Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85553 

(2) The criteria established in this 

section are subject to Florida’s general 

rules of applicability in the same way 

and to the same extent as are other 

federally promulgated and state-adopted 

numeric criteria when applied to the 

same use classifications in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(i) For all waters with mixing zone 

regulations or implementation 

procedures, the criteria apply at the 

appropriate locations within or at the 

boundary of the mixing zones; 

otherwise the criteria apply throughout 

the waterbody including at the end of 

any discharge pipe, conveyance or other 

discharge point within the waterbody. 

(ii) When determining critical low 

flows, the state must not use a low flow 

value below which numeric noncarcinogen and carcinogen human 

health criteria can be exceeded that is 

less stringent than the harmonic mean 

flow for waters suitable for the 

establishment of low flow return 

frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers). 

Harmonic mean flow is a long-term 

mean flow value calculated by dividing 

the number of daily flows analyzed by 

the sum of the reciprocals of those daily 

flows. 

(iii) If the state does not have such a 

low flow value for numeric criteria, then 

none will apply and the criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section herein 

apply at all flows. 

(d) Applicable use designations. (1) 

All waters in Florida assigned to the 

following use classifications are subject 

to the criteria identified in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section: 

(i) Class I—Potable Water Supplies; 

(ii) Class II—Shellfish Propagation or 

Harvesting; 

(iii) Class III—Fish Consumption; 

Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife; or 

(iv) Class III—Limited—Fish 

Consumption; Recreation or Limited 

Recreation; and/or Propagation and 

Limited Maintenance of a Limited 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

(2) The criteria in columns C1 and C2 

of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply to Florida waters where 

the Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee 

Tribe do not have reserved rights to fish 

on a subsistence basis. Where these 

waters include the use classification of 

Class I—Potable Water Supplies, the 

criteria in column C1 of Table 1 in 

paragraph (b) of this section apply. 

Where these waters do not include the 

use classification of Class I—Potable 

Water Supplies, the criteria in column 

C2 of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply. 

(3) The criteria in columns D1 and D2 

of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply to Florida waters where 

the Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee 

Tribe have reserved rights to fish on a 

subsistence basis. Where these waters 

include the use classification of Class 

I—Potable Water Supplies, the criteria 

in column D1 of Table 1 in paragraph 

(b) of this section apply. Where these 

waters do not include the use 

classification of Class I—Potable Water 

Supplies, the criteria in column D2 of 

Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this section 

apply. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26734 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 25 

[IB Docket Nos. 22–411, 22–271; FCC 23– 

73; FR ID 188524] 

Expediting Initial Processing of 

Satellite and Earth Station Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) continues its longstanding practice of reviewing its 

licensing rules and practices in light of 

innovation and development in the 

satellite industry and seeks further 

comment on possible further 

streamlining and expediting of its rules. 

Proposals include: elimination of the 

procedural requirement to print and 

maintain a paper copy of a license; 

changing the default status of space and 

earth station proceedings to permit-butdisclose; allowing earth station 

operators to apply for and receive a 

limited license without an identified 

satellite point of communication. The 

Commission also seeks comment on: 

additional minor modifications to be 

made by operators without prior 

authorization from the Commission; 

whether to provide a process for market 

access petitioners to seek the equivalent 

of a special temporary authorization 

(STA); whether to expand the window 

for operators to file renewal applications 

for existing licenses; further 

streamlining some of its coordination 

requirements for earth and space station 

operators; expanding the conditions 

under which earth station operators 

could access the new, streamlined 

‘‘deemed-granted’’ process for adding 

points of communications; timeframes 

for taking action on license applications; 

allowing operators to file STA 

extensions concurrently with an STA 

application; and on the creation of a 

permitted list that would include NGSO 

operators. 

DATES: Comments are due January 8, 

2024. Reply comments are due February 

6, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket Nos. 22–411, 

22–271, by any of the following 

methods: 

• FCC Website: http://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: FCC504@fcc.gov 

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: Julia 

Malette, Satellite Programs and Policy 

Division, Space Bureau, 202–418–2453 

or julia.malette@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 23–73, adopted 

September 21, 2023, and released 

September 22, 2023. The full text is 

available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/ 

public/attachments/FCC-23-73A1.pdf. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 

Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format, etc.), send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Procedural Matters 

Comment Filing Requirements 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments in 

response to this further notice of 

proposed rulemaking on or before the 

dates indicated in the DATES section 

above. 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: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85554 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Æ Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ 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. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Æ Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

Persons with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 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 ‘‘permitbut-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. 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act 

The Providing Accountability 

Through Transparency Act, Public Law 

118–9, requires each agency, in 

providing notice of a rulemaking, to 

post online a brief plain-language 

summary of the proposed rule. The 

required summary of this Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking is available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/proposedrulemakings. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that 

an agency prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for notice and 

comment rulemakings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ The 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

concerning the potential impact of the 

rule and policy changes contained in 

the FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth in 

Section IV below. Written public 

comments are requested on the IRFA. 

Comments must be filed by the 

deadlines for comments on the FNPRM 

indicated on the DATES section of this 

document and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) continues its longstanding practice of reviewing 

Commission licensing rules and 

practices in light of innovation and 

development in the satellite industry 

and seek further comment on possible 

further streamlining of Commission 

rules. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks further comment on several 

proposals raised by commenters in 

response to the NPRM, but which 

require more development of the record 

and opportunity for public input. 

II. Background 

2. As we enter the new space age, 

applications for space services before 

the Commission continue to increase in 

complexity and number. In response to 

this unprecedented era of growth in the 

space industry, the Commission 

launched the Space Bureau on April 11, 

2023. Space activities are increasing in 

almost every industry sector. The 

Commission must, therefore, make 

expediting the processing of 

applications a priority of its Space 

Innovation Agenda. If the current rate of 

filings for applications continues in 

2023, the Commission will receive 

approximately four times the number of 

space station applications and three 

times the number of earth station 

applications than it received in 2015. In 

addition, the complexity of applications 

continues to increase as new and novel 

space technologies are presented for 

consideration. The commercial space 

industry is evolving at a rapid pace, and 

it is critical that the Commission keeps 

up with the cadence of applications and 

complexity of regulatory issues 

presented. 

III. Discussion 

A. Allowing Additional Minor 

Modifications Without Prior 

Authorization 

3. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether to expand upon the list of 

minor modifications that can be made 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85555 

by operators without prior authorization 

by the Commission. Currently, the 

section of the Commission’s part 25 

rules addressing minor modifications 

provides for various circumstances in 

which operators can make minor 

modifications without prior 

Commission approval. In response to 

the NPRM, numerous commenters 

suggest additions to this list of 

modifications. Intelsat proposes that 

earth station modifications including 

removal of a satellite point of 

communication or modification of an 

earth station’s antenna identification 

should be included as minor 

modifications. SpaceX suggests that 

NGSO system operators should be able 

to modify space station antenna 

parameters without prior Commission 

authorization so long as those changes 

fall within the authorized parameters of 

the satellite system, with notice after the 

fact. Intelsat also suggests that the 

Commission consider revising the 

existing provision allowing certain 

relocation of GSO space stations with 

prior notification to the Commission to 

permit operation of service links during 

the drift period to the new location, 

rather than limiting operations to 

‘tracking, telemetry, and command 

functions during the drift period.’’ 

3. The Commission seeks comment on 

expanding the list of minor 

modifications not requiring prior 

authorization, and if it does expand this 

list, what the appropriate notification 

process should be. Should the 

Commission permit earth station 

operators to remove satellite points of 

communication and modify antenna 

identification without prior 

authorization? If so, should the 

additions be included in the existing 

provision allowing earth station 

licensees to make certain modifications 

without prior authorization provided 

that the licensee notify the Commission 

within 30 days of the modification? Or 

is a different notification process 

appropriate? What certifications should 

be made in connection with any 

notification? Should the Commission 

consider allowing satellite operators to 

change antenna parameters without 

prior authorization? If so, what 

notification process might be 

appropriate, and if so, what 

certifications should be required in 

connection with this type of 

modification? The Commission seeks 

comment by way of examples, 

information, and other data that would 

demonstrate that such a change would 

not require Commission prior approval. 

Are there types of space station antenna 

changes or other changes that should be 

excluded from potential consideration 

under this minor modification rule? For 

any proposed additions to the list of 

minor modifications, the Commission 

asks commenters to address how such 

minor modifications should be handled 

in the event of a temporary freeze on 

applications for new or modified space 

stations in a particular band. 

4. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on Intelsat’s proposal 

suggesting that operations beyond 

tracking, telemetry, and command 

functions (TT&C) should be able to 

continue during certain satellite drifts 

so long as the operator provides 

‘‘certification that operations are limited 

to coordinated transmissions during the 

relocation and drift transition period.’’ 

The Commission observes that under 

current rules addressing certain GSO 

satellite relocations as minor 

modifications, the operators would be 

able to resume full satellite operations, 

including provision of service, once the 

space station arrives at its new 

destination without prior Commission 

approval, i.e. it may continue normal 

operations within the technical 

parameters authorized and coordinated 

for the space station previously assigned 

to that location. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether continued 

operations during relocation, provided 

the operator certifies that operations are 

limited to transmissions that have been 

coordinated with other potentially 

affected operators, would result in an 

important benefit to licensees? The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

potential interference concerns that may 

arise during relocation and whether the 

risk of potential interference outweighs 

any temporary benefits to allow 

continued operations during drift. 

Would it be sufficient for the operator 

to conduct such operations on a noninterference, unprotected basis? Would 

any additional certifications to the 

Commission be required before the 

operator initiates the drift? 

Additionally, The Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should limit 

operations to instances of short drift 

periods only, e.g. less than 30-days total 

duration. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on additional conditions that 

might be appropriately placed on any 

operations during drift beyond TT&C to 

protect other operators in the GSO arc. 

B. Market Access and Requests for 

Special Temporary Authority 

5. In an effort to continue its 

streamlining goals, the Commission 

seeks further comment on the 

suggestion for a type of temporary 

authorization that could be sought by 

U.S. market access grantees whose 

operations are authorized through a 

space station grant. U.S. licensees may 

apply for an STA to operate under 

certain circumstances. Under current 

rules, market access grantees may file 

the equivalent of an amendment and a 

modification to petitions for declaratory 

ruling via § 25.137(e) and (f) 

respectively. However, although earth 

station licensees may request special 

temporary authority to reflect changes to 

the communications with non-U.S. 

licensed space stations, there is no such 

provision for an STA to be filed as part 

of the space station application process 

for market access grantees. This is 

consistent with the distinction between 

market access grants and licensees. 

Nonetheless, since the Commission 

frequently issues grants of U.S. market 

access to space station operators 

through action on petitions for 

declaratory ruling, the Commission 

seeks further comment on some type of 

special temporary grant that could be 

sought by the space station operator. 

6. Nearly three decades ago the 

Commission began efforts to consider 

how to expand competition and provide 

opportunities for foreign entities to 

deliver satellite services in this country. 

This effort coincided with broader U.S. 

government negotiations through the 

World Trade Organization to establish 

the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. In 

the order establishing rules to 

implement U.S. commitments to the 

WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the 

Commission explained that ‘‘[e]nhanced 

competition in the U.S. market, in turn, 

will provide users more alternatives in 

choosing communications providers 

and services, as well as reduce prices 

and facilitate technological innovation.’’ 

The Commission further noted that ‘‘in 

addition to encouraging a more 

competitive satellite market in the 

United States, this new environment 

will spur development of broader, more 

global satellite systems[,]’’ and that 

‘‘these advancements will foster greater 

global community benefits by providing 

users, ranging from individual 

consumers and businesses to schools 

and hospitals, increased access to 

people, places, information, and ideas 

worldwide.’’ The public interest goals 

articulated by the Commission at that 

time are just as relevant today. 

Additionally, as the Commission seeks 

to keep pace with the ever expanding 

satellite communications market, is 

continuously evaluating whether and 

where the Commission can streamline 

rules and procedures to provide for 

greater clarity and accessibility for 

applicants seeking to engage in satellite 

operations in the United States. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85556 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7. As such, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it is in the public 

interest to amend Commission rules to 

allow for an equivalent to special 

temporary authority for space station 

market access grantees to communicate 

with U.S. licensed earth stations. For 

example, should the Commission 

include a new paragraph in § 25.137 to 

allow market access space station 

grantees to seek some type of temporary 

authorization related to their grant of 

market access? If so, would applications 

for such authority be subject to the 

Commission’s application public notice 

requirements in all cases? Under any 

new process the Commission would 

continue to consider public interest 

factors in reviewing requests, and would 

treat market access applicant petitions 

for declaratory ruling the same as a 

satellite application, consistent with 

WTO commitments to treat non-U.S. 

satellite operators no less favorably than 

the Commission treats U.S. satellite 

operators. Alternatively, are the current 

procedures by which STA requests can 

be filed by earth station operators 

sufficient? The Commission invites 

comment. 

C. Considering STA Extension Requests 

Concurrently With Initial STA 

Applications 

8. In response to the NPRM, several 

commenters suggest that grants of STA 

should continue automatically while an 

underlying application is being 

considered. The Commission observed 

in the accompanying Report and Order 

that the Space Bureau’s STA process 

stems from the Communications Act, 

which allows the Commission to grant 

STAs for up to 180 days if they are 

placed on public notice and to grant up 

to 30 and 60-day STAs in certain 

circumstances without public notice. 

SpaceX raises an additional proposal to 

allow operators to request multiple 

extensions of an initial 60-day STA as 

part of the same initial STA application. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Would such a process 

conform with statutory requirements 

under section 309(f) (e.g., the 

obligations for operators to file for an 

extension of an STA even though they 

would effectively do so at the same time 

and in the same application as the 

initial STA; authorizing the Commission 

to extend authorization of temporary 

operations for a period not exceeding 

180 days and upon making like findings 

for an extension for additional periods) 

and section 309(c)(2)(G) (e.g., allowing 

the Commission to grant up to 30 and 

60-day STAs in certain circumstances 

without public notice)? Are there public 

interest or policy concerns that are 

implicated by allowing automatic 

extensions of STAs while an underlying 

application is being considered? 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether allowing such a 

process might present conflict or 

confusion with regard to the provisions 

of the Communications Act regarding 

STAs and the assessment of filing fees. 

D. Expanding Timeframes for Filing 

License Renewal Applications 

9. In response to general streamlining 

queries in the NPRM, the Commission 

received a suggestion to expand or 

eliminate the current 60-day window for 

earth station licensees to submit a 

renewal application. Under current 

Commission rules, earth station license 

holders may seek a renewal of their 

license between 90 and 30 days prior to 

their license expiration. Intelsat suggests 

that the Commission remove this 60-day 

window, or in the alternative, provide 

operators a 365-day window in the year 

leading up to the license expiration. The 

Commission notes that renewal 

applications must be placed on a 30-day 

public notice and tentatively declines to 

expand the renewal application period 

up to the license expiration date, as this 

change would create a potentially larger 

administrative burden for Commission 

staff reviewing applications. 

Nonetheless, the Commission believes 

that a longer window for filing renewals 

could provide more flexibility for 

operators without negatively impacting 

Commission processing. As such, the 

Commission proposes to amend its rules 

to expand the window for earth station 

operators to file an application for 

renewal from no earlier than 180 days, 

and no later than 30 days, prior to the 

expiration of the existing license. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and any alternatives. 

10. The Commission notes that NGSO 

space station licensees are required to 

file applications for renewal no earlier 

than 90 days, and no later than 30 days, 

prior to the end of the twelfth year of 

the existing 15 year license term. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should consider similarly expanding 

the filing window within the twelfth 

year of the existing term for these space 

station operators as another means of 

providing flexibility and streamlining 

the application process. For example, 

should the Commission amend its rules 

to include a window of no earlier than 

180 days and no later than 30 days prior 

to the end of the twelfth year of the 

license for filing a renewal? The 

Commission seeks comment this 

proposal as well as any alternatives. 

E. Timing for Completion of Application 

Review 

11. In the NPRM, the Commission 

briefly sought comment on timeframes 

for application review, including 

whether to impose shot clocks for final 

action on certain types of satellite or 

earth station applications. As noted in 

the accompanying Report and Order, the 

record on this issue was divided on 

whether the Commission should 

consider shot clocks, and if so, for what 

types of applications and for what 

length of time. 

12. Given the significant additional 

volume of space and earth station 

applications in today’s burgeoning 

satellite service market and the 

Commission’s goals of supporting 

innovation in space, the Commission 

believes it is imperative to seek 

additional comment on this issue. The 

Commission also notes that it has 

considered such timelines and shot 

clocks in other contexts, such as for the 

processing of applications related to 

major transactions and state and local 

review of applications for siting of 

wireless facilities, and may consider 

how such contexts are applicable or 

distinct from the needs of satellite 

operators and the unique complexities 

of space and earth station operation 

considerations. In support of this 

inquiry, the Commission seeks further 

comment on any relevant comparisons 

to other forms of timelines and shot 

clocks that could shed light on this 

inquiry. Additionally, the Commission 

notes that satellite licensing often 

requires coordination with federal 

entities in order to protect U.S. national 

interests, as well as international 

considerations, to comply with ITU 

obligations, for example. The 

Commission is also subject to various 

statutory requirements. The 

Commission seeks input on these 

considerations and how they should 

affect the consideration of shot clocks or 

other specific timeframes. The 

Commission seeks comment, data, and 

information on circumstances, such as 

the need for operators to file 

amendments to their application, that 

would need to be considered in 

developing an appropriate timeline for 

shot clocks or other specific timeframes 

for action on the merits. What events 

would warrant pausing the clock? 

Should the clock run during a public 

notice period, for example? In the 

context of shot clocks, the Commission 

also seeks comment on whether 

applications would be deemed granted 

at the close of the relevant time period, 

or if the Commission should revise its 

dismissal criteria or other practices, in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85557 

order to meet potential shot clock 

obligations. Finally, while the record on 

this issue was inconclusive on the 

appropriate use of shot clocks, the 

Commission will continue to gather data 

on applications and processing 

timelines that could inform on the 

appropriate length of future shot clocks. 

F. Earth Station Licensing Without an 

Identified Satellite Point of 

Communication 

13. In the NPRM the Commission 

asked whether it should consider 

allowing earth station operators to 

receive a license without having first 

identified a satellite point of 

communication. The Commission 

received limited, but supportive 

comments for creating such a procedure. 

The Commission seeks to expand the 

record on this issue, considering what 

some operators have described as 

‘‘ground stations as a service’’ (GSaaS) 

operations in particular. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

issuing a limited license for earth 

station operators who do not yet have an 

identified point of communication 

would align with the Commission’s 

goals to support innovation in the 

satellite industry and increase 

accessibility to services. However, the 

Commission envisions that such a 

license would need to be limited and 

include a mechanism for modification 

once a point of communication has been 

established, prior to initiation of 

operations. In addition, for frequency 

bands shared with terrestrial systems 

(for example, bands shared with pointto-point microwave stations licensed 

under Part 101 of the Commission’s 

rules), the Commission is not proposing 

to confer first-in-time rights to earth 

stations without an identified satellite 

point of communication on what could 

effectively be a multi-band, full-arc 

basis. Furthermore, in bands shared 

with UMFUS, earth stations would need 

to make a showing under § 25.136 of the 

Commission’s rules in order to limit 

their obligation to protect UMFUS or to 

receive interference protection. The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

this process may affect coordination 

processes. The Commission proposes to 

create a new provision in Commission 

rules that would allow earth station 

operators to apply for and receive a 

limited license under the condition that 

the license will require modification 

prior to operations with a specific point 

of communication, unless the point of 

communication is already on the 

Permitted List and the operations fit 

within the parameters specified therein. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal, as well as on any alternatives 

to facilitate licensing where a satellite 

point of communication has not been 

identified, or perhaps a point of 

communication has been identified but 

a space station application has not yet 

been granted. 

G. Feasibility of a Permitted List for 

NGSO Operators 

14. In response to the NPRM, 

commenters suggested the Commission 

consider allowing earth station 

applicants to specify that they will 

communicate with certain authorized 

NGSO systems, in a procedure similar to 

the Permitted List, which is currently 

available to routinely granted earth 

station operators for communications 

with GSO space stations that are 

licensed by the FCC or that have been 

granted U.S. market access, and that 

provide fixed-satellite service in certain 

frequency bands where GSO fixedsatellite service has primary status. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

suggestion. 

H. Inter-Bureau and Inter-Agency 

Review and Coordination Streamlining 

15. In the NPRM the Commission 

sought comment on various 

coordination considerations, including 

how the Commission might better 

streamline inter-Bureau reviews in 

shared-spectrum bands, and how the 

Commission might eliminate 

duplicative coordination requirements. 

Although the Commission did not 

specifically ask about it, multiple 

commenters offered suggestions on 

streamlining the inter-agency 

coordination and review process with 

NTIA. The Commission seeks to further 

expand the record on coordination 

considerations and the suggestions 

raised by commenters. 

16. With respect to the coordination 

within the Commission, for 

coordination with other bureaus and 

offices, several commenters suggested 

updates to timeframes, or other 

limitations on inter-bureau review. 

Recognizing the establishment of the 

Space Bureau, the Commission expects 

that the Bureau will continue to look at 

means to make the inter-bureau and 

office coordination process more 

efficient, taking into consideration 

certain types of applications and the 

unique issues that those applications 

present from a coordination perspective. 

The Commission notes that such 

improvements to the inter-bureau 

coordination process do not require any 

rule changes. The Commission will 

plan, however, to continue the practice 

of conducting coordination at the 

bureau/office level once the draft 

authorization, including proposed 

conditions, is ready to share within the 

Commission and to pursue ways to 

improve the internal coordination 

processes. 

17. Several commenters also offered 

suggestions to improve the inter-agency 

coordination process. Often, 

applications must be coordinated with 

NTIA because the applicant requests use 

of a frequency band that is also 

allocated for use by Federal stations. 

The Commission notes as a general 

matter that broader issues regarding 

coordination are addressed through the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between the Commission and NTIA. At 

the bureau level, the Space Bureau 

facilitates the coordination process by 

engaging directly with NTIA both for 

earth stations and space stations 

applications, as well as applications for 

special temporary authority in certain 

instances. The bureau-level 

coordination process varies slightly 

depending on the type of application 

presented for review. 

18. Among the suggestions on the 

record, SpaceX states that the 

Commission could streamline 

coordination, in particular for earth 

station applications, by preparing 

specific shared databases for 

coordination and by adopting a ‘‘green 

light/yellow light’’ system for 

coordination with federal users. 

Similarly, Turion Space argues that 

standardized input documents and 

processing would ease the inter-agency 

application coordination process. 

Intelsat suggests that applications that 

have been pre-coordinated between an 

applicant and federal user should not 

require an additional referral from the 

Commission to NTIA and otherwise 

suggests that the Commission consider 

automating the referral process and 

eliminating manual data entry. SIA 

suggests that the Commission provide 

applicants with NTIA contact 

information or share specifics of 

concerns raised by NTIA during the 

application review process so that 

applicants can address any concerns 

expeditiously. AWS proposes that the 

Commission provide applicants with a 

template and guidance for the 

information needed for NTIA 

coordination. Some commenters also 

suggest that coordination and review 

would be faster if applications are sent 

to other reviewers as soon as they are 

filed or as soon as they are placed on 

public notice. To the extent that such a 

practice would involve the inter-agency 

coordination process, the Commission 

observes that sending a large amount of 

application information for coordination 

to NTIA without direction from the 

Bureau on what the yet-to-be-proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85558 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

authorization would entail has the 

potential to encumber review and slow 

down deliberations on the application. 

Therefore, the Commission will plan to 

continue the practice of conducting 

coordination once the draft 

authorization, including proposed 

conditions, is ready to share with NTIA 

reviewers. 

19. As part of the transparency 

initiative described above, there may be 

opportunities to provide additional 

information to applicants regarding 

processes for the coordination of 

specific application requests. The 

Commission does not seek to 

unilaterally adopt changes to the overall 

inter-agency coordination process. The 

Commission further notes the interests 

of NTIA and appropriate federal 

stakeholders in the process and 

recognize that implementation may not 

be achievable considering technological 

limitations and various agency security 

needs. However, the Commission agrees 

with commenters that providing 

increased information regarding federal 

coordination may aid in streamlining 

the application process. Commission 

staff will continue to engage in their 

regular and ongoing dialogue with 

colleagues at NTIA and other federal 

agencies to identify and consider ways 

to improve the inter-agency 

coordination process. In support of such 

discussions, the Commission seeks 

comment on the proposals above made 

by commenters, as well as any 

additional proposals for improvements 

regarding inter-agency coordination of 

space station and earth station 

applications. 

I. Eliminating Potentially Duplicative 

Coordination Requirements 

20. The Commission seeks further 

comment on whether it can further 

streamline some of the coordination 

requirements for earth and space station 

operators in instances in which the 

earth station and space station sides 

must engage in potentially duplicative 

coordination. In the NPRM the 

Commission asked about any 

duplicative coordination processes that 

could be streamlined and received 

several comments pointing to areas in 

which earth and space station 

applications are part of separate 

coordinations related to the same 

underlying set of operations. AWS 

suggests that the Commission could 

reduce duplicative coordination in cases 

where a space station’s downlinks have 

already been coordinated and the same 

frequencies and points of 

communication corollate with earth 

station applications and provided an 

example of the requirements for EESS 

operators in the X-band (8025–8400 

MHz). Similarly, Microsoft asserts that 

authorization process for 

communications in the S-, X-, and Kabands between EESS space stations and 

earth stations requires a space station 

operator to engage in the same 

coordination to add an earth station to 

its authorized list that an earth station 

operator is also required to engage in to 

add the space station to its authorized 

list. 

21. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to expedite the coordination 

process where the Commission has 

already required a space-station 

operator to coordinate its 

communications with each earth 

station, for operations where the space 

station operator has identified earth 

stations and where such a list of such 

earth stations is provided to NTIA 

during the space station licensing 

process or coordinated with NTIA after 

licensing. Specifically, the Commission 

considers whether it is possible to 

coordinate the earth station sites and 

frequencies utilized with those earth 

stations once, as part of either just the 

space station or earth station 

coordination with NTIA? Again, the 

Commission does not seek to change 

these processes unilaterally and note 

this will involve continued dialogue to 

assess whether such changes are feasible 

given the need to coordinate operations 

in frequency bands that are shared with 

federal users. If the Commission 

determines that such streamlining is 

possible, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to ensure that the 

earth stations have been previously 

coordinated. For example, should the 

Commission allow earth station 

applicants to certify that a new satellite 

point of contact the earth station 

operator seeks to add has already been 

coordinated with NTIA in the relevant 

frequency bands in connection with a 

space station application? Additionally, 

the Commission seeks further comment 

on any additional situations in which 

identical coordination is required and 

could be eliminated without creating 

any gaps in coordination and 

interference protection. 

J. Earth Station Applications Adding a 

Satellite Point of Communication 

22. The Commission also inquires as 

to how this proposal on eliminating 

potentially duplicative coordination 

may affect the new streamlined 

modification procedure for earth station 

operators adding points of 

communication that was adopted in the 

accompanying Order. While the 

Commission has initially determined 

that this new, deemed-granted process 

can move forward in the limited set of 

circumstances identified in the Report 

and Order at this time, the Commission 

seeks to expand the record on this issue 

to determine whether and how it might 

be able to broaden the universe of 

operators that could access the new 

process created in § 25.117(i). For 

example, should the Commission enable 

earth station licensees operating in 

bands shared with federal users to take 

advantage of the streamlined 

modification procedure to add a new 

point of communication that has already 

been coordinated with federal users 

through the space station licensing 

process? Assuming that the Commission 

determines that coordinating certain 

earth stations with federal users through 

the space station process is possible, are 

there other change to Commission 

licensing rules should be considered? 

Similarly, should the Commission allow 

operators in a band shared with nonfederal services to take advantage of this 

expedited process if they certify, or 

otherwise demonstrate, that they have 

successfully completed coordination 

with other users prior filing their 

application? Are there any other 

mechanisms that could be implemented 

to expand access to this process without 

creating new interference concerns or 

circumventing the need for coordination 

in shared bands? 

23. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks further comment on whether 

expedited treatment might be 

appropriate in bands that require 

coordination, even without a 

demonstration of pre-coordination, if 

applicants must demonstrate both that 

the addition of a new point of 

communication will not cause earth 

station transmissions to exceed the 

highest equivalent EIRP, EIRP density, 

and bandwidth prescribed for any 

already authorized emission, and that 

the modification would not cause earth 

station to repoint the earth station’s 

antenna beyond any coordinated range. 

If so, for what subset of applications 

subject to coordination would 

expedition be appropriate, and would a 

mechanism of expedition short of a 

‘‘deemed grant’’ be better suited to those 

applications? Whether such 

applications are eligible for a ‘‘deemed 

grant’’ or otherwise expedited, what 

processing timeframe would be realistic 

to ensure any required coordination is 

completed? With respect to federal 

coordination in particular, how can the 

Commission ensure that expedition 

does not unreasonably or unilaterally 

curtail the federal coordination review 

process given the important scientific, 

safety, and security-related federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85559 

operations at play? Finally, if the 

Commission expands the list of 

applicants who could access this 

deemed-granted process to include 

bands that are shared with other 

services and additional operators, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a notification process rather than public 

notice may be appropriate in some 

circumstances, and on how to address 

objections or other comments that may 

be filed. 

K. Eliminating Printed, Hardcopies 

Requirement 

24. Intelsat suggests eliminating a 

current part 25 rule that requires 

operators to keep an original paper copy 

of an electronically filed application. 

The Commission agrees that this 

requirement, found in § 25.110(e) of 

Commission rules, is outdated and 

unnecessary and therefore proposes to 

amend the rules to eliminate this 

procedural requirement. Applicants of 

course are free to continue such practice 

if they so choose, but the Commission 

believes that removal of the requirement 

would fit squarely into its application 

streamlining goals as well as conform 

with long-standing broader government 

initiatives to reduce reliance on hard 

copy paper filings. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposed 

change. 

L. Change of Default Ex Parte Status of 

Space and Earth Station Applications 

25. The Commission proposes to 

change the default status of all space 

and earth station applications from 

‘‘restricted’’ to ‘‘permit but disclose’’ 

under Commission rules governing ex 

parte presentations and seeks comment 

on this proposal. Currently, space and 

earth station applications are by default 

classified as ‘‘restricted’’ proceedings 

under the rules, since they are 

applications for authority under Title III 

of the Communications Act, and ex 

parte presentations are prohibited. 

Commission rules regarding ex parte 

presentations give Commission staff 

discretion to modify applicable ex parte 

rules, where it is in the public interest 

to do so in a particular proceeding, and 

Commission staff has frequently done 

so, sometimes at the request of parties. 

The reasons for changing the ex parte 

status of a particular application can 

include, but are not limited to, the fact 

that the application covers the same 

subject area as a related rulemaking 

proceeding, or the topic to be discussed 

in a particular application has 

applicability across a wide number of 

applications. The change of status of an 

application from ‘‘restricted’’ to 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requires resources 

to draft and release an order, letter, or 

public notice. Modifying the ex parte 

status of an application is an ancillary 

task that requires Space Bureau 

resources that could otherwise be spent 

on placing applications on public notice 

or acting on the merits of applications. 

In addition, applicants—especially new 

space industry entrants or entrants from 

countries outside the United States—are 

often unaware of the Commission’s ex 

parte rules and can inadvertently make 

impermissible presentations in 

restricted proceedings, which further 

diverts staff resources from processing 

applications. 

26. The Commission proposes to 

amend part 1 of the rules by adding 

‘‘applications for space and earth station 

authorizations, including requests for 

U.S. market access through non-U.S. 

licensed space stations’’ to the list of 

proceedings that are ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceedings from the outset. 

Specifically, the Commission would 

propose to amend § 1.1206(a) by adding 

a new subparagraph. As ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceedings, applications for 

space and earth station authorizations 

would be subject to the disclosure 

requirements that apply to ex parte 

presentations in such proceedings. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposed implementation. 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

27. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM). The Commission requests 

written public comments on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines provided on the first 

page of the FNPRM. The Commission 

will send a copy of the FNPRM, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

28. In recent years, the Commission 

has received an unprecedented number 

of applications for earth and space 

station licenses. The FNPRM continues 

to and will facilitate the application 

streamlining process and promote 

competition and innovation among 

satellite and earth station operators, 

including the market entry of new 

competitors. The FNPRM seeks public 

comment on proposed revisions to the 

Commission’s rules governing satellite 

and earth station applications under 47 

CFR part 25. Specifically, the FNPRM 

proposes to eliminate the procedural 

burden of printing and maintaining a 

paper copy of license applications by 

removing and reserving § 25.110(e) and 

amend § 25.118 of the Commission’s 

rules, which allows operators to make 

certain minor modifications without 

prior authorization from the 

Commission. In addition, the FNPRM 

proposes to create a new provision in 

Commission rules that would allow 

earth station operators to apply for and 

receive a limited license under the 

condition that the license will require 

modification prior to operations with a 

specific point of communication, unless 

the point of communication is already 

on the Permitted List and the operations 

fit within the parameters specified 

therein. Further, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether to provide an 

equivalent to special temporary 

authority for space station market access 

grantees to communicate with U.S. 

licensed earth stations. The FNPRM also 

seeks comment on whether to expand 

the window for operators to file renewal 

applications for existing licenses. 

Additionally, the FNPRM seeks further 

comment on whether the Commission 

can further streamline some of its 

coordination requirements for earth and 

space station operators in instances in 

which the earth station and space 

station sides must engage in potentially 

duplicative coordination. And, finally, 

the FNPRM proposes to change the 

default status of space and earth station 

proceedings to permit-but-disclose as a 

means of further streamlining the 

licensing process. 

B. Legal Basis 

29. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 

308(b), 309, 310, 332, of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 

303, 307, 308(b), 309, 310, 332. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

30. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85560 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

31. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This industry comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies a 

business with $38.5 million or less in 

annual receipts as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 

firms in this industry operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 242 firms 

had revenue of less than $25 million. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 65 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of satellite 

telecommunications services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that approximately 42 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, a little more 

than half of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

32. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts of less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by Commission action can be 

considered small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

33. The FNPRM seeks public 

comment on proposed revisions to the 

Commission’s rules governing satellite 

and earth station applications under 47 

CFR part 25. Specifically, the FNPRM 

proposes to eliminate the procedural 

burden of printing and maintaining a 

paper copy of license applications by 

removing and reserving § 25.110(e) and 

amend § 25.118 of the Commission’s 

rules, which allows operators to make 

certain minor modifications without 

prior authorization from the 

Commission. In addition, the FNPRM 

proposes to create a new provision in 

Commission rules that would allow 

earth station operators to apply for and 

receive a limited license under the 

condition that the license will require 

modification prior to operations with a 

specific point of communication, unless 

the point of communication is already 

on the Permitted List and the operations 

fit within the parameters specified 

therein. 

34. Further, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether to provide an 

equivalent to special temporary 

authority for space station market access 

grantees to communicate with U.S. 

licensed earth stations. The FNPRM also 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission could allow operators to 

file STA extensions concurrently with 

an STA application. Additionally, the 

FNPRM seeks comment on whether to 

consider a permitted list type process 

for NGSO operators. The FNPRM also 

seeks comment on whether to expand 

the window for operators to file renewal 

applications for existing licenses and 

asks about establishing timeframes for 

action on the merits of applications. 

Additionally, the FNPRM seeks further 

comment on whether the Commission 

can further streamline some of its 

coordination requirements for earth and 

space station operators in instances in 

which the earth station and space 

station sides must engage in potentially 

duplicative coordination and expand 

the possibilities for earth station 

operators to take advantage of the new, 

expedited deemed-granted process for 

adding points of communication. And, 

finally, the FNPRM proposes to change 

the default status of space and earth 

station proceedings to permit-butdisclose as a means of further 

streamlining the licensing process. 

35. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether any of the 

burdens associated with the filing, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements can be minimized for 

small entities. The Commission 

therefore expects the information 

received in comments to include cost 

and benefit data, and to help the 

Commission further identify and 

evaluate relevant matters for small 

entities, including compliance costs, 

and other burdens that may result from 

the proposals and inquiries the 

Commission makes in this proceeding. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

36. 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.’’ 

37. In the FNPRM, the proposal to 

remove and reserve § 25.110(e) should 

minimize the economic impact for small 

entities by eliminating the 

administrative burdens associated with 

printing and maintaining a paper copy 

of license applications. Likewise 

amending § 25.118 of the Commission’s 

rules to allows operators to make certain 

minor modifications without prior 

authorization from the Commission 

should reduce administrative costs for 

small entities. In addition, small entities 

should benefit if the proposal to add a 

provision allowing earth station 

operators to apply for and receive a 

limited license under the condition that 

the license will require modification 

prior to operations with a specific point 

of communication, subject to the 

limitations described above in section 

A, is adopted. 

38. An alternative the Commission 

considered and seeks comment on 

involved the elimination of potentially 

duplicative coordination requirements. 

More specifically, the Commission 

inquired if some of its coordination 

requirements for earth and space station 

operators in situations where the earth 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85561 

station and space station sides must 

engage in potentially duplicative 

coordination can be streamlined. The 

Commission also considered whether or 

not to expand timeframes for filing 

license renewal applications in efforts to 

provide small and other entities 

flexibility, and further streamline the 

application process. The Commission 

considers whether or not to expand the 

renewal filing window of the existing 

term for earth and space station 

operators. 

39. The Commission also considers 

the possibility of allowing applicants to 

file STAs concurrently with an initial 

application, which may reduce filing 

burdens on small entities in particular. 

And the Commission is considering 

several possibilities for expanding the 

universe of operators who could access 

a streamlined process for adding 

satellite points of communication, 

which could also provide a benefit to a 

greater number of entities. And in 

considering timelines for taking action, 

including possible shot clocks, the 

Commission asks several questions to 

consider whether timeframes, and 

which timeframes are appropriate. 

40. The Commission projects that the 

changes considered in the FNPRM will 

be cost-neutral or result in lower costs 

for small entities and other operators. 

Additionally, while the Commission 

believes the possible rule changes 

considered in the FNPRM will generally 

reduce costs and burdens for the 

regulated community, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether any of the 

costs associated with any possible rule 

changes would have a significant 

negative economic impact on small 

entities. The Commission expects to 

more fully consider the economic 

impact and alternatives for small 

entities based on its review of the record 

and any comments filed in response to 

the FNPRM and this IRFA. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

41. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

42. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 

4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, and 

332 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 

301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 332, that this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

43. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, in accordance 

with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

document, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1 and 25 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 

U.S.C. 2461. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1206 by adding 

paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows: 

§ 1.1206 Permit-but-disclose proceedings. 

(a) * * * 

(14) Applications for space and earth 

station authorizations, including 

requests for U.S. market access through 

non-U.S. licensed space stations. 

* * * * * 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 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. 

§ 25.110 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 25.110 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (e). 

[FR Doc. 2023–26700 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 215 

[Docket No. FRA–2023–0021, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC94 

Freight Car Safety Standards 

Implementing the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend 

the Freight Car Safety Standards (FCSS) 

to implement section 22425 of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Act). The Act places certain restrictions 

on newly built freight cars placed into 

service in the United States (U.S.) 

including limiting content that 

originates from a country of concern 

(COC) or is sourced from a state-owned 

enterprise (SOE) and prohibiting the use 

of sensitive technology that originates 

from a COC or SOE. The Act mandates 

that FRA issue a regulation to monitor 

and enforce industry’s compliance with 

the standards of the Act. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received by February 6, 2024. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2023–21 may be 

submitted by going to https://

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulation.gov; this includes any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Check Kam, Mechanical Engineer, 

Office of Railroad Safety at (202) 366– 

2139, email: check.kam@dot.gov; or 

Michael Masci, Senior Attorney, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 

302–7117, email: michael.masci@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

CBP—Customs and Border Protection 

CE—Categorical Exclusion 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

COC—Country of Concern 

DOT—Department of Transportation 

EA—Environmental Assessment 

EIS—Environmental Impact Statement 

FCSS—Freight Car Safety Standards 

FR—Federal Register 

FRA—Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA—Federal Transit Administration 

GS—General Schedule 

IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

IP—Intellectual Property 

IRFA—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS