Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3481 

Healthcare Attachment Standards 

• Would the specifications within the 

CDA Attachments IG, if adopted as part 

of a certification criterion, support more 

effective exchange of healthcare 

attachments for prior authorization? 

Would any changes to the IG be needed, 

or would additional functionalities or 

standards be required for effective 

implementation of the CDA 

Attachments IG in certified health IT? 

• Would the use of FHIR Documents, 

if adopted as part of a certification 

criterion, support more effective 

exchange of healthcare attachments? 

Are there any gaps or constraints that 

would need to be further specified, such 

as through an IG, in order for FHIR 

Documents to be effective for this use 

case when implemented in certified 

health IT? Would the adoption of a 

certification criterion for FHIR 

Documents support other administrative 

use cases beyond prior authorization? 

• Given limited testing of these 

approaches to date, what would be a 

feasible timeline for use of the CDA 

Attachments IG or FHIR Documents in 

production for prior authorization 

transactions? 

• Which of these approaches would 

better accommodate improvements over 

time to meet payer and provider needs? 

Should ONC consider adopting 

certification criteria referencing one 

approach over the other, or should ONC 

consider supporting both approaches 

within certified health IT? 

• If the IGs developed by the Da Vinci 

Project, or an alternate set of IGs 

addressing the full scope of prior 

authorization workflows, are not yet 

ready for adoption in certified health IT, 

should ONC propose certification 

criteria to support healthcare 

attachments transactions for prior 

authorization alone? 

• Healthcare attachments are used for 

a wide range of operations and 

administrative workflows beyond prior 

authorization. Are either of the 

standards discussed above commonly 

used in other administrative or 

operations transactions? Would there be 

a burden or benefit to using either, or 

both, standards in light of other 

administrative or operations workflows? 

Are there additional standards or 

implementation specifications ONC 

should consider that are in common use 

for healthcare attachments used in other 

administrative or operations workflows? 

Impact on Patients 

• How could potential changes to the 

Certification Program to better support 

prior authorization positively impact 

healthcare consumers? 

• How could potential changes 

reduce the time for patients to receive 

needed healthcare services, reduce 

patient non-adherence, and/or lower 

out-of-pocket costs? 

• Besides the provider to payer 

interactions discussed in this RFI, is 

there additional functionality that could 

be added to the Certification Program 

that would better support patients’ 

participation in the prior authorization 

process? 

Impact on Providers 

• To what degree is availability of 

electronic prior authorization 

capabilities within certified health IT 

likely to reduce burden for healthcare 

providers who currently engage in prior 

authorization activities? 

• To what degree are healthcare 

providers likely to use these new 

capabilities across their patient panels? 

Will additional incentives or 

requirements be needed to ensure 

healthcare providers effectively use 

these capabilities? What accompanying 

documentation or support would be 

needed to ensure that technology 

capabilities are implemented in ways 

that effectively improve clinical 

workflows? 

• What estimates can providers share 

about the cost and time (in hours) 

associated with adopting and 

implementing electronic prior 

authorization functionality as part of 

care delivery processes? 

Impact on Developers 

• What estimates can health IT 

developers share about the cost and 

time (in hours) of developing electronic 

prior authorization functionality within 

certified health IT products? 

• What factors would inform the 

burden for health IT developers to 

develop certified Health IT Modules for 

electronic prior authorization based on 

the three Da Vinci IGs described above? 

• What would be the burden on 

health IT developers for prior 

authorization certification criteria 

referencing the base FHIR standard if 

there were not yet specific IGs adopted 

as well? How would potentially moving 

to criteria with use case specific IGs 

over time impact development burden? 

Would such a staged approach be 

detrimental or beneficial to the longterm development timeline and burden 

for health IT developers seeking to 

support electronic prior authorization? 

Payer Implementation 

• How could the Certification 

Program support the technology needs 

of healthcare payers in implementing 

electronic prior authorization? Should 

ONC consider payer workflows in the 

development of certification criteria to 

support the potential use of certified 

Health IT Modules by healthcare 

payers? Would the availability of 

certified Health IT Modules supporting 

these workflows reduce the burden for 

healthcare payers of engaging with 

healthcare providers in prior 

authorization processes? 

• To what extent would healthcare 

payers be likely to use these certified 

Health IT Modules if they were 

available? To what extent are health IT 

developers likely to seek certification 

for Health IT Modules supporting payer 

workflows if these certification criteria 

were available? 

Dated: January 19, 2022. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01309 Filed 1–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–45–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 21–456; RM–11855; FCC 21– 

123; FR ID 66659] 

Spectrum Sharing Rules for NonGeostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite 

Service Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC or Commission) 

proposes to revise its rules governing 

spectrum sharing among nongeostationary satellite orbit, fixedsatellite service (NGSO FSS) systems. 

The FCC proposes that its existing 

spectrum sharing mechanism for NGSO 

FSS systems will be limited to those 

systems approved in the same 

processing round. The FCC also 

proposes to adopt a rule providing that 

later-round NGSO FSS systems will 

have to protect earlier-round systems, 

and invites comment on how to define 

such protection. In addition, the FCC 

seeks comment on whether to sunset, 

after a period of time, the interference 

protection afforded to an NGSO FSS 

system because of its processing round 

status. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 25, 2022; reply comments are 

due on or before April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket No. 21–456, by 

any of the following methods: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• Electronic Filers. Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs. 

• Paper Filers. Parties who file by 

paper must include an original and one 

copy of each filing. 

Filings may 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. 

• 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 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• 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. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), or 

to request reasonable accommodations 

for filing comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.), send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call 202–418–0530 (voice) or 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay 

DeCell, 202–418–0803. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 21–123, 

adopted December 14, 2021, and 

released December 15, 2021. The full 

text is available online at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-123A1.pdf. The document is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities, send an email 

to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

& Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

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

Comment Filing Requirements 

Interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated in the DATES section 

above. Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). 

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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), the Commission builds upon 

its efforts to update rules governing a 

new generation of non-geostationary 

satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service 

(NGSO FSS) systems. In an 

accompanying Order, we grant in part a 

petition for rulemaking filed by Space 

Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX). In 

the NPRM, we seek comment on further 

revisions to the spectrum sharing 

requirements among NGSO FSS 

systems. We propose that the 

Commission’s existing spectrum sharing 

mechanism for NGSO FSS systems will 

be limited to those systems approved in 

the same processing round. We also 

propose to adopt a rule providing that 

later-round NGSO FSS systems will 

have to protect earlier-round systems, 

and invite comment on how to define 

such protection. In addition, we seek 

comment on whether to sunset, after a 

period of time, the interference 

protection afforded to an NGSO FSS 

system because of its processing round 

status. This rulemaking will continue to 

facilitate the deployment of NGSO FSS 

systems capable of providing broadband 

and other services on a global basis, and 

will promote competition among NGSO 

FSS system proponents, including the 

market entry of new competitors. 

II. Background 

In recent years, the Commission has 

received an unprecedented number of 

applications for NGSO space station 

licenses, including for NGSO FSS 

systems. 

Applications for NGSO FSS system 

licenses are considered in groups based 

on filing date, under a processing round 

procedure. The Commission reviews 

each application in the processing 

round and all the pleadings filed in 

response to each application. Based 

upon this review and consideration of 

such other matters as it may officially 

notice, the Commission will grant all 

the applications for which the 

Commission finds that the applicant is 

legally, technically, and otherwise 

qualified, that the proposed facilities 

and operations comply with all 

applicable rules, regulations, and 

policies, and that grant of the 

application will serve the public 

interest, convenience and necessity. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3483 

The Commission has adopted rules 

for spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS 

systems. NGSO FSS operators must 

coordinate with one another in good 

faith the use of commonly authorized 

frequencies. Absent a coordination 

agreement between two or more NGSO 

FSS satellite systems, a default 

spectrum-splitting procedure applies. 

Under the default spectrum-splitting 

procedure, whenever the increase in 

system noise temperature of an earth 

station receiver, or a space station 

receiver for a satellite with on-board 

processing, of either system, DT/T, 

exceeds 6 percent due to interference 

from emissions originating in the other 

system in a commonly authorized 

frequency band, such frequency band 

will be divided among the affected 

satellite networks in accordance with 

the following: (1) Each of n (number of) 

satellite networks involved must select 

1/n of the assigned spectrum available 

in each of these frequency bands; (2) the 

affected station(s) of the respective 

satellite systems may operate in only the 

selected (1/n) spectrum associated with 

its satellite system while the DT/T of 6 

percent threshold is exceeded; and (3) 

all affected station(s) may resume 

operations throughout the assigned 

frequency bands once the threshold is 

no longer exceeded. 

In the NGSO FSS Report and Order, 

the Commission stated that it will 

‘‘initially limit’’ sharing under the DT/ 

T of 6 percent threshold to qualified 

applicants in a processing round. The 

Commission explained that treatment of 

later applicants must necessarily be 

case-by-case based on the situation at 

the time, and considering both the need 

to protect existing expectations and 

investments and provide for additional 

entry as well as any comments filed by 

incumbent operators and reasoning 

presented by the new applicant. 

On April 30, 2020, SpaceX filed a 

petition for rulemaking to revise and 

clarify the Commission’s spectrum 

sharing rules for NGSO FSS systems. 

SpaceX proposes that the Commission 

codify protection rights for NGSO FSS 

systems from those systems authorized 

through a later processing round. 

III. Discussion 

After review of the SpaceX Petition 

and the comments and opposition filed, 

we conclude that the record on the 

Petition discloses sufficient reasons to 

justify the institution of a rulemaking 

proceeding seeking further comment on 

such a proposal. Indeed, the Petition 

raises fundamental issues affecting the 

spectrum access rights of NGSO FSS 

systems. When the Commission recently 

considered and revised several 

important elements of NGSO FSS 

licensing, it left to ‘‘case-by-case’’ 

evaluations how NGSO FSS 

applications filed after a processing 

round would be treated. Since then, the 

Commission has initiated second NGSO 

FSS processing rounds in frequency 

bands subject to a prior processing 

round and gained further experience 

implementing a case-by-case approach 

to NGSO FSS applications filed after a 

relevant processing round. The time is 

ripe to consider updating the 

Commission’s rules concerning these 

issues. 

We therefore initiate a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to consider 

revisions to the treatment of NGSO FSS 

systems authorized through different 

processing rounds. We also seek 

comment on the application of any rule 

changes in this proceeding to existing 

licensees, grantees, applicants, and 

market access petitioners. Further 

consideration of these issues is 

appropriate because of the strong 

interest shown not only in multiple 

NGSO FSS applications, but also in the 

comments on the Petition. Given the 

Commission’s 2017 rulemaking on 

NGSO FSS issues and the ideas already 

submitted in response to the petition for 

rulemaking, we believe that proceeding 

with a notice of proposed rulemaking at 

this stage will allow for fulsome 

comment of the issues without forcing 

the delay associated with an initial 

notice of inquiry. 

In its Petition, SpaceX requests that 

the Commission revise or clarify the 

spectrum sharing obligations that apply 

among co-frequency NGSO FSS systems 

authorized through different processing 

rounds. SpaceX proposes that the 

default spectrum-splitting procedure be 

expressly limited to those NGSO FSS 

systems authorized within the same 

processing round. Among systems 

authorized through different processing 

rounds, SpaceX proposes that laterround NGSO FSS systems protect 

earlier-round systems up to a specified 

interference-to-noise (I/N) level to be 

developed and adopted by the 

Commission, but that this protection 

should sunset after a period of time. 

SpaceX also argues that sharing of 

beam-pointing information should be 

explicitly required among NGSO FSS 

operators to facilitate interference 

analyses. We address and invite 

comment on these proposals, and also 

seek comment on alternative proposals 

raised in the comments, below. 

A. Limiting the Default SpectrumSplitting Procedure to Systems 

Authorized Through the Same 

Processing Round 

While the Commission stated in the 

NGSO FSS Report and Order that it will 

‘‘initially limit’’ the spectrum-splitting 

procedure to qualified NGSO FSS 

applicants in a processing round, there 

is no such limitation in the relevant rule 

text. SpaceX contends that NGSO FSS 

operators have planned, invested, and 

begun deploying based on their 

assessment of the specific 

characteristics of other participants in 

their processing round, and that these 

characteristics allow licensees to 

estimate the amount of spectrum likely 

to be available during a situation 

governed by the spectrum-splitting 

procedure. To provide greater certainty 

to NGSO FSS operators as to their future 

sharing environment, SpaceX proposes 

that the Commission adopt a rule 

providing that the existing spectrumsplitting procedure applies only to 

NGSO FSS systems authorized within 

the same processing round. 

This proposal is consistent with 

Commission licensing decisions. In each 

recent NGSO FSS system license and 

grant of market access, the requirement 

to apply the default spectrum-splitting 

procedure has been limited to among 

NGSO FSS systems filed within the 

same processing round. We believe that 

adopting a rule limiting the existing 

spectrum-splitting procedure to only 

NGSO FSS systems authorized within 

the same processing round will provide 

greater clarity and regulatory certainty 

to NGSO FSS system licensees and 

market access recipients, and therefore 

propose to adopt it. We invite comment 

on this proposal. This approach, if 

adopted, would eliminate the ‘‘case-bycase’’ consideration of how to treat later 

applicants relative to approved systems, 

which the Commission previously 

explained would take into account 

various factors, including the potential 

for additional entry. We seek comment 

on how limiting the existing spectrumsplitting procedure to NGSO FSS 

systems authorized within the same 

processing round will impact later 

applicants, including the potential for 

additional entry. 

B. Protection of Earlier-Round Systems 

From Later-Round Systems 

For an NGSO FSS licensee to invest 

potentially billions of dollars in a new 

system, SpaceX argues it must have 

some certainty that its spectrum rights 

will be maintained as later-filed NGSO 

FSS applications are considered. 

SpaceX therefore proposes that NGSO 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3484 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

FSS systems filed in a later processing 

round be required to protect NGSO FSS 

systems authorized through an earlier 

processing round. 

We believe that adopting this 

principle in our rules would clarify the 

rights and obligations of NGSO FSS 

system grantees. The protection of an 

NGSO FSS system from systems 

authorized through a subsequent 

processing round goes to the heart of the 

stability of interference environment the 

Commission intended to create through 

use of the processing round procedure. 

Indeed, the Commission’s licensing of a 

later-round NGSO FSS system has 

confirmed that it must protect earlierround systems from harmful 

interference. 

We therefore propose to adopt a rule 

that NGSO FSS licensees and market 

access recipients are entitled to 

protection from NGSO FSS systems 

authorized through later processing 

rounds. Specifically, we propose to 

adopt a rule providing that, prior to 

commencing operations, an NGSO FSS 

licensee or market access recipient must 

either certify that it has completed a 

coordination agreement with any 

operational NGSO FSS system licensed 

or granted U.S. market access in an 

earlier processing round, or demonstrate 

that it will not cause harmful 

interference to any such system with 

which coordination has not been 

completed. We also discuss below 

alternative, specific protection criteria 

that could be developed for this 

proposed rule. Notwithstanding a 

requirement to protect earlier-round 

NGSO FSS systems, we expect that 

coordination among NGSO FSS 

operators, including those authorized 

through different processing rounds, 

offers the best opportunity for efficient 

spectrum sharing. Accordingly, we also 

propose to adopt a rule providing that 

the good-faith coordination requirement 

applies among all NGSO FSS grantees, 

including those authorized through 

different processing rounds. We invite 

comment on these proposals, including 

on the burdens associated with any 

technical demonstrations of 

compatibility. In particular, we invite 

comment on how best to establish the 

protection of authorized NGSO FSS 

systems under deployment while 

encouraging competition and new 

entrants into the market. 

C. Level of Protection for Earlier-Round 

Systems 

To quantify the level to which a laterround NGSO FSS system would have to 

protect an earlier-round system, SpaceX 

recommends the Commission develop 

and adopt an appropriate interferenceto-noise (I/N) limit. While not proposing 

a specific I/N value, SpaceX suggests 

that such a limit incorporate a standard 

reference antenna mask and standard 

noise temperature. Applicants in a later 

processing round would be required to 

demonstrate that their proposed systems 

could comply with the I/N limit based 

on a probabilistic analysis. In addition, 

such an I/N limit could specify a 

percentage of time during which the 

limit may be exceeded. 

Beyond the initial difficulty of 

developing such an I/N limit for 

protection of NGSO FSS systems, 

commenters raise potential 

shortcomings of an I/N approach. 

Because the I/N limit would reflect 

generic NGSO system parameters and 

not the parameters of the NGSO system 

to be protected, it could provide 

insufficient protection to an NGSO 

system with especially sensitive 

antennas. Adoption of an I/N limit 

could also discourage coordination if 

either the earlier-round licensee or laterround licensee preferred to operate 

within the I/N limit rather than a 

negotiated alternative. Requiring 

applicants to perform interference 

analyses for the potentially thousands of 

satellites authorized through previous 

processing rounds, many of which may 

never be launched, could also place 

undue burdens on new entrants, 

especially those with limited resources. 

Commenters propose alternatives to 

an I/N limit that would provide for the 

protection of earlier-round NGSO FSS 

systems from later-round systems. 

ViaSat suggests the use of network 

performance degradation as an 

interference criterium. AST 

recommends the Commission consider 

an approach that is harmonized with 

Recommendation ITU–R S.1323–2 or RR 

No. 22.5L of the ITU Radio Regulations, 

which use for a protection criterion the 

increase of the percentage of the time 

allowance for the carrier-to-noise (C/N) 

value associated with the shortest 

percentage of time specified in the 

short-term performance objective of the 

system to be protected. O3b proposes 

that NGSO FSS systems authorized 

through different processing rounds 

make use of the existing spectrumsplitting mechanism, but that the 

earlier-round system be entitled to use 

75% of the available spectrum and the 

later-round system be entitled to use 

25% of the available spectrum, instead 

of the equal split applicable to NGSO 

FSS systems authorized through the 

same processing round. 

We believe that quantifying a level of 

protection for earlier-round systems 

would clarify the rights and obligations 

of NGSO FSS licensees in different 

processing rounds. We invite specific 

comment on what an appropriate I/N 

limit would be to protect NGSO FSS 

systems, what an appropriate percentage 

of time would be during which the I/N 

limit may be exceeded, and what the 

standard reference antenna mask and 

noise temperature should be in 

developing an appropriate I/N value or 

other criteria. In addition, we invite 

comment on the alternative proposals 

above and on any other appropriate 

means to ensure protection of earlierround NGSO FSS systems from laterround systems, while allowing 

meaningful new entry and encouraging 

operator-to-operator coordination as the 

first resort. 

In particular, we invite comment on 

whether to adopt criteria based upon the 

percentage of degraded throughput 

experienced by the NGSO FSS system. 

Considering the degraded throughput 

may be appropriate because most, if not 

all, modern NGSO systems will use 

adaptive coding and modulation (ACM) 

to allow maintaining a satellite 

connection in spite of signal 

degradation, but at lower throughput 

rates. Such criteria could be developed 

consistent with Recommendation ITU–R 

S.2131–0, ‘‘Method for the 

determination of performance objectives 

for satellite hypothetical reference 

digital paths using adaptive coding and 

modulation.’’ That recommendation 

suggests that satellite systems using 

ACM should be designed to meet 

performance objectives stated as either 

the packet error ratio or the spectral 

efficiency (bit/s/Hz) as a function of 

C/N. While this Recommendation does 

not provide specific values for the 

percentage of degraded throughput that 

should not be exceeded, we invite 

comment on establishing a limit under 

such a criteria. We also seek comment 

on specific values and on the suitability 

of this approach in general, including 

on the burdens of computing any limit 

that may be adopted under the 

alternatives set forth above. Should a 

degraded throughput analysis consider 

unavailability as well? 

D. Sharing Beam-Pointing Information 

The Commission’s rules require 

NGSO FSS operators to coordinate in 

good faith the use of commonly 

authorized frequencies. Beyond this 

general requirement, SpaceX proposes 

that earlier-round NGSO FSS system 

operators be specifically required to 

share data on their beam locations with 

later-round NGSO FSS system operators 

to facilitate analysis of and compliance 

with its proposed I/N metric. SpaceX 

argues that confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements could ensure that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3485 

data is not used by competitors for any 

purpose other than avoiding 

interference, such as marketing. Several 

commenters raise concerns that a 

requirement to share beam data may be 

inefficient, impractical, or overly 

competitively sensitive in certain cases. 

One commenter also suggests the 

Commission adopt broader information 

sharing requirements for operator-tooperator coordination. 

We believe that information sharing 

among NGSO FSS operators is essential 

to their efficient use of spectrum. 

Beyond our existing, flexible, good-faith 

coordination requirement, we invite 

comment on whether to specify sharing 

of certain types of information, such as 

beam-pointing information, that may be 

necessary for the implementation of any 

spectrum-sharing solution or protection 

criteria between NGSO FSS systems. 

Such information sharing requirements 

could involve NGSO FSS systems 

authorized through the same processing 

round or different processing rounds. 

We also seek comment on any practical 

concerns associated with such 

information sharing, and how best to 

address any associated, potential, 

competitive harms. For example, should 

the Commission adopt rules or 

mechanisms, for example, a protective 

order, to facilitate the sharing of the 

information? More broadly, should we 

add a definition of ‘‘good faith’’ 

coordination in our rules? If so, what 

elements should it include? For 

example, should NGSO FSS operators 

specifically be required to share all 

necessary technical information to 

perform an interference analysis, and do 

so in a timely fashion upon request, to 

meet the ‘‘good faith’’ coordination 

standard? We also seek comment on 

how the Commission might encourage 

NGSO FSS operators to build and 

deploy systems capable of sharing 

beam-pointing data and enabling other 

methods of spectrum sharing through 

coordination. How could the 

Commission encourage the development 

and deployment of systems that are 

more spectrally efficient? How might 

the Commission modify its NGSO 

sharing rules to incentivize flexible and 

efficient deployment? 

E. Sunsetting of Protection 

SpaceX proposes that the protection 

of earlier-round systems from laterround systems sunset after a period of 

time. SpaceX argues that a sunsetting 

provision would encourage earlierround licensees to coordinate with laterround licensees, and avoid entrenching 

incumbents and stymieing future 

innovation. One commenter similarly 

argues that processing rounds may be 

‘‘condensed’’ and protections sunset 

over time. Sunsetting could occur, for 

example, six years after licensing to 

coincide with the first NGSO system 

deployment milestone, ten years after 

licensing, or fifteen years after licensing. 

Other commenters argue that any 

sunsetting provision would be arbitrary, 

premature, or unnecessary given the 

Commission’s existing good-faith 

coordination requirement. 

We invite comment on sunsetting of 

protections applied to NGSO FSS 

systems, including the timing of such 

sunsetting. In particular, we seek 

comment on whether sunsetting 

protection for NGSO FSS systems under 

deployment would unduly disrupt their 

operations. Should we consider 

sunsetting protections for an NGSO FSS 

system before the expiration of its 15- 

year license term? Would a shorter 

sunset period better promote 

competition? If so, when should the 

trigger/start date for sunsetting begin? 

At the date of the license grant, the 

beginning of the license period, or some 

other time? Should we expect that 

advances in technology for secondgeneration NGSO FSS systems will 

make sharing with new entrants easier? 

Or, conversely, would allowing new 

entrants to take advantage of 

technological enhancements in 

incumbent systems dull the incentives 

for incumbents to invest in such 

upgrades? What protection should apply 

to an NGSO FSS system after any 

sunsetting? How would sunsetting of 

protections affect the willingness to 

invest in NGSO FSS system 

development, and the likelihood of 

robust services being deployed to the 

public by such systems? Would a 

sunsetting provision promote 

competition, including the market entry 

of new competitors? Are there other 

ways to fashion a sunsetting provision 

that would maintain the reasonable 

expectations of earlier licensees and at 

the same time further the goal of 

promoting competition? 

F. Application of Rule Changes 

NGSO FSS systems and system 

proposals currently have a variety of 

Commission approval statuses, 

including pending applications for new 

systems and authorizations for systems 

that were filed for in a previous 

processing round. Because of the large 

investments already made and planned 

for these novel and ambitious systems, 

we seek comment on whether to apply 

all, or some, of the rule changes adopted 

in this proceeding, including changes to 

the good-faith coordination 

requirement, only to new license 

applications, license modification 

applications, application amendments, 

and market access petitions filed after 

the new rules go into effect. Maintaining 

the expectations of current licensees, 

market access recipients, applicants, 

and market access petitioners may serve 

the public interest by providing 

regulatory stability upon which these 

systems may continue to develop. 

However, we invite comment on 

whether applying rule changes to 

existing grantees or pending applicants 

would advance competition and 

encourage new entry into the market. If 

we did apply new rules to existing 

grants or pending applications, should 

we allow the grantees and applicants a 

period of time to request modification of 

their authorizations or to amend their 

applications before the new rule 

changes take effect? To the extent that 

we apply the revised rules to existing 

grants or pending applications, we seek 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

applying the rule changes to existing 

grantees or pending applicants that are 

part of already-closed processing 

rounds. How would this affect 

expectations of existing grantees or 

applicants who have filed by specific 

deadlines to gain entry into a particular 

processing round? If we decide not to 

apply new rules to existing grantees, 

what impact, if any, would that have on 

existing grant conditions already 

incorporated into NGSO FSS system 

authorizations, including those grants 

conditioned on compliance with rules 

or policies adopted by the Commission 

in the future? 

G. Digital Equity and Inclusion 

Finally, the Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, we seek comment 

on how our proposals may promote or 

inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 

inclusion, and accessibility, as well the 

scope of the Commission’s relevant legal 

authority. 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3486 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

NPRM. We request written public 

comments on this IRFA. Commenters 

must identify their comments as 

responses to the IRFA and must file the 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated in the DATES section above 

and in accordance with the comment 

filing requirements. The Commission 

will send a copy of the NPRM, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 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 

In recent years, the Commission has 

received an unprecedented number of 

applications for NGSO space station 

licenses, including for NGSO FSS 

systems. Traveling closer to the Earth 

than a traditional GSO satellite, lowand medium-orbit NGSO FSS satellite 

constellations are capable of providing 

broadband services to industry, 

enterprise, and residential customers 

with lower latency and wider coverage 

than was previously available via 

satellite. This rulemaking will continue 

to facilitate the deployment of NGSO 

FSS systems capable of providing 

broadband and other services on a 

global basis, and will promote 

competition among NGSO FSS system 

proponents, including the market entry 

of new competitors. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) seeks comment on proposed 

revisions to the Commission’s rules 

governing the treatment of NGSO FSS 

systems filed in different processing 

rounds. In particular, the NPRM 

proposes that the Commission’s existing 

spectrum sharing mechanism for NGSO 

FSS systems will be limited to those 

systems approved in the same 

processing round. The NPRM also 

proposes to adopt a rule providing that 

later-round NGSO FSS systems will 

have to protect earlier-round systems, 

and invites comment on how to define 

such protection. In addition, the NPRM 

seeks comment on whether to sunset, 

after a period of time, the interference 

protection afforded to an NGSO FSS 

system because of its processing round 

status. 

B. Legal Basis 

The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, 308(b), 

and 316 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

157(a), 303, 308(b), 316. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules May 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 by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

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. This 

category 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 category has a small 

business size standard of $35 million or 

less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

The NPRM invites comment on 

potential changes to the spectrum 

sharing requirements among NGSO FSS 

satellite systems. Because of the costs 

involved in developing and deploying 

an NGSO FSS satellite constellation, we 

anticipate that few NGSO FSS operators 

affected by this rulemaking would 

qualify under the definition of ‘‘small 

entity.’’ 

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.’’ 

The NPRM invites comment on 

different means to protect NGSO FSS 

systems licensed through the 

Commission’s processing round 

framework, including, as one option, 

whether those NGSO FSS systems 

authorized through a later processing 

round should be required to submit 

technical demonstrations that they will 

not interfere with NGSO FSS systems 

authorized through an earlier processing 

round. The NPRM invites specific 

comment on the burdens associated 

with such submissions, and also seeks 

comment on alternative means of 

protection of NGSO FSS systems. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 

47 CFR 1.407, that the petition for 

rulemaking filed by Space Exploration 

Holdings, LLC, Revision of Section 

25.261 of the Commission’s Rules to 

Increase Certainty in Spectrum Sharing 

Obligations Among Non-Geostationary 

Orbit Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, 

RM–11855, is granted in part and 

deferred in part, the opposition filed by 

WorldVu Satellites Limited is denied in 

part and deferred in part, and the 

opposition filed by Theia Holdings A, 

Inc. is deferred. 

It is further ordered, pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316, 

that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center will send a copy of 

this Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3487 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 25 as follows: 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.261 by revising 

paragraph (b), revising the first sentence 

in paragraph (c)(1), and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 25.261 Sharing among NGSO FSS space 

stations. 

* * * * * 

(b) Coordination. NGSO FSS licensees 

and market access recipients must 

coordinate in good faith the use of 

commonly authorized frequencies 

regardless of their processing round 

status, unless otherwise provided by the 

Commission. 

(c) * * * 

(1) Each of n (number of) satellite 

networks involved that were licensed or 

granted market access through the same 

processing round must select 1/n of the 

assigned spectrum available in each of 

these frequency bands. * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) Protection of earlier-round 

systems. Prior to commencing 

operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or 

market access recipient must either 

certify that it has completed a 

coordination agreement with any 

operational NGSO FSS system licensed 

or granted U.S. market access in an 

earlier processing round, or demonstrate 

that it will not cause harmful 

interference to any such system with 

which coordination has not been 

completed. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01204 Filed 1–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[FRS 65285; MB Docket No. 21–502; DA 

21–1635] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

(Snowflake, Arizona; Millerton, 

Oklahoma; Powers, Oregon; Mount 

Enterprise and Paint Rock, Texas; 

Hardwick, Vermont; and Meeteetse, 

Wyoming) 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, on its 

own motion, proposes the deletion of 

seven vacant allotments in various 

communities in Arizona, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming. 

We tentatively conclude that it is in the 

public interest to delete seven vacant 

allotments that have been offered in two 

FM auctions. No bids were entered for 

these allotments in the recently 

completed FM Auction 109. These 

permits are now considered unsold, and 

the allotments remain vacant. Deletion 

of these allotments may create other 

opportunities in nearby communities for 

new FM allotments or upgrades of 

existing stations. Therefore, we believe 

that the proposed deletion of these 

vacant allotments may promote a more 

effective and efficient use of the FM 

broadcast spectrum. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before February 14, 2022 and reply 

comments on or before March 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2054. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

21–502, adopted December 23, 2021, 

and released December 23, 2021. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

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

ecfs/. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 to read as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336 and 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.202(b), amend the Table of 

FM Allotments, by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Snowflake’’ 

under Arizona; 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Millerton’’ 

under Oklahoma; 

■ c. Revising the entry for ‘‘Powers’’ 

under Oregon; 

■ d. Revising the entries for ‘‘Mount 

Enterprise’’ and ‘‘Paint Rock’’ under 

Texas; 

■ e. Revising the entry for ‘‘Hardwick’’ 

under Vermont; 

■ f. Revising the entry for ‘‘Meeteetse’’ 

under Wyoming. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 73.202 Table of Allotments. 

* * * * * 

(b) Table of FM Allotments. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b) 

U.S. States Channel No. 

Arizona 

* * * * * 

Snowflake.


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1