Proposed Rule2026-18282
Unleashing Unlicensed Spectrum for Direct-to-Device
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
September 8, 2026
Effective
November 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to expand opportunities for direct-to-device (D2D) communications by permitting certain unlicensed devices to communicate with satellites on a non-interference basis. Building on recent market growth and new industry investment in D2D technologies, the NPRM explores adding satellite allocations in specific unlicensed bands, clarifying that equipment may operate within spacecraft, and establishing a flexible regulatory framework that preserves incumbent operations while enabling continued innovation. The Commission seeks comment on technical, licensing, and policy considerations to support expanded D2D connectivity and ensure coexistence with existing services.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57110-57124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18282]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 2
[ET Docket No. 26-169; FCC 26-51; FR ID 364887]
Unleashing Unlicensed Spectrum for Direct-to-Device
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC)
issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to expand opportunities
for direct-to-device (D2D) communications by permitting certain
unlicensed devices to communicate with satellites on a non-interference
basis. Building on recent market growth and new industry investment in
D2D technologies, the NPRM explores adding satellite allocations in
specific unlicensed bands, clarifying that equipment may operate within
spacecraft, and establishing a flexible regulatory framework that
preserves incumbent operations while enabling continued innovation. The
Commission seeks comment on technical, licensing, and policy
considerations to support expanded D2D connectivity and ensure
coexistence with existing services.
DATES: Comments are due on or before November 9, 2026 and reply
comments are due on or before December 7, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 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 ET Docket
No. 21-232, 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 choose to file by paper must
file 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 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 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#a1c7c2c2949195e1c7c2c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a4c49491f1a1e6a4c4949044d455c">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh L. Van Tuyl of the Office of
Engineering and Technology at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92dae7f5fabcc4f3fcc6e7ebfed2f4f1f1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="21695446490f77404f7554584d614742420f464e57">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-7506.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in ET Docket No. 26-169, FCC 26-51,
adopted on August 6, 2026, and released on August 7, 2026. The full
text of this document, is available for public inspection and can be
downloaded at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-51A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-51A1.pdf</a>.
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abcdc8c89e9b9febcdc8c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99fffafaaca9add9fffafab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a> or calling the Commission's Consumer and
[[Page 57111]]
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this document initiates
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 rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in the proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 potential impact
of the rule and policy proposals in this document on small entities.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The Commission invites the general public, particularly
small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking indicated in the DATES section above and must have a
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document does not contain
proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 3521. In addition, therefore, it does
not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 1189-
9, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
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.''
Synopsis
Introduction. Direct-to-device (D2D) technology has undergone a
transformative wave of investment and innovation in recent years, with
American companies leading the way yet again. Since the Commission
adopted its pioneering framework to enable Supplemental Coverage from
Space, consumers have benefitted from the ubiquitous--and often
lifesaving--connectivity that D2D provides in areas with inadequate
cellular coverage. And as advances in D2D technology occur at a faster
clip each day, innovators and entrepreneurs have adopted diverging
theses on the likelihood of intermodal convergence and the need for
predictable D2D spectrum access. Some analysts project more than $100
billion in revenues across all D2D and IoT segments by 2034.
Predictions like these have translated into frothy dealmaking over the
last 18 months, as more than $40 billion has coursed through the
American space economy for D2D. In 2025, SpaceX acquired 65 megahertz
of D2D spectrum from EchoStar for $19.6 billion. AST announced a $550
million agreement to use L-band spectrum licensed to Ligado. And most
recently, Amazon and RocketLab struck separate deals collectively
totaling nearly $20 billion to acquire Globalstar and Iridium
respectively, including their D2D spectrum portfolios. To enable
healthy market discovery, the Space Bureau recently issued long-awaited
legal clarity to reaffirm American innovators' exclusively-held D2D
spectrum rights.
The Commission intends to allow the current wave of D2D
experimentation and dynamism to unfold, consistent with the principles
of technological neutrality and regulatory humility. So, today the
Commission take the next step to secure America's leadership in D2D by
exploring proposals that would allow devices operating in more than 200
megahertz of spectrum available for unlicensed devices to communicate
with satellites authorized to provide service in the United States. In
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission examines
potential reforms to enable devices operating in some of the part 15
bands to communicate with FCC-authorized satellites, whether on an
uplink or downlink basis. The Commission also proposes to clarify that
using equipment authorized under the part 15 rules is permitted within
FCC-authorized spacecraft. Unlicensed spectrum may be suitable to
support the capacity requirements and complement other bands for D2D
services. Devices operating under the part 15 rules are widely used by
businesses and consumers and include Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters
for wireless local area connectivity, medical imaging devices, wireless
microphones, automobile and garage door opener remote controls, and IoT
sensors. By eliminating the burden and cost to obtain a Commission
spectrum license, the Commission's part 15 rules have spurred
innovation in new devices and applications that successfully coexist
with other licensed and unlicensed
[[Page 57112]]
services. Unlocking unlicensed bands for D2D promises to open up new
services that seamlessly integrate devices across terrestrial and
satellite platforms and provide consumers with another option for
connectivity.
In this document, technological neutrality and regulatory
humility--principles that have long shaped the Commission's approach to
unlicensed spectrum--will guide its analysis. As an initial matter, in
considering new unlicensed services, the Commission intends to preserve
the operational status quo of the spectral environment for incumbent
and authorized services, as well as for the terrestrial part 15 devices
that consumers and businesses rely upon every day. The Commission also
recognizes that technical standards and coordination mechanisms for
space-based use of these bands remain in an early and evolving stage,
and the Commission does not believe it would be prudent to lock in
prescriptive technical rules before the record and industry practice
have had the opportunity to mature. And consistent with the
Commission's history of light-touch regulation of unlicensed spectrum,
the Commission intends to afford industry the breathing room to
experiment within a regulatory sandbox, allowing new entrants and
incumbents alike to develop and test new services under flexible, non-
interference-based rules rather than a rigid licensing framework
designed for a different era of satellite operations or even incumbent
unlicensed protocols. The Commission believes that adherence to these
principles may allow us to responsibly expand the universe of spectrum
available for direct-to-device and other space-based applications while
safeguarding the interference-free environment that has made part 15
spectrum such a valuable and productive resource for the American
public.
Background. Part 15 of the Commission's rules contains technical
specifications, administrative requirements, and other conditions
relating to the marketing of radio frequency (RF) devices that may be
operated without an individual license. Part 15 contains technical
regulations for two broad categories of radio frequency devices: (1)
intentional radiators, which intentionally generate and emit RF energy
by radiation or induction, and (2) unintentional radiators, which
intentionally generate RF energy for use within the device or send
signals by conduction to associated equipment via connecting wiring,
but which are not intended to emit RF energy by radiation or induction.
Intentional radiators may operate on an unlicensed basis under part
15 in almost any frequency band at very low power levels, with the
exception of designated restricted bands where only spurious emissions
are permitted. The restricted bands are designated to protect sensitive
radio services, such as those that protect safety-of-life or those that
use very low received signal levels, such as satellite downlinks or
radio astronomy. The power levels permitted under part 15 in most
frequency bands are suitable for communication only over very short
ranges, such as a few meters, or with low data rates. In addition, part
15 specifies a number of frequency bands where intentional radiators
may operate at significantly higher power levels, subject to technical
requirements to protect authorized services from harmful interference,
including the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands. These bands,
unlike many other bands where unlicensed devices can operate at higher
power, do not have airborne restrictions or satellite allocations, with
the exception of the 5830-5850 MHz band, which contains an amateur
satellite downlink allocation. Unlicensed devices may generally
transmit with up to 4 watts (36 dBm) EIRP in these bands. By taking
advantage of this higher power, unlicensed devices can provide high
data rate connectivity over substantial distances. These higher power
part 15 bands are the home to vast numbers of consumer devices that
successfully coexist without the need for licensing or frequency
coordination.
Because unintentional radiators do not intentionally emit
radiation, they do not have the same constraint as intentional
radiators to avoid restricted frequency bands. In general, they must
comply with radiated emission limits at frequencies of 30 MHz and
above. Regardless of the type of device, e.g., intentional or
unintentional radiator, part 15 device operations are subject to the
conditions that they do not cause harmful interference to authorized
services and must accept any interference that occurs. The operator of
a radiofrequency device is required to cease operating it upon
notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing
harmful interference, and operation may not resume until the condition
causing the harmful interference has been corrected.
Part 15 devices must generally be authorized under either the
certification or the Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (SDoC)
procedure prior to importation and marketing. Most intentional
radiators require authorization under the certification procedure, and
most unintentional radiators may take advantage of the SDoC procedure,
but may also use the certification procedure. Devices authorized under
the certification procedure must be tested by an FCC-recognized
accredited testing laboratory to demonstrate that they comply with the
FCC rules.
Discussion. In this document, the Commission explores making
frequency bands commonly used by devices operating under the part 15
unlicensed rules available for space-based communication applications.
Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on rule
modifications to enable devices operating consistent with the part 15
technical rules to communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space
and space-to-Earth directions that are United States-licensed or non-
United States-licensed and have been granted market access by the
Commission, as well as on the appropriate regulatory model and
technical requirements necessary to prevent harmful interference to
authorized services and adverse impacts on terrestrial part 15 devices.
The Commission also proposes to clarify that the use of equipment
authorized under the part 15 rules is permitted on board spacecraft,
subject to any other applicable restrictions, such as those of federal
agencies and international treaties. Additionally, the Commission seek
comment on other scenarios and types of applications in which devices
operated under the part 15 rules could be used in space, including the
specific frequency bands that would be suitable for their operation,
and whether the current part 15 requirements would be appropriate for
these applications.
Legal Authority. The Commission has maintained rules governing non-
licensed operation of certain types of RF devices, such as receivers
and low power transmitters, for more than 80 years. Such devices must
adhere to the specifications found in part 15 of the Commission's
rules, which do not explicitly address whether part 15 devices may be
operated in space.
Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), the
Commission has broad jurisdiction over ``all interstate and foreign
communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign
transmissions of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received
within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United
States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio.''
Furthermore, the Commission is charged with regulating radio spectrum
across the United States in a manner
[[Page 57113]]
that serves the public interest. Section 301 of the Act provides the
Commission with jurisdiction over radio-communication stations,
including those operating ``upon any . . . mobile stations within the
jurisdiction of the United States.'' The Commission has long held that
its jurisdiction under these provisions is not affected when such radio
activity involves a station, instrumentality, apparatus, or facility
that happens to be in space. Indeed, the FCC has long exercised
jurisdiction over apparatus used for radiocommunications in space under
part 25 of the Commission's rules governing satellite communications.
Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over apparatus otherwise
regulated under part 15 of the Commission rules when such apparatus are
operating in, or intended to be operated in, space.
Earth-to-Space and Space-to Earth Operations. The recent growth in
the satellite, space, and AI industries is significantly increasing
demand for spectrum to support new applications in space and between
Earth and space, including traditional communications links, D2D
services, as well as nascent applications, such as in-space servicing,
assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM). The Space Bureau recently approved
an application that uses satellite uplinks in the 2400-2483.5 MHz
frequency band that is heavily used by part 15 devices, noting that
these bands would only be used from specific gateway locations for
these uplinks. It previously approved other applications for satellites
to receive signals from terrestrial devices operating in frequency
bands available under the part 15 rules, but for infrequent use from a
single United States location. In the interest of making more intensive
and efficient use of spectrum to satisfy growing industry needs,
including D2D communication services, the Commission seeks comment on
allowing new types of satellite operations under part 25, both
downlinks (space-to-Earth) and uplinks (Earth-to-space), in the bands
where the part 15 rules permit higher power operation.
The approach on which the Commission seeks comment is somewhat
similar to what is being done in Europe, where a frequency band used
for short range (unlicensed) devices is being used on a limited basis
for communications between short range (unlicensed) devices and
satellites. The Commission also seeks comment on how it could reduce
unnecessary regulatory barriers to permit new types of satellite
applications to operate under the part 15 framework.
Unlicensed access points operating under part 15 have become
ubiquitous within buildings to provide connectivity to portable
devices, such as smartphones, laptops, smartwatches, and IoT devices.
Unlicensed access points are also often deployed to provide
connectivity in outdoor locations and can have an outdoor range of
several kilometers. Permitting Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth
communications with space stations authorized under part 25 using
devices operating consistent with the existing part 15 technical rules
would allow consumer-grade equipment--such as smartphones, laptops, and
IoT sensors--additional connectivity options where there is no
terrestrial coverage. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
This concept mirrors the Commission's actions in providing for
Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS), in which satellites provide
service on a secondary basis in spectrum bands that are licensed to
terrestrial wireless carriers (600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, Broadband
PCS, and AWS-H Block), but without imposing additional licensing
burdens on end-user equipment. By leveraging certain bands where higher
power unlicensed device usage is permitted under part 15 (e.g., 2400-
2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz), but which do not have airborne
restrictions or satellite allocations, satellites could receive signals
from devices operating under the current part 15 limits and transmit to
these devices using similar signal levels.
The Commission seeks comment on whether satellite uplinks present a
more manageable coexistence environment than satellite downlinks in the
candidate bands. The Commission also asks whether unlicensed D2D
services would be concentrated in rural, underserved, or unserved
areas. The Commission believes, and seeks comment on whether, any
change to the terrestrial radio environment could be at a level low
enough so as to not increase the potential for harmful interference to
authorized services or adversely impact terrestrial-based part 15
devices' ability to successfully communicate. If possible, such an
innovation could enable billions of existing devices that comply with
the part 15 unlicensed rules using protocols such as Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth to connect to satellites using existing communication
protocols. The Commission seeks comment on the foregoing. Allowing part
15 devices to connect with satellites in these bands on a non-
interference basis would promote effective and efficient spectrum
utilization. The Commission therefore proposes and seeks comment on
satellite use of these two bands, i.e., 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850
MHz and seek comment on whether there are any other bands that the
Commission should consider. The Commission's goal is to develop a
record of how to enable such operations without adversely impacting
other users in these or other bands, and a framework that might be used
to authorize them.
Allocation Matters. While the part 15 rules contain requirements
for devices that can be operated without an individual license, part 15
is not a radio service. Thus, there are no allocations in the Table of
Frequency Allocations for devices operating under the Commission's part
15 rules. Rather, part 15 devices operate on a non-interference basis,
meaning that they cannot cause interference to authorized services and
must accept any interference received.
The part 15 rules do not prohibit using terrestrial-based equipment
to transmit to satellites, but they also do not contain any provisions
that explicitly permit this type of operation. Similarly, part 15 does
not prohibit operation from satellites in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-
5850 MHz bands, but for various reasons, e.g., power limitations,
satellite licensing requirements, and international regulations, no
parties are operating satellite links under the part 15 rules. In
addition, the technical parameters governing part 15 devices were
devised assuming terrestrial operations, not operations in space or to
devices in space. The Commission seeks comment on possible rule changes
that would support satellite services in these three frequency bands,
as well as other frequency bands where the part 15 rules permit higher
power operations. In this Section III.B.1, the Commission considers the
cases of Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth operations and what changes
might be necessary to the Table of Frequency Allocations to accommodate
both types of operation.
Earth-to-space. Recently, parties have developed systems that use
transmitters operating in accordance with part 15 of the rules for
transmissions from Earth-to-space. Specifically, Hubble Network, Inc.
(Hubble) was granted a satellite license to receive signals from 100
milliwatt (20 dBm) terrestrial devices operating in the 2482.710675-
2483.424 MHz portion of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band with technical
parameters consistent with part 15 Bluetooth Low Energy device
operations. Because there is no allocation for satellite operation in
the 2400-2483.5 MHz band and Hubble's operations were licensed as earth
stations under the part 25 rules, a
[[Page 57114]]
waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations was required. This waiver
was granted for infrequent use from a single United States location.
The Commission believes that streamlining the rules to permit
satellites to receive signals from terrestrial devices operating under
the part 15 technical rules in certain bands would benefit the public
by facilitating the development of new and innovative wireless
communication products and services, such as those developed by Hubble.
The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion. As discussed
below in the section on licensing requirements, the Commission is
seeking comment on several alternatives for authorizing terrestrial
devices operating consistent with the part 15 rules to transmit in the
Earth-to-space direction, including licensing them by rule to
communicate with FCC-licensed satellites or non-US-licensed satellites
that have been granted market access by the Commission, or by licensing
them as earth stations under part 25 of the Commission's rules.
Because satellite earth station and space station licenses require
a satellite frequency allocation for each frequency band in which they
operate, it is currently necessary to grant a waiver of the Table of
Frequency Allocations for each license application that requests
operation in any other band, including those available for higher
powered part 15 operations, as was done for Hubble. A simpler long-term
approach would be to modify the Table of Frequency Allocations to
include satellite (Earth-to-space) frequency allocations in bands where
the Commission would permit such uplinks to operate.
Accordingly, to provide the ability for earth and space stations to
obtain operating authority (either on a licensed or unlicensed basis)
in a more streamlined manner without the need for a waiver, the
Commission proposes to add a new footnote to the Table of Frequency
Allocations that will allow Earth-to-space operations in the 2400-
2483.5 MHz band. Additionally, to make more spectrum available for
uplink purposes, the Commission proposes to add a satellite uplink
allocation via this new footnote in the 5725-5850 MHz band as well. The
Commission limits its proposal to these two bands because part 15
devices are generally permitted to operate with power levels up to 4
watts (36 dBm) EIRP in these bands, which makes it potentially feasible
to transmit to satellites. These bands, unlike other bands where higher
power operation is permitted, also currently have no satellite uplink
or downlink allocations, with the exception of the 5830-5850 MHz band.
The Commission further proposes that devices licensed to operate under
these allocations would be on a non-interference basis to other
authorized services in the bands, the same requirement that applies to
part 15 unlicensed device operations for these bands whether
transmitting between terrestrial stations or to a satellite. That is,
they may not cause harmful interference to authorized services and must
accept any interference received, including from devices operating
under part 15 of the rules and ISM equipment. Further, as discussed in
the technical requirements section below, the Commission proposes no
change to the current part 15 power limit for devices transmitting to
satellites whether the devices operate on a licensed or unlicensed
basis, thus there will be no change to the interference environment as
a result of this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on the
proposals in this paragraph.
Is it necessary to add an allocation for satellite operations in
the Earth-to-space direction to either or both of these bands, and if
so, in which bands or portions of these bands? What type of satellite
service allocations should be added, e.g., FSS, MSS, or other? Do
commenters agree or disagree with the Commission's proposal that all
satellite operations in the proposed bands would be on a non-
interference basis; even if licensed? Commenters that advocate for a
different allocation status--primary or secondary--should provide
justification for their position, including analysis for how such
communication links would operate vis-[agrave]-vis other links, both
licensed and unlicensed, and what effect a higher allocation status
might have on existing part 15 operations. What is the appropriate
method for adding an allocation? The Commission proposes to add a
footnote allocation, but seeks comment on whether a direct table
allocation would be a better regulatory approach. How much operational
and technical detail should be in any added footnote? What other
factors should the Commission consider in deciding what changes are
appropriate? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
Space-to-Earth. Space-to-Earth transmissions can have a larger area
of impact than terrestrial transmissions because the space-to-Earth
signal can cover a much wider area than terrestrial-based equipment due
to the higher altitudes of satellites compared with terrestrial
devices. However, given the proper technical and operating parameters,
it may be possible that frequency bands available for higher-power
operation under the part 15 rules could be used for satellite downlink
operations while co-existing with authorized services and terrestrial
part 15 users, similar to what was recently permitted in Europe. In
that case, the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) of the
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
released a decision document describing the conditions under which low
power devices operating in the 862-870 MHz band may be authorized to
communicate with satellites, and satellites may may be authorized to
communicate with terrestrial devices in this band. Since numerous
unlicensed devices share spectrum on a non-interference basis, the
Commission believes that any satellite downlink operations in the bands
available under the part 15 rules should also be on a non-interference
basis, consistent with these rules and the Commission's proposal for
satellite uplinks. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
Under this approach, the Commission would establish technical rules for
satellite operations (e.g., PFD limits, beamwidth limits, or other
technical requirements) designed to minimize the potential for adverse
impacts on terrestrial part 15 devices as discussed in more detail in
the technical requirements section below.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the U-NII-3 band (5725-5850
MHz) could be used for satellite downlink operations because it has no
existing satellite uplink or downlink allocations except as noted
above. The Commission seeks comment on this particular band because the
higher frequency and correspondingly shorter wavelengths, as compared
to the 2400-2483.5 MHz band, would allow for the use of smaller, more
directional satellite antennas that could help limit the satellite beam
footprint on Earth. However, the Commission recognizes that other
frequency bands could be useful for satellite downlinks as well and
seeks comment below on whether there are other frequency bands that
could be used for this purpose.
If the Commission were to allow space-to-Earth satellite operations
in the U-NII-3 band, what type of amendments to the Table of Frequency
Allocations would be necessary? Would FSS and/or MSS allocations in the
space-to-Earth direction be appropriate? The Commission seeks comment
on whether operation, including licensed operation, under a satellite
allocation in this band would be on the same non-interference basis as
part 15 devices, as the Commission proposed above for the
[[Page 57115]]
Earth-to-space links. Are there alternatives that the Commission should
consider? Could the Commission make allocation changes through a new
footnote, which could clearly state what services devices would have to
protect, e.g., that satellite downlink operations are on a non-
interference basis to other services and users that share the band with
part 15 devices? Should the Commission also includes an allocation for
inter-satellite links, and if so, what allocation changes would be
necessary to accommodate that use? What other factors should the
Commission consider? Alternatively, could such operations be conducted
on a purely part 15 unlicensed basis? If so, how could the Commission
address foreign operators and compliance with other requirements such
as ITU filings and orbital debris showings? If the Commission were to
authorize inter-satellite links, should they be authorized under the
same mechanism as the space-to-Earth links or is a different mechanism
needed?
Other frequency bands. While the Commission proposes and seeks
comment on making more spectrum available for D2D satellite operations
in certain frequency bands where higher-power unlicensed part 15
operations are permitted, the Commission recognizes that these bands
contain a finite amount of spectrum. Over time, as satellite use
increases, these bands may not have enough spectrum to accommodate
future satellite applications. The Commission therefore seeks comment
on any additional frequency bands that could be used to accommodate
expanded D2D satellite operations under an operational and technical
framework consistent with part 15 technical rules.
Are there any other bands that are used by unlicensed devices where
the Commission could add satellite allocations, either uplinks,
downlinks, or both? For example, should the Commission add a satellite
downlink allocation in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band? What would be the
advantages and disadvantages of a satellite downlink allocation in that
band as opposed to the U-NII-3 (5725-5850 MHz band)? Are there any
other U-NII bands, i.e., in the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands, where the
Commission could possibly add either satellite uplink or downlink
allocations? The Commission notes that other U-NII bands contain
satellite allocations as well as other services that must be protected,
so parties that suggest the use of additional frequency bands should
provide an analysis of how communications with satellites could operate
in those bands without causing harmful interference to authorized
services or adversely affecting the operation of terrestrial part 15
devices. Similarly, if the Commission were to authorize inter-satellite
links, what other bands might be appropriate for such transmissions
under the framework the Commission is proposing here?
Licensing Framework. The Commission seeks comment on whether
devices designed consistent with existing part 15 technical
requirements intending to operate under the allocations proposed above
need to do so under a licensed approach and what would be an
appropriate licensing framework. Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment below on whether to modify its rules to permit equipment
certified under the Commission's part 15 rules to communicate with
certain categories of satellites through a ``license by rule''
framework under part 25 of the Commission's rules governing satellite
communications. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to use a
streamlined licensing approach for such equipment under the
Commission's part 25 rules governing earth station blanket licensing.
For an apparatus that is intended to transmit and/or receive
radiocommunications in space, the Commission seeks comment on using its
existing part 25 rules to license such operations, as well as on
potential alternatives. The Commission discusses these potential
licensing frameworks in detail below.
Background. As previously observed, section 301 of the Act requires
a license from the FCC for radiocommunication stations, including ``any
mobile station within the jurisdiction of the United States.'' A device
operating pursuant to part 15 of the Commission's rules is also a
``station'' under its rules, which define a station as ``[o]ne or more
transmitters or receivers or a combination of transmitters and
receivers, including the accessory equipment, necessary at one location
for carrying on a radiocommunication service, or the radio astronomy
service.'' Although the Commission has long authorized users to operate
radiocommunication stations under part 15 of its rules based on
equipment certification rather than station licensing, devices either
communicating with stations in space or communicating with stations on
Earth from space themselves appear to fall within the definitions of
``earth station'' or ``space station'' under the Commission's rules and
are required to be authorized under part 25 as satellite
communications, which generally requires a license from the Commission.
The Commission has excepted certain categories of stations
authorized under part 25 from having to obtain individual station
licenses. For example, the Commission does not require licenses for
receive-only earth stations communicating with U.S-licensed space
stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS), but instead permits
voluntary registration of such stations in order to protect them from
harmful interference in frequency bands shared co-equally with
terrestrial fixed service. The Commission also permits a large number
of technically-identical stations to be authorized under certain
circumstances as part of a single ``blanket license'' that permits
those stations to deploy anywhere within the geographic area specified
in the license without site-specific coordination. In addition, under
its Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) framework adopted in 2024,
the Commission adopted a ``license by rule'' framework that permits
terrestrial wireless equipment that meets the equipment certification
requirements in other parts of the Commission's rules (e.g., part 24 or
part 27) to communicate with satellites as a satellite earth station
under part 25 of the Commission's rules, but without requiring an
individual earth station license for the equipment.
User Equipment. The Commission seeks comment on whether to modify
its part 25 rules to permit devices certified under the Commission's
part 15 regulatory framework to communicate with certain categories of
satellites on a licensed-by-rule basis. This ``license by rule''
framework would be similar to the approach taken for SCS, under which
equipment meeting the equipment certification requirements under other
parts of the Commission's rules are permitted to communicate with
United States-licensed space stations or non-United States-licensed
space stations that have received a grant of United States market
access as satellite earth stations under part 25. Under this ``license
by rule'' framework, a device operating consistent with the part 15
rules and within certain bands (e.g., 2400-2483.5 MHz or 5725-5850 MHz)
would be also licensed as an earth station by rule without the need to
file and receive approval for a part 25 earth station application for
additional authority, provided that the device is operating within the
technical parameters of its equipment authorization. As noted, the
Commission's intent in seeking to permit devices that meet part 15
technical parameters to communicate with satellites is to expand such
[[Page 57116]]
devices' reach and scope without changing their regulatory status
regarding harmful interference. Thus, all such devices would operate on
a non-interference basis. The Commission seeks comment on this possible
regulatory framework.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether, as an alternative to
the ``license by rule'' framework, it would be appropriate to adopt a
blanket license framework under part 25 for devices certified under the
Commission's part 15 regulatory framework and operating in one of the
designated bands to communicate with satellites. If so, the Commission
seeks comment on what application and operational requirements should
govern such blanket licenses. What information about the devices would
be required to be provided in an application for such a blanket earth
station license? Would the information provided need to be the same as
currently required for earth station applications under part 25, or
would a streamlined ``light touch'' approach be appropriate? What
informational requirements under the Commission's current or proposed
rules governing earth station applications is unnecessary under such a
``light touch'' approach to blanket licensing of earth stations? Who
would be the license holder for the user equipment, and would such a
license holder be required to have operational control over the
devices, which is an essential characteristic of a licensee? Should
there be a numerical limit on the number of user equipment devices that
could be applied for under a single blanket earth station license? What
would be the appropriate geographic area for deployment of user
equipment? What are the comparative benefits and costs of each approach
(i.e., license by rule versus blanket licensing)? Finally, as with the
license-by-rule approach, devices operating under a blanket license
approach would similarly be required to operate on a non-interference
basis. The Commission seeks comment on these questions. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether any other alternative regulatory
frameworks would be appropriate for permitting certified part 15
devices to communicate with certain categories of satellites. Could
these devices be permitted to communicate with satellites under the
part 15 rules without also requiring operators to obtain a license
under a different rule part? For example, could the Commission develop
a new license-by-rule construct under which equipment certified as
compliant with the part 15 technical rules is automatically authorized
as a part 25 earth station when communicating with Commission-
authorized space stations? If so, what part 15 and part 25 rule
modifications would be required to accomplish this? Could a lightweight
licensing system satisfy national-security considerations? Are there
any other licensing and sharing frameworks beyond pure part 15 or
hybrid part 15/part 25 models that the Commission should consider,
including fully licensed approaches, alternative secondary or
opportunistic frameworks, and any other others that could accelerate
investment and deployment for D2D? If so, commenters should describe
suggested frameworks and their benefits.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether any build-out
requirements would be necessary under the proposed framework. Because
devices operating in the designated bands would operate on a non-
interference basis and would not preclude use of the bands by other
potential spectrum users, it may not be necessary to apply to any
blanket license the build out requirements of Sec. 25.133 of the
Commission's rules. The Commission seeks comment on such an approach.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should apply
a similar build-out period to ensure prompt use by the public.
Commenters advocating an alternative approach should provide their
thoughts on how the Commission would apply build-out requirements for
part 15-compliant devices functioning as earth stations. The Commission
seeks comment on these questions.
Satellites. The Commission seeks comment on using the part 25
licensing regime to authorize space stations to transmit and receive in
frequency bands where part 15 unlicensed devices are permitted to
operate at higher power levels. This licensing regime could follow the
general framework for authorizing space stations to provide SCS. The
Commission seeks comment on allowing applicants to apply for an initial
geostationary-orbit (GSO) or NGSO space station authorization, or to
modify an existing authorization, to include a space station operating
in specific bands consistent with the Commission's proposals to update
the Table of Frequency Allocations by including satellite allocations
where none exist today. Relatedly, this would include space stations
included in a petition for declaratory ruling to obtain United States
market access for a non-United States-licensed space station. Further,
consistent with the approach taken here, the Commission proposes that
any such operations would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis,
consistent with part 15 operations. The Commission also expects that in
most, if not all, instances satellites will not operate exclusively
using these designated frequency bands, but rather they will operate
primarily using frequencies allocated for the provision of other
satellite services, such as FSS, mobile-satellite service (MSS), or
Space Operation Service. As such, operations under the Commission's
proposed framework would, similar to SCS, provide satellite operators
and consumers with capacity where none may otherwise be available for
devices designed for part 15 operations. The Commission seeks comment
on these views and whether satellite operators would plan on taking
advantage of this low cost connectivity alternative. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it is possible to authorize any
space station operations--for example, receive-only operations that
downlink using frequency bands separately licensed by the FCC--through
a license-by-rule provision, analogous to the framework envisioned for
terrestrial devices above, without an individual license for the space
station. Would such a license-by-rule framework for space station
operations in bands used by unlicensed devices be applicable to
requests for United States market access by non-US-licensed space
stations in such bands? Would the Commission still be able to obtain
information about orbital debris mitigation plans of the applicant, as
required by the Commission's rules?
The Commission also seeks comment on what processing and service
rules should be applied to space stations operating in the designated
frequency bands. If such stations are required to operate on an
unprotected, non-interference basis, the Commission seeka comment on
whether such stations could be authorized outside of the Commission's
processing frameworks for GSO-like and NSGO-like space stations, since
neither first-come, first-served nor processing round procedures appear
necessary to establish priority vis-[agrave]-vis other space station
licensees. Proposed operations of the satellite in traditional
satellite frequency bands, however, would still be subject to first-
come, first-served or processing round requirements, as applicable. The
Commission seeks comment on these processing frameworks. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether it should adopt or modify any service
rules in part 25 to take into account space stations
[[Page 57117]]
communicating with devices certified under part 15. For example,
although Sec. 25.289 of the Commission's rules protects GSO systems
from NGSO systems, the Commission has pointed out that this provision
only applies to FSS and Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) operations
and does not apply to satellite operations in MSS bands. Accordingly,
because the operations the Commission proposes would be on an
unprotected, non-interference basis, the Commission does not expect
that any such provisions would apply. The Commission seeks comment on
this approach to satellite licensing and on any alternative processing
and service rules for space stations operating in the designated
frequency bands.
The Commission also seeks comment on what technical information
must be supplied as part of an application to operate a space station
in the designated frequency bands. Because the Commission expects that
these new frequency bands would be included in addition to traditional
satellite bands, which would need to go through normal processing
procedures, the Commission does not believe that any extra information
beyond listing the bands and associated power levels and emissions are
necessary, as any other requirements, such as orbital debris mitigation
plans, should already be accounted for as part of any space station
application to operate in traditional satellite bands. The Commission
seeks comment on this view. However, should any satellite operator
intend to launch a satellite that operates solely in the designated
frequency bands, then the Commission believes full satellite-relevant
information, as required under part 25, such as a plan for orbital
debris mitigation, an ITU satellite network filing, and a brief
description of the coverage areas that will be served, would be
necessary. The Commission seeks comment on this view. What information
would need to be provided to demonstrate compliance with the technical
and service rules discussed below, and in what format should that
information be provided? The Commission seeks comment on these
questions.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether any
certifications need to be provided by an applicant as part of its
application to operate in any of the designated frequency bands? Is it
sufficient for the applicant to certify that the space station
operations in the designated frequency bands will comport with any
technical parameters that the Commission adopts for such operations? In
addition, is it sufficient for applicants to certify compliance with
any technical and service rules adopted as part of this document, or is
a demonstration of compliance necessary? The Commission seeks comment
on these questions.
The Commission also seeks comment on allowing the satellite
operator to choose its regulatory status as either a common carrier or
non-common carrier, as is allowed under the Commission's part 25 rules
and its SCS framework. Similar to the Commission's view regarding
technical information, because the Commission expects that the proposed
operations would be ancillary to traditional satellite frequency bands,
the Commission believes that minimal conditions need be placed on
satellites pursuant to such operation. The Commission seeks comment on
this view. For example, such operation would automatically be extended
for whatever license terms, including renewals and extensions, as
approved for any other frequency bands on the satellite. However, if
any satellite operator intends to launch a satellite that operates only
in the designated bands, then the Commission would need to separately
impose such requirements. In such cases, the Commission seeks comment
on subjecting those space stations to its existing part 25 license term
rules, as well as the Commission's part 25 rules governing renewals or
extensions of license terms. Similarly, in such cases, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the Commission's rules governing milestones
and bonds for space stations should be applicable. Should any
performance requirements be imposed to ensure that spectrum is
intensely and efficiently used. Should milestones on when GSO and NGSO
space stations must be launched and operated be imposed, and should the
requirement to post a surety bond within a certain time period after
grant of the license be imposed. The Commission seeks comment on these
issues.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on an alternative approach
and ask whether it is feasible to create a framework for space stations
authorized to communicate with devices certified under the Commission's
part 15 regulatory framework similar to its ``Permitted Space Station
List.'' Under such a framework, a list could be maintained on the FCC
website identifying all satellites authorized to include a space
station offering communication links in any of the designated frequency
bands. Similarly, the Commission also seeks comment on whether a viable
approach would be to adopt a rule that would permit any user equipment
certified to part 15 requirements and licensed by rule to communicate
with satellites on this list without further authorization from the
Commission
Technical and Service Rules. In this Section III.B.3, the
Commission proposes to amend its rules to permit devices to communicate
with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction in the 2400-2483.5 MHz
and 5725-5850 MHz bands under the same technical requirements that
apply to part 15 intentional radiators. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on the general types of technical requirements that would
be required for satellite communications to devices in the space-to-
Earth direction in the 5725-5850 MHz band or any other frequency bands
available where part 15 rules permit higher power. The Commission's
intent is to enable new uses of these frequency bands without adversely
impacting existing uses of the bands, both licensed and unlicensed.
Earth-to-Space. The Commission proposes to allow terrestrial
devices certified as compliant with the part 15 technical requirements
that operate in the 2400-2483.5 MHz and/or 5725-5850 MHz bands to
communicate with satellites in the Earth-to-space direction. These
rules protect authorized services from harmful interference and have
enabled effective spectrum sharing between billions of unlicensed
devices. The Commission proposes no increase in the maximum permissible
power or antenna gain, and no changes to any of the other technical
rules (e.g., bandwidth, OOBE) that apply to unlicensed devices in these
bands.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would allowing
devices operating under the part 15 technical rules to transmit from
Earth-to-space increase the likelihood of harmful interference to
authorized services or adversely affect spectrum sharing by unlicensed
devices? Commenters should provide specific examples and analysis to
support their position. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on
whether this proposed change could impact radio astronomy observations,
which are carried out in specific remote, low population density areas
and currently use spectrum on an opportunistic basis? What would be the
impact of expanded use of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band on S/X Celestial
Reference Frame observations? Are there technical measures that could
address concerns about radio astronomy, such as requiring devices to
incorporate a geofencing system to facilitate compatibility with radio
[[Page 57118]]
astronomy receive sites? Are the current part 15 technical requirements
suitable for communications with satellites in the Earth-to-space
direction in these bands? If the Commission were to allow Earth-to-
space transmissions in any frequency bands besides the three discussed
above, would the current part 15 technical requirements be suitable in
those bands? Should the requirements for frequency hopping and digital
modulation techniques apply to devices transmitting to satellites in
these bands, and if not, what requirements should apply? Are the
current out-of-band emission limits adequate? How would part 15 devices
determine whether they are communicating with another terrestrial
device or a satellite? Would permitting communication with satellites
encourage increased usage of devices at the highest permissible power
level? Would this affect frequency reuse by part 15 operation and what
would be the overall impact to the wide range of part 15 devices
sharing these bands? Do the Commission needs to place any limitations
on the operation of devices transmitting to space from high altitudes
to avoid changing the interference environment, such as prohibiting
operation on aircraft or unmanned aircraft systems? As the number of
LEO satellites grows, what will be the expected impact on the large
number of unlicensed part 15 terrestrial devices? Should the Commission
require part 15 devices authorized to communicate with space stations
to use a contention-based protocol, or implement other techniques to
facilitate coexistence with existing and other terrestrial unlicensed
devices? For example, in the Commission's 6 GHz rules, the Commission
uses an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system to facilitate
coexistence between low power unlicensed and higher power licensed
services, including satellite earth stations. Would a similar sharing
framework for coexistence between unlicensed terrestrial and NGSO earth
stations facilitate a wider range of beneficial services than a
framework limited to the current part 15 rules? The Commission seeks
comment on these questions.
While the Commission proposes no changes to the part 15 technical
requirements for devices used to communicate with satellites in the
Earth-to-space direction, the Commission recognizes that there are
certain tradeoffs regarding device design, simplicity, and performance
for satellite communications. The current part 15 technical
requirements could potentially limit or preclude certain types of
satellite-based services, e.g., those that require high throughput such
as video transmissions, or where satellites orbit at higher altitudes
above the Earth. If there is a need to enhance communication
performance to enable, for example, better uplink throughput, what
changes should the Commission consider? What technical rules could the
Commission develop that are more tailored to satellite D2D links and
that could unlock higher-value services without compromising the non-
interference character of the bands? For example, should the Commission
permit higher power levels than 4 watts (36 dBm) EIRP in D2D
applications? Should the Commission have specific antenna requirements
such as gain and directivity limits in both the horizontal and vertical
planes? Since it does not appear necessary for a device that transmits
to satellites passing overhead to radiate full power at all angles
above the horizon, is there a need to place limits on the radiated
power at lower angles above the horizon to enable more efficient use of
the spectrum? If so, what antenna gain or power limits, and at what
angles above the horizon, are necessary, and would such limits be
practical for non-fixed devices? Could requiring devices to direct more
of their energy upward potentially impact aviation or other
transportation operations? Should the Commission place any additional
requirements on such devices to avoid adversely affecting spectrum
sharing between unlicensed devices? Could devices be designed such that
they are able to use additional power or different antennas for D2D
satellite communications, but revert to current part 15 limits for
communicating with other terrestrial-based part 15 devices? In all
cases, the Commission proposes that such operations are on an
unprotected, non-interference basis. The Commission seeks comment on
these questions.
Space-to-Eartth. The Commission seeks comment on the types of
technical parameters that would be necessary to facilitate the sharing
of spectrum between space stations communicating in the space-to-Earth
direction and terrestrial operations, both licensed and unlicensed,
when communicating in the designated bands (e.g., the 5725-5850 MHz or
other bands contemplated above) with devices that operate consistent
with part 15 technical rules. Satellite downlink communications present
unique characteristics that are not fully addressed by the existing
part 15 rules. For instance, terrestrial devices are generally designed
to receive communications from a horizontal direction with a relatively
smaller footprint. Because satellites illuminate larger geographical
areas than terrestrial devices, sharing between satellite downlink and
terrestrial devices involves additional sharing considerations. The
Commission therefore seeks comment on a number of issues to develop a
record on how to enable space-to-Earth operations without causing
harmful interference to authorized services or adversely affecting part
15 device operations. To develop a complete record on these issues, the
Commission seeks comment with regard to all of the frequency bands
contemplated above for Earth-to-space operations.
Terrestrial part 15 device coexistence with satellite operations.
As evidenced by their prevalence in all facets of the Commission's
lives, terrestrial devices operating under the part 15 rules provide
many benefits to businesses and for personal use. The Commission's
intent here is to provide more opportunities for connectivity without
adversely affecting their use and ask commenters to provide analysis
and data regarding the best way to achieve such coexistence. As noted
in the NPRM, the Commission proposes to develop rules that would enable
terrestrial part 15 devices to coexist with new satellite services
without adverse impacts. Satellite operators could implement various
methods to enable coexistence, including limiting the maximum PFD on
the ground, limiting the size of the satellite beam on Earth, adhering
to aggregate emission limits, and other technical limits or
requirements, such as using a contention-based protocol (e.g., listen-
before-talk) requirement. Each of these methods is discussed in greater
detail below. In considering the potential impact of satellite
operations on terrestrial part 15 devices, parties should consider two
important points. First, many part 15 devices are used indoors where
satellite signals are significantly attenuated by buildings, so the
likelihood of adverse impacts on them from new satellite operations
appears low. Second, in densely populated areas there are likely to be
multiple communication services available through either licensed or
unlicensed access and in many cases buildings and other structures will
block signals from reaching the ground, so new satellite services are
unlikely to be competitive or cost effective in those areas. Thus, the
Commission expects that any new satellite services in frequency bands
proposed here would
[[Page 57119]]
be used primarily outside of densely populated areas.
Power Flux Density and Antenna Beam Limits. Power flux density
(PFD) limits are often used as a mechanism to facilitate spectrum
sharing between satellite downlink and terrestrial services. These
limits restrict the signal power a satellite is permitted to project
onto the Earth's surface per unit area and bandwidth. Under part 15 of
the Commission's rules, all unlicensed devices operate on non-
interference basis, meaning that these devices may not cause harmful
interference and must accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undesired operations. The Commission seeks
comment on how this non-interference status should shape the
formulation of PFD limits for satellite downlinks transmitting in the
designated frequency bands.
What PFD limits would be necessary to maintain the continued
operational utility of the part 15 ecosystem while protecting
authorized users in the designated bands? For example, would PFD limits
similar to those in part 25 be appropriate? Would these limits be
sufficient to protect the incumbent federal radiolocation operations in
the 5725-5850 MHz band? Could the Commission require PFD limits similar
to those that the ECC specifies for space-to-Earth transmissions in the
862-870 MHz band? Would those limits be appropriate, considering that
they were designed for a lower frequency range with a smaller amount of
available spectrum and to protect different incumbent spectrum users?
Given that the PFD on the ground varies as a function of angle above
the horizon (elevation angle), and considering that the antenna gain of
terrestrial devices also exhibits angular dependencies, should the PFD
limit be expressed as a function of elevation angle? Would a PFD limit
that is low enough to prevent harmful interference to authorized users
and enable coexistence with terrestrial users be sufficient to close a
link with targeted terrestrial devices, and if so, with what expected
data rates? How many devices would be within a satellite downlink spot
beam and how will desired communications with targeted devices impact
other operators in the band? What would be the impact on frequency
reuse in the band of operation and how would equipment operating under
a listen-before-talk protocol be affected by satellite signals? What
would be the impact on sharing protocols that have been implemented in
part 15 equipment that was designed to accommodate low power short
range terrestrial operations? Given that terrestrial receivers
typically have antenna nulls directed toward space, could this factor
allow for higher PFD limits? Should the Commission mandate specific
operational requirements for satellite transmissions, such as a minimum
elevation angle of operation? If the Commission were to adopt PFD
limits, should those limits be codified in part 25 as with other
satellite operations or in part 15? Is there an advantage to using
either rule part?
As the PFD is related to a specific antenna beam or combination of
beams, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the on-the-ground
footprint for any given beam should be limited. Because a satellite
beam illuminates much more area than a terrestrial-based antenna, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should set a maximum limit
either for single entry or aggregate PFD levels from the satellite.
Such a requirement could help protect terrestrial unlicensed operations
from any adverse impact by limiting the level of in-band noise received
by unlicensed devices. Commenters in favor of such limits should
provide details both on the size and technical justification for any
requested limits. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether
such satellite transmissions should be restricted to certain geographic
areas. For example, because the Commission believes that such
operations would extend the reach of devices certified to part 15
limits to areas with little or no terrestrial infrastructure, should
only those areas be served by satellites operating in the designated
bands? If so, how would the Commission determine those areas (e.g., by
population density)? The Commission seeks comment on these issues.
Aggregate Emission Limits. The Commission seeks comment on how it
could address issues arising from multiple satellite constellations
operated by different operators. In the Commission's recently adopted
framework governing SCS, the Commission established limits in certain
frequency bands on the aggregate field strength at the Earth's surface
produced by all visible beams and satellites within a single
constellation. Tshe Commission notes that SCS involves communications
in bands that are fully licensed, while the Commission is focusing on
other options such as a licensed-by-rule approach, which may result in
the need for differing requirements due to factors such as the number
of satellite operators and constellation sizes. Is there a need for an
aggregate field strength or PFD limit to maintain the continued
operational utility of the part 15 ecosystem and protect authorized
users in the designated bands? If so, what should that limit be and
what specific technical factors should determine it? Should there be
any limit on the number of beams allowed to illuminate the same
geographical area simultaneously, and what factors should be included
in an aggregate calculation? Should an aggregate limit apply to each
satellite system individually or to the combined energy of all
satellite systems? If a limit applies collectively, how should the
calculation account for multiple independent operators? How could
compliance with a limit be enforced, and would this require a real-time
coordination mechanism?
Out-of-Band Emission (OOBE) Limits. The Commission seeks comment on
what OOBE limits would be necessary for devices operated in space-to-
Earth applications in the designated bands. Should devices be required
to meet the existing part 15 OOBE limits, which specify a limit of -27
dBm/MHz EIRP at 75 MHz above or below the edge of the 5725-5850 MHz
band, with higher levels permitted closer to the band edge?
Alternatively, should the Commission establishes a limit consistent
with the part 25 rules which require specific levels of attenuation
below the mean output power of the transmitter at specific frequency
separations from the assigned frequency of operation? Should the
Commission establishes OOBE limits in terms of PFD, and if so, how
could a PFD limit be derived from the current part 15 or part 25 limit?
What factors should the Commission consider in determining the
appropriate emission limit? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether there is a need to establish an aggregate OOBE limit as the
Commission did for SCS, e.g., a PFD limit of -120 dBW/m\2\/MHz at 1.5
meters above ground level? In seeking comment on this issue, the
Commission notes that SCS is a fully licensed service, whereas in this
document the Commission have been focusing on other options such as a
licensed-by-rule approach. Parties that believe that an aggregate OOBE
limit is necessary should consider this distinction and should also
address the issues described above concerning aggregate in-band limits.
Other Technical Requirements. The Commission seeks comment on
whether all of the technical limits that currently apply to terrestrial
operations under the part 15 rules should apply to devices used for
space-to-Earth transmissions. For example, should the Commission
applies the existing minimum bandwidth, frequency hopping, and
[[Page 57120]]
power spectral density rules to devices operated on satellites? Are
there provisions in the existing technical rules that could hinder
satellite uses? Are there any additional requirements that would be
necessary to prevent harmful interference to authorized services such
as radio astronomy observations as discussed above or to better enable
coexistence with existing unlicensed applications? For example, is
there a need for limits on frequency stability, transmit duty cycle, or
maximum bandwidth? Should the Commission require a contention-based
protocol mechanism whereby a satellite contends for terrestrial
spectrum usage before transmission and possibly limits or modifies its
transmissions based on the amount of available spectrum? Noting the
longer transmission paths to satellites compared to terrestrial-only
operations, advocates for using a contention-based-protocol should
address what requirements would be necessary and how it could work
given that disparity. Could terrestrial devices implement the
contention-based-protocol sensing and relay that information to a
satellite? In such a scenario, do the protocols support any scheduling
mechanisms which can account for the differences in transmission time
to avoid packet collisions? If multiple parties develop satellite
systems that share spectrum, is there a need for time synchronization
between time division duplex (TDD) systems, or frequency usage between
frequency division duplex (FDD) systems, and if so, how could that be
accomplished? If existing technical limits are insufficient or
additional requirements appear necessary, commenters should offer
specific suggestions for modifications, including a justification for
why those changes are needed.
Equipment Authorization. Part 15 intentional radiators must
generally be approved under the equipment certification procedure. This
procedure requires that equipment be tested at an FCC-recognized
accredited laboratory to demonstrate that it complies with the
requirements in the rules, and then approved by an FCC-designated
Telecommunication Certification Body. A certification requirement also
applies to terrestrial transmitting devices under the part 22, 24, and
27 rules, as well as portable earth station transceivers under the part
25 rules. Equipment used on satellites for space-to-Earth transmissions
must be licensed by the Commission under part 25 and must comply with
all requirements and conditions of the license, but it does not go
through an equipment certification process.
Under the SCS framework, the Commission requires that terrestrial
wireless equipment operating under at least one of parts 22, 24, or 27
that also communicates with a satellite must be certified as a
satellite earth station under part 25. The Commission also established
a streamlined process for applicants to expand existing part 22, 24,
and 27 equipment certifications to include part 25.
The Commission does not propose any changes to the existing
requirement that intentional radiators operating under the part 15
rules must generally be certified before they can be imported, marketed
and operated, nor do the Commission proposes any changes concerning
equipment it has included on the Covered List of equipment it has
determined to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the
United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
However, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a need to
adopt any additional requirements for terrestrial devices that comply
with the part 15 rules and are intended to communicate with satellites.
Specifically, is there any need for devices that are designed to comply
with part 15 technical requirements, but also intended to communicate
with satellites under the framework proposed herein, to also be
certified under part 25? If the Commission were to require a part 25
certification in addition to a part 15 certification, the Commission
proposes that it would be applied only to new equipment authorizations
or authorizations being updated through the permissive change process.
Equipment already certified for part 15 would be permitted to
communicate with satellites under their existing equipment
authorizations. What would be the benefits of that requirement to
consumers and the Commission, and would these benefits outweigh the
burdens of requiring an additional certification? In this context, to
simplify the certification process the Commission proposes that no
additional device testing would be necessary to obtain the part 25
certification in addition to the part 15 certification, and that simply
meeting the part 15 technical rules would render the device also
eligible for the part 25 certification. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how such
an approach might or might not work if the Commission were to modify
certain rules either for terrestrial or space-based equipment (e.g.,
power, out-of-band-emissions, and antenna gain) to facilitate
communications between these terrestrial devices and satellites. Are
there options for permitting or requiring different approaches based on
the authorization framework--i.e., fully licensed versus licensed by
rule versus unlicensed? In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
how various equipment certification requirements combined with
different authorization requirements and the Commission's prospective
application of the certification requirements have implications for
currently certified equipment that also meets the criteria for covered
equipment on the Commission's Covered List as such equipment is not
eligible for new certifications or permissive changes. Are there
alternative approaches that would be simpler, and if so, what would
they be? Are any specific requirements necessary beyond the existing
part 15 certification requirements, and if so, how could the Commission
make these the least burdensome possible?
International Issues. The Commission seeks comment on how the
framework discussed in this document for permitting devices that meet
part 15 technical parameters to communicate with satellites could be
implemented consistent with international obligations of the United
States as a Member State of the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU).
ITU. The United States is a Member State of the ITU. As an ITU
Member State, the United States adheres to the ITU Radio Regulations.
Under the framework discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on
authorizing space stations and earth stations to operate in certain
frequency bands where part 15 devices are permitted to operate with
higher power pursuant to a satellite allocation in the United States,
but also on an unprotected, non-interference basis. While adding a
satellite allocation to the designated bands would render such
operations consistent with the United States Table, these operations
would not conform with the International Table which does not currently
include such satellite allocations, and operation, particularly with
respect to the potential for harmful interference to or from cross-
border stations, would be governed by ITU Radio Regulation No. 4.4.
This provision states that ``Administrations of the Member States shall
not assign to a station any frequency in derogation of either the Table
of Frequency Allocations in this Chapter or the other provisions of
these Regulations, except on the express condition that such a station,
when using such a frequency assignment,
[[Page 57121]]
shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection
from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution, the Convention and these
Regulations.'' Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on what steps
should be taken to ensure that any frequency assignments that are made
as a result of this document that are not consistent with the
International Table do not cause harmful interference to, or result in
claims of protection from harmful interference from, stations that are
operating in accordance with ITU provisions, including the
International Table. The framework discussed above includes requiring
that operations be conducted on an unprotected, non-interference basis,
in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions. In addition,
it envisions requiring that appropriate materials be submitted to the
ITU as part of any space station application that seeks to operate in
bands available for unlicensed devices in addition to operations in
bands licensed for traditional satellite services. The Commission seeks
comment on how these requirements can be implemented consistent with
the Commission's obligations under the ITU Constitution and Convention,
including those pertaining to the ITU Radio Regulations, particularly
ITU Radio Regulation No. 4.4. The Commission also seeks comment on what
analyses or other showings could be required as part of a space station
application to demonstrate that the operations would not cause harmful
interference to stations operating in accordance with the ITU Radio
Regulations. In addition, to the extent that space station applicants
licensed under part 25 of the Commission's rules plan to communicate
with areas outside of the United States, pursuant to a market access
authorization issued by another jurisdiction, the Commission seeks
comment on what measures should be disclosed as part of the application
to eliminate immediately any harmful interference concerns. Should the
authorization include a condition that communications with areas
outside of the United States are only permitted if the governing
administration has authorized such communications and must be subject
to that authorization? Should documentation of such authorization be
provided to the Commission prior to when a United States-licensed space
station begins operations in an area outside of the United States?
International Harmonization. We also seek comment on what measures
could be taken to promote international harmonization, particularly
with Canada and Mexico. Although the framework discussed in this
document would authorize satellite communications in the United States
only, a United States satellite license includes all operations of that
United States-licensed space station--including authorization of
transmission or reception at the space station to/from stations located
outside of the United States. As observed in the SCS proceeding, such
communications are subject to the laws, regulations, and requirements
of any country in connection with communications in that country,
including but not limited to, authorization to communicate with earth
stations in that jurisdiction. The Commission seeks comment on whether
United States-authorized space stations that can be used to communicate
with equipment meeting part 15 technical parameters (or the foreign
equivalent) outside of the United States should require a licensee to
ensure that all of its operations are duly authorized by the country in
which such communications will occur and that it will satisfy all terms
and conditions of any foreign license or authorization, as was adopted
for SCS.
National Security Issues. The Secure Networks Act is designed to
protect the nation's communications infrastructure from foreign
security threats. It established a comprehensive framework to identify,
block, and remove untrusted equipment from American networks. The
Secure Networks Act requires the Commission to publish a list of
equipment and services that pose ``an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States or the security and safety of United
States persons'' based on specific determinations made by certain
enumerated sources (Covered List). Through the Secure Equipment Act,
Congress directed the Commission to ``no longer review or approve any
application for equipment authorization for equipment that is on the
[Covered List][.]'' In the EA Security R&O and FNPRM (insert FR cite,
date publish), the Commission established several new rules to prohibit
authorization of equipment identified on the Commission's Covered List
developed pursuant to the Secure Networks Act. In the EA Security
Second R&O and FNPRM, the Commission provided further guidance on the
prohibition on authorization of covered equipment, prohibited the
authorization of devices that contain certain component parts
identified on the Covered List, and adopted a procedure to implement
prohibitions on the continued importation and marketing of previously
authorized covered equipment.
The Commission seeks comment on national security concerns
associated with any of the proposals above. Would permitting satellites
that can transmit and/or receive in frequency bands available under the
part 15 rules pose any national security concerns? As discussed above,
any proposed new satellite operations would fall under a part 25
authorization framework. Would the part 25 space station licensing
framework sufficiently address potential national security concerns? If
not, what new types of concerns would be raised? Would allowing
satellite uplink or downlink operations in frequency bands that are
widely used by part 15 unlicensed devices provide any new openings for
bad actors to exploit or state sponsored espionage? Are there devices
(including modules) or classes of devices that should be prohibited
from communicating with satellites? Would there be national security
risks posed by such communication with devices that have already been
granted equipment authorizations? What steps could the Commission take
to address any potential new national security concerns?
Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether allowing
terrestrial equipment that communicates with satellites in frequency
bands available under part 15 raises any new national security issues
that the Commission needs to address. Is there a need to require
manufacturers to take any additional steps to secure their equipment,
and if so, what steps would be necessary? Would the Commission need to
place additional requirements on certain types of equipment or certain
manufacturers to address any national security concerns?
The Commission notes it has acknowledged that Covered List entities
could operate in a manner analogous to blanket domestic section 214
authority by offering non-common carrier service without advance review
by the Commission if they use equipment that meets the technical
criteria of the Commission's Part 15 rules. Could expanding the Part 15
rules to allow for satellite D2D as discussed herein inadvertently
facilitate Covered List entities' ability to offer non-common carrier
service by means of satellite technology? Should the Commission
explicitly exclude entities identified on the Covered List from, by
default, being able to offer service to the public or
[[Page 57122]]
other third parties by utilizing unlicensed operations enabled by
satellite? Should Covered List entities be explicitly prohibited from
any non-Part 15 licensing framework discussed above, such as license-
by-rule or blanket licenses for earth stations or receive-only space
stations?
Within Spacecraft. Various devices that operate under part 15 of
the rules, particularly those containing transmitters such as Wi-Fi or
Bluetooth, can prove useful for essential functions on the growing
number of crewed missions. For example, laptop computers can be used in
scientific experiments, for communication with other personnel, and for
entertainment purposes on long missions. Smartphones can be used for
taking pictures and also for communicating with families on earth and
smart watches can monitor the health of the space crews while using Wi-
Fi or Bluetooth protocols. The part 15 rules do not specifically
prohibit or allow the use of these devices within spacecraft. Today,
these devices are allowed to be used by astronauts in the ISS via close
coordination with NASA. A list of devices that will be brought onto the
ISS is provided to the FCC before each mission and the Office of
Engineering and Technology of the FCC confirms that these devices are
certified and compliant to the part 15 rules. NASA administers the
overall process for the electronic devices that can be brought into the
ISS.
To provide clarity on the requirements for unlicensed devices
aboard spacecraft, the Commission proposes to modify the part 15 rules
to confirm that the operation of certified unlicensed devices within
spacecraft is a permissible use, subject to any other applicable
restrictions, such as those of federal agencies and international
treaties. The Commission is limiting this proposal to operation within
spacecraft because the Commission believes that there are a number of
factors that make the potential interference from part 15 devices
within spacecraft to authorized users of the spectrum on earth
extremely unlikely. For example, the distance separation from Earth
will significantly attenuate any signals from a spacecraft, thus
significantly reducing the potential to cause harmful interference to
authorized services on Earth. Also, the spacecraft shielding that
protects occupants and equipment inside from radiation and temperature
extremes will also act as RF shielding to severely attenuate signals
radiating outside of the spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on
these views.
Operation of part 15 devices on board spacecraft would be subject
to the same non-interference requirement in section 15.5 as terrestrial
devices. Unintentional radiators emit significantly lower signal levels
than intentional radiators, so unintentional radiators used within
spacecraft will have an even lower potential for causing harmful
interference than intentional radiators. The Commission is therefore
proposing to confirm that the use of unintentional radiators within
spacecraft is also a permissible use under part 15 of the rules. The
proposed changes would benefit crew members and passengers by making
clear that both intentional and unintentional radiators, such as
smartphones, smart watches, notebooks and tablets, could be operated
within spacecraft, subject to any other applicable restrictions, such
as those of federal agencies and international treaties. The Commission
emphasizes that this proposal applies solely to operation within a
spacecraft, such as a wireless connection from a portable device to a
wireless access point within a spacecraft.
The Commission proposes to add a new section to part 15 confirming
that the operation of intentional and unintentional radiators that
comply with the technical and authorization requirements is permissible
within spacecraft (i.e., within a fully shielded environment, but
remains subject to any other requirements for equipment used in space.
For example, the Commission could as part of its part 25 licensing
process impose requirements, such as specific limitations on the types
of equipment or operating frequencies that can be used on board
spacecraft. Does the Commission's proposal sufficiently limit the
likelihood of harmful interference to authorized services on Earth? Are
the current part 15 rules sufficiently protective in this scenario?
Should the Commission limit the types of devices that can be operated
on spacecraft? Do the Commission needs to place restrictions on the
frequency bands in which they can operate, and if so, in which bands?
Conversely, does the fact that devices would operate within an enclosed
spacecraft mean that the Commission could in some cases permit higher
power or other types of operations not currently permitted under the
part 15 rules? If so, what particular technical requirements could be
modified? Should the Commission consider a different interference
management policy for part 15 devices operating within spacecraft than
for terrestrial operation? If so, how can such processes be managed?
How could the Commission ensures that equipment specifically designated
for use within a spacecraft which might have different operating
parameters from terrestrial based devices are not used on Earth where
the potential for causing harmful interference might be much greater
than within a controlled spacecraft environment?
Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and Communications Between
Spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on what rule changes it could
make to facilitate extravehicular activity (EVA) and communications
between spacecraft or other space-based devices (e.g., equipment used
for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM)
applications) to support developing space industries. The types of
applications that might be used in EVA and communications between
spacecraft could include voice, video, and data communications,
especially for use of robotic arms and other apertures, and could also
include radars and field disturbance sensors to help locate and
position personnel, spacecraft, satellites, or other objects. The
Commission seeks comment on this assessment and what other types of
applications for EVA and communications between spacecraft could use
equipment operating in the bands available for part 15 devices.
The Commission believes that unlicensed devices could play a
pivotal role in unleashing new applications related to ISAM. The
Commission seeks comment on this view. The Commission, in 2024, issued
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed a new framework for
licensing space stations engaged in ISAM. ISAM refers to a set of
capabilities used in-orbit, on the surface of space objects and
celestial bodies, and in transit between these regimes. The Commission
seeks comment on the potential use of devices operating under the part
15 technical requirements for various uses, including EVA and
communications between spacecraft, that may be considered as part of
ISAM capabilities.
While the Commission recognizes the potential benefits of making
more spectrum available for EVA and communications between spacecraft,
the Commission will not at this time propose specific rule changes to
facilitate these applications for devices operating under the part 15
rules. Devices must operate under the part 15 rules on a non-
interference basis, and transmissions from space can potentially impact
terrestrial operations over a wide area. However, to build a record on
the possibility of using frequencies available under part 15 for EVA
and communications between
[[Page 57123]]
spacecraft, the Commission is seeking comment on a number of issues,
including potential frequency bands, power levels, antenna
requirements, and other technical issues. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there are any international treaties or agreements
that must be considered in permitting communications in space in these
frequency bands, as discussed above in the context of Earth-to-space
and space-to-Earth transmissions in these bands.
The Commission seeks comment on the frequency bands that could be
used for communications or other transmissions (e.g., field disturbance
sensors, radars, Ultra-Wideband devices) in EVA and between spacecraft.
Would any of the currently available frequency bands described above be
suitable? Are there other frequency bands that could be used for these
purposes? Are there certain frequency bands that should be excluded,
such as the current part 15 restricted bands or bands with satellite
allocations, and why? What is the potential for harmful interference to
authorized services or adverse impacts to other part 15 intentional
radiators, either in space or on Earth? Could potential interference be
mitigated through appropriate antenna pattern design or other
approaches? If so, what specific antenna characteristics are necessary?
With respect to power levels and OOBE limits, the Commission notes that
the current part 15 rules were developed for a terrestrial environment
that has significantly more clutter losses than the space environment,
as well as significant temperature and other differences. With that in
mind, the Commission seeks comment on whether the current power and
antenna gain limits are suitable. Are the current OOBE limits adequate
to prevent harmful interference? Do any of these parameters need to be
adjusted for operation in the space environment? Commenters should
provide specific technical proposals as well as reasoning for each to
justify any recommended changes. Would enough devices operate in this
scenario such that the Commission should consider an aggregate
interference limit for them? Would any additional requirements for
devices operated in EVA or communications between spacecraft be
necessary to limit the likelihood of harmful interference, such as
antenna directivity requirements or limits on the operational time in
orbit?
Unintentional Radiators. While many commonly used part 15 devices
are intentional radiators, part 15 also requires unintentional
radiators to comply with emission limits. Unintentional radiators
include computers and other devices with digital circuitry that
generate and use high frequency timing signals, power supplies
associated with computers and digital devices, as well as radio
receivers that generate radio frequency signals used in their tuning
circuitry. The Commission is aware of reports of satellites emitting
signals that are impacting ground based receivers, and may possibly be
impacting other satellites as well. For example, some parties state
that they have detected both wideband and narrowband signals from a
satellite constellation at frequencies between 40 and 70 MHz and
between 110 and 188 MHz. These reports suggest that the signals in
question are being generated unintentionally, such as through power
supplies or digital circuitry. The International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) Working Party 7D is currently studying this issue.
Depending on the source of the signals that various parties have
observed, it is possible that they are of a type that would be subject
to the part 15 unintentional radiator limits in terrestrial-based
equipment.
The Commission seeks comment on the issue of unintentional
emissions generated by satellites or other spacecraft. What is the
extent of the observed problems? What types of ground-based services
are being impacted and where? Are unintentional emissions from
satellites and spacecraft affecting radio astronomy observations? Are
there also concerns about effects to satellite systems in orbit and if
so, which ones? What is the likely source of the unintentional
emissions in question? Are there any observed problems that seem to be
worsening over time? Does there appear to be a need for actions to
reduce unintentional emissions from satellites or other spacecraft? If
so, what actions could be taken? As noted above, the environmental
differences create disparities in signal attenuation between those
emanating from space and those being transmitted from terrestrial-based
stations. If the Commission were to require unintentional radiators
operating in space to comply with emission limits, would the current
part 15 unintentional radiator limits be appropriate? Do they cover the
required frequency range, or would the Commission needs higher or lower
frequency cutoffs for measuring radiated emissions, e.g., at
frequencies below 30 MHz? Are the part 15 emission limits sufficiently
protective to prevent harmful interference to potentially impacted
services or would the Commission needs tighter limits in any frequency
ranges? If so, in what instances and frequency bands would this be
necessary, and what limits should apply? Due to the potentially large
number of devices that could be emitting simultaneously, would the
Commission needs to consider aggregate interference from unintentional
radiators in space? If so, how could the Commission set and enforce
aggregate interference limits?
Costs and Benefits. The Commission estimates that the economic
benefits of the proposed rule changes to enhance space-based
communications for part 15 devices will substantially outweigh the
costs, which the Commission expects to be minimal. The Commission seeks
comment on this view. The expanded ability to use part 15 devices for
Earth-to-space applications could result in new and innovative wireless
communication products and services by lowering barriers to entry. For
example, Hubble and Spire were granted satellite licenses in the 2400-
2483.5 MHz band through the grant of a waiver of the Commission's
rules, whereas the proposed rules changes could eliminate the need for
such waivers and lower entry barriers for new technologies. The
Commission lacks information to precisely estimate the economic value
of these yet-to-be developed new products and services, but the
Commission expects that such uplinking capabilities could be valuable
for IoT services, especially in rural areas. The Commission seeks
comment on this expectation. In addition, the Commission's proposal to
formally allow part 15 devices to communicate within spacecraft could
eliminate the current practice of ad hoc approvals for each within-
space vehicle use of devices like laptops. The Commission judges the
cost of these approvals to be modest given that allowing earth-to-space
communications in these bands are not expected to change the
interference environment for other licensed or unlicensed users of
these bands. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption. The
proposed rule changes allowing EVA and communications between
spacecraft could foster innovation and encourage the development of new
services, including in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing.
Finally, the proposed rules might aid in managing interference from
unintentional radiators either withing spacecraft or more broadly.While
the Commission lacks information to precisely quantify each of these
benefits, in terms of relative
[[Page 57124]]
magnitudes, the Commission expects the most benefits to flow from
Earth-to-space applications, since the user base of part 15 Earth-based
devices is larger than the user base of devices in spaces. The
Commission seeks comment on this judgment, in addition to data and
quantitative estimates on the magnitude of benefits. The Commission
seeks information about potential new applications in Earth-to-space,
within spacecraft, for EVA, and between spacecraft communications that
may generate such benefits. Of particular interest would be estimates
of the potential number of users and devices impacted and the
magnitudes of use of these new applications.
The Commission recognizes that rule changes to allow part 15 space-
to-Earth communications may have substantial benefits due to the large
number of terrestrial part 15 devices that could benefit from such
communications without the requirement for new hardware. However, the
Commission also recognizes there are potentially significant technical
challenges in minimizing interference issues with other licensed and
unlicensed devices for any new space-based communications in these
bands. Implementation will require careful consideration of technical
safeguards, including power flux density limits, out-of-band emission
controls, and potentially aggregate interference limits to ensure
coexistence with incumbent services and terrestrial part 15 operations.
In addition, coordination with international obligations under the ITU
Radio Regulations and the Outer Space Treaty will be necessary to avoid
creating harmful interference for devices authorized in other countries
and to ensure space station operators conform with all relevant
international requirements. Benefits of any part 15 rule change for
space-to-Earth communications will therefore be dependent on their
exact technical implementation and whether the potential interference
issues with terrestrial devices can be resolved. As the Commission
proposes no rule changes for part 15 space-to-Earth communications here
and lack information on how part 15 space-to-Earth communications would
be implemented, the Commission does not estimate expected benefits at
this time. However, the Commission seeks information on how part 15
space-to-Earth communications would be implemented and estimates of the
potential number of users and devices impacted and the benefits that
may flow from these new applications.
The Commission estimates costs of the proposed part 15 rule changes
to be minimal or non-existent. The Commission seeks comment on this
view. The Commission expects that the proposed rule changes here and in
any future proposal will not disturb incumbent use of the associated
spectrum and that frequency interference will be minimal to non-
existent. The Commission seeks comment on this expectation. The rule
changes for Earth-to-space and within spacecraft communication simply
remove a purely regulatory ban on a technical capability to receive
signals that satellites have always had. The Commission expects final
rules changes for EVA and between spacecraft communications to minimize
interference with incumbent users. Costs may increase with compliance
obligations may also increase for some stakeholders. For example, the
Commission seeks comment on whether part 15 devices intended to
communicate with satellites should also obtain certification under the
Commission's part 25 licensing rules. However, the Commission expects
that these compliance costs would be relatively small and invoked on a
largely voluntary basis. As voluntary actions, the compliance costs
would then be outweighed by private value-added from the newly
certified uses. The Commission seeks comment on the expectation of
minimal or no cost impact, especially with regards to expanded Space-
to-Earth interference and potential interference concerns. The
Commission also seek information on costs of these proposed rule
changes in the form of data and quantitative estimates.
Ordering Clauses
It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i),
301, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302a, 303, 307, that the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2
Communications, Communications equipment, Satellites,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Appendix A
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document above, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend part 2 of Title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 2.106 by adding paragraph (d)(36) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(36) NG36 The bands 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz may be used
by non-Federal stations in the mobile-satellite service (Earth-to-
space) on an unprotected and non-interference basis and subject to the
Commission's rules in part 25 of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-18282 Filed 9-4-26; 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 September 8, 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.