Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, 24064-24080 [2018-10943]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24064-24080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10943]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

[IB Docket No. 18-86; FCC 18-44]


Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
proposes to streamline its rules to facilitate the deployment of a 
class of satellites known as small satellites, which have relatively 
short duration missions.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 9, 2018. Reply comments are 
due on or before August 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 18-86, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merissa Velez, 202-418-0751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), IB Docket No. 18-86; FCC 18-44, adopted 
and released on April 17, 2018. The full text of this document is 
available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0417/FCC-18-44A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also 
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 
202-418-0432 (TTY).

Comment Filing Requirements

    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 on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking

[[Page 24065]]

number. Filings may be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must 
be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Ex Parte Presentations

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method 
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how 
we might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on 
proposed revisions to our rules to facilitate deployment of a class of 
satellites known colloquially as ``small satellites.'' These types of 
satellites, which have relatively short duration missions, have been 
advancing scientific research and are increasingly being used for 
commercial endeavors such as gathering Earth observation data. The 
proposed rules are designed to lower the regulatory burden involved in 
licensing small satellites and reduce application processing times, 
while offering protection for critical communication links and enabling 
efficient use of spectrum for this dynamic sector.

Background

    The impetus for this NPRM is to facilitate the authorization and 
operations of ``small satellites.'' Although a wide variety of 
satellites are being designed and launched as ``small satellites,'' the 
Commission has not previously defined this category of space objects. 
There are a number of ways of describing small satellites. A recent 
International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication (ITU-R) Report 
indicated that satellites weighing less than 500 kilograms (kg) are 
sometimes referred to as small satellites.\1\ The National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA) has in some instances described small 
satellites as satellites having a mass of less than 180 kg.\2\ The ITU-
R Report focused on satellites that have a mass of less than 10 kg and 
identified their typical mission duration as less than three years. 
Such missions have been characterized in other ITU-R documents as 
``short duration missions.'' \3\ Other notable typical characteristics 
of small satellites include operation in low-Earth orbit (LEO), as well 
as lower power as compared with traditional satellite systems. This 
proceeding seeks to address this category of ``small satellites'' which 
we propose to define by seeking comment on a number of particular 
characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See International Telecommunication Union, 
Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R), Characteristics, definitions and 
spectrum requirements of nanosatellites and picosatellites, as well 
as systems composed of such satellites, Report SA.2312 (Sept. 2014), 
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/Documents/R-REP-SA.2312-2014-PDF-E.pdf (ITU-R Characteristics Report). The ITU-R Report focused on a 
subset of satellites that have been characterized as 
``nanosatellites'' and ``picosatellites.'' Id. at 2. Nanosatellites 
typically have a mass of 1-10 kg, and picosatellites typically have 
a mass of 0.1-1 kg. Id. at 3. The ITU-R Report focused on a subset 
of satellites that have been characterized as ``nanosatellites'' and 
``picosatellites.'' Nanosatellites typically have a mass of 1-10 kg, 
and picosatellites typically have a mass of 0.1-1 kg.
    \2\ See, e.g., NASA Ames Research Center, Small Spacecraft 
Technology State of the Art, NASA/TP-2015-216648/REV1 at 1 (Dec. 
2015), https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/small_spacecraft_technology_state_of_the_art_2015_tagged.pdf (NASA 
Small Spacecraft Technology Report) (describing small satellites as 
spacecraft with a mass of less than 180 kg for purposes of the 
Report).
    \3\ ITU-R Resolution 659 (WRC-15), Studies to accommodate 
requirements in the space operation service for non-geostationary 
satellites with short duration missions (defining ``short duration 
mission'' as typically not lasting more than three years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has authorized small satellites both as commercial 
operations under part 25 of the Commission's rules and as experimental 
operations--including scientific and research missions for purposes of 
experimentation, product development, and market trials--under part 5 
of the Commission's rules. Some amateur small satellite operations have 
also been authorized under part 97 of the Commission's rules. Because 
of the increasingly commercial nature of small

[[Page 24066]]

satellite missions, many satellites are not suitable for licensing 
under the Commission's part 5 experimental licensing process, and part 
5 licensees cannot obtain interference protection for 
radiocommunications links. On the other hand, obtaining a part 25 
regular commercial authorization for an NGSO system can be challenging 
for some small satellite applicants because of the costs and timelines 
involved, as compared to the overall scope of most small satellite 
enterprises. The same application and regulatory fees are currently 
applicable to all NGSO part 25 applicants and licensees, regardless of 
the specific characteristics of the system. In some instances, these 
fees constitute a large percentage of the cost of the small satellite 
system, and could even exceed the total cost of a small satellite 
mission. Part 25 licensees are also subject to a requirement to post an 
initial surety bond, which can be challenging for licensees planning 
small, low-cost systems. Further, under part 25, most NGSO satellite 
applications are processed according to a processing round procedure, 
which can add to application review time by the Commission and 
regulatory complexity for applicants. Given some of the challenges 
presented by the Commission's licensing process to small satellite 
systems and their promise as a driver of innovation, our goal in this 
proceeding is to develop a streamlined authorization process within 
part 25 that is tailored to small satellites.
    Today the small satellite sector is engaged in a range of 
activities, from brief research-oriented satellite missions to 
regularly replenishing commercial satellite constellations operating 
over a number of years.\4\ While this NPRM is focused on those missions 
having short duration, we observe that there appears to have been 
growth in this sector across the full range of activities. For purposes 
of this rulemaking we are not proposing to consider non-geostationary 
orbit (NGSO) FSS constellations that include numerous satellites to be 
``small satellites,'' even if the physical size of each of those 
satellites could be considered small.\5\ We believe that the 
characteristics proposed below for small satellites applying under the 
streamlined process, such as an orbital lifetime of five years or less 
and the ability to share spectrum with existing and future operators in 
a particular frequency band, will differentiate small satellite systems 
under consideration in this NPRM from typical NGSO FSS, MSS, or other 
systems requiring full-time uninterrupted availability of assigned 
spectrum. We recognize that NGSO FSS systems may in part be responsible 
for some growth indicators discussed below, such as launch vehicle 
development, but to the extent possible we have sought to exclude those 
systems from our discussion of trends in this sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These replenishing satellite systems consist of satellites 
that are replaced on a regular basis, as the service continues to be 
provided. An example of a system in this category is Planet's NGSO 
system.
    \5\ For example, some of the planned NGSO FSS systems consist of 
what could be considered ``minisatellites'', with a typical mass 
between 100 kg and 500 kg. This proceeding is also not tailored to 
address the operations of traditional NGSO satellite constellations 
offering mobile-satellite service (MSS), such as those operated by 
Iridium LLC, Globalstar, Inc., or ORBCOMM License Corp., more 
traditional NGSO satellites offering remote sensing operations, or 
those in the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), among 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For much of the history of the satellite industry, economies of 
scale, increased capabilities of launch vehicles, and rising global 
demand for satellite services pushed satellite manufacturers to focus 
their efforts on designing larger and more powerful satellites. In the 
last 15 years, however, the miniaturization of components and the 
ability of small satellite developers to capitalize on commercial off-
the-shelf equipment has enabled smaller, cheaper satellites to be built 
and launched into space. In 1999, engineers at California Polytechnic 
State University and Stanford University developed a small satellite 
standard known as the ``CubeSat'' design, with the goal to train 
students and expose them to real-world engineering practices and 
design. The CubeSat is a standardized interface consisting of an 
approximately 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm unit or ``U'' that can be scaled up 
to create CubeSats that are 3U (three units) or 12U (12 units) in size, 
for example. The standardized specification enables CubeSats to be 
fully enclosed in specially developed deployment mechanisms that can be 
added to launch vehicles as secondary payloads. The CubeSat 
specification has been widely adopted even outside the academic 
community, largely due to low costs and access to launch services, and 
satellites based on the standard constitute a large percentage of small 
satellites deployed in recent years. While the advantages of small 
satellites have ensured their continuing use by universities and 
research institutions, it has also encouraged the growing number of 
CubeSat missions that are commercial.
    Commercial sector involvement in all small satellites, not just 
CubeSats, has increased significantly in recent years. Venture capital 
firms are investing in small satellite companies, such as those 
providing Earth imagery. According to one report, the use of small 
satellites for commercial purposes represents a shift from the practice 
before 2013, when the majority of small satellites were used for 
government and academic operations.
    The United States continues to be the leader in the number of small 
satellites launched, and in the last several years the Commission has 
licensed several commercial earth exploration satellite service (EESS) 
\6\ constellations that operate using small satellites based on the 
CubeSat concept.\7\ These constellations, consisting of a large number 
of rapidly-replenishing satellites, have been licensed under part 25 of 
the Commission's rules. The Commission has also fielded an increasing 
number of applications from small satellite proponents seeking 
authorization under the experimental licensing process under part 5 of 
the Commission's rules.\8\ Particularly since 2013, the Commission has 
seen a marked increase in the number of unique small satellite systems 
seeking to be licensed. Many of these applications are still from 
universities or other research-oriented organizations with intended 
short duration missions, but a growing number of others are 
applications from commercial entities that may plan to transition to 
licensing under part 25 of the Commission's rules after completing a 
technology testing and demonstration phase.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EESS is a radiocommunication service between earth 
stations and one or more space stations, which may include links 
between space stations, in which: (1) Information relating to the 
characteristics of the Earth and its natural phenomena, including 
data relating to the state of the environment, is obtained from 
active sensors or passive sensors on Earth satellites; (2) similar 
information is collected from airborne or Earth-based platforms; (3) 
such information may be distributed to earth stations in the system 
concerned; and (4) platform interrogation may be included. This 
service may include feeder links necessary for its operation. 47 CFR 
2.1; ITU R.R. 1.51.
    \7\ Operators in this category include the NGSO constellations 
of Planet, Spire Global, Inc. (Spire), and Terra Bella Technologies, 
Inc. (Terra Bella) (formerly known as Skybox Imaging, Inc.).
    \8\ Proponents of more than 200 unique systems consisting of one 
or more satellites have applied for a license through the 
experimental licensing process since 2009. In 2013, recognizing the 
increasing number and variety of organizations seeking to 
participate in the launching of satellites, the Commission issued a 
public notice with guidance on obtaining licenses for small 
satellites, including small satellites seeking experimental 
licenses.
    \9\ Planet and Spire are two examples of small satellite 
ventures that have been transitioned from the experimental testing 
phase to commercial operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission currently authorizes small satellites in three ways: 
(1) As commercial satellite operations under

[[Page 24067]]

part 25 of the Commission's rules, (2) as experimental operations under 
part 5 of the Commission's rules, and (3) as amateur service satellite 
operations under part 97 of the Commission's rules.
    The Commission has licensed under the part 25 rules several NGSO 
constellations utilizing smaller satellites based on the CubeSat 
concept. While some waivers have been requested in these applications, 
many of the Commission's existing NGSO rules have been readily 
applicable to these types of systems. However, the types of NGSO 
constellations that have been licensed under part 25 that use smaller-
sized satellites are often large commercial constellations, in some 
cases envisioned to include hundreds of small satellites deployed more 
or less continuously over an extended period. The same procedures may 
not be suitable for an operator launching fewer small satellites with 
an intended short duration mission, because of fees and those costs 
associated with posting a surety bond, as well as the extended 
timelines associated with a Commission processing round. A processing 
round may not be necessary for systems that do not require constant 
spectrum availability, since sharing may be more easily attainable with 
future systems seeking to use the same spectrum. Some of these factors 
specific to the application process in part 25 may explain why the 
number of part 25 licenses has not increased appreciably in recent 
years while the number of individual small satellites licensed by the 
Commission, particularly through experimental licenses, has 
increased.\10\ Additionally, some applicants have filed for licensing 
under the experimental licensing process and then later transitioned to 
part 25 commercial operations, rather than initially filing for a part 
25 license. These factors suggest that some applicants could benefit 
from an authorization process for regular (rather than experimental) 
operations that utilizes a process different from the Commission's 
existing part 25 NGSO authorization process. Accordingly, in Section 
III of this NPRM, we propose a new approach to licensing small 
satellites that differs from our existing part 25 process. If adopted, 
this new approach could enable small satellite operators to obtain 
licenses for regular operation under a set of rules to be included in 
part 25, but through a process better suited to the shorter duration of 
small satellite operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted supra, between 2009 and 2018, proponents of more 
than 200 unique systems consisting of one or more satellites have 
applied for an experimental license. Of these proposed systems, 
approximately 120 have been licensed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the majority of non-governmental small satellite 
operations in the United States have been authorized through the 
experimental process under part 5 of the Commission's rules on a non-
interference, unprotected basis and with limited license terms. Non-
interference, unprotected operations may be acceptable for some 
satellite operations, but for other types of operations, and 
particularly for satellite mission critical functions such as 
telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C), it can be important that 
satellite links have some level of interference protection.
    A variety of frequency bands have been used for, or requested for 
use by, the types of operations frequently thought of as ``small 
satellite'' operations,\11\ both on a conforming and non-conforming 
basis with respect to the allocations in the United States Table of 
Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table). Frequency bands sought for use by 
small satellite operators for downlinks or uplinks \12\ have included: 
137-138 MHz, 144-146 MHz, 148-150.05 MHz, 399.9-400.05 MHz, 401-403 
MHz, 435-438 MHz, 449.75-450.25 MHz, 460-470 MHz, 902-928 MHz, 2020-
2025 MHz, 2025-2110 MHz, 2390-2400 MHz, 2400-2450 MHz, 5830-5850 MHz, 
8025-8400 MHz, and 25.5-27 GHz. The majority of these bands have been 
authorized by the Commission for one or more small satellite(s) or 
systems, either on an experimental basis under part 5 or under part 25 
of the Commission's rules. These authorizations have generally been for 
short duration missions and episodic uses, such that actual use of any 
of these bands by small satellites in any given area has been limited 
to a relatively small percentage of time. In some instances, use of 
these frequency bands has been subject to coordination with Federal 
users through the U.S. Department of Commerce's National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) inter-agency 
coordination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As noted supra, we do not consider large NGSO 
constellations providing FSS to be ``small satellites'' for purposes 
of this NPRM.
    \12\ As discussed in more detail infra, small satellite 
operators have also sought to communicate via inter-satellite links 
with the Globalstar and Iridium systems in bands allocated to the 
MSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streamlined Process for Small Satellites

    The Commission has found that many small satellites are launched 
not as part of large constellations, but as part of small-scale 
operations consisting of a single satellite or only a few satellites. 
As noted, existing part 25 rules governing NGSO-like \13\ systems are 
not necessarily tailored to address such small-scale operations and may 
present challenges for small satellite applicants and licensees. We 
propose to establish a set of streamlined application and processing 
rules for commercial NGSO small satellites meeting certain criteria. As 
described below, it appears that satellites with the characteristics 
outlined in this NPRM could be authorized on a more streamlined basis, 
both from a radiofrequency (RF) interference and orbital debris 
mitigation perspective, than satellites that we have typically licensed 
under the existing part 25 rules. Accordingly, we propose an approach 
for authorizing this new category of satellites that we believe will 
make the process more accessible, decrease processing time for 
applications, limit regulatory burdens borne by applicants, and offer 
protection for critical communication links, while promoting orbital 
debris mitigation and efficient use of spectrum. Our objective is to 
develop an alternative arrangement for authorizing small satellites 
that is more efficient for both applicants and the Commission and that 
better reflects the unique nature of small satellite deployment than 
the existing authorization regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``NGSO-like'' is term used in the Commission's rules to 
describe systems which are either (1) NGSO satellite systems or (2) 
GSO mobile satellite service (MSS) satellite systems that 
communicate with earth stations using non-directional antennas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A primary goal of this proceeding is to better tailor the 
Commission's regulatory process to small satellites. Currently, an 
application for an NGSO satellite system under part 25 of the 
Commission's rules requires the applicant to submit an FCC Form 312, 
Main Form and Schedule S, along with exhibits as described in section 
25.114 of the Commission's rules.\14\ NGSO systems are also subject to 
frequency-band and service-specific requirements. NGSO satellite 
applications are processed according to a processing round procedure. 
NGSO satellites that complete the processing round procedure are 
subject to certain milestones for completing system deployment, and a 
bond requirement, as well as operational requirements that may be 
frequency-band or service-specific. Under the proposed streamlined 
small satellite process, applicants would not be subject to processing 
round procedures, although certain other requirements would continue to 
apply, as described below. Ideally, this new process would

[[Page 24068]]

decrease the time spent by some NGSO applicants in submitting 
applications, as well as Commission staff time in processing 
applications, commensurate with the short mission lifetimes of many 
small satellites. While this proposed process would still include 
several of the requirements in section 25.114 of the Commission's 
rules, we envision that the small satellite process will be set forth 
in its own section of part 25 to enable small satellite applicants 
seeking to use this process to clearly understand the applicable 
procedures and technical requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This includes information regarding the applicant's orbital 
debris mitigation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under our existing rules, entities may file a petition for a 
declaratory ruling to access the U.S. market using a non-U.S.-licensed 
space station. Although we at some points use the term ``license'' in 
this NPRM, we anticipate that the same basic processes for obtaining 
authorization for small satellite operations will also be available to 
proponents of foreign-licensed satellites seeking U.S. market access 
via declaratory ruling. Accordingly, we do not propose rule changes 
that would limit the streamlined process to applicants seeking a U.S. 
license. We seek comment on this approach.
    Characteristics. We propose a series of criteria that would define 
the types of operations able to qualify for the small satellite 
process. These criteria are consistent with the goals of enabling 
faster review of applications by the Commission in order to facilitate 
the deployment and operation of small satellites that can advance 
research missions and support services such as the provision of Earth 
observation data. Under these criteria, many satellites that are 
currently licensed through the experimental licensing process under 
part 5 of the Commission's rules would likely qualify as small 
satellites and therefore could be subject to the part 25 streamlined 
process proposals.
    We also seek comment on whether there are other criteria not 
considered below that should be met by satellites applying under this 
streamlined process. Many proposals in this NPRM rely on the 
Commission's current understanding of the characteristics and scope of 
operations that generally define small satellites; for example, that a 
small satellite is typically designed to serve its purpose within a 
limited, relatively short period of time, and that these satellites 
have more limited frequency use characteristics than more traditional 
operations licensed under part 25, including use of narrower bandwidths 
and ability to share and not preclude other operations in a particular 
frequency band. Are these assumptions about the nature of small 
satellites--and any others reflected in this NPRM--accurate? Are there 
any other defining traits of small satellites that we may have 
overlooked and should be taken into account as we define eligibility 
for the proposed streamlined process?
    Number of Spacecraft. We propose to limit the number of spacecraft 
that can be deployed under a part 25 small satellite license. We 
propose to license no more than ten satellites under a single small 
satellite license and seek comment on this approach. This is generally 
consistent with our experience authorizing small satellites. We 
anticipate that many small satellite applicants intend only to launch 
one or a few satellites in total, and this proposal would enable those 
applicants to proceed in a streamlined manner. We seek comment on this 
approach and on whether we should consider other factors in determining 
the number of total satellites that may be specified in any single 
license under the streamlined process. We note that our proposed 
process is intended for a limited group of applicants whose operations 
are small enough in scope that it would not serve the public interest 
to apply certain of our standard part 25 procedures. We seek comment on 
what rules would be necessary to facilitate that goal, including 
whether it is necessary to adopt limits on the number of applications 
that can be filed under the proposed streamlined process by an 
individual small satellite operator or its affiliates.
    Planned On-Orbit Lifetime. For an applicant seeking a license under 
the streamlined small satellite process, we propose that the applicant 
must certify that the total on-orbit lifetime is planned to be five 
years or less, including the time it takes for the satellite(s) to 
deorbit. The ITU has found that for nanosatellites, such as CubeSats, 
the typical operational lifetime is between one and three years, 
although operational lifetimes of five, six, or even ten years are 
possible for some small satellites. The ITU also recently identified 
three years to be typically the upper limit for what it considers to be 
``short duration missions.'' Factoring in time for the satellites to 
deorbit,\15\ and that there may be satellites launched at different 
times under a license, we seek comment on whether five years is an 
appropriate total on-orbit lifetime for small satellites that would be 
eligible for the streamlined process. The five-year planned lifetime 
corresponds to satellite orbits at relatively low altitudes, consistent 
with other proposals in this NPRM. For example, all satellites lacking 
propulsion that are deployed at or below an altitude of 400 km will 
naturally de-orbit by atmospheric re-entry within five years. Should a 
small satellite that is not designed with a sufficiently short orbital 
lifespan to result in atmospheric re-entry within five years 
nevertheless be eligible if it has a capability to maneuver to a lower 
orbit that would ensure re-entry within five years? Applicants seeking 
to operate a small satellite for longer than five years would not be 
eligible for the streamlined process and could seek a license or market 
access grant under our existing part 25 NGSO procedures, which provide 
for longer license terms.\16\ We seek comment on this proposal and any 
other factors to consider in identifying eligible satellites based on 
orbital lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Many small satellites are deployed in LEO, where they are 
more susceptible to upper atmospheric perturbations, solar winds, 
and other factors which can impact the orbit of the satellite and 
affect the duration of its operations. See NOAA Space Weather 
Prediction Center, Geomagnetic Storms, https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/geomagnetic-storms.
    \16\ With some exceptions, licenses issued under part 25 of the 
Commission's rules are currently issued for a period of 15 years, 
although the Commission reserves the right to grant or renew station 
licensees for less than 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    License Term. We propose that the license term for these satellites 
be five years and that the license term for the satellites covered by 
each small satellite license would begin once one satellite has been 
placed into its authorized orbit. We anticipate that most operators 
would launch and operate all satellites in these small constellations 
within a short period of time, therefore it would be appropriate to 
begin the license term once the first satellite has been placed into 
its authorized orbit. We seek comment on this proposed five-year 
license term and whether there are other approaches that we should 
consider in determining what constitutes an appropriate license term, 
such as limiting license terms to be proportional to the expected 
satellite operational lifetime. We also ask alternatively whether the 
license term should begin at the time of grant, given the typically 
shorter timeline from satellite development to launch for small 
satellites.
    Given the possibility of seeking additional licenses under the 
streamlined process, it does not appear necessary or efficient to adopt 
rules for replacement satellites or expectation of replacement,\17\ or 
to provide for license

[[Page 24069]]

extensions.\18\ Accordingly, we propose that licenses granted under the 
streamlined process will be valid only for the original satellite(s) 
launched and operated by the licensee.\19\ We believe that this 
approach is consistent with the typical technical capabilities of small 
satellites, which often last no more than a few years in orbit, and 
also reflects the limited scope of the small satellite process. The 
possibility of seeking additional licenses as new satellites are 
launched provides a mechanism to address rapid turnover in deployment 
and technology. We seek comment on this approach toward license 
extensions and replacement spacecraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Part 25 of the Commission's rules currently provides for 
space station system replacement authorizations for non-
geostationary orbit satellites.
    \18\ Part 25 of the Commission's rules generally permit 
licensees to file for license extensions for spaces stations as 
license modifications, subject to the requirements of section 
25.117.
    \19\ Additionally, we do not anticipate that in-orbit spares 
would be authorized under a small satellite license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also recognize the possibility of commercial lunar missions or 
other non-Earth-orbiting missions in the future utilizing CubeSats or 
other small satellite designs.\20\ We seek comment on whether the small 
satellite process proposed here should be available to such missions 
and, if so, whether certain prerequisites for the small satellite 
process should apply only to Earth-orbiting satellites. For example, we 
seek comment on whether applicants for satellites not intended to orbit 
the Earth could calculate anticipated mission lifetime based on 
anticipated operational lifetime rather than total on-orbit lifetime, 
and whether a different license term should be applicable to such 
missions. We also anticipate that the proposed certification regarding 
disposal of the satellite through atmospheric re-entry would need to be 
modified for non-Earth-orbiting satellites, as well as the 
certification regarding deployment orbit. We seek comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Development of these types of small satellite missions for 
non-commercial, scientific purposes has been ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maximum Spacecraft Size. We tentatively conclude that satellite 
size, defined either by mass or by volume, should be a criterion for 
qualifying small satellites for streamlined processing.\21\ We 
recognize that there are a great variety of technologies and designs 
used for small satellites and seek comment on what the maximum size for 
small satellites should be, particularly to avoid situations where 
systems of satellites that would be more appropriately licensed under 
the standard part 25 procedures seek to gain some advantage by applying 
through the small satellite streamlined process described below. We 
propose a maximum mass of 180 kg for any satellite that would be 
authorized under the streamlined process. NASA has used a maximum mass 
of 180 kg as one demarcation for the category of small satellites, 
which can encompass a variety of spacecraft, and we believe this upper 
mass should be sufficient to include typical small satellite designs, 
given the types of applications we have received to date, while 
allowing for flexibility to accommodate evolving satellite designs. In 
addition, we anticipate that this maximum mass would preclude systems 
that are not small satellites from applying under this streamlined 
process. We seek comment on this proposed limit. Would a greater 
maximum mass (e.g., 500 kg) or a smaller maximum mass be appropriate 
for characterizing small satellites? Do other proposed criteria, such 
as the proposed zero reentry casualty risk criteria discussed below, 
effectively preclude larger satellites?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We also propose to specify a minimum size for satellites 
authorized under this streamlined process, as discussed infra. The 
proposal specifying a minimum size is relevant to trackability of 
the satellites, and so is discussed in that context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deployment Orbit and Maneuverability. We propose to require that 
applicants filing under the new proposed process certify that their 
proposed satellite will comply with one of several options regarding 
the deployment orbit and/or maneuverability of the satellite. First, if 
the applicant intends to deploy the satellite(s) at an orbit below the 
orbit of the International Space Station (ISS), which is at an altitude 
of approximately 400 km, the applicant would certify that its satellite 
will be deployed at that lower-orbit location. Second, if the applicant 
intends that its satellite(s) will be deployed from the ISS itself, or 
from a vehicle while that vehicle is docked with the ISS, the applicant 
would certify that its satellite will be deployed in this manner.\22\ 
Although the ISS is currently the only continuously occupied manned 
spacecraft in LEO, we recognize that China currently operates a 
spacecraft in LEO below the ISS that is periodically manned, and that 
other long-term manned spacecraft have been considered for operation in 
LEO as well. In the event that any such manned spacecraft are located 
at altitudes below where an applicant intends to operate a small 
satellite, we propose that the applicant must describe in narrative 
form the design and operational strategies it will use to avoid 
collision with manned spacecraft.\23\ Such strategies could include use 
of propulsion, reliance on orbits not occupied by manned spacecraft, 
coordination efforts with manned spacecraft, or other reasonable means 
of avoiding collision. We seek comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Such spacecraft have similarly shorter orbital lifetimes.
    \23\ An ex parte filing recommended that we consider future 
manned spacecraft and their likely orbits, and require that 
satellites have a maneuvering capability that is tested and 
demonstrated. See Alistair Funge, ex parte filing, IB Docket No. 18-
86 (filed Apr. 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deployment of satellites lacking maneuvering capabilities above the 
ISS, to orbits from which they will eventually transit through the ISS 
altitude band, increase the likelihood that the ISS will need to 
conduct avoidance maneuvers, potentially disrupting ISS operations. For 
that reason, deployment of satellites without propulsion capabilities 
above the ISS may not be appropriate for streamlined consideration. We 
propose as a third option, however, to authorize small satellites under 
the streamlined process to deploy at altitudes above the ISS if they 
certify that the satellite(s) have sufficient propulsion capabilities 
to perform collision avoidance maneuvers and deorbit within the license 
term proposed above. While many small satellites to date have not been 
equipped with onboard propulsion systems, new technologies are being 
developed that could provide a means for actively maneuvering.\24\ We 
tentatively conclude that more limited maneuvering capabilities, such 
as those relying primarily on drag, would be insufficient to support 
deployment at higher altitudes under the streamlined small satellite 
process, as these methods will likely require closer Commission review, 
and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on 
whether there are any other factors that we should consider in 
specifying criteria related to orbits under this streamlined process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, NASA has found that recent improvements in the 
efficiency of electric propulsion systems and miniaturization of 
chemical propulsion systems have opened the door to small satellites 
with significantly greater maneuverability than was previously 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational Debris and Collision Risk. Under our current rules, we 
require part 25 applicants to state that the satellite operator has 
assessed and limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner 
during normal operations. Because the release of operational debris may 
require closer scrutiny and be inconsistent with a streamlined process, 
we tentatively conclude that the streamlined process should be limited 
to satellites that

[[Page 24070]]

release no operational debris in a planned manner during their mission 
lifetime. As the release of operational debris is extremely rare among 
all FCC-licensed satellites, including small satellites, we do not 
consider this limit as unduly constraining on the availability of the 
streamlined process. We therefore propose that small satellite 
applicants must certify that their satellite(s) will release no 
operational debris, and we seek comment on this proposal. Under current 
part 25 requirements, applicants must also include a statement that the 
satellite operator has assessed and limited the probability of 
accidental explosions, including those resulting from conversion of 
energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the 
spacecraft. We propose to retain this requirement for the streamlined 
process in the form of a certification of compliance. We seek comment 
on whether a simple statement to this effect is appropriate, or whether 
there may be circumstances in which a more detailed disclosure and 
review is appropriate, for example for spacecraft that have propulsion 
systems or pressure vessels. Regarding risk of collision, we propose 
that applicants certify that the probability of each satellite's risk 
of collision with large objects is less than 0.001, which is consistent 
with technical guidance developed by NASA for its space missions. We 
seek comment on whether the 0.001 metric is appropriate for satellites 
licensed in accordance with the streamlined process, or if a more 
stringent standard for collision risk may be appropriate, given that 
multiple satellites that may be deployed. We further inquire into 
whether an applicant's certification will be sufficient to address 
collision risk and debris issues, or whether we should seek additional 
information from satellite applicants under the streamlined process and 
if so what types of information would be necessary. Alternatively, we 
ask whether such a certification is necessary given the other 
eligibility criteria for the streamlined process, such as limiting 
orbital altitude or requiring propulsion capability.
    Trackability. We propose that all applicants seeking to be licensed 
under the streamlined small satellite process also certify that their 
satellites will be no smaller than 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm to ensure that 
the satellite will be trackable as a space object.\25\ This size is 
consistent with the CubeSat specification. We note that while there may 
be methods for improving tracking of smaller objects, such as 
reflectors or transponders, these methods may require closer scrutiny 
and detailed analysis, and such analysis may be inconsistent with a 
streamlined process. We further propose that the applicant would also 
be required to certify that the satellite will include a unique 
telemetry marker allowing it to be readily distinguished from other 
satellites or space objects. We believe these certifications will help 
ensure that satellite operators will be able to assist entities that 
track space objects to more easily identify and distinguish between the 
small satellites utilizing the streamlined process and other space 
objects. We seek comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Space-track.org, Documentation--Frequently Asked 
Questions, https://www.space-track.org/documentation#/faq, (``10 
centimeter diameter'' or `softball size' is the typical minimum size 
object that current sensors can track and the JSpoC maintains in the 
catalog). In an ex parte filing, Alba Orbital stated that satellites 
with a size under a 10 cm cube can be tracked and asked that 
satellites with a size of 5 cm or greater be included in the 
streamlined process. See Alba Orbital, ex parte filing, IB Docket 
No. 18-86 (filed Apr. 2, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Casualty Risk. We propose that applicants certify that their 
satellite(s) will be disposed of through atmospheric re-entry following 
completion of the mission. Under our current satellite authorization 
rules, including those that apply to experimental and amateur missions, 
applicants planning disposal of satellites through atmospheric re-entry 
must provide a statement assessing casualty risk, with an estimate of 
whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the 
surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting 
probability of human casualty. If a statement indicates a risk of human 
casualty, the spacecraft could result in a future claim being presented 
to the United States under the relevant United Nations Outer Space 
Treaties. In light of the casualty risk, it may be necessary to 
consider satellite modifications that could reduce the risk to zero, or 
insurance and liability arrangements. We tentatively conclude that 
consideration of such arrangements, which is likely to involve detailed 
factual inquiry and potentially complicated legal and financial 
arrangements, is not consistent with the proposed streamlined process. 
Therefore, we propose that any small satellite applicant seeking to 
file under the streamlined process certify that it has conducted a 
casualty risk assessment using the NASA Debris Assessment Software 
(DAS) or another higher fidelity model, and that the assessment 
resulted in a human casualty risk of zero. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    Cessation of Emissions. ITU Radio Regulation No. 22.1 requires that 
space stations be fitted with devices to ensure immediate cessation of 
their radio emissions by telecommand, whenever such cessation is 
required under the radio regulations. Section 25.207 of the 
Commission's rules requires that space stations be capable of ceasing 
radio emissions by the use of appropriate devices (battery life, timing 
devices, ground command, etc.) that will ensure definite cessation of 
emissions.\26\ For the small satellite streamlined process, we propose 
that small satellites have the ability to cease transmissions by way of 
command (rather than by other potential means), to ensure the 
reliability of the satellite's ability to cease transmissions 
instantaneously. We propose that the applicant would need to certify 
that the satellite has the ability to receive command signals and cease 
transmissions as a result of a command. We seek comment on this 
approach. As part of this approach, we seek comment on whether we 
should require that satellites employ a ``passively safe'' system, 
i.e., the satellite cannot transmit unless it is actively commanded to 
transmit via a command, and will cease transmission unless within view 
of a ground station.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 47 CFR 25.207. While section 25.207 applies to part 25 
licensees, a similar requirement applies to experimental licensees 
under part 5 of the Commission's rule. See 47 CFR 5.107 (requiring 
that licensee maintain control of the transmitter authorized under 
its license, including the ability to terminate transmissions in the 
event of interference).
    \27\ See ITU-R SA.2312-0 at 7 (describing a passively-safe 
system whereby the satellite is actively commanded to transmit only 
when in view of an associated earth station).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small Satellite Application Processing. Under the Commission's 
current regulatory approach, decisions on NGSO-like satellite 
applications are made using processing round procedures. The Commission 
adopted this approach for NGSO-like satellite systems because of the 
possibility of otherwise unreasonably limiting additional market entry 
if licenses were granted on a first-come, first-served basis. For NGSO-
like satellite systems, the Commission had envisioned that grant to one 
satellite system operator to provide service in a particular frequency 
band segment would preclude other satellite system operators from 
providing service in that frequency band.
    The Commission has granted several waivers of the processing round 
rules for NGSO satellites, including small satellites, operating in the 
EESS. For these small satellites, the Commission has relied on the 
applicants'

[[Page 24071]]

demonstrations that they can avoid interference events through means 
such as scheduling of transmissions, and would not preclude future 
entrants from using the same spectrum. For example, where a satellite 
operates with a limited number of earth stations for purposes of 
downlinking sensor data during relatively short periods of time, it may 
be possible for such a satellite system to accommodate future entrants 
utilizing the same frequency bands. The spectrum demands of such 
systems differ substantially from the requirements for full-time system 
availability that characterize the NGSO-like systems provided for by 
the processing round rule.
    We propose that applications qualifying for the streamlined small 
satellite process be exempt from processing round procedures. Instead, 
each applicant under the streamlined small satellite process would be 
required to (a) certify that operations of its satellite will not 
interfere with those of existing operators, (b) certify that it will 
not unreasonably preclude future operators from utilizing the assigned 
frequency band(s), and (c) provide a brief narrative description 
illustrating the methods by which future operators will not be 
unreasonably precluded. Such methods could include the sharing of 
ephemeris data to avoid RF interference events,\28\ use of directional 
antennas, limiting operations to certain times throughout the day, 
limiting earth stations operating with the system to certain defined 
geographic locations, or some combination of these and other means that 
could be used to accommodate sharing in the assigned frequency band(s). 
Regardless of the methods used, the Commission would make an assessment 
of the description provided to ensure that operators do not preclude 
others from operating in the band and thereby limit the risk of 
spectrum warehousing by licensees. This approach also differs from the 
first-come, first-served queue used for GSO-like satellites, in that an 
earlier filed and granted application would not provide a basis for 
dismissing a later-filed request. We seek comment on this proposal. 
Applications would be processed in accordance with our existing 
procedures in other respects.\29\ We also seek comment on the 
certification and description requirements, and on the appropriate 
indicia for sharing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Ephemeris data give the orbital parameters of satellites at 
different times. In the NGSO FSS R&O, the Commission extended the 
existing requirement regarding the maintenance of ephemeris data in 
section 25.271(e) of the Commission's rules to NGSO FSS operations 
generally.
    \29\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.112, 25.151 (acceptability for filing 
and public notice procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there would be no processing round under our proposed 
licensing approach, small satellite operators licensed pursuant to the 
streamlined process would still typically receive interference 
protections in accordance with the relevant service allocation in the 
U.S. Table of Allocations. For example, small satellite applicants 
seeking to operate EESS systems in frequency bands with a secondary 
EESS allocation will be authorized on a secondary basis. In bands where 
part 25 licensees are authorized pursuant to a processing round, 
however, the Commission anticipates that small satellites authorized on 
a streamlined basis would be subject to some limitations on a 
frequency-band specific basis, including, in appropriate circumstances, 
that operations are on a non-interference, unprotected basis with 
respect to those part 25 systems. We seek comment on this proposed 
approach to interference protection.
    For typical NGSO FSS, MSS, or other operations requiring full-time 
uninterrupted availability of assigned spectrum, the ability to share 
spectrum with all existing and future operations is more limited or 
nonexistent because of the complexities of these systems. We 
tentatively conclude that the required indicia of sharing would not be 
present in these instances, and that such operations are more 
appropriately addressed for authorization under existing part 25 
procedures, including processing rounds. We recognize, however, that 
not all FSS and MSS operations require full time spectrum availability. 
In these instances, where the other criteria are satisfied, 
authorization under the proposed streamlined small satellite process 
might be appropriate. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 
In determining whether an application is acceptable for filing within 
the streamlined small satellite process, we propose to rely on the 
applicant's certification that it can reasonably share with existing 
and future operators, as described above, in addition to the other 
criteria we set forth in this NPRM. We propose to subsequently evaluate 
the applicant's narrative description of sharing methods, however, 
particularly in the event that any comments or other pleadings address 
the applicant's ability to share with other operators. Under such an 
approach, we would dismiss an application without prejudice if we find 
that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed 
operations will not unduly limit other operations in the band. In such 
case, the applicant could refile the application as an NGSO-like 
application in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's 
processing round procedures. We seek comment on this approach. Aside 
from the sharing certification and procedures discussed above, we ask 
whether additional mechanisms would be necessary to prevent authorized 
small satellite operations in a particular frequency band from having 
an aggregate interference footprint that is inconsistent with use by 
other existing or planned services.
    Consistent with the above tentative conclusion that small 
satellites will not preclude others from operating in the band, we 
further propose to exempt small satellites from the limitations on 
unbuilt NGSO-like systems contained in section 25.159 of the 
Commission's rules.\30\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 47 CFR 25.159(b). This rule states that if applicants with 
an application for one NGSO-like satellite system license on file 
with the Commission in a particular frequency band, or one licensed-
but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a particular frequency 
band, will not be permitted to apply for another NGSO-like satellite 
system license in that frequency band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Application Requirements. We propose that the FCC Form 312 and 
Schedule S would continue to serve as the basis for applications under 
the streamlined small satellite process.\31\ These forms include basic 
legal and technical information that provides Commission staff with 
information about the proposed operations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S form the 
foundation for all space station license authorizations. See 47 CFR 
25.114(a).
    \32\ The Schedule S software is available electronically on the 
Commission's website. See FCC Schedule S System, https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/schedules/. Applicants are advised to use 
the software when submitting information to ensure that it is 
appropriately included in IBFS. See FCC, Specific Instructions for 
Schedule S (April 2016), https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/schedules//resources/Instructions%20for%20Schedule%20S%20vApr2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of the narrative demonstrations required by the existing 
part 25 rules, we propose that applicants may instead provide the 
various certifications described above as the qualifying criteria for 
the streamlined small satellite process.\33\ The certifications should 
ease the burden on applicants of completing a part 25 application. 
Applicants under the proposed streamlined small satellite process would 
still need to provide some

[[Page 24072]]

information in narrative form, such as how their operations will not 
preclude future operators in the assigned bands, but we do not envision 
that these additional narrative requirements will be unduly burdensome 
or undermine the objectives of this NPRM. We seek comment on the 
proposed changes. We also seek comment on whether there are additional 
application requirements or revisions to application requirements that 
should be considered for the streamlined small satellite process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This certification would be somewhat analogous in form to 
the Commission's rules on the relocation of GSO space stations. See 
47 CFR 25.118(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Bond Requirement. Under the Commission's part 25 rules, 
most NGSO licensees or recipients of market access must have on file a 
surety bond. A bond of $1 million must be filed at 30 days following 
grant and the amount of the bond that must be on file steadily 
escalates, with the maximum bond being $5 million. The surety bond 
requires payment in the event that the licensee either fails to meet 
certain milestones, or surrenders the license before meeting certain 
milestones for the operation of its system, specifically, launching 50 
percent of the maximum number of satellites authorized for service, 
placing them in their assigned orbits, and operating them in accordance 
with the station authorization no later than six years after the grant 
of the authorization.\34\ Once the Commission determines that the 
milestone has been satisfied, the authorized entity will be relieved of 
its bond obligation. The Commission established these requirements to 
deter warehousing by satellite operators before a proposed satellite 
has been launched and begun operations and to deter speculative 
satellite applications.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 47 CFR 25.164(b)(1). There is also a nine-year build out 
milestone for NGSO systems, requiring that the licensee or market 
access recipient have its full system launched and operational by 
nine years after grant or accept a reduction in its authorized 
satellites to the number launched and operational at that time, but 
this milestone is not tied to the surety bond. Because we propose a 
five year on-orbit lifetime, we do not believe this milestone would 
be relevant for small satellites authorized under the streamlined 
process. Id. at 25.164(b)(2).
    \35\ Warehousing occurs when an entity holds exclusive 
authorization or priority for spectrum use or an orbital position, 
but is unable or unwilling to deploy its authorized satellite system 
in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose a change to the bond requirement normally applicable to 
NGSO satellites authorized under part 25. Specifically, we propose a 
one-year ``grace period'' during which small satellites that qualify 
for the streamlined process as outlined in this NPRM would not have to 
post a bond. This grace period would begin 30 days after the license is 
granted, since that is typically when a licensee must post a bond. We 
seek comment generally on this proposal.
    This grace period may be warranted for two reasons. First, most 
small satellite operators have a comparatively short window between 
filing of their application and deployment of their satellites. 
Applicants for small satellite short-duration missions frequently 
deploy and begin operations with their satellites within one year or 
less of obtaining a Commission license. In these instances, once 
satellites are authorized, there is little opportunity for the 
applicant to warehouse spectrum that it does not intend to use. Second, 
as described above, we propose that the estimated on-orbit lifetime of 
the individual satellites that may be authorized will be five years or 
less, and that licenses granted under the streamlined process may not 
be renewed or extended. Thus, to the extent that the satellite is 
authorized to operate in a particular frequency band, the licensee is 
unlikely to preclude the availability of resources to competitors or 
discourage innovation during this short amount of time. Furthermore, 
the limitations we propose to place on the applicant's license term, 
including the start of the five-year license term at launch of the 
first satellite, discussed supra, support this approach as well. We 
seek comment on these rationales for postponing the bond requirements 
for small satellites that could be authorized under the streamlined 
small satellite process proposed in this NPRM. Are there any other 
considerations that the Commission should take into account when 
establishing the grace period?
    Following the one-year grace period, if the authorized satellite(s) 
have not yet been deployed, we propose that operators could still 
launch and operate their satellites subject to the bond and milestone 
requirements applicable to NGSO satellites, provided that the 
satellite(s) can still meet the criteria for the small satellite 
process, including deorbit within the five-year license term (which we 
have proposed would begin when the first satellite is placed into its 
authorized orbit). Under this proposal, the escalating bond would need 
to be filed with the Commission, at the amount that would be applicable 
for a part 25 NGSO satellite one year after the license has been 
issued. We seek comment on this approach, and ask whether alternatively 
we should develop a different bond amount or a more or less rigorous 
approach to milestones for satellites licensed under the streamlined 
small satellite process.
    In addition, we propose that grantees failing to begin operations 
during the one-year grace period, because of launch delays, for 
example, may surrender their license to avoid the bond requirement. 
Further, we suggest that grantees launching and operating one or more 
satellites within the one-year grace period, but failing to launch and 
operate 50 percent of their authorized satellites within that period, 
may choose to either be subject to the standard NGSO bond and milestone 
requirements or, in the case of licenses that specify multiple 
satellites, accept an automatic reduction in the number of authorized 
satellites to the number actually in orbit as of the close of the grace 
period. This proposal would not preclude the filing of a new 
application for additional satellites. We seek comment on these 
suggested outcomes.
    Technical Rules. Our part 25 rules contain technical requirements 
governing the operations of both satellites and earth stations. These 
rules specify, among other things, out-of-band emission limits, 
frequency tolerances, and power limits.\36\ We propose that existing 
generally applicable technical rules in part 25 also be applicable to 
small satellites authorized under the streamlined process. We seek 
comment on this proposal. In addition, we note that many of the part 25 
technical rules such as out-of-band emission and power limits are in 
place to avoid interference occurring to other stations. The 
interference environment in which a small satellite will operate will 
be a function of the frequency band in which it operates. Consequently, 
we recognize that the technical requirements for small satellites may 
need to be adjusted for the different bands and we seek comment on some 
additional technical requirements later in this NPRM in connection with 
the discussion of small satellite operations in particular frequency 
bands.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.202(d), (e), (f), 25.204.
    \37\ See, e.g., infra (discussion of possible service rules, 
including out-of-band emission limits, related to small satellite 
operations in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Considerations for Small Satellites

    In this section, we address a number of issues relevant to 
frequency selection for small satellite systems generally having the 
characteristics described above.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Consistent with a resolution adopted at WRC-15, the ITU-R 
is currently studying the spectrum requirements for TT&C for NGSO 
satellites with short duration missions, assessing the suitability 
of existing international allocations to the space operation service 
below 1 GHz, and may consider possible new allocations or an upgrade 
of the existing allocations to the space operation service within 
the frequency ranges 150.05-174 MHz and 400.15-420 MHz. ITU WRC-15, 
Resolution 659. See WRC-15 Final Acts, Resolution COM6/19 (WRC-15), 
available at https://www.itu.int/pub/R-ACT-WRC.12-2015/en. While we 
recognize these ongoing efforts at the ITU, we do not limit our 
consideration to bands identified in the WRC-15 resolution, or to 
the space operation service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24073]]

    Scope of Frequency Use. We seek comment on the specific frequency 
use characteristics of small satellites that would be authorized under 
the proposed small satellite process. With respect to bands that are 
currently shared among services, we do not expect that small satellite 
operations would displace existing or planned non-satellite operations 
in a given frequency band. We seek comment on whether small satellites 
should be required to make any additional demonstrations, either for 
all bands or in specific bands, about their ability to share with non-
satellite services. This could include, for example, demonstrating the 
ability to avoid interfering with incumbent non-satellite operators. We 
also seek comment on whether small satellites authorized under the 
streamlined process should be required to protect other services and 
accept interference from other services in all instances where they are 
operating in frequency bands that are shared with non-satellite 
services. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether these small 
satellites should be afforded interference protection that is 
consistent with the relevant satellite allocation in a particular 
frequency band (e.g., primary or secondary with respect to other 
allocated services).
    The current part 25 rules include a list of frequency bands 
available for particular types of services, but indicate that 
operations can be authorized in other bands allocated for satellite 
services. In order to assist small satellite operators in identifying 
possible frequency bands for use, we seek comment on including a non-
exclusive list of frequencies in section 25.202 of the Commission's 
rules. We seek comment on the types of bands that should be specified 
in any such rule. We also seek comment on an alternative proposal to 
omit a specific list and consider applications on a case-by-case basis, 
bearing in mind the relevant frequency allocations. As a third 
alternative, we seek comment on whether the proposed process should be 
limited to specific frequency bands. We also seek comment on the type 
and quantity of spectrum that will be needed for small satellites to 
operate. Commenters should include data, analysis, and engineering 
studies on the expected demand for small satellites. We request that 
commenters address their need to access specific bands, bearing in mind 
the case of bands that have other allocations and services.
    In addition to the sharing characteristics described above, we 
anticipate that the actual amount of spectrum used by any particular 
small satellite will be small, generally no more than a few megahertz 
and in some cases only a few tens-of-kilohertz, and RF output power 
will be low. Notably, the ITU has found that for a short duration 
missions (three years or less) operating on frequencies below 1 GHz, a 
typical small satellite space segment mission uses a bandwidth of less 
than 100 kilohertz, a non-directional type antenna with a gain under 3 
dBi, and RF output power of 1 W. For small satellites operating on 
frequencies between 1 and 3 GHz, the ITU found generally a wider 
bandwidth of less than 7.5 megahertz is used, with non-directional 
antennae gain under 10 dBi, and an RF output power of less than 1 W. 
These technical characteristics, such as low power and low bandwidth, 
are generally consistent with the small satellites granted experimental 
licenses by the Commission, and are also consistent with the type of 
operations we envision being authorized pursuant to the streamlined 
small satellite process described in this NPRM. We understand that in 
some instances other uses may be anticipated, for example, where data 
downlinks require larger bandwidths, and so we also seek comment on 
whether modifications to the proposals discussed in this section would 
need to be made to accommodate these other types of operations. We also 
seek comment on the extent to which larger bandwidth transmissions 
could be conducted via inter-satellite links or alternatives such as 
optical links.
    In the discussion above, we sought comment on whether the existing 
part 25 technical rules should apply to small satellites. Here we also 
ask whether particular service rules, on a band-specific basis, may be 
needed to ensure protection of incumbent users. For example, geographic 
isolation of small satellite earth stations, power level restrictions 
on transmissions to and from small satellites, temporal restrictions on 
small satellite communications with earth stations, antenna 
specifications or other limitations on satellite design parameters, 
and/or other technical requirements may enable protection of incumbent 
operations, depending on the RF environment in each band.
    Compatibility and Sharing with Federal Users. The U.S. Table is 
divided into the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations and the non-
Federal Table of Frequency Allocations. Some bands are allocated to 
both Federal and non-Federal uses. In addition, some footnotes to the 
U.S. Table specify that use of a particular band by non-Federal users 
is subject to successful coordination with Federal users. An 
established set of procedures guides the interaction between the FCC 
and NTIA in developing regulations for services in shared bands, and 
for authorizing frequency use by Federal agencies and Commission 
licensees.\39\ Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NTIA 
and the Commission, the Commission and NTIA give notice to each other 
of ``all proposed actions that could potentially cause interference'' 
to non-Federal and Federal operations, respectively.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For example, the NTIA Manual describes technical 
requirements for Federal radio services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the compatibility of small satellites with other 
operations, however, we note that a number of the frequency bands where 
small satellites have been authorized, and where there are non-Federal 
allocations for services such as EESS and space operations,\40\ are 
shared with Federal users. Small satellite operations in these bands 
must be compatible with Federal uses. We seek comment on any rules that 
could be adopted by the Commission specific to these frequency bands 
that would better enable small satellite operators to consider, in 
advance of coordination, whether they may be able to operate in these 
bands while still protecting Federal operations. Examples of such rules 
could include traditional approaches requiring geographic isolation of 
non-Federal earth stations from Federal earth stations or other sites, 
or approaches such as permitting a satellite to transmit only when it 
is receiving uplink communications from certain pre-coordinated earth 
station sites.\41\ These examples would not necessarily replace the 
need to coordinate with Federal systems on a case-by-case basis, but we 
seek comment on whether these approaches or cooperative arrangements, 
public-private partnerships, scientific research programs, or other 
hybrid Federal/non-Federal arrangements could help streamline sharing. 
How would the establishment of certain service rules or other 
requirements on a band-specific

[[Page 24074]]

basis help to facilitate compatibility among separate systems and 
development of new types of shared and efficient uses of space and 
spectrum resources? We seek comment on these issues and on whether and 
how such rules and requirements may vary depending on the specific 
frequency bands being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The space operation service is a radiocommunication service 
concerned exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in 
particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand.
    \41\ This approach could be consistent with our proposal that 
small satellites authorized under the streamlined process have 
implemented a passively-safe system whereby the satellite is 
actively commanded to transmit by command originating from the 
ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small Satellite Operations as an Application of the MSS. We believe 
that it may be appropriate to permit small satellite operations in 
selected bands allocated to the MSS, where the characteristics of the 
small satellite operations, as described in this NPRM, would limit any 
potential for interference into existing MSS operations, and would 
ensure that the small satellite operations would have less potential 
for interference to either in-band or adjacent band services than 
operations that would typically be considered in the MSS. As discussed 
infra, this proposal corresponds to allocations to the MSS (Earth-to-
space) in the 149.9-150.05 MHz and 1610.6-1613.8 MHz frequency bands. 
Accordingly, in these specific instances, our proposal would be to add 
a use footnote to the U.S. Table stating that small satellites 
authorized under the new process in section 25.122 of the Commission's 
rules may be considered an application of the MSS. In connection with 
this proposal, we seek comment on whether such operations should in all 
cases be on a non-interference, unprotected basis, or whether the 
operations may have status in the frequency band, provided that the 
satellites operate consistent with any limitations on the MSS 
allocations and have demonstrated compliance with the small satellite 
process in section 25.122.

Discussion of New Small Satellite Operations in Select Bands

    In this section, we highlight frequency bands with existing non-
Federal frequency allocations for space operations or other satellite 
services (e.g., MSS) in the U.S. Table that we believe may accommodate 
small satellite operations in addition to the services that have been 
authorized in the frequency bands to date. For the frequency bands 
under consideration, we seek comment on potential service rules or 
limitations that could be placed on operations in these bands in order 
to better facilitate coordination and sharing with incumbent 
operations. In some instances, we also seek comment on proposing 
additional service allocations.
    137-138 MHz and 148-150.05 MHz. The 137-138 MHz band is allocated 
for downlinks in Federal and non-Federal portions of the U.S. Table on 
a co-primary basis to the space operation service (space-to-Earth), 
meteorological satellite service (space-to-Earth), and the space 
research service (space-to-Earth). Several sub-bands within the 137-138 
MHz band are also allocated to the MSS (space-to-Earth), either on a 
co-primary or secondary basis, in the Federal and non-Federal Tables, 
but are limited to non-voice, non-geostationary (NVNG) satellite 
systems.\42\ The 148-150.05 MHz band is allocated for uplinks to the 
MSS (Earth-to-space) on a primary basis in the Federal and non-Federal 
Tables, also limited to NVNG satellite systems.\43\ The 148-149.9 MHz 
frequency band is also allocated by footnote to the space operation 
service (Earth-to-space) on a co-primary basis in the Federal and non-
Federal Tables, subject to agreement obtained under No. 9.21 of the ITU 
Radio Regulations, limited to bandwidths not exceeding 25 kilohertz for 
any individual transmission, and to the fixed service (FS) and mobile 
service (MS) on a co-primary basis for Federal use. The 149.9-150.05 
MHz band is also allocated to the radionavigation-satellite service 
(RNSS) on a co-primary basis in the Federal and non-Federal Tables. 
Under an international footnote, MSS operations in the 149.9-150.05 MHz 
band must be coordinated under No. 9.11A of the ITU R.R., and use of 
the band by the MSS shall not constrain the development and use of the 
band by the radionavigation satellite-service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ MSS operations in the 137-138 MHz band are also subject to 
coordination under ITU R.R. No. 9.11A. Under the Commission's rules, 
stations of a secondary service shall not cause harmful interference 
to and cannot claim protection from harmful interference from 
stations of primary service to which frequencies are already 
assigned or to which frequencies may be assigned at a later date, 
but can claim protection from harmful interference from stations of 
the same or other secondary service(s) to which frequencies may be 
assigned at a later date.
    \43\ MSS operations in the 148-149.9 MHz band must be 
coordinated under No. 9.11A of the ITU R.R., and the use of the band 
by the MSS shall not constrain the use and development of the band 
by the fixed, mobile, and space operation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 137-138 MHz and 148-150.05 MHz bands were the subject of a 
processing round and rulemaking in 1997 and 1998, which resulted in the 
grant of several licenses for the provision of MSS in these bands. Of 
the initial licensees, only one, ORBCOMM License Corp. (ORBCOMM), 
remains licensed to provide commercial NVNG MSS in the 137-138 MHz or 
148-150.05 MHz bands. In 2008, ORBCOMM was granted a modification of 
its license for an NVNG MSS system to construct, launch, and operate 
additional satellites capable of operating in the 137-138 MHz and 148-
150.05 MHz frequency bands. ORBCOMM subsequently received another 
modification of its license in 2016.\44\ Considering all the various 
modifications to its license, ORBCOMM is specifically authorized to 
operate in certain sub-bands. ORBCOMM was also granted authority to 
operate throughout the 137-138 MHz and 148-150.05 MHz frequency bands 
until commencement of operations by another U.S.-licensed NVNG MSS 
system, consistent with the spectrum sharing plan adopted by the 
Commission in a 1997 order establishing rules and policies for the 
licensing and operation of satellite systems in the NVNG MSS.\45\ To 
date, no other NVNG MSS systems have operated in these frequency bands, 
although a handful of experimental small satellites have proposed 
operations in these frequency bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ In addition to a discrete set of frequency bands granted to 
ORBCOMM for use on a primary basis in 2008, ORBCOMM was subsequently 
granted authorization for a 50 kilohertz downlink centered at 137.4 
MHz and a feeder link centered at 150.025 MHz.
    \45\ The Little LEO satellite service uses constellations of 
low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellites to provide commercial 
radiolocation and two-way data messaging services. Operating at 
altitudes much lower than those in geostationary orbits, Little LEO 
satellites are typically deployed in constellations so that as one 
satellite moves out of view of a terrestrial station, another 
satellite will come over the horizon to maintain coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the existing frequency allocation for space operation 
downlinks in the 137-138 MHz band, and the allocation for space 
operation uplinks the 148-149.9 MHz band in accordance with 
international footnote 5.218, we seek comment on use of these bands for 
small satellite operations. Additionally, we propose to permit small 
satellite uplinks in the 149.9-150.05 MHz frequency band as an 
application of the MSS. The ORBCOMM system is currently operating in 
portions, if not all, of these frequency bands. As these frequency 
bands were originally considered for use by multiple satellite systems, 
we request comment generally on whether, and if so, how, small 
satellite space operations could share this spectrum while protecting 
ORBCOMM's existing and future MSS operations. As part of this proposal, 
we consider whether small satellites could utilize spectrum in those 
frequency bands where ORBCOMM has been authorized to operate pending 
commencement of operations by another U.S.-licensed NVNG MSS system 
(i.e., the individual sub-bands within the 137-138 MHz and 148-150.05 
MHz frequency bands that were not specifically identified in

[[Page 24075]]

ORBCOMM's license or subsequent modifications to its license). We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    In addition, we note the additional requirements applicable to 
these frequency bands. We note that operations in the downlink band, 
137-138 MHz, in the MSS are subject to a number of service rules to 
effectuate coordination with NOAA. We seek comment on whether any of 
these service rules should be similarly applied to potential operations 
by small satellites in this frequency band. The uplink band, 148-150.05 
MHz, is subject to coordination, to the extent specified in the U.S. 
Table and/or International Table, under Nos. 9.11A and 9.21 of the ITU 
Radio Regulations.\46\ We seek comment on whether these coordination 
requirements will significantly impede use of this band by small 
satellites for short duration missions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ As noted, MSS operations in the 148-149.9 MHz band are 
subject to coordination under No. 9.11A of the ITU R.R., 47 CFR 
2.106, international footnote 5.219, and pursuant to an 
international footnote, MSS operations in the 149.9-150.05 MHz band 
are subject to coordination under No. 9.11A of the ITU R.R., 47 CFR 
2.106, international footnote 5.220 (not in U.S. Table). Stations 
operating in the space operation service in the 148-149.9 MHz band 
are subject to agreement obtained under No. 9.21 of the ITU R.R., 47 
CFR 2.106, international footnote 5.218.
    \47\ See ITU R.R. No. 9.21. We note that in Resolution 659 (WRC-
15) relating to suitable allocations for the space operation service 
for short duration missions, as discussed infra, the ITU-R 
recognized that allocations where No. 9.21 applies are not suitable 
for use by short duration missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1610.6-1613.8 MHz. The 1610.6-1613.8 MHz frequency band is 
allocated for Federal and non-Federal use on a co-primary basis to the 
MSS (Earth-to-space), the aeronautical radionavigation service, the 
radiodetermination-satellite service (Earth-to-space), and the radio 
astronomy service (RAS) on a co-primary basis. This band is part of 
what is known as the ``Big LEO'' spectrum.\48\ In the United States, 
the 1610-1626.5 MHz frequency band is currently divided between the 
time division multiple access (TDMA) MSS system operated by Iridium 
Constellation LLC (Iridium) with service links in both directions and 
the code division multiple access (CDMA) MSS system operated by 
Globalstar Inc. (Globalstar). Currently, Globalstar is authorized to 
operate at 1610-1617.775 MHz on an exclusive basis. In accordance with 
the non-Federal portion of the U.S. Table, the lower portion of the 
spectrum, at 1610.6-1613.8 MHz is also used by RAS receivers. 
Globalstar's operations in this band must protect RAS sites in the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Commission has previously classified some satellites 
operating in LEO as Big LEOs or Little LEOs. Big LEOs provide voice 
and data communications above 1 GHz, while Little LEOs provide data 
communications below 1 GHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on whether small satellites could operate in this 
band as an application of the MSS under the existing uplink allocation. 
These would be small satellite Earth-to-space links operating 
independently of the Globalstar system.\49\ We tentatively conclude 
that this band offers spectrum for small satellites to use, provided 
that the small satellite uplink operations can protect the existing MSS 
operations, as well as RAS operations. To these ends, we believe that 
service rules would be appropriately applied to any small satellites 
seeking to operate in these bands as an application of the MSS. We seek 
comment on what service rules would be necessary to protect MSS and RAS 
operations. For example, small satellites seeking to operate in this 
band could demonstrate that they are not within certain exclusion zones 
related to United States RAS sites, such as those identified in section 
25.213. Earth stations transmitting in these bands for any system could 
be limited in number and be specifically identified in the application 
materials for applicants seeking to operate in this band. Small 
satellite operations in the band could be required to observe out of 
band emissions limits in section 25.216 to protect the radionavigation 
satellite service (RNSS). Moreover, we could require that all earth 
stations operating with a small satellite system have directional 
antennas and that the system must have the ability to avoid in-line 
interference events to the existing operators in the band, primarily 
through operations at higher latitudes. We seek comment on these 
proposals. We also seek comment on whether authorization should be 
limited to communications with U.S. earth stations or if other 
limitations should be adopted. We seek further comment on the potential 
impact of small satellite operations in this band to existing or 
planned operations in adjacent or nearby bands, including to Iridium's 
operations in the adjacent band above,\50\ and to RNSS systems 
operating below 1610 MHz. We seek comment on whether application of the 
existing out of band emissions limits in section 25.216 of the 
Commission's rules would be sufficient to protect these systems from 
harmful interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Operations of small satellites using the Globalstar system 
are addressed infra.
    \50\ Iridium and Globalstar share 0.95 megahertz of spectrum at 
1617.775-1618.725 MHz. Iridium has an exclusive assignment of MSS 
spectrum in the 1618.725-1626.5 MHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of MSS and FSS Frequency Bands for Inter-Satellite Links with 
Small Satellites. The Commission's rules and the ITU Radio Regulations 
define ``inter-satellite service'' as a radiocommunication service 
providing links between satellites. Section 25.279(a) of the 
Commission's rules states that space stations may use frequencies in 
the inter-satellite service as indicated in section 2.106, and other 
frequencies where inter-satellite links are part of the service 
definition. For example, the definition of FSS states that in some 
cases FSS may include satellite-to-satellite links, which may also be 
operated in the inter-satellite service. The definition of MSS likewise 
includes radiocommunication service ``between space stations used by 
this service,'' thereby permitting frequencies allocated to MSS to be 
used for inter-satellite links. For service allocations in some 
frequency bands, the Table of Frequency Allocations specifies a 
directional limitation on operations.\51\ For example, an allocation 
for FSS may be limited by parenthetical to the space-to-Earth 
direction. In that instance, inter-satellite communications would not 
be in accordance with the Table of Allocations.\52\ Where a 
parenthetical to the FSS allocation specified ``space-to-space'' 
communications, the operation of inter-satellite links would be in 
accordance with the allocation, subject to any other limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ITU R.R. No. 5.49 (``In the case where there is a 
parenthetical addition to an allocation in the Table, that service 
allocation is restricted to the type of operation so indicated.'')
    \52\ While not in conformance with the International Table, 
space stations at both ends of the inter-satellite link would still 
be subject to applicable notification requirements under the Radio 
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the MSS, Globalstar has operated several experimental inter-
satellite links with small satellites. The small satellites use 
Globalstar equipment developed for earth station operations to transmit 
and receive data by means of the Globalstar system, including 
Globalstar satellites and ground infrastructure. The experimental 
communications have taken place on frequencies currently authorized to 
Globalstar for MSS, typically in the 1615-1617.75 MHz or 2483.5-2495 
MHz bands. Iridium has similarly been authorized on an experimental 
basis to utilize its MSS satellites to communicate with small 
satellites equipped with Iridium user terminals in spectrum authorized 
for use by Iridium, including in the 1618.725-1626.5 MHz band. In 
filings for experimental authorizations, Iridium and Globalstar 
acknowledge that their part 25 authorizations currently do not

[[Page 24076]]

cover these types of space-to-space communications. The frequency bands 
that have been used for inter-satellite communications between small 
satellites and the Iridium and Globalstar system do not include an 
allocation for space-to-space operations in the MSS. Therefore, these 
operations to date, licensed under the experimental process, have not 
been in conformance with the Table of Frequency Allocations.
    We tentatively conclude that it would serve the public interest to 
develop an allocation for space-to-space operations in the MSS in the 
frequency bands that have been used for communications with the 
Globalstar and Iridium systems. There are a number of benefits to 
inter-satellite operations, given the capabilities and existing 
infrastructure of these MSS systems and the ability of small satellite 
operators to obtain components needed to communicate with these 
systems. We believe that encouraging relay operations using Iridium, 
Globalstar, or other systems can alleviate some of the difficulties 
faced by small satellite operators in identifying frequencies for 
Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth links and building or seeking out 
ground station infrastructure. We seek comment on these tentative 
conclusions. In addition, given the interest in similar relay 
communications with satellites operating in the FSS, we ask whether 
there are other frequency bands that may be appropriate to identify for 
facilitating inter-satellite communications between satellites 
operating in the FSS and small satellites. Alternatively, we ask 
whether there is a definitional change we could develop and propose for 
MSS, FSS, or ISS that would enable broader change at the ITU for future 
accommodation of these services within existing allocations. We also 
seek comment on whether there are additional requirements, for example, 
technical requirements, that could be adopted to facilitate the use of 
MSS or FSS frequency bands for inter-satellite links without creating 
potential interference to other operations.
    Additionally, we seek comment on providing for the authorization of 
inter-satellite service links in the frequency bands that have been 
used for communications with the Globalstar and Iridium systems through 
a footnote to the U.S. Table. We also seek comment on the bands within 
the MSS allocations currently used by Globalstar and Iridium, such as 
1613.8-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2495 MHz, that would be appropriate for 
this proposal. We recognize, for example, that frequency bands such as 
1610-1613.8 MHz may not be appropriate for such operations, in order to 
ensure protection of radio astronomy installations.
    Fees. We note two important matters related to our statutory 
fees.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Applicants for U.S. market access do not currently incur 
application or regulatory fees. See, e.g.,Procedures for Assessment 
and Collection of Regulatory Fees, 28 FCC Rcd 7790, 7809, para. 48 
(2013) (``Despite the regulatory benefits provided by the Commission 
to non-U.S. licensed satellite systems serving the United States 
they do not incur the regulatory fees (or application fees) paid by 
U.S.-licensed satellite systems.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Application Fees. With respect to the one-time application 
processing fee, the Commission's fee schedule is set forth in section 8 
of the Act. The fee schedule includes a category for ``Low-Earth Orbit 
Satellite Systems,'' which the Commission has interpreted to mean NGSO 
space stations. The Commission's International and Satellite Services 
Fee Filing Guide describes an NGSO space station as: ``NGSO space 
stations orbit the earth in non-geostationary orbits,'' and the 
associated one-time processing fee for authority to deploy and operate 
these space stations is $454,705.00. Because we expect most small 
satellites would use low-earth orbits, we would expect them to fall 
into this current application fee category.
    Recently, Congress passed the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better 
Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, or the RAY BAUM'S Act 
of 2018, which authorized the Commission to ``by rule amend the 
schedule of application fees . . . so that the schedule reflects the . 
. . addition of new categories of applications.'' \54\ Such application 
fees should ``recover the costs of the Commission to process 
applications.'' \55\ Given our expectation that small satellite 
applications will take less time and fewer Commission resources to 
process than a typical NGSO system, we propose to establish a new 
application fee for small satellite applications well below the 
application fee of $454,705 for Low-Earth Orbit Satellite Systems--
specifically we estimate a fee of $30,000 would likely recover the 
costs to the Commission to process these applications.\56\ We 
anticipate that processing a small satellite application may require 
comparable Commission resources to processing an application for a 
modification of an NGSO system, for which the application fee is 
currently $32,480. Modification applications typically do not require 
review of a full set of data, but only those aspects of the operations 
that are changing, and frequently do not require a processing round. 
This more limited review is less resource intensive, and similarly, we 
expect that review of satellite application filed under the proposed 
streamlined process would be more limited given the streamlined 
application and lack of processing rounds. We seek comment on this 
application-fee proposal, as well as whether a higher or lower fee 
would be appropriate. We further seek comment on the costs and benefits 
of this proposal. We also note that the Commission will be developing 
an accounting system to track the costs of applications, including 
small satellite applications,\57\ and we expect that our experience 
actually processing these new applications will eventually inform the 
appropriate application fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, 115th Cong., 
Division P, section 102 (amending section 8(c) of the Act).
    \55\ Id. (amending section 8(a) of the Act).
    \56\ We note that the effective date of this statutory change is 
October 1, 2018, and we make clear that we are not proposing to make 
any changes to our application fees before that date. Id. (section 
103 of the Act, effective date).
    \57\ Id. (adding section 9A(f) to the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Fees. The second fee-related matter concerns annual 
regulatory fees for small satellites. Entities authorized to operate 
NGSO systems under part 25 currently must pay an annual regulatory fee 
which, for fiscal year 2017, was $135,350.00 per operational system. As 
a general matter, the Commission does not entertain issues about 
specific parts of the regulatory fee schedule apart from its annual 
review of the overall regulatory fee schedule, given the 
interdependency of the fees charged across individual categories.\58\ 
Accordingly, any comments regarding regulatory fees, as applicable to 
small satellites, should be filed in the proceedings we open for 
conducting the annual review of such fees.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee 
schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the 
amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to 
the schedule of regulatory fees. The Commission allocates the total 
amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories. 
Thus, a change in the regulatory fee schedule applicable to one 
category may affect the regulatory fees applicable to other 
categories.
    \59\ Academic researchers from the Samuelson-Glushko Technology 
Law & Policy Clinic filed an ex parte letter stating that absent 
changes, the annual regulatory fee of $135,350 currently assessed to 
NGSO systems would effectively prevent universities seeking to 
deploy small satellite systems from utilizing the proposed licensing 
procedures, and asking that we seek comment on the regulatory fee in 
this NPRM. See Letter from Blake Reid, Director, et. al., Samuelson-
Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic to Jose Albuquerque, Chief, 
Satellite Division, International Bureau, FCC, IB Docket No. 18-86 
(filed Apr. 9, 2018). Given the interdependency of the fees charged 
across individual categories, comments regarding regulatory fees 
should be filed in the proceedings for annual review of those fees, 
and there are no limitations that would hinder development of the 
record in those proceedings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24077]]

Conclusion

    Small satellites represent a dynamic sector in the satellite 
industry. Our goal is to encourage innovation in this realm by 
developing processes that can accommodate new types of missions while 
still ensuring that operators do not experience harmful interference 
and that the operations are in the public interest. Accordingly, we 
seek comment on these proposals.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The 
Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    This NPRM seeks comment on several proposals relating to the 
Commission's rules and policies related to small satellites. The rules 
proposed in this NPRM will accommodate authorization under part 25 of 
the Commission's rules of satellites that until now have been licensed 
through the experimental licensing process in part 5 of the 
Commission's rules and have not been able to provide full commercial 
service, or have been required to file for a regular part 25 NGSO 
authorization. Adoption of the proposed changes would modify 47 CFR 
part 25 of the Commission's rules to make small satellite authorization 
more accessible, limit regulatory costs borne by applicants, shorten 
application processing times, and offer protection for critical 
communication links, while promoting efficient use of spectrum.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7, 8, 301, 
303, 308 and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 158, 301, 303, 308, 309.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications
    The rules proposed in this NPRM would affect some providers of 
satellite telecommunications services, if adopted. Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized two census 
categories for satellite telecommunications firms: ``Satellite 
Telecommunications'' and ``All Other Telecommunications.'' Under both 
categories, a business is considered small if it had $32.5 million or 
less in average annual receipts.
    The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were a total of 333 satellite telecommunications firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual 
receipts of under $25 million, and 12 firms had receipts of $25 million 
to $49,999,999.
    The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of 
entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,415 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million. We anticipate that some of these 
``Other Telecommunications firms,'' which are small entities, are earth 
station applicants/licensees, but since we do not propose changes to 
our licensing rules specific to earth station, we do not anticipate 
that these entities would be affected if our proposed rule changes are 
adopted.
    We anticipate that our proposed rule changes may have an impact on 
space station applicants and licensees. While traditionally space 
station applicants and licensees only rarely qualified under the 
definition of a small entity, the small satellite applicants and 
licensees that are contemplated by this NPRM may qualify as small 
entities that would be affected by our proposed actions.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    This NPRM seeks comments and proposed several rule changes that 
will affect small satellite authorization procedures, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements for space station operators. Many of 
the proposed changes, as described below, would decrease the burden in 
various regards for entities that plan to launch or operate satellites 
that may be colloquially referred to as ``small satellites.''
    First, this NPRM proposes to simplify application requirements by 
tailoring a section specifically for small satellites or small 
satellite constellations meeting certain characteristics, such as low 
total number of satellites, short mission duration, and low altitude 
orbit. These proposals include some documentation requirements 
consistent with those already established for an applicant under part 
25 of the Commission's rules. We propose that some of the informational 
requirements, however, may be completed by a certification rather than 
narrative description, which we believe will lessen the burden on these 
small satellite applicants.
    Second, this NPRM proposes to identify frequencies which may be 
useful for small satellites. This portion of the NPRM should not 
increase any

[[Page 24078]]

requirements with respect to small entities, but instead, is designed 
to help small entities apply for satellite licenses.
    Third, this NPRM proposes to decrease the application fees 
applicable to small satellites to $30,000.
    In sum, this NPRM seeks to make obtaining authorization of small 
satellites more accessible, limit regulatory costs borne by applicants, 
shorten application processing times, and encourage the protection of 
communications links, while enabling efficient use of spectrum.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    This NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The Commission 
is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact 
small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the 
Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the 
proposals outlined in this NPRM.
    The Commission expects to consider any economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to this NPRM, in 
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
    In this NPRM, the Commission considers rule revisions to reflect 
changes and advances in the satellite industry. This NPRM proposes to 
eliminate some information filing requirements. We propose that 
applicants may provide certifications in lieu of narrative information. 
In addition, we propose that applicants be exempt from the bond 
requirement for a certain period of time, and that applications for 
small satellites will not be subject to the processing round 
procedures. These proposals are designed to lower the regulatory burden 
involved in licensing small satellites and reduce application 
processing times, thereby lessening the burden of compliance on small 
entities with more limited resources than larger entities. 
Additionally, the NPRM proposes to decrease the application fee for 
small satellite applicants.
    The proposed streamlined process is optional, so a small satellite 
applicant could still choose to apply under the Commission's existing 
part 5 or part 25 rules. The proposed changes, however, would 
facilitate authorization of small satellites under part 25 of the 
Commission's rules. These changes could support smaller entities who 
aim to develop and launch a small satellite or a small satellite 
constellation.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

    Radio, Table of Frequency Allocations.

47 CFR Part 25

    Communications equipment, Earth stations, Radio, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 parts 2 and 25 as 
follows:

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, under 
``United States (US) Footnotes,'' by adding, in numerical order, 
footnote USXXX to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
    USXXX In the bands 149.9-150.05 MHz and 1610.6-1613.8 MHz, small 
satellites as authorized under 47 CFR 25.122 operate as an application 
of the mobile-satellite service (Earth-to-space).
* * * * *

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721 unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.113 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.113   Station construction, deployment approval, and operation 
of spare satellites.

* * * * *
    (i) An operator of NGSO space stations under a blanket license 
granted by the Commission, except for those authorized pursuant to the 
application process in Sec.  25.122, need not apply for license 
modification to deploy and operate technically identical replacement 
satellites in an authorized orbit within the term of the system 
authorization. However, the licensee must notify the Commission of the 
intended launch at least 30 days in advance and certify that its 
operation of the additional space station(s) will not increase the 
number of space stations providing service above the maximum number 
specified in the license.
0
5. Amend Sec.  25.114 by revising introductory paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.114   Applications for space station authorizations.

* * * * *
    (d) The following information in narrative form shall be contained 
in each application, except NGSO space station applications filed 
pursuant to Sec.  25.122:
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  25.117 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.117   Modification of station license.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Except as set forth in Sec.  25.118(e) and (f), applications 
for modifications of space station authorizations shall be filed in 
accordance with Sec.  25.114 and/or Sec.  25.122, as applicable, but 
only those items of information listed in Sec.  25.114 and/or Sec.  
25.122 that change need to be submitted, provided the applicant 
certifies that the remaining information has not changed.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  25.121 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and adding 
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.121   License term and renewals.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Except for licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space 
stations and terrestrial repeaters, 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
licensed as broadcast facilities, and licenses for which the 
application was filed pursuant to Sec.  25.122, licenses for facilities 
governed

[[Page 24079]]

by this part will be issued for a period of 15 years.
* * * * *
    (3) Licenses for which the application was filed pursuant to Sec.  
25.122 will be issued for a period of 5 years, without the possibility 
of extension or replacement authorization.
* * * * *
0
8. Add Sec.  25.122 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.122   Applications for streamlined small satellite 
authorization.

    (a) This Section shall only apply to applicants for NGSO satellite 
systems that are able to certify compliance with the certifications set 
forth in paragraph (c) of this section. For applicants seeking to be 
authorized under this section, a comprehensive proposal for Commission 
evaluation must be submitted for each satellite in the proposed NGSO 
satellite system on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, as 
described in Sec.  25.114(a) through (c), together with the 
certifications described in paragraph (c) of this section and the 
narrative requirements described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Applications for NGSO satellite systems may be filed under this 
section, provided that the total number of space stations in the system 
is ten or fewer.
    (1) To the extent that space stations in the satellite system will 
be technically-identical, the applicant may submit an application for 
blanket-licensed space stations.
    (2) Where the space stations in the satellite system are not 
technically-identical, the applicant must certify that each type of 
space station satisfies the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, 
and submit technical information for each type of space station.
    (c) Certifications under this section. Applicants filing for 
licenses under the streamlined procedure described in this section must 
include with their applications certifications that the following 
criteria will be met for all space stations to be operated under the 
license:
    (1) The space station(s) will operate only in non-geostationary 
orbit;
    (2) The total on-orbit lifetime is planned to be five years or less 
for the system;
    (3) The space station(s):
    (i) Will be deployed at an orbital altitude of 400 km or below;
    (ii) Will be deployed from the International Space Station, or a 
vehicle docked with the International Space Station; or
    (iii) Will maintain a propulsion system and have the ability to 
make collision avoidance maneuvers at any time the space station is 
located above an altitude of 400 km.
    (4) The space station(s) will be identifiable by unique markers 
distinguishing it from other space stations or space objects;
    (5) The space station(s) will release no operational debris;
    (6) No debris will be generated in an accidental explosion 
resulting from the conversion of energy sources on board the space 
station into energy that fragments the spacecraft;
    (7) The probability of a collision between each space station and 
any other large object during the orbital lifetime of the space station 
is less than 0.001.
    (8) The space station(s) will be disposed of post-mission through 
atmospheric re-entry. The probability of human casualty from portions 
of the spacecraft surviving re-entry and reaching the surface of the 
Earth is zero based on reasonable calculations;
    (9) Operation of the space station(s) will not cause harmful 
interference to space stations currently authorized under this part and 
operating in the requested frequency band(s) consistent with the U.S. 
Table of Frequency Allocations. Operations will not unreasonably 
preclude future entrants from utilizing the requested frequency 
band(s);
    (10) The space station(s) will not transmit unless it receives a 
command originating from the ground to do so and can be commanded by 
command originating from the ground to cease transmissions;
    (11) Each space station will have physical dimensions greater than 
10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm; and
    (12) Each space station will have a mass of 180 kg or less.
    (d) Other application information. The following information in 
narrative form shall be contained in each application:
    (1) An overall description of system facilities, operations, and 
services and an explanation of how uplink frequency bands would be 
connected to downlink frequency bands;
    (2) Public interest considerations in support of grant;
    (3) A description of means by which requested spectrum could be 
shared with both current and future operators, (e.g., how ephemeris 
data will be shared, antenna design, earth station geographic 
locations) thereby not unreasonably precluding other operations in the 
requested frequency band(s);
    (4) For space stations with any means of maneuverability, including 
both active and passive means, a description of the design and 
operation of maneuverability and de-orbit systems; and
    (5) If at the time of application any manned spacecraft is located 
at or below the deployment orbital altitude of the space station 
seeking a license, a description of the design and operational 
strategies that will be used to avoid in-orbit collision with such 
manned spacecraft.
0
9. Amend Sec.  25.156 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.156   Consideration of applications.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Applications for NGSO-like satellite operation will be 
considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec.  25.157, except 
as provided in Sec.  25.157(b) or Sec.  25.157(i), as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  25.157 by revising paragraph (a), and adding paragraph 
(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.157   Consideration of applications for NGSO-like satellite 
operation.

    (a) This section specifies the procedures for considering license 
applications for ``NGSO-like'' satellite operation, except as provided 
in paragraphs (b) and (i) of this section. For purposes of this 
section, the term ``NGSO-like satellite operation'' means:
    (1) Operation of any NGSO satellite system, and
    (2) Operation of a GSO MSS satellite to communicate with earth 
stations with non-directional antennas.
* * * * *
    (i) For consideration of license applications filed pursuant to the 
procedures described in Sec.  25.122, the application will be processed 
and granted in accordance with Sec. Sec.  25.150 through 25.156, taking 
into consideration the information provided by the applicant under 
Sec.  25.122(d)(3), but without a processing round as described in this 
section and without a queue as described in Sec.  25.158.
0
11. Amend Sec.  25.159 revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.159   Limits on pending applications and unbuilt satellite 
systems.

* * * * *
    (b) Applicants with an application for one NGSO-like satellite 
system license on file with the Commission in a particular frequency 
band, or one licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a 
particular frequency band, will not be permitted to apply for another 
NGSO-like satellite system license in that frequency band, except

[[Page 24080]]

for applicants filing pursuant to Sec.  25.122.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  25.165 by revising paragraphs (a) and (e), and adding 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.165   Surety bonds.

    (a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004, 
other than licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space stations, space 
stations licensed under the process outlined in section 25.122, and 
replacement space stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, 
the licensee must post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its 
license. Failure to post a bond will render the license null and void 
automatically.
* * * * *
    (e) A replacement space station is one that:
    (1) Is authorized to operate at an orbital location within 0.15[deg] of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be 
replaced or is authorized for NGSO operation and will replace an 
existing NGSO space station in its authorized orbit, except for space 
stations authorized under section 25.122;
    (2) Is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands, and with 
the same coverage area as the space station to be replaced; and
    (3) Is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use 
at approximately the same time, but no later than, as the existing 
space station is retired.
* * * * *
    (h) Licensees of space stations under the process outlined in Sec.  
25.122 need not post a bond unless the space station is not launched, 
orbiting, and operational, as described in Sec.  25.164, within a 
period of one year plus 30 days following grant of license. If the 
space station is not operational following the one years plus 30 days 
period, then the licensee must file a bond in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(1) of this Section, and be subject to the requirements of 
paragraphs (b), (c), and (g) of this section.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec.  25.217 by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding 
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.217   Default service rules.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite licenses, except as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4), for which the application was filed pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in Sec.  25.157 after August 27, 2003, authorizing 
operations in a frequency band for which the Commission has not adopted 
frequency band-specific service rules at the time the license is 
granted, the licensee will be required to comply with the following 
technical requirements, notwithstanding the frequency bands specified 
in these rule provisions: Sec. Sec.  25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except NGSO FSS 
systems) and (iii), 25.204(e), and 25.210(f) and (i).
* * * * *
    (4) For all small satellite licensees, for which the application 
was filed pursuant to Sec.  25.122, authorizing operations in a 
frequency band for which the Commission has not adopted frequency-band 
specific service rules at the time the license is granted, the licensee 
will not be required to comply with the technical requirements 
specified in this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-10943 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P