunications in support of various ISAM operations could fit
within numerous existing service allocation definitions and that
Commission staff would assess whether an applicant's proposed
communications fall within the applicant's desired service
allocation(s) on a case-by-case basis. Our rules define service
allocations according to the ITU definitions, and we rely on these
definitions when we consider requests for frequency authorization as
part of our licensing process. Commenters were generally supportive of
permitting the use of any service allocation for communications in
support of ISAM operations so long as the operator can demonstrate that
the communications justifiably fit within the existing service
allocation definition.
36. Although we propose to continue to review requests to operate
space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case
basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit
within the definition of the service allocation, we observe the record
has generated a number of comments that support the need for greater
regulatory clarity to spur innovation in this space. For example, some
commenters raise concerns that without affirmative signals from the
Commission, some radiocommunication allocations, including the space
research service, may not be accessible to ISAM operators due to
uncertainty regarding the scope of the allocation definitions and
challenges coordinating use of this spectrum with Federal operators.
Other commenters disagree whether EESS should be expressly excluded
from case-by-case consideration for ISAM missions. Commenters are
chiefly concerned with the potential for interference to the important
services provided through EESS passive and active remote sensing,
especially in the EESS passive bands where ``the signals emitted by
EESS (passive) sensors are very weak compared to those emitted by
active communication services.''
37. We recognize that interference protection is very important for
the EESS operations that commenters highlight, and that EESS passive
operations can be particularly vulnerable to interference. Allowing
operators to request the use of a particular existing service
allocation for communications, however, does not permit unfettered
access to all frequency bands. The ITU has established stringent
recommendations for the protection of passive sensors from interference
through ITU-R Recommendation RS.2017 ``Performance and interference
criteria for satellite remote sensing.'' Additionally, our rules
require applicants proposing to use specific frequencies to demonstrate
compliance with ITU rules and recommendations. It is not our view that
merely allowing operators to apply for frequency authorization using
frequency bands that are allocated for passive use would make such
bands available only to operators engaging in active use. Additionally,
we observe that many EESS active operations have demonstrated an
ability to share spectrum without the creation of harmful interference
to other operators through our small satellite licensing process, which
numerous EESS providers have used since its introduction in 2019. We
seek comment on this view and observation. Although we certainly take
seriously any potential for harmful interference to existing users, we
tentatively conclude that we need not preemptively exclude the EESS
allocations from case-by-case consideration altogether at this time. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
38. In addition to our tentative conclusion not to exclude
operators from applying to use frequencies in any service allocation in
which their operations could justifiably fit, we specifically seek
comment on applicants seeking to operate within the SRS allocation.
Given the nascent stage of many emergent space operations, we propose
to consider communications supporting them, particularly when funded by
NASA or other federal research agencies, as falling within the
definition of SRS. We seek comment on this proposed approach and
specifically on what other steps the Commission could take to promote
regulatory certainty for these operators. For example, could the
uncertainty be resolved by adding a footnote to the United States Table
in frequency bands allocated for Federal SRS specifically to permit
operations of non-Federal operations funded or contracted by NASA or
other federal research agencies? We also seek comment on the language
of any such footnote and what additional conditions on such operations
may be needed to protect Federal SRS operators from harmful
interference.
B. Unlocking More Spectrum for Emergent Space Operations
39. We seek comments on ways that spectrum that is already
allocated for non-Federal use could be made available to address the
need for spectrum to support emergent space operations. In particular,
we seek comment whether such spectrum can be identified in frequency
bands that may currently be used intensively by non-Federal spectrum
users in certain geographic areas (such as urban, high-population
areas, particularly in the contiguous 48 states (CONUS), but that may
not be used in other geographic areas (such as rural areas in CONUS, or
outside of CONUS and in U.S. Territories and Possessions). In order to
avoid the challenges of coordinating non-Federal use of spectrum bands
that are allocated primarily to Federal use, we are particularly
interested in
[[Page 17921]]
identifying spectrum bands that either are not shared with Federal
users, or that are shared with, but not used intensively by, Federal
users and are allocated on a secondary basis for Federal use.
40. Although our focus is on the specific frequency bands discussed
below, we also seek comment on whether there are any additional bands
that could satisfy the criteria identified above and that could
potentially be used more intensively to provide TT&C for emergent space
operations. In all cases, our objective is to allow more intensive and
flexible use of spectrum in a way that avoids interference or economic
harm to existing spectrum users.
41. As part of this process, we seek comment generally on what
changes to the United States Table and our rules would need to be made
to effectuate such more intensive use domestically, and the specific
manner in which those changes could be effectuated (for example, by
creation of an allocation or through a footnote to the United States
Table). In addition, we seek comment on whether the flexible use,
leasing/secondary markets, and competitive bidding proposals discussed
in the specific frequency bands below could also be applied to other
frequency bands in order to make additional spectrum resources
available for emergent space operations. We also generally seek comment
on what, if any changes, are needed internationally to effectuate these
changes, either through the ITU or through bi-lateral or multi-lateral
agreements with other countries.
1. 2320-2345 MHz Band
42. As an example of the type of more intensive spectrum use
discussed above, we propose to add a secondary allocation for SOS
(Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of
the United States Table, and to permit the existing exclusive licensee
within this frequency band in the United States, SiriusXM, to lease
portions of its spectrum to earth station licensees for command of
spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to
the public. We discuss the history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz
band below, as well as the specifics of the proposal and possible
alternatives.
a. History and Current Use
43. The history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz band are
important factors in proposing to make this spectrum available to
address the needs of emergent space operations. The 2320-2345 MHz band
occupies 25 megahertz of spectrum and is used to provide Satellite
Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) in the United States, as well as
parts of Canada. It is divided equally between two separate, but co-
owned, SDARS networks, Sirius and XM. The Commission's rules define
SDARS--commonly known as ``satellite radio''--as
``[a]radiocommunication service in which audio programming is digitally
transmitted by one or more space stations directly to fixed, mobile,
and/or portable stations, and which may involve complementary repeating
terrestrial transmitters, telemetry, tracking and control facilities.''
Thus, SDARS is primarily a satellite-delivered service in which
programming is sent directly from satellites to subscriber receivers
either at a fixed location or in motion.
44. The Commission awarded licenses to provide SDARS within the
United States by auction in 1997. XM and Sirius launched initial
satellites and began commercial operations in 2001 and 2002,
respectively. The two companies merged in 2008 to form a single
company--Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (SiriusXM)--but the merged entity
continues to operate the Sirius and XM systems as separate networks and
there are still separate licenses for each system. Currently, SiriusXM
and its subsidiary companies have licenses for geostationary-satellite
orbit (GSO) space stations operating at the nominal 85[deg] West
Longitude (W.L.) and 115[deg] W.L. orbital locations, which transmit in
the space-to-Earth direction to subscriber terminals in the 2320-2345
MHz band, with fixed earth stations providing uplinks in the 7.025-
7.075 GHz band. On-station TT&C for SiriusXM's satellites is provided
in the X-band for command uplinks and S-band for telemetry downlinks.
SiriusXM reported it had approximately 32.8 million subscribers as of
June 30, 2025.
45. The 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger block of spectrum
from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between SDARS and Wireless
Communications Services (WCS) licensees. In 1996, Congress directed
that this block of spectrum be reallocated from Federal to non-Federal
use and auctioned.
46. Within the 2320-2345 MHz band, SiriusXM operates a network of
terrestrial repeaters in the center portion of each of the two 12.5
megahertz assigned to Sirius and XM (2320.0-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5-2345
MHz). Because a direct line of sight is generally required to receive
an acceptable satellite signal, ground-based terrestrial repeaters are
used in many areas to re-transmit the same signals provided by
satellites directly to subscribers in order to maintain adequate signal
power. SiriusXM may also provide telemetry beacons in each of these
assignments.
47. Domestically, the 2320-2345 MHz band is allocated on a primary
basis for non-Federal BSS, which includes SDARS. Footnote US327 to the
United States Table states that the band is allocated to BSS (sound)
and complementary terrestrial repeaters on a primary basis, and such
use is limited to digital audio broadcasting. The United States Table
provides Federal allocations for fixed service and radiolocation
service on a secondary basis, subject to a footnote that recognizes the
primary allocation for BSS (sound) and restricts radiolocation service
in this band to the military services.
48. Internationally, the 2300-2450 MHz band is allocated in ITU
Regions 2 & 3 to radiolocation services and fixed and mobile
terrestrial services on a primary basis, and to the amateur service on
a secondary basis. In ITU Region 1, the 2300-2450 MHz band is allocated
to fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and amateur and
radiolocation services on a secondary basis. There are no allocations
for satellite services internationally in the 2300-2450 MHz band in any
of the three ITU regions, but international footnote 5.393 does
allocate the 2310-2360 MHz band to BSS (sound) on a primary basis in
Canada, the United States, and India. Currently, BSS (sound) in the
2310-2360 MHz band is being provided solely in the United States and
parts of Canada through SiriusXM. The United States entered into
bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the provision of
SDARS, which remain in force.
b. Suitability for Space Ops
49. We tentatively find that three factors make the 2320-2345 MHz
band particularly well suited for more intensive use for TT&C in
support of emergent space operations. First, the 2320-2345 MHz band is
located within the S-band and is in relatively close spectrum proximity
to the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-
Earth) bands already used for Federal space operations. As observed
above, these two bands are frequently requested for TT&C operations in
support of ISAM and other spacecraft that do not otherwise provide
radiocommunication services. Although there is significant separation
between these Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band, the
propagation characteristics of the spectrum and the antennas and radios
used to transmit and receive are expected to be similar
[[Page 17922]]
for both the Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band. Accordingly,
we have reason to expect that, from a technical perspective, the 2320-
2345 MHz could be readily used to provide space operation services in a
manner adequately equivalent to the Federal S-bands. We seek comment on
these observations and expectations.
50. Second, there are very few spectrum users of the 2320-2345 MHz
band in the United States. SiriusXM acquired exclusive use of the 2320-
2345 MHz band at auction in 1997. No other non-Federal operators are
licensed to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States.
Likewise, there are no primary allocations for Federal operations in
the 2320-2345 MHz band. As such, we expect that the ability of new
spectrum users to operate within the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United
States are not heavily constrained by incumbent operations, other than
the operations of SiriusXM and incumbent WCS operations in adjacent
spectrum blocks. We seek comment on this expectation.
51. Third, SiriusXM does not use the 2320-2345 MHz band uniformly
throughout the United States. Because of the location of its satellites
in geostationary orbit at the nominal 85[deg] and 115[deg] W.L. orbital
locations, none of the existing SiriusXM satellites provide service to
subscribers in Hawaii, or in the northern portions of Alaska, which we
characterize as being north of Anchorage. For example, a review of the
coverage footprints presented in the 2320-2345 MHz band downlinks for
the newest SiriusXM satellites shows that neither satellite intends to
use those downlinks in northern Alaska. This is not surprising given
that satellites located on the equatorial plane, such as GSO
satellites, appear very low on the horizon to earth stations located in
far northern and southern latitudes and are susceptible to increased
signal blockage and attenuation from such a low angle on the horizon.
Similarly, SiriusXM satellites do not provide downlinks in the 2320-
2345 MHz band to Hawaii or to U.S. Territories and Possessions in the
Pacific, since the footprints of the service areas of existing SDARS
satellites are focused on CONUS. Although SiriusXM may elect to provide
service into northern Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. Territories and
Possessions in the future, currently it has not proven feasible to do
so under its existing deployment of satellites. We seek comment on
these observations.
52. In addition, although the 25 megahertz of spectrum in the 2320-
2345 MHz band is less than the spectrum available in the 2025-2110 MHz
and 2200-2290 MHz bands, 25 megahertz could nonetheless provide
meaningful additional spectrum resources for space operations.
Currently, non-Federal operations do not have access to the full 85
megahertz of spectrum in the 2025-2110 MHz band due to its heavy use by
Federal operations and the need to avoid particular frequencies within
the Federal S-band altogether. As a result, only a portion of the
Federal S-band is able to be coordinated for non-Federal use. Because
TT&C functions are not always transmitting and employ narrowband
signals, often 100 kilohertz in bandwidth or less, we anticipate that a
large number of TT&C communications can be accommodated in the 25
megahertz of the 2320-2345 MHz band, particularly if multiple earth
station uplink sites can be coordinated with SiriusXM. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that making the 2320-2345 MHz band accessible for
TT&C could meaningfully supplement or replace, at least in part, the
requested use for non-Federal operations in the Federal S-bands. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the reasoning that
underlies it.
c. Proposal for Secondary Allocation for SOS in 2320-2345 MHz Band
53. We propose to create a secondary allocation for SOS in the
2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table
in the Earth-to-space direction. We propose a new allocation because
the current allocations in the band in the United States Table do not
provide for satellite communications other than BSS (sound) in the
space-to-Earth direction. We also propose to add this allocation on a
secondary basis to provide status for the TT&C operations, but to make
clear that they are secondary to the primary use of the band for BSS
(sound) in the space-to-Earth direction. These two proposals balance
the desire for more intensive use of the band for satellite
communications with the need to protect the operations of SiriusXM in a
band from harmful interference in which it is exclusively authorized to
operate throughout the United States. We seek comment on these two
proposals and on our objective in balancing the interests of more
intensive spectrum use and the need to protect SiriusXM's use of the
band.
54. We tentatively conclude that an SOS allocation in the Earth-to-
space direction is less likely to cause interference to SiriusXM's
operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band than an allocation in the space-
to-Earth direction. SiriusXM provides sensitive service links to
subscribers in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the space-to-Earth direction.
We observe that allowing other space stations to transmit in the 2320-
2345 MHz band could risk causing harmful signal degradation to those
service links, which could in turn cause subscribers to become
dissatisfied with their service and to cancel their subscriptions to
SiriusXM, causing significant economic harm to SiriusXM. Even if space
stations were restricted by rule to transmitting solely into a
particular geographic area where there are unlikely to be SiriusXM
subscribers, such as northern Alaska, there remains the risk of
disruption to SiriusXM's subscribers if a space station, even
inadvertently, does not comply with that restriction and transmits over
CONUS in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Earth-to-space operations in the 2320-
2345 MHz bands can be more easily and reliably geographically
restricted, with terrain and distance attenuating the risk of any
interference from Earth-to-space use of the 2320-2345 MHz band into
SiriusXM's downlink operations in the same band in CONUS. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion and the observations underlying
it, as well as whether it may be possible to allow downlinks in the
2320-2345 MHz band through a secondary SOS allocation or footnote to
the United States Table, without causing interference or economic harm
to SiriusXM. We also propose that any applicant seeking Commission
authority to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under
this secondary allocation must certify that the proposed operations in
the band have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM to ensure
that SiriusXM's operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band are strongly
safeguarded from interference. We seek comment on this certification
proposal.
55. We also seek comment on whether any technical or legal
requirements need to be adopted by the Commission and codified in our
rules in order to provide reasonable certainty as to what kind of
operations are permitted under this secondary allocation. For example,
would power limits, antenna elevation angle restrictions, or further
geographical limitations help to protect SiriusXM and spectrum users
outside of the 2320-2345 MHz band from potential harmful interference
from earth stations transmitting in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would such
limits and restrictions also provide certainty to potential spectrum
lessees as to the parameters of what operations could be provided? We
observe that our rules place power limits and out of band
[[Page 17923]]
emission limits on SiriusXM terrestrial repeaters in the 2320-2345 MHz
band in order to protect WCS licensees in adjacent bands from harmful
interference. Could such power and out of band emission limitations be
extrapolated to earth station operations in a way that provides similar
protection to WCS licensees from earth station uplink transmissions in
the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would limiting operations of earth stations to
areas of northern Alaska mitigate the risk of harmful interference to
spectrum users, particularly WCS licensees, in adjacent and nearby
bands, given the sparse population density and rugged geography of
northern Alaska? If so, how would we define these areas in a way that
is objective and clear? We seek comment on these questions.
d. Proposal To Permit Leased Spectrum in 2320-2345 MHz Band
56. We propose to permit SiriusXM to lease use of the 2320-2345 MHz
band spectrum to earth station licensees that will use the frequencies
to provide command uplinks in support of emergent space operations.
This proposal aligns with, but is not identical to, the ability of
wireless radio service licensees to lease spectrum under our existing
secondary markets policy and rules. We seek comment on how the leasing
proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band aligns generally with our secondary
markets policy and rules.
57. In 2000, the Commission adopted a policy statement setting
forth the Commission's plans for facilitating secondary markets for
radio spectrum to allow and encourage licensees to make all or portions
of their assigned frequencies and/or service areas available to other
entities and uses. The Commission found that such secondary market
transactions would complement the primary assignment function performed
by the Commission through its spectrum auctions and licensing
processes. It also found that, while secondary markets are not a
substitute for finding additional spectrum when needed, and should not
supplant spectrum allocation processes, a robust and effective
secondary market for spectrum usage rights could help alleviate
spectrum shortages by making unused or underutilized spectrum held by
existing licensees more readily available to other users and uses and
help to promote the development of new, spectrum efficient
technologies.
58. The Commission first adopted rules to implement the secondary
markets policy in 2003. Although the Commission expressly declined to
adopt secondary market rules for satellite services at that time, it
did establish rules whereby certain wireless radio service licensees
could lease their spectrum to other entities under arrangements that
are suited to the parties' respective needs. Under our existing
secondary market rules, terrestrial wireless licensee lessors and their
lessees have two spectrum leasing options that each provide different
rights and responsibilities for the wireless licensee and lessee: de
facto transfer leasing arrangements; and spectrum manager leasing
arrangements. Under either leasing option, the lessor and the lessee
may choose to enter into a long-term (more than one year) or short-term
(one year or less) arrangement. Spectrum manager leasing arrangements
generally do not require prior Commission approval; rather, the
licensee/lessor must notify the Commission in advance of commencing
operations. In contrast, de facto transfer spectrum leasing
arrangements are typically subject to the Commission's general approval
procedures, under which the Commission must grant the application prior
to the parties putting the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement into
effect.
59. We seek comment on whether a variation of the de facto transfer
leasing arrangement may be an efficient and effective way to encourage
SiriusXM to make the 2320-2345 MHz band available to earth station
licensees on an expedited basis. As proposed above, any earth station
licensee that seeks to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band would have to
certify that its proposed operations have been coordinated with and
approved by SiriusXM in order to avoid harmful interference to
SiriusXM's current and potential operations. We propose that no
authorization for such uplinks will be accepted for filing absent such
coordination and approval. We also propose that any existing authority
to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band will be conditioned on such
coordination and approval, and the authority will terminate
automatically unless the licensee maintains coordination with and
approval by SiriusXM. Such coordination is likely to require
expenditure of resources by SiriusXM, or the forgoing of future rights
to operate in certain areas, for the benefit of third party spectrum
users. As such, we tentatively conclude it is reasonable for SiriusXM
to require financial compensation for the expenditures under these
conditions. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that SiriusXM
and potential earth station licensees should be permitted to reach
private arrangements suited to each party's needs, including financial
consideration, in order to permit the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for
uplink TT&C functions to support emergent space operations. Such
private leasing arrangements would provide incentive for SiriusXM to
make as much of its spectrum rapidly available for use by others as
feasible, while still maintaining protection from interference for its
own operations in the band. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions, proposals, and reasoning underlying them.
60. Under this leasing proposal, private spectrum leasing
arrangements with SiriusXM can be made with earth station licensees for
individual earth stations or for multiple earth stations. They also can
be made for earth stations communicating with the earth station
licensee's own space stations, or through an earth station licensee
that provides Ground-Station-as-a-Service (GSaaS) for multiple third-
party space stations. We seek comment on whether there are efficiencies
to be gained from conducting TT&C for emergent space operations as
GSaaS, rather than having each space station license also build its own
facilities for TT&C. For example, these efficiencies could include
reducing the overall number of earth stations that need to be
constructed, coordinated, and licensed, or facilitating the ability of
TT&C to be provided on an unprotected and non-interference basis
through a single GSaaS licensee acting as a de facto spectrum
coordinator. We seek comment on these questions.
61. We also propose that space stations can be authorized by the
Commission to receive in the 2320-2345 MHz band without needing to
certify that such use has been coordinated with and approved by
SiriusXM, but such authority would be limited to reception of commands
from earth stations licensed by the FCC or from earth stations located
outside of the United States. For reception of commands in the 2320-
2345 MHz from earth stations located outside the United States, we
tentatively see no harm should such TT&C uplinks be permitted outside
the United States, since SiriusXM satellites do not receive in the
2320-2345 MHz band and there are no SiriusXM subscribers outside the
United States, with the exception of Canada. We seek comment on these
proposals for earth and space station applications in the 2320-2345 MHz
band.
62. We also propose, unlike the spectrum leasing arrangements under
our secondary markets policy and rules, lessees of the 2320-2345 MHz
band will
[[Page 17924]]
be licensed for earth stations under the proposal made today. As
proposed above, entities wishing to use the 2320-2345 MHz band to
provide command uplinks must still obtain an earth station license from
the Commission prior to transmitting in the band and will be subject to
all licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to earth station
licensees. A review of the license application will allow the
Commission to review the lessee's qualifications under section 310 of
the Act. We seek comment on this proposal and whether instead the
Commission should seek to adopt the requirements for approving long and
short term de facto transfers of control of spectrum under our spectrum
leasing rules applicable to wireless radio services, which generally
presume that no separate Commission license is needed to permit the
operations using leased spectrum.
63. We also seek comment on whether a variation of the spectrum
manager lease approach could be adopted in the 2320-2345 MHz band in
which SiriusXM retains legal control and remains primarily responsible
for ensuring lessees' compliance with our rules and policies We seek
comment on whether requiring a license for the earth station operations
in the leased spectrum would allow better assurance that interference
is not caused to SiriusXM or other adjacent spectrum users and would
allow the Commission to check compliance with any geographic areas
restrictions on the use of the spectrum. The Commission would still
review the qualifications of the lessees through their applications to
operate earth stations using the leased spectrum, and the use of the
leased spectrum would be expressly authorized by the Commission through
the earth station licenses. As a result, we tentatively conclude that
the de facto transfer lease approach (modified by requiring an earth
station license) avoids the need for potentially complicated
notification and eligibility requirements designed under the spectrum
manager lease approach to address compliance of the lessee with our
rules and policies. We seek comment on this approach and tentative
conclusions, as well as whether we should adopt a spectrum manager
approach instead of a de facto transfer approach.
64. We also seek comment on whether SiriusXM is obliged to lease or
coordinate use by others of its exclusive use spectrum under the leased
spectrum, secondary markets proposal above, or under any of the
alternatives discussed in the NPRM. We also seek comment on whether the
incentives provided by the leased spectrum, secondary markets proposal
would make additional spectrum resources available more quickly and
efficiently than a process that provides no incentives for SiriusXM to
forego use of its exclusive use spectrum and to expend resources on
coordination solely for the benefit of other potential spectrum users.
e. International Issues
65. We seek comment on any international issues that may arise from
our proposal to allow the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command
uplinks to non-communications satellites. We tentatively conclude that
authorizing earth stations in the United States to transmit in the
2320-2345 MHz band for command uplink would be unlikely to cause
harmful interference to spectrum users in other countries that do not
share borders with the United States. As observed above, only the
United States, India, and Canada stated an intent to use this band for
satellite communications, and only the United States and Canada are
actually using the band for satellite communications. In the remainder
of the world, this band is used for terrestrial fixed and mobile
communications. The geographic distance between transmitting earth
stations in the United States and the terrestrial operations of other
countries is likely to attenuate greatly any in-band or out of band
emissions, thereby avoiding interference to those terrestrial
operations. We seek comment on this observation and the potential of
interference to the terrestrial operations of other countries. In
addition, the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico do
not address such Earth-to-space operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
To what extent would the United States need to request changes to those
agreements in order to implement the proposal, if it is adopted? We
also seek comment on whether space stations could receive commands in
the 2320-2345 MHz band, on either a protected or unprotected basis,
consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an allocation for SOS
in the International Table.
66. We also seek comment on to what extent other countries might
explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide command uplinks in
the 2320-2345 MHz band if there is sufficient demand globally for such
services. We observe that global networks of TT&C facilities are often
used for NGSO spacecraft that do not remain fixed relative to a
location on the earth, unlike GSO spacecraft. Although the 2320-2345
MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for terrestrial fixed and
mobile service in the rest of the world, and is not allocated for
satellite communications, individual countries may be amenable to
licensing earth stations at fixed locations to uplink in this band, if
those uplinks would not cause harmful interference to terrestrial and
mobile services in the band. Of course, this is a matter of decision
for the regulatory authorities of other countries, but we seek comment
on these observations and whether world-wide facilities are needed to
provide TT&C in the 2320-2345 MHz band to spacecraft that do not
otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public.
f. Potential Alternatives
67. We seek comment on alternatives to the specific proposals
above. In particular, we seek comment on whether allowing the use of
the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communication
satellites or spacecraft could be better effectuated through a non-
governmental (NG) footnote to the United States Table than through a
secondary allocation. For example, the footnote could state that ``the
frequency band 2320-2345 MHz can also be used for command uplinks to
non-Federal space stations in the Earth-to-space direction.'' If
additional restrictions are desired on those operations, such as
limiting them to a particular geographic area, those restrictions could
be incorporated into the text of the footnote. In this regard, such
restrictions may not be necessary in the footnote, since the footnote
would only apply in the United States to non-Federal communications,
such that any such transmitting earth stations conducting those
communications would need to be licensed by the Commission and would
have to comply with any Commission rules that could also set forth
restrictions on use of the band. We seek comment on the possible
advantages and disadvantages of allowing use of the 2320-2345 MHz band
for command uplinks in the Earth-to-space direction by footnote, in
addition to or in lieu of a secondary allocation for SOS, and what
should be the specific language of any such footnote.
68. We also seek comment on whether to allow earth stations to
provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites in the 2320-
2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an area of
northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring coordination and
approval of SiriusXM. If SiriusXM
[[Page 17925]]
satellites do not currently provide service into these areas, there may
not be need for coordination and approval prior to operations to avoid
harmful interference to SiriusXM operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
Although such a process would obviate the need for SiriusXM to lease
spectrum or to spend resources reviewing coordination requests, is it
possible to adequately define the area of operations where coordination
would not be necessary? Is it possible to foresee and address potential
cases of harmful interference in advance and to adopt rules to prevent
them, rather than relying on the parties to address potential harmful
interference concerns on a case-by-case basis, and to reach an
arrangement suitable to both parties? Does such a process take into
account the fact that SiriusXM maintains the ability to provide service
in all of the United States? We seek comment on these questions.
69. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other market
mechanisms, such as competitive bidding, that could be used to
effectuate the efficient and expeditious use of the 2320-2345 MHz band
for command uplinks consistent with statutory limitations. For example,
could the Commission auction earth station licenses to operate in the
United States, using the 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum that may not be
internationally allocated for satellite communications? We seek comment
on whether more intensive use of the band could be effectuated by
auctioning the use to bidders who value the spectrum the highest for
operations in a particular geographic area, for example by auctioning
the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks in a specific
geographic area to a single earth station licensee. If so, how would we
define those geographic areas? Are any restrictions or other
limitations needed on what entities are eligible to bid for the
spectrum use in a geographic area? We seek comment on these questions.
70. We also seek comment on our statutory authority to use auctions
to authorize earth station operations using the 2320-2345 MHz band. The
Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act, enacted in 2000 (ORBIT Act), prohibits the
Commission from assigning orbital locations or spectrum used for the
provision of international or global satellite communications services
through competitive bidding (i.e., auctions). This prohibition,
codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f, was intended to prevent the imposition of
auction-based licensing regimes on international satellite operators,
which could lead to burdensome and duplicative auction requirements in
multiple jurisdictions. We ask for comment on these questions in the
specific context of our proposals to authorize earth stations to
provide command uplinks to non-communication satellites and spacecraft
in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Does the fact that the proposal does not
seek to use competitive bidding for orbital locations comport with both
the letter and intent of the ORBIT Act? Does the fact that SiriusXM
provides SDARS service into Canada in the 2320-2345 MHz band transform
the band into spectrum ``that is used for the provision of
international or global satellite communications services,'' even
though the purpose for which the 2320-2345 MHz band could be used is
not SDARS, but SOS, which is not currently being provided in the 2320-
2345 MHz band anywhere in the world? Are SOS or TT&C ``international or
global satellite communications services'' as that term is used in the
ORBIT Act?
2. Possible Application to Other Frequency Bands
71. We seek comment on whether there are frequency bands, besides
the 2320-2345 MHz band, that are allocated for non-Federal use that
could be used more intensively to address the need for spectrum for
emergent space operations. Although the 2320-2345 MHz band appears
particularly promising due to the exclusive use of the band by a single
non-Federal licensee, low level of use by Federal operations, and the
proximity of the spectrum to existing S-band spectrum that is in high
demand, we seek comment on whether there are other frequency bands that
also possess these characteristics. In particular, we seek comment on
whether frequency bands adjacent to the 2320-2345 MHz band could also
be made available, in the same or similar manner as the proposals for
the 2320-2345 MHz band, for the provision of command uplinks to
spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services.
a. 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz
72. On each side of the 2320-2345 MHz band that is used for SDARS
subscriber downlinks are five megahertz of spectrum that served as
``guard band'' spectrum between SDARS and WCS operations in the 2305-
2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands. These two spectrum bands, known as
WCS Blocks C & D, were acquired by SiriusXM in 2024. We seek comment on
whether these two 5-megahertz spectrum bands could also be used to
provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use in the 2320-2345
MHz band.
73. If the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands were to be used to
provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use of the 2320-2345
MHz band, the same mechanisms--adding a secondary allocation for SOS or
by adding a footnote to the non-Federal column of the United States
Table--could be used to implement such use. Likewise, we propose that
any use of the bands by applicants for earth station licenses would
require certification that the proposed operations have been
coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM and subject to any spectrum
leasing regimes that may be adopted for the 2320-2345 MHz band. We seek
comment on the use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands for
uplink commands to non-communications satellites. We also seek comment
on use of these bands under any of the alternatives discussed above. In
addition, footnote US100 provides for use of the 2345-2360 MHz band for
Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations
for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major
components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS. Would additional
technical or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in the
2345-2350 MHz band be necessary to protect such Federal secondary
allocations from harmful interference? Footnote US97 states that WCS
base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band must be subject to a
coordination agreement with NASA prior to operations within 145
kilometers of Goldstone, California. Would additional technical or
geographic restrictions be necessary to protect the NASA radioastronomy
site in Goldstone from harmful interference in the 2315-2320 MHz band,
as required for WCS base stations operating in that band under footnote
US97? Would a requirement for prior coordination of any earth stations
seeking to provide command uplinks in the 2315-2320 MHz band within 145
kilometers of Goldstone be adequate to provide the same level of
protection that NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320
MHz band? The near adjacent 2360-2395 MHz band is allocated on a
primary basis for Federal and non-Federal aeronautical mobile telemetry
(AMT) for flight testing, and WCS base station operations in the 2345-
2360 MHz band must be coordinated to ensure AMT receive stations are
protected. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions on
earth station uplinks in the 2345-2350
[[Page 17926]]
MHz band be necessary to protect Federal and non-Federal flight test
operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band from harmful interference caused
by SOS out-of-band emissions? We also seek comment on the impact that
use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands for command uplinks
could have on the proposed use of these bands by SiriusXM for the
provision of public safety communication services originating from
SiriusXM satellites.
b. 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz
74. We seek comment on whether a secondary allocation for SOS could
also be made in the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2350-2360 MHz band in the
non-Federal column of the United States Table in the Earth-to-space
direction and whether to allow WCS licensees, particularly AT&T, to
lease the use of the spectrum that they acquired through competitive
bidding to earth station licensees to provide uplink commands to non-
communications satellites in a manner similar to that proposed for the
2320-2345 MHz band.
75. As observed above, the 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger
block of spectrum from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between WCS and
SDARS licensees. Within this block of spectrum, 2305-2310 MHz is
allocated on a primary basis to non-Federal operations in the fixed,
mobile (except aeronautical mobile), and radiolocation services. There
is also a secondary non-Federal allocation for the amateur service.
There are no Federal allocations in 2305-2310 MHz, although footnote
G122 provides that Federal operations may be authorized on a non-
interference basis to authorized non-Federal operations and shall not
constrain the implementation of any non-Federal operation. In addition,
footnote US97 states that space-to-Earth operations in the 2305-2310
MHz band are prohibited, and that WCS base stations in the 2305-2320
MHz band must be subject to a coordination agreement with NASA prior to
operations within 145 kilometers of Goldstone, California.
76. The 2310-2320 MHz band has primary allocations for non-Federal
fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services, as well as a primary
allocation for BSS (sound). There are secondary allocations in this
band for Federal fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services. The 2310-
2320 MHz band also is subject to footnote US97. Footnote US100 also
provides for use of the band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and
associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or
unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a
secondary basis to WCS, and that 2312.5 MHz is shared on a co-equal
basis by Federal stations for telemetering and associated telecommand
operations of expendable and reusable launch vehicles. Footnote US100
also provides that other Federal mobile telemetering uses may be
provided in the 2310-2320 MHz band on a non-interference basis to all
other uses authorized pursuant to footnote US100.
77. The 2345-2360 MHz band has the same allocations as the 2310-
2320 MHz band, and is also subject to footnotes G2, US100, and US327.
Provisions of footnote US100 that made the 2324-2360 MHz band available
for non-Federal aeronautical telemetering and telecommand flight
testing operations on a secondary basis to WCS expired on January 1,
2020.
78. WCS was established in 1997. Mutually exclusive initial
applications for WCS in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are
subject to competitive bidding, and in 1997 the Commission auctioned
and issued 128 WCS licenses. WCS licenses are issued by FCC market
areas and channel blocks, with 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings
(REAG) and 52 Major Economic Areas (MEA). Blocks A (2305-2310 MHz and
2350-2355 MHz) and B (2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz) are issued by
MEAs, and blocks C (2315-2320 MHz) and D (2345-2350 MHz) are issued by
REAGs. AT&T currently holds all WCS licenses in Blocks A and B. Thus,
similar to SiriusXM in the 2320-2345 MHz band, AT&T has exclusive use
of the Block A and B licenses in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz
bands.
79. We seek comment on whether, for the same reasons discussed
above for the 2320-2345 MHz band, the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz
bands could be well suited for more intensive use for command uplinks
in support of emergent space operations. First, the two bands are also
relatively close in proximity to the Federal S-band spectrum that is
currently being requested for command and control of ISAM and other
spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to
the public. In addition, allowing leased use of the 2305-2315 MHz and
2350-2360 MHz bands for command uplinks would provide nearly contiguous
45 megahertz of S-band spectrum, or 55 megahertz of contiguous S-band
spectrum if the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands were also allowed
leased use for command uplinks. Second, there are relatively few
existing licensed users of the bands, with AT&T having exclusive, or
near exclusive use, of the bands in the United States. Finally, similar
to the situation with SiriusXM, AT&T does not operate in Blocks A and B
uniformly throughout its licensed areas, and there may be geographical
areas where earth stations may be able to transmit without causing
harmful interference to AT&T's current or future operations. We expect
that this may be particularly true in remote and rural areas, such as
northern Alaska. We seek comment on these observations and
expectations.
80. We also seek comment on whether the same general framework
could be implemented for making spectrum available in the 2305-2320 MHz
and 2350-2360 MHz bands that was discussed for the 2320-2345 MHz band,
that is, adding a secondary allocation for SOS in the bands or
alternatively adding a footnote to the United States Table to permit
SOS in the bands, and allowing AT&T to lease use of its spectrum in the
2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands (Blocks A and B) to earth station
licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not
otherwise provide radiocommunication services, subject to a
certification by the earth station licensee that the proposed
operations have been coordinated with and approved by AT&T. We observe
that the Commission already permits leased access to WCS spectrum,
including that held currently by AT&T, through secondary market
mechanisms, although those mechanisms are limited to the provision of
wireless radio services and do not apply to use of the spectrum by
earth stations to provide SOS. We seek comment on what changes to our
rules would be necessary to permit AT&T to lease use of its Block A and
B WCS spectrum for use by earth station licensees to provide command
uplinks in support of emergent space operations. Are there any concerns
for such leasing of spectrum by AT&T that are not implicated by the
proposed leasing of the 2320-2345 MHz band by SiriusXM? We seek comment
on these questions.
81. We also seek comment on whether there should be any technical
or geographic restrictions or limitations on the use of the 2305-2315
MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that are different from technical or
geographic restrictions in the 2320-2345 MHz band. For example,
footnote US100 provides for use of the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2345-2360
MHz band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated
telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned
aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a secondary basis
to WCS. We also seek comment on whether coordination with Aerospace and
Flight Test Radio
[[Page 17927]]
Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) and Federal AMT coordinators would be
needed to protect AMT operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band, much as WCS
base stations operating in the 2350-2360 MHz band must coordinated
today with AFTRCC. Would additional technical or geographic
restrictions on earth station uplinks in these bands be necessary to
protect such Federal secondary allocations from harmful interference?
Similarly, would additional technical or geographic restrictions be
necessary to protect the NASA radioastronomy site in Goldstone from
harmful interference in the 2305-2320 MHz band, as required for WCS
base stations operating in that band under footnote US97? Would a
requirement for prior coordination of any earth stations seeking to
provide command uplinks in the 2305-2320 MHz band within 145 kilometers
of Goldstone be adequate to provide the same level of protection that
NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band? Would
new earth station uplink operations be compatible with sensitive Moon
bounce operations conducted under the amateur radio service in the
2305-2310 MHz band? We also seek comment on whether it may be possible
to allow downlinks in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands through
a secondary SOS allocation or footnote to the United States Table,
without causing interference or economic harm to WCS licensees or other
authorized Federal or non-Federal spectrum users in the same or
adjacent spectrum bands.
82. We also seek comment on any international issues that may arise
from our proposal to allow the use of the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360
MHz bands for command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise
provide radiocommunication services. We observe that these bands are
subject to the same allocations internationally as the 2320-2345 MHz
band. Are any differences expected in the potential for interference to
spectrum users outside of the United States from those addressed above
in the context of our proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would any
changes to the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico be
needed to address Earth-to-space operations in the 2305-2315 MHz and
2350-2360 MHz bands that would not be needed to address such operations
in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Could stations could receive commands in the
2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands, on either a protected or
unprotected basis, consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an
allocation for SOS in the International Table? To what extent might
other countries explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide
command uplinks in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands if there
is sufficient demand globally for such services? If other countries
allow use of these bands for SOS, could such frequencies be considered
to be spectrum ``that is used for the provision of international or
global satellite communications services'' under the ORBIT Act? We seek
comment on these questions.
83. We also seek comment on whether any future auctions involving
WCS license that are currently in inventory might specifically address
the ability of future WCS licensees to lease spectrum to earth station
licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not
otherwise provide radiocommunication services. We observe that there
are ten WCS licenses in the Pacific Island REAG that are in the
Commission's inventory of spectrum. Would the value of such licenses be
increased in an auction if the winner would also be able to lease
spectrum to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to
spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services?
Would the ability of earth station licensees to provide such command
uplinks in the Pacific Islands be useful in creating a global network
of TT&C facilities that are often used for NGSO spacecraft? We seek
comment on these questions.
3. Intersatellite Links
84. We seek comment on whether licensed satellite operators should
be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and
intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks in support of
emergent space operations, without the need to file a modification or
obtain additional authorization from the Commission. We expect that
such authorization could provide additional spectrum because it will
allow the use of off-the-shelf equipment, such as MSS user terminals,
and already established ground and space infrastructure. Additionally,
we expect such authorization could open up a new avenue of business for
established NGSO or GSO space station licensees if there is a
regulatory framework for clear authorization for these kinds of
radiofrequency communications. We seek comment on these expectations.
85. Many spacecraft that are used to test technologies or perform
experiments on-orbit do not have large antennas. This is largely due to
financial and launch constraints, and the need for satellites to be
small. Since the spacecraft are not intended to provide
radiocommunication service to the public, much of a spacecraft's mass
could be taken up by non-radio equipment, such as robot arms or other
tools, and radios and antennas will need to be as small as possible. As
a result, many small satellites and experimental satellites rely on
intersatellite links whereby one satellite sends data and TT&C
information to the ground via another satellite system. The Commission
has experience with this kind of arrangement for experimental part 5
satellite applications and Iridium companion filings. In this
arrangement, an experimental satellite operator files a part 5
application for experimental authority and the other satellite system
then files a companion application for part 5 experimental authority to
communicate with the other experimental satellite using its
constellation that is licensed under part 25. We observe that this can
be a cost-effective way for many new companies to deploy experimental
satellites because they do not have to invest in large antennas or an
extensive ground station network. We seek comment on this observation.
86. We seek comment on allowing space stations already licensed by
the Commission to use intersatellite links to provide TT&C and payload
data downlinks and uplinks to and from spacecraft that do not otherwise
provide radiocommunication services. Are there any concerns with
allowing satellite operators to communicate with such spacecraft via
intersatellite links without the need to file a modification? Should we
require these operators, like Iridium, to file a notification that they
consent to the communications as part of the license application, or
should the obligation fall on the applicant to certify that the other
satellite system operator has consented to the intersatellite links? We
seek comment on these questions.
87. Additionally, should we limit or identify the specific
frequency bands in which intersatellite links may be used in connection
with spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication
service? We expect that satellite operators already licensed to use
specific frequencies for intersatellite links, like Iridium, are best
placed to coordinate the use of their licensed spectrum and determine
the amount of capacity they have to provide intersatellite links to
other spacecraft. Should we allow operators to use these intersatellite
links in any frequency band in which their satellite partner (e.g.,
Iridium would be the satellite
[[Page 17928]]
partner for part 5 experimental satellites described above) is licensed
and willing to offer the intersatellite service? It is also likely that
other satellite operators besides Iridium will be able to offer this
proposed intersatellite link service if the Commission provides a
regulatory pathway. Are there additional interference concerns that
need to be considered if multiple NGSO or GSO satellite operators are
providing intersatellite links in support of emergent space operations?
We seek comment on these questions.
88. We also seek comment on how to address international
coordination of such intersatellite links, given the absence of an
international allocation for inter-satellite links and the ongoing
discussion of intersatellite links at recent World Radio Conferences
(WRC). Should we only allow intersatellite links in bands that are
allocated internationally for intersatellite links? Should we allow
intersatellite links as a non-conforming use provided that applicants
provide compatibility showings? We seek comment on these questions.
89. Finally, we seek comment on any other changes to our rules or
allocations under the United States Table that would be necessary to
facilitate the ability of spacecraft to communicate with existing
commercial communications satellites in NGSO or GSO to relay TT&C or
payload data. How would any changes to existing rules and allocations
be consistent with studies or initiatives that have been made
internationally, particularly at the WRC regarding this type of
activity? What further steps would be necessary to allow this
domestically and/or internationally? We seek comment on these
questions.
C. Benefits and Costs
90. The rules we propose, if adopted, will make additional spectrum
available for spacecraft engaged in TT&C functions while also promoting
efficiency by clarifying our rules concerning TT&C. In particular, we
expect that our proposals would significantly reduce costly federal
coordination for TT&C missions by making available a non-federal
alternative. We estimate that total cost savings from this and other
proposals would amount to approximately $6.8 million per year. We
therefore tentatively conclude that the proposed rules are in the
public interest. We seek comment on these findings.
91. The NPRM first proposes or seeks comment on codifying several
Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these
operators. This includes (1) codification of frequency piggybacking;
(2) allowing additional applications for frequencies for emergent space
operations under existing service allocations; (3) permitting TT&C
functions within existing radiocommunication service allocations; and
(4) refining the definition of TT&C. To the extent that lack of clarity
in our rules has prevented stakeholders from engaging in certain TT&C
operations, we could anticipate real benefits of providing stakeholders
with regulatory clarity. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
92. We find that the proposal to add a secondary allocation for SOS
in the 2320-2345 MHz band will benefit the public by reducing
regulatory costs. The proposal could potentially eliminate costly
coordination with NTIA to use Federal bands for TT&C by giving a non-
Federal alternative. While leasing the 2320-2345 MHz band may entail a
payment to SiriusXM, this payment is a pure transfer from the operator
to SiriusXM and so has no effect on total costs and benefits.
Negotiating with SiriusXM would generate some new costs, but these
would be smaller than the costs of coordinating with NTIA or else
operators would not seek to negotiate with SiriusXM. Further, operators
could set up a longstanding contract with SiriusXM, limiting
negotiation during the term of the contrast. By contrast, at present,
to the extent that operators are unable to conduct TT&C functions
within non-Federal bands such as those for FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS,
operators must engage in frequency coordination with NTIA to use the S-
band or other Federal allocations of spectrum on a case-by-case basis.
We also believe that the proposal has the potential to generate
additional space operations by expanding the total bandwidth available
to space operators and allowing operations that may not have been
justified by the costs and uncertainty of NTIA coordination, which is
not guaranteed to result in approval. We seek comment on these
observations.
93. We estimate the magnitude of the annual regulatory cost savings
to be $8.2 million. We estimate this by assuming the NTIA coordination
process is handled on the operator's side by a team of two lawyers and
two engineers. We assume they work through the application process over
two months, which we approximate as eight forty-hour workweeks or three
hundred and twenty work hours for each worker. We estimate that the
lawyers have an hourly compensation of $106.10/hour and that the
engineers have an hourly compensation of $94.64. Total compensation for
one space operator's team in an NTIA coordination is therefore
$128,473.60. We estimate on the NTIA side, a team of three government
employees handle the coordination. We estimate the average government
hourly compensation is $80.67, so the total NTIA team compensation for
the coordination process is $77,443.20. The total labor costs of
coordination combining both private and public expenses is $205,916.80.
Based on the number of application requests in the Federal S-band
(2025-2110 MHz) from 2021 to 2025, we estimate the future average for
such applications to be about 80. Not all of these applications are
related to TT&C, and we assume that some operators will rely on non-
Federal bands or prefer to continue coordinating with NTIA, so we
estimate that only 50% of applications, 40 annually, will be replaced
by leases in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Multiplying this number by the per
coordination labor costs results in a total annual labor cost saving of
approximately $8.2 million. Total benefits would equal the economic
value of additional operations allowed by the new spectrum plus the
cost savings. Given the uncertain nature of additional operations, we
do not estimate them here, such that $8.2 million is a lower bound on
benefits. We seek comment on this methodology.
94. We estimate additional negotiation costs by assuming every
negotiation between a space operator and SiriusXM is handled by two
teams of two lawyers. Using the 2025-2110 MHz band allows operators to
avoid the complex coordination needed for other bands, so that we
assume no engineers are involved and the negotiation time falls to two
weeks. With these assumptions, and the earlier assumption of hourly
compensation for lawyers being $106.10/hour, total negotiations costs
for each lease is only $33,952.00. Assuming, again, 40 leases leads to
total negotiation costs of approximately $1.4 million. These costs are
likely to be front-loaded because we predict negotiations will result
in long-term contracts, allowing operators to bypass such costs for a
number of years. The long-run average negotiation cost is likely lower
than $1.4 million, so $1.4 million represents an upper bound on costs.
The lower bound of $8.2 million for benefits is higher than the upper
bound of $1.4 million for costs, so we tentatively conclude that the
benefits of the 2320-2345 MHz band proposal will exceed its costs and
be at least $6.8 million, annually. We seek comment on this
methodology.
[[Page 17929]]
95. We postpone until a later date estimating the benefits and
costs associated with possible secondary allocations in addition to the
2320-2345 MHz band. Currently, we do not have a specific proposal on
how to implement other secondary allocations, so it is not possible to
estimate benefits or costs at this time. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
96. Although we only seek comment on whether satellite operators
should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and
intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks to spacecraft,
we can tentatively estimate benefits as costs avoided from no longer
needing to file modification applications. Currently, there are about
25 annual applications for experimental modifications for TT&C related
activities, so we will assume that number of applications going
forward. Applications involve labor costs from a lawyer, which we
estimate to be 1.5 hours of work at a total hourly compensation of
$106.10/hour. We will assume the avoided fee is equal to $140, the
modification fee for experimental licenses. Total benefit from the
intersatellite links proposal is then approximately $7.4 thousand,
which is a lower bound given potentially higher future demand for
intersatellite links and additional space operations that might be
spurred on by lower costs. We predict no costs would result from simply
reducing application requirements, so we conclude that the net benefit
of the intersatellite links proposal also has a lower bound of $7.4
thousand. While this is positive, it is only a small increase relative
to the net benefits of the 2320-2345 MHz band proposal, so to avoid an
impression of false precision, we do not add this to the net benefit
total. We seek comment on this methodology.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
97. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the
NPRM assessing the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written
public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified
on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
98. In the NPRM, we initiate this rulemaking proceeding seeking
comment on ways in which to make additional spectrum available to
support emergent space operations. We continue our efforts to identify
spectrum or ways in which spectrum can be used more efficiently to
support emergent space operations. We therefore propose to establish
regulatory clarity for the use of existing spectrum allocations in
support of emergent space operations, and to codify certain Commission
policies to provide further regulatory clarity. We also propose to make
additional non-Federal spectrum available for TT&C in support of
emergent space operations.
99. The primary objectives of the proposals in the NPRM are to
identify additional spectrum for spacecraft that conduct emergent space
operations and to identify ways in which existing allocated spectrum
can be used more efficiently to support such spacecraft. To that end,
the NPRM proposes to codify the use of frequency piggybacking to allow
certain spacecraft engaged in servicing a client spacecraft to operate
in frequency bands consistent with the client's authorized
radiofrequency communications. The NPRM seeks comment on how to codify
the potential use of frequency piggybacking, how such codification
might be structured to accommodate a broad range of scenarios while
ensuring both regulatory certainty and operational flexibility, and
whether additional use cases--beyond servicing, monitoring, or
collaborating with a client spacecraft--should also be considered for
piggybacking. The NPRM also proposes to refine the definition of
``TT&C'' to encompass radiofrequency usage by spacecraft that do not
otherwise provide radiocommunication services and to permit TT&C within
existing radiocommunication service allocations.
100. Finally, the NPRM proposes to add a secondary allocation for
space operation service (SOS) (Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz
band in the non-Federal column of the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations (United States Table), and allow leasing of spectrum by the
exclusive licensee within this frequency band in the U.S., to earth
station licensees for command of spacecraft that do not otherwise
provide radiocommunication services. The secondary allocation proposal
includes a requirement for applicants to seek authority from the
Commission to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under
secondary allocation, and to certify that their proposed operations
have been coordinated with, and approved by, the exclusive licensee
within this frequency band to safeguard the existing operations from
interference. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposed certification
requirement, and on whether there are additional non-Federally
allocated spectrum bands such as the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz
bands, and the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands, that could be
used in support of emergent space operations.
B. Legal Basis
101. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
4(j), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a),
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
102. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the SBA. A ``small
business concern'' is one in which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
103. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected herein. In general, a
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500
employees. These types of small business represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently
[[Page 17930]]
owned and operated and not dominant in their field. While we do not
have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria,
over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally,
``small governmental jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with
populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census
of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835
local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
104. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in
the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the industries identified below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Small % Small firms
Regulated industry NAICS code SBA size standard firms firms in industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications 517111............... 1,500 employees... 3,403 3.027 88.95
Carriers.
Satellite Telecommunications.... 517410............... $44 million....... 332 195 88.69
All Other Telecommunications.... 517810............... $40 million....... 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
105. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
106. In the NPRM, we seek to make additional spectrum available for
certain types of spacecraft and satellite operators, and do not propose
to change the way the space station licensing process works. By
clarifying the use of existing allocations and permitting TT&C on a
non-interference basis as proposed in the NPRM, we may reduce the time
and expense for small and other entities associated with acquiring
spectrum access. Further, these clarifications and the codification of
practices such as frequency piggybacking and spectrum leasing should
lower barriers to entry, eliminate the need for small entities to file
requests for waiver of the United States Table (47 CFR 2.106) to access
certain spectrum, and allow small entities to avoid lengthy
coordination with Federal users making the application process easier
and avoid some legal and administrative costs. We estimate a total cost
savings of approximately $6.8 million annually from the proposals
discussed in the NPRM.
107. Notwithstanding the benefits of streamlined access to
spectrum, small and other entities would be subject to complying with
certification and coordination requirements to lease spectrum from
incumbent licensees, and are likely to incur new costs in the form of
lease payments to incumbent licensees. Small and other entities seeking
to lease spectrum would also be required to obtain their own earth
station license from the Commission, and would be subject to the
applicable reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations for
licensees. Additionally, while the proposals in the NPRM will reduce
regulatory complexities, burdens and costs, small entities may incur
compliance costs and may need to engage the assistance of professionals
such as engineers, lawyers or consultants to meet their obligation to
demonstrate technical compliance with spectrum use parameters,
negotiate leasing agreements and certify coordination with incumbent
licensees, and to assist with filings involving coordination with
Federal users or international obligations.
108. If the proposals in the NPRM are adopted, we expect the
overall burden for small and other entities to be less than under our
current requirements. Adding a secondary allocation for SOS in the
2320-2345 MHz band has the potential to eliminate costly coordination
with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) to use Federal bands for TT&C by giving small and other entities
a non-Federal alternative. Further, while leasing 2320-2345 MHz band
spectrum may require small and other entities to negotiate with, and
make lease payments to, the exclusive licensee in the band, SiriusXM,
we anticipate that these costs would be significantly lower than those
associated with any individual NTIA coordination effort, since leasing
spectrum will eliminate the need for engineering coordination. We
estimate the annual regulatory cost savings from the elimination of
NTIA coordination will be $8.2 million. By eliminating NTIA
coordination, we estimate that small and other entities will each save
$128,473.60 in legal and engineering compensation costs. Our estimate
assumes an operator's NTIA coordination process uses two lawyers and
two engineers working through the application process over a two months
period--eight forty-hour workweeks or three hundred and twenty work
hours for each worker, with an hourly compensation rate of $106.10/hour
for the lawyers, and $94.64 for the engineers. The total calculated
compensation for an operator's NTIA coordination is therefore
$128,473.60. Additional cost savings may be realized by small and other
operators by establishing long-term contracts reducing the need for
ongoing negotiations during the contract period. In contrast, frequency
coordination with NTIA for each specific use case is required under the
current process.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
109. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant impact on small entities. The discussion is required to
include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
110. The NPRM proposes ways to identify more spectrum for
spacecraft
[[Page 17931]]
that conduct emergent space operations and to make it easier for
operators of these spacecraft to apply for and use spectrum. We
consider some alternatives that would minimize the economic impact on
small entities while achieving our goal of expanding spectrum
availability for space operations in an evolving space industry and
economy. These alternatives would balance regulatory certainty with
flexibility, and could enable small entities to access spectrum more
efficiently and affordably.
111. We generally propose to continue reviewing requests to operate
space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case
basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit
within the definition of the service allocation; however, we consider
and seek comment on allowing TT&C operations within existing service
allocations, provided the operations fit within the service allocation
definition. Another option upon which we seek comment is allowing
licensees and market access grantees to conduct TT&C in any band where
TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication service.
Allowing such flexible use of existing allocations would avoid the need
for new rulemakings to create new allocations or conduct spectrum
reallocation. We also consider and seek comments on whether to grant
applicants authority to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS) in bands
allocated for non-Federal FSS, limited to the provision of TT&C on an
unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other
spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first service procedure or a
processing round.
112. While our proposed allowance of spectrum leasing in the 2320-
2345 MHz band discussed in the NPRM would have certification and
coordination requirements for lessees, we consider and propose allowing
space station authorization in the 2320-2345 MHz band with a
certification and coordination requirement in the limited circumstance
of reception of commands from earth stations licensed by the
Commission, or from earth stations located outside of the United
States. We also consider and seek comment on allowing earth stations to
provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites and spacecraft
in the 2320-2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an
area of northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring
coordination and approval. These approaches offer regulatory
flexibility and would minimize the need for complex coordination which
could lower compliance costs for small and other entities.
113. Our proposal for spectrum leasing would still require small
and other entities that want to use the 2320-2345 MHz band to provide
command uplinks to obtain an earth station license from the Commission
prior to transmitting in the band, and lessees would be subject to all
licensing and regulatory obligations applicable to earth station
licensees. As an alternative, we seek comment on whether to adopt the
more extensive requirements for approving long and short term de facto
transfers of control of spectrum under the Commission's spectrum
leasing rules applicable to Wireless Radio Services and other wireless
licensees. Adoption of this approach presumes no additional license
authorization is required from the Commission to allow the operations
using leased spectrum.
114. Other alternatives we consider and seek comment on in the NPRM
include whether a non-governmental (NG) footnote to the United States
Table is a better method than our proposed secondary allocation
allowance to permit use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks
to non-communications satellites, and whether competitive bidding or
alternative market-based approaches can be employed to promote the
efficient and timely use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks,
consistent with statutory limitations. We specifically inquire whether
earth station licenses to operate in the U.S. using the 2320-2345 MHz
band--spectrum that is not internationally allocated for satellite
communications--could be auctioned by the Commission. If we decide to
use an auction process, as in prior auctions, small entity bidding
credits could be made available to promote competitive entry for small
entities.
115. To assist with our evaluation of the economic impact on small
entities that may result from the proposals and matters upon which we
seek comment in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks alternative proposals,
and requests information from small and other licensees. We expect to
consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its
review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including any costs
and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from
commenters may help the Commission further minimize the economic impact
on small entities. Our evaluation of the comments filed in this
proceeding will shape the final conclusions we reach, the final
alternatives we consider, and the actions we ultimately take in this
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur
on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.
116. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small
entities are encouraged to bring to our attention any specific concerns
that they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
117. None.
Ordering Clauses
118. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308,
309, 310, 312, 316, 332, that the NPRM is adopted.
119. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-06865 Filed 4-8-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 9, 2026.
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.