FCC Proposes Spectrum Allocation for Emergent Space Operations

Content

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) looks to bring spectrum abundance for emergent
space activities. “Emergent” or “emergent space operations” are those spacecraft or commercial operations in space that use
radio spectrum for control of, or communications with, a spacecraft, but which are not communications satellites. Currently
there is an acute shortage of usable and readily accessible spectrum for telemetry, tracking and command (TT&C) functions
that are essential for operating emergent spacecraft. Accordingly, this document seeks to clarify and expand the Commission's
traditional regulatory classifications so that emergent space operations have more predictable access to spectrum. Additionally,
this document proposes to add a secondary allocation for the Space Operation Service (SOS) in spectrum bands that could support
emergent space activities, particularly in frequency bands allocated for non-Federal use that may be lightly used in certain
geographic areas. This document also proposes to allow existing licensees to lease their spectrum to earth station licensees
to provide SOS in connection with emergent spacecraft.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before May 11, 2026. Reply Comments are due on or before June 8, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
DATES
section above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments,
identified by SB Docket No. 26-54, by any of the following methods:

• Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

• Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
  Junction, MD 20701.
  • Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and

   Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
  

• People 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Duall, 202-418-1103, stephen.duall@fcc.gov or Brandon Padgett, 202-418-1377, brandon.padgett@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in SB Docket No. 26-54; FCC 26-13, adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026. The full text of this document
is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email
to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business
days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating
in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves
with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Commission document, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-13A1.pdf. The Commission invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed
by the deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM may contain new or proposed modified information collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collections
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make “public data assets” available under an open license and as “open Government
data assets,” i.e., in machine readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual property rights, and based on an
open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented “in accordance with guidance
by the Director” of the OMB. The term “public data asset” means “a data asset, or part thereof, maintained by the federal
government that has been, or may be, released to the public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).” A “data asset” is “a collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped
together,” and “data” is “recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is recorded.”

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of the NPRM will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

Introduction

1. In the geopolitical race to commercialize and dominate the Final Frontier, historic levels of private investment have paved
   the way for the engineering marvels and daring endeavors that now take place in outer space. Once the province of science
   fiction, American companies are now upgrading, relocating, and servicing satellites; manufacturing pharmaceuticals in space;
   building private inhabitable spacecraft; and conducting private robotic missions to the surface of the Moon. Emergent space
   operations like these depend on the use of radiocommunications for their spacecraft, but they are not the type of communications
   satellites that have traditionally commanded much of the Commission's regulatory attention.

2. Spectrum is a critical component of all space operations. Even for spacecraft that do not provide radiocommunications services
   to the public, reliable spectrum access is mandatory for safety functions like telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) to
   control spacecraft in orbit. American innovators, however, currently face an acute shortage of usable and readily accessible
   spectrum for TT&C, and that spectrum crunch threatens to delay—or even prevent—the growth of domestic space technologies and
   jeopardize U.S. leadership in the booming global space economy.

3. This shortage of spectrum is the product of several interlocking factors. For one, spectrum for TT&C is largely unavailable
   on a standalone basis, absent a separately authorized radiocommunications service. Emergent space innovations like inhabitable
   spacecraft and orbital laboratories, however, do not typically provide a separately authorized radiocommunications service.
   For another, the spectrum bands where TT&C may be available on a standalone basis tend to be congested and occupied

   primarily by Federal users. And for another, even when the Commission does authorize a company's use of spectrum for standalone
   TT&C, it occurs under a case-by-case review process that may involve extensive coordination and delay.

4. The Commission is aggressively pursuing a policy of spectrum abundance in outer space. Earlier this year, we launched a
   proceeding to release up to 20,000 megahertz of spectrum for traditional connectivity services, including high-speed broadband
   from constellations in low-Earth orbit. The Commission has also begun a comprehensive revisiting its licensing and regulatory
   framework for space communications in the Space Modernization NPRM.

5. Now, with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we focus on bringing spectrum abundance to support cutting-edge, emergent ventures in space. The NPRM pursues two paths towards abundance. First, we seek to clarify and expand our traditional regulatory classifications so that emergent operations have more predictable
   spectrum access. Second, we explore new spectrum bands that could support new use cases on a dedicated basis. In each path, our goal remains the same:
   provide a clear, reliable, and expeditious path to support the groundbreaking technologies and services that companies are
   developing in space. With the proposals in the NPRM, we look to find ways to use market-based principles to see spectrum resources put to more intensive use in the service of
   the space economy. By thinking creatively and expansively, we have the opportunity to go from zero non-Federal spectrum available
   today to support emergent space operations to at least 25 megahertz of such spectrum, and potentially much, much more, if
   all the proposals in the NPRM are ultimately adopted.

Background

A. Important Terminology and Definitions

1. To facilitate a precise discussion why emergent space operations may not have sufficient spectrum availability, we first
   clarify key terms and definitions currently used in our rules governing space communications.

2. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission
   of energy or communications or signals by radio” from or within the areas specified in section 301 or on a mobile station
   within the jurisdiction of the United States without a license issued by the Commission. Although the Act does not define
   the term “signals,” it defines “communication by radio” as “the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures,
   and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt,
   forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.”

3. Consistent with the Act, our rules state that “[n]o person shall use or operate apparatus for the transmission of energy
   or communications or signals by space or earth stations except under, and in accordance with, an appropriate authorization
   granted by the Federal Communications Commission.” Under our rules, a “space station” is a “station located on an object which
   is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.” An “earth station”
   is a “station located either on the Earth's surface or within the major portion of Earth's atmosphere and intended for communication:
   (1) With one or more space stations; or (2) With one or more stations of the same kind by means of one or more reflecting
   satellites or other objects in space.” Our rules define “radiocommunication” as “telecommunication by means of radio waves”
   and “telecommunication” as “any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence
   of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.” Section 301 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall
   use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in
   accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.” Accordingly, the transmission
   or reception of intelligence of any nature to or from a station beyond the majority of the Earth's atmosphere via radio waves
   is a space radiocommunication and, pursuant to our rules, requires an authorization by the Commission.

4. Radiocommunications are classified and regulated as distinct kinds of “radiocommunication service,” defined as “a service
   . . . involving the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio waves for specific telecommunication purposes.” Those
   specific purposes are reflected in the radiocommunication services defined by our rules, such as the fixed-satellite service
   (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS), or broadcasting-satellite service (BSS). Whereas FSS, MSS, and BSS licensees use radio
   waves to provide voice, video, or data to consumers and businesses, other radiocommunication services do not. For example,
   the Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) uses radio waves to obtain information about the Earth through active or passive
   sensors, as well as to collect and distribute that information.

5. Some radiocommunication services, in particular, are critical for the operation of a spacecraft, but do not provide a
   service to the public. For example, the space operation service (SOS) is defined as “[a] radiocommunication service concerned
   exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand” and uses
   radio waves for the operation of spacecraft. Similarly, the space research service (SRS) is defined as “[a] radiocommunication
   service in which spacecraft or other objects in space are used for scientific or technological research purposes.” In both
   instances, the radiocommunication services are used to control and operate spacecraft, but are not themselves the services
   offered to the public. Space telemetry is defined as “[t]he use of telemetry for transmission for a space station of results
   of measurements made in a spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning of the spacecraft.” Space tracking is defined
   as the “[d]etermination of the orbit, velocity or instantaneous position of an object in space by means of radiodetermination,
   excluding primary radar, for the purpose of following the movement of the object.” Space telecommand is defined as “[t]he
   use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals to a space station to initiate, modify or terminate functions of
   equipment on a space object, including the space station.”

6. Thus, there are numerous space radiocommunication services provided for under our rules, some of which use radiocommunications
   to provide service directly to the public, and some of which are used to support operations of spacecraft. All of these services
   involve transmissions of signals and thus require authorization from the Commission under the Act, provided that the station
   at issue does not belong to and is not controlled by the United States government.

7. Another important point of terminology is the distinction between Federal and non-Federal operations and the effects of
   this distinction on allocations of radio spectrum. The Commission authorizes non-Federal operations, which include those by
   private commercial entities. Operations

   conducted by agencies or entities of the U.S. federal government are Federal, and Congress has assigned the National Telecommunications
   and Information Administration (NTIA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, oversight of such operations. Together,
   the FCC and NTIA jointly manage the nation's radio spectrum resources in the public interest. The United States Table of Frequency
   Allocations (United States Table) contains allocations for both Federal (that is, U.S. federal government) and non-Federal
   (for example, private entities) use of radiocommunication services and is codified in § 2.106 of our rules. An “allocation”
   is an entry in the Table of Frequency Allocations (Allocation Table) of a given frequency band for the purpose of its use
   by one or more terrestrial or space radiocommunication services (or the radio astronomy service) under specified conditions.
   Any segment of the radio spectrum may be allocated to the federal and/or non-federal sectors either on an exclusive or shared
   basis for use by one or more radio services. Services may be allocated on a primary or secondary basis, and operations on
   a secondary basis must not cause harmful interference to operations on a primary basis and cannot claim protection from harmful
   interference from operations of a primary service.

8. Non-federal operators may be authorized to use Federal frequency allocations, subject to coordination with the appropriate
   federal agency or agencies and conditions agreed upon by the Commission and NTIA, provided that such operations shall not
   cause harmful interference to Federal stations and that operations shall terminate should harmful interference occur. Thus,
   applications to operate non-Federal radiocommunication services in frequency bands that are allocated to Federal operations
   must first be coordinated with federal agencies and must not cause harmful interference to Federal operations.

9. Lastly, there are important differences in the terms “spacecraft,” “satellite,” and “space station” under our rules. A
   “spacecraft” is defined as a “man-made vehicle which is intended to go beyond the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.”
   Although “satellite” is defined as a spacecraft in orbit, it is often used informally to refer to the physical apparatus in
   space. A “space station” is essentially a station on a spacecraft, and a “station” is the transmitters or receivers (or combination
   thereof) on the spacecraft necessary for carrying on a radiocommunication service. Furthermore, a station is classified by
   the service in which it operates, so a space station operating in the fixed-satellite service is classified as an “FSS space
   station.” Thus, a spacecraft can be a satellite, and a satellite is a spacecraft, and there can be one or more space stations
   on a satellite or spacecraft. But under our rules, it is the transmitters and receivers that make up a space station that
   must be authorized by the Commission.

B. The Spectrum Crunch for Emergent Space Operations

1. The Commission has observed a significant expansion in the commercial space industry in recent years, as well as the need
   for additional spectrum resources to conduct operations in space. Although the Commission has initiated proceedings to make
   spectrum abundant for satellites that provide radiocommunications services to the public, such as FSS, longstanding regulatory
   gaps currently constrain the availability of spectrum for new use cases. This “spectrum crunch” arises from several interlocking
   factors, discussed below.

2. Spectrum used for emergent space operations may not clearly fall within an existing radiocommunication service. The Commission
   has received a growing number of applications to transmit or receive radiocommunications that do not involve the provision
   of radiocommunication services to the public. In each of these instances, the spacecraft is intended to provide services or
   engage in activities that are not radiocommunication services, such as in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM),
   commercial habitable space stations, and lunar orbiters and landers. The spectrum needs of such applications are usually limited
   to radiocommunication services to conduct TT&C functions necessary to command and control the spacecraft.

3. Under our current rules and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations, spacecraft conduct TT&C
   functions within the same frequency bands in which they are authorized to provide other radiocommunication services, such
   as FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS. For this reason, licensees are generally authorized by the Commission to conduct TT&C functions
   within frequency bands authorized for another allocated radiocommunications service. Because spacecraft used for emergent
   purposes such as lunar missions generally do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services, applicants seeking an FCC
   license to use spectrum to conduct TT&C to control these spacecraft cannot clearly rely on the use of existing spectrum resources
   allocated for FSS, MSS, or EESS to command and control their spacecraft.

4. Spectrum available for emergent space operations may be prioritized for Federal operations and can be difficult to access.
   In the past, activities in space were often conducted by governments, rather than private entities. In the United States,
   space activities that did not provide radiocommunication services to the public were typically conducted through government
   agencies, such as the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) or the Department of War (DoW). As observed in
   our discussion of terminology and definitions above, the Commission did not license these operations because these operations
   were controlled by federal agencies. Accordingly, these operations relied largely on spectrum allocated for Federal users
   in the United States Table.

5. Today, as the American commercial space industry expands, there is an increasing reliance on private entities to conduct
   activities in space that in the past may have been conducted through government agencies. These activities are increasingly
   conducted either independently of government agencies, or under contractual arrangements with, or with funding from, government
   agencies. Because these activities are ultimately controlled by private entities, rather than government agencies, applicants
   are seeking licenses from the Commission for their use of radiofrequencies, particularly for radiocommunications to command
   and control their spacecraft. In doing so, the operations are categorized as non-Federal operations.

6. Because of the past reliance on the use of other allocated radiocommunication services, such as FSS, for the conduct of
   TT&C functions for private entities, there are few explicit separate allocations for conducting command and control of spacecraft
   by non-Federal operators in the United States Table. The Commission's rules and the ITU Radio Regulations provide SOS and
   SRS allocations that support command and control of spacecraft. Current spectrum allocations for these services, however,
   are primarily for Federal use in the United States Table and are heavily used by Federal operations, including portions of
   the S-band allocated for Federal SOS operations in the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space), 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands,
   and portions of the X-band allocated for Federal SRS in the 8400-8450 MHz

   (space-to-Earth) and 8450-8500 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands.

7. Many of the applications for Commission authority to operate radiocommunications to support ISAM and lunar operations
   have requested to operate in the same S-band and X-band allocations for SOS and SRS that are primarily and heavily used by
   Federal operators, as these bands support readily available, “off-the-shelf” antenna systems that are significantly more cost
   effective than designing and building customized antenna systems in-house. Access to these allocations by non-Federal operators,
   however, is subject to coordination and sharing requirements with Federal users, which can often take substantial time and
   effort to complete. In addition, the absence of a clearly defined regulatory path for access to SOS and SRS allocations used
   by Federal operations on a primary basis has led to a case-by-case licensing approach and to regulatory uncertainty.

8. Non-Federal spectrum bands that could support emergent operations are also congested. To address and facilitate the development
   of ISAM, the Commission previously sought comment in a notice of inquiry (ISAM NOI) and a notice of proposed rulemaking (ISAM NPRM) on the needs of ISAM operators and proposed a potential streamlined regulatory framework for supporting such missions. The
   Commission has previously acknowledged the increasing variety of space missions and the need to modernize spectrum policies
   to accommodate these operations. Furthermore, in the ISAM NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that various communication activities in support of ISAM could potentially operate within
   several existing service allocations and proposed to continue to review ISAM operators' requests for frequency use on a case-by-case
   basis. Although comments in response to the ISAM NPRM support this tentative conclusion, they also indicate that existing service allocations may not be sufficient for ISAM, and
   that additional spectrum resources are needed, particularly in frequency bands that are allocated for use by non-Federal operations
   and that do not require extensive coordination with other spectrum users.

9. Commenters have identified multiple frequency bands that might be used to conduct TT&C functions for spacecraft that do
   not also operate in other radiocommunication services, such as FSS or EESS. Almost all of the identified frequency bands,
   however, are currently used by a diverse range of existing non-Federal spectrum users, or are shared with or primarily used
   by Federal operations, which would still require extensive coordination with multiple spectrum users and would not provide
   a clear and reliable path for licensing by the Commission. We therefore focus the NPRM on proposals and alternatives that could provide a clear and reliable path in the near future for accessing additional spectrum
   resources for conducting TT&C operations for spacecraft that are unable to conduct such operations under allocations for other
   radiocommunication services.

Discussion

1. We seek comment on steps that the Commission can take to make spectrum abundant for emergent space operations. These steps
   include providing regulatory clarity and leveraging existing spectrum allocations to support such operations. They also include
   unlocking new sources of usable spectrum by allowing existing Commission spectrum licensees to make their spectrum resources
   available in ways that are not currently permitted under our rules. Although we recognize that these are initial steps towards
   making spectrum abundant to support innovative new endeavors in space, we seek comment on the extent to which they may alleviate
   spectrum shortcomings, expedite the Commission's licensing, and facilitate innovation.

2. We seek comment on a variety of proposals and ideas in the NPRM. Building upon the record in the ISAM proceeding, we propose to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking. Another
   proposal herein is to review requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on a case-by-case basis.
   Next, we seek comment on conducting TT&C to support emergent operations in FSS bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis
   subject to coordination with other spectrum users, as well as what operations fall within our definition of TT&C. We also
   seek comment on the types of applications that may seek to operate within the SRS allocation. We also propose to add a secondary
   allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplink and permit a version of de facto spectrum leasing of that band to earth station licensees. We seek comment on alternatives to these proposals and whether to
   extend this proposed leasing framework to other frequency bands. Lastly, we seek comment on whether licensed satellite operators
   should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks
   to support emergent operations. We also seek comment on any alternatives that would be less burdensome for small entities.

3. As observed above, the Commission has previously sought comment on radiofrequency use for non-communications satellites
   in the ISAM NOI and NPRM. In this proceeding, we seek comment on proposals to make available additional spectrum resources not only in support of ISAM
   missions, but also for all emergent space operations. Because we are not proposing here to create spectrum allocations specifically
   and solely for use by ISAM or for lunar missions, we seek comment on proposals to allow increased and more efficient use of
   spectrum to support all space operations that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public. Accordingly,
   we make alternative proposals regarding spectrum availability for ISAM and propose to no longer address spectrum use issues
   in the ISAM proceeding. Rather, we seek comment on whether to address the issues of spectrum availability to support ISAM
   missions through the proposals of this proceeding, rather than as part of the ISAM NPRM. We are not seeking comment in this proceeding on potential changes to how we process applications for authority to provide
   radiocommunication services or on other potential changes to our rules specific to the needs of ISAM operations. Although
   the ISAM NPRM sought comment on possible modifications to our rules in order to facilitate the licensing and regulation of radiocommunications
   in support of ISAM missions, our focus today is on proposals and alternatives related to spectrum availability for all emergent
   space operations.

A. Establishing Regulatory Clarity for the Use of Existing Spectrum Allocations

1. There is currently no radiocommunication service specifically dedicated for use by emergent space operations domestically
   or internationally. Accordingly, there is the need for clarity and certainty in the ability of operators to access other radiocommunication
   service allocations necessary to conduct their emergent operations in space. To that end, in addition to the proposals in
   the NPRM for specific frequency bands that might be utilized more intensively to support TT&C functions for emergent space operations,
   we propose to codify several

   Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these operators using existing radiocommunication service
   allocations.

1. Authorizing by Rule Spectrum “Piggybacking” for Emergent Space Operations

1. In the ISAM NPRM, the Commission recognized commenters' interest in allowing ISAM spacecraft to communicate in frequency bands already authorized
   for use by another spacecraft while the two spacecraft are connected or working together in close proximity to each other,
   also known as frequency “piggybacking.” Additionally the ISAM NPRM noted that the piggybacking option has been authorized under existing part 25 rules in the past. There is unanimous support
   in response to the ISAM NPRM for allowing frequency piggybacking for radiocommunications in support of ISAM operations, and frequency piggybacking has
   previously been authorized as an option for ISAM operators on a case-by-case basis.

2. Accordingly, we propose to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking in our rules in order to provide regulatory
   clarity. We seek comment on how to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking that provides regulatory clarity and
   certainty, but also recognizes that piggybacking may not be suitable for all types of operations. Furthermore, we seek comment
   on how such codification could be worded to address a wide-range of potential scenarios for frequency piggybacking, in order
   to provide both certainty and flexibility. As an example, comments have asked the Commission to clarify whether frequency
   piggybacking may be permissible for an operator whose client is an EESS operator. We tentatively conclude that this would
   be an acceptable scenario for frequency piggybacking. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

3. We propose to codify that the Commission may authorize a space station to use the same frequencies as a separate, consenting
   spacecraft (that is, a “client” spacecraft) that is also authorized by the Commission or has obtained a grant of U.S. market
   access, provided that the applicant for the space station authorization certifies that the space station will be used for
   servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with the client spacecraft and that the operations will conform with the client spacecraft's
   ITU filings and licensed frequency parameters. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on how to define
   a client spacecraft and whether there are other instances in which we should allow piggybacking in addition to servicing,
   monitoring, or collaborating with a client spacecraft. Additionally, should licensees or grantees of U.S. market access engaged
   in spectrum piggybacking be required to provide the specific frequency information required by our rules to allow Space Bureau
   staff to confirm the operations are in conformance with the client's license or market access grant and ITU filings? Or would
   certification be sufficient? Similarly, should licensees or grantees be required to provide evidence of the other space station
   operator's consent to piggybacking operations, or is certification again sufficient? Is there anything else we should consider
   requiring from operators proposing to conduct piggybacking operations? We recognize there may also be additional considerations
   for operators seeking FCC authorization to conduct spectrum piggybacking with a non-U.S. licensed client that has not sought
   U.S. market access, and we seek comment on what certifications or demonstrations we should require in such instances in order
   to fulfill our international obligations, protect national security, and promote American innovation in space.

2. Authorizing Standalone TT&C Within Existing FSS Allocations

1. We also seek comment on permitting licensees and market access grantees for emergent space operations to conduct TT&C
   in FSS bands where TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication service. As observed above, the Space Bureau
   routinely authorizes FSS space station licensees to conduct TT&C in the same frequency bands that are allocated for FSS. Thus,
   we are confident that it is technically feasible to conduct TT&C in frequency bands that are already allocated for FSS by
   non-Federal operators, and that there is likely to be readily-available earth station facilities and equipment to support
   TT&C in these frequency bands. TT&C operations licensed outside of our processing procedures for GSO or NGSO FSS are unable
   to claim protection from interference from, and are not permitted to cause harmful interference to, other licensed operators
   that are authorized within our processing procedures. Accordingly, we envision permission for such TT&C operations licensed
   outside of processing procedures would be on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other authorized
   spectrum users. We seek comment on the appropriate status of such TT&C operations and whether such TT&C operations can, in
   fact, be successfully coordinated with other authorized spectrum users to avoid harmful interference. We also seek comment
   on whether TT&C for emergent space operations could be provided in frequency bands allocated for radiocommunication services
   such as MSS or BSS, which often require use of frequency division or planned bands in order to avoid interference among spectrum
   users. Would such frequency bands also be able to accommodate TT&C for emergent space operations on an unprotected, non-interference
   basis?

2. In addition, we seek comment on whether applicants could be granted authority to provide TT&C as a form of FSS in bands
   allocated for non-Federal FSS. We observe that FSS is defined as a “radiocommunication service between earth stations at given
   positions, when one or more satellites are used; the given position may be a specified fixed point or any fixed point within
   specified areas; in some cases this service includes satellite-to-satellite links, which may also be operated in the inter-satellite
   service; the FSS may also include feeder links of other space radiocommunication services.” Is the ability to provide TT&C
   within the definition of FSS analogous to the ability to provide feeder links in such an allocation (that is, one way uplinks
   that are not between earth stations)? We expect, however, that TT&C provided as FSS would be limited to the provision of TT&C
   on an unprotected, non-interference basis, subject to coordination with other spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first
   service procedure or a processing round. We seek comment on this expectation.

3. We also seek comment to what extent operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis are suitable for TT&C functions,
   which may be critical to the command and control of a spacecraft. What level of availability and reliability is needed for
   command and control? Would it be in the public interest to facilitate TT&C operations without providing absolute certainty
   of non-interference? As an example, would TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference basis be sufficient for certain operators,
   such as those conducting rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) and docking, or those operating inhabitable spacecraft?

3. Refining the Definition of TT&C

1. Section 2.1 of our rules defines space telecommand as “[t]he use of radiocommunication for the transmission of signals
   to a space station to initiate, modify or terminate

   functions of equipment on a space object, including the space station.” And space telemetry is defined as “[t]he use of telemetry
   for transmission for a space station of results of measurements made in a spacecraft, including those relating to the functioning
   of the spacecraft.” The Commission has previously recognized that service allocations for TT&C, may not be sufficient for
   certain operators, such as those conducting RPO and docking, or those operating inhabitable spacecraft. The Commission also
   tentatively concluded that the definition of TT&C need not be so narrowly construed as to exclude data downlink operations.
   We seek comment on a potential Commission interpretation of the definitions of space telecommand and space telemetry to include
   downlink of video and other data during maneuvers such as RPO or docking with other spacecraft. Can such operations be accommodated
   within the existing typical narrowband parameters of TT&C bands? Can operations for inhabitable spacecraft be accommodated
   in TT&C bands? What other operations besides RPO and docking could function in TT&C bands? If the Commission adopts an interpretation
   of the definitions of TT&C to include data downlink for RPO, docking, and/or other operations, should we specifically modify
   the definitions in our rules or add footnotes to the United States Table? We also seek comment on whether explicitly permitting
   video and other wideband data communications in allocations used for TT&C could crowd out existing narrowband TT&C operations
   or make it more difficult to permit TT&C operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis. We seek comment on these questions.

4. Clarifying That Spectrum Use Supporting Emergent Space Operations May Fall Within Existing Service Allocations

1. The Commission tentatively concluded in the ISAM NPRM that radiocommunications in support of various ISAM operations could fit within numerous existing service allocation definitions
   and that Commission staff would assess whether an applicant's proposed communications fall within the applicant's desired
   service allocation(s) on a case-by-case basis. Our rules define service allocations according to the ITU definitions, and
   we rely on these definitions when we consider requests for frequency authorization as part of our licensing process. Commenters
   were generally supportive of permitting the use of any service allocation for communications in support of ISAM operations
   so long as the operator can demonstrate that the communications justifiably fit within the existing service allocation definition.

2. Although we propose to continue to review requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on a
   case-by-case basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit within the definition of the service
   allocation, we observe the record has generated a number of comments that support the need for greater regulatory clarity
   to spur innovation in this space. For example, some commenters raise concerns that without affirmative signals from the Commission,
   some radiocommunication allocations, including the space research service, may not be accessible to ISAM operators due to
   uncertainty regarding the scope of the allocation definitions and challenges coordinating use of this spectrum with Federal
   operators. Other commenters disagree whether EESS should be expressly excluded from case-by-case consideration for ISAM missions.
   Commenters are chiefly concerned with the potential for interference to the important services provided through EESS passive
   and active remote sensing, especially in the EESS passive bands where “the signals emitted by EESS (passive) sensors are very
   weak compared to those emitted by active communication services.”

3. We recognize that interference protection is very important for the EESS operations that commenters highlight, and that
   EESS passive operations can be particularly vulnerable to interference. Allowing operators to request the use of a particular
   existing service allocation for communications, however, does not permit unfettered access to all frequency bands. The ITU
   has established stringent recommendations for the protection of passive sensors from interference through ITU-R Recommendation
   RS.2017 “Performance and interference criteria for satellite remote sensing.” Additionally, our rules require applicants proposing
   to use specific frequencies to demonstrate compliance with ITU rules and recommendations. It is not our view that merely allowing
   operators to apply for frequency authorization using frequency bands that are allocated for passive use would make such bands
   available only to operators engaging in active use. Additionally, we observe that many EESS active operations have demonstrated
   an ability to share spectrum without the creation of harmful interference to other operators through our small satellite licensing
   process, which numerous EESS providers have used since its introduction in 2019. We seek comment on this view and observation.
   Although we certainly take seriously any potential for harmful interference to existing users, we tentatively conclude that
   we need not preemptively exclude the EESS allocations from case-by-case consideration altogether at this time. We seek comment
   on this tentative conclusion.

4. In addition to our tentative conclusion not to exclude operators from applying to use frequencies in any service allocation
   in which their operations could justifiably fit, we specifically seek comment on applicants seeking to operate within the
   SRS allocation. Given the nascent stage of many emergent space operations, we propose to consider communications supporting
   them, particularly when funded by NASA or other federal research agencies, as falling within the definition of SRS. We seek
   comment on this proposed approach and specifically on what other steps the Commission could take to promote regulatory certainty
   for these operators. For example, could the uncertainty be resolved by adding a footnote to the United States Table in frequency
   bands allocated for Federal SRS specifically to permit operations of non-Federal operations funded or contracted by NASA or
   other federal research agencies? We also seek comment on the language of any such footnote and what additional conditions
   on such operations may be needed to protect Federal SRS operators from harmful interference.

B. Unlocking More Spectrum for Emergent Space Operations

1. We seek comments on ways that spectrum that is already allocated for non-Federal use could be made available to address
   the need for spectrum to support emergent space operations. In particular, we seek comment whether such spectrum can be identified
   in frequency bands that may currently be used intensively by non-Federal spectrum users in certain geographic areas (such
   as urban, high-population areas, particularly in the contiguous 48 states (CONUS), but that may not be used in other geographic
   areas (such as rural areas in CONUS, or outside of CONUS and in U.S. Territories and Possessions). In order to avoid the challenges
   of coordinating non-Federal use of spectrum bands that are allocated primarily to Federal use, we are particularly interested
   in

   identifying spectrum bands that either are not shared with Federal users, or that are shared with, but not used intensively
   by, Federal users and are allocated on a secondary basis for Federal use.

2. Although our focus is on the specific frequency bands discussed below, we also seek comment on whether there are any additional
   bands that could satisfy the criteria identified above and that could potentially be used more intensively to provide TT&C
   for emergent space operations. In all cases, our objective is to allow more intensive and flexible use of spectrum in a way
   that avoids interference or economic harm to existing spectrum users.

3. As part of this process, we seek comment generally on what changes to the United States Table and our rules would need
   to be made to effectuate such more intensive use domestically, and the specific manner in which those changes could be effectuated
   (for example, by creation of an allocation or through a footnote to the United States Table). In addition, we seek comment
   on whether the flexible use, leasing/secondary markets, and competitive bidding proposals discussed in the specific frequency
   bands below could also be applied to other frequency bands in order to make additional spectrum resources available for emergent
   space operations. We also generally seek comment on what, if any changes, are needed internationally to effectuate these changes,
   either through the ITU or through bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements with other countries.

1. 2320-2345 MHz Band

1. As an example of the type of more intensive spectrum use discussed above, we propose to add a secondary allocation for SOS (Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table, and to permit the existing exclusive licensee within this frequency band in the United States, SiriusXM, to lease portions of its spectrum to earth station licensees for command of spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public. We discuss the history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz band below, as well as the specifics of the proposal and possible alternatives.

a. History and Current Use

1. The history and current use of the 2320-2345 MHz band are important factors in proposing to make this spectrum available
   to address the needs of emergent space operations. The 2320-2345 MHz band occupies 25 megahertz of spectrum and is used to
   provide Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) in the United States, as well as parts of Canada. It is divided equally
   between two separate, but co-owned, SDARS networks, Sirius and XM. The Commission's rules define SDARS—commonly known as “satellite
   radio”—as “[a]radiocommunication service in which audio programming is digitally transmitted by one or more space stations
   directly to fixed, mobile, and/or portable stations, and which may involve complementary repeating terrestrial transmitters,
   telemetry, tracking and control facilities.” Thus, SDARS is primarily a satellite-delivered service in which programming is
   sent directly from satellites to subscriber receivers either at a fixed location or in motion.

2. The Commission awarded licenses to provide SDARS within the United States by auction in 1997. XM and Sirius launched initial
   satellites and began commercial operations in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The two companies merged in 2008 to form a single
   company—Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (SiriusXM)—but the merged entity continues to operate the Sirius and XM systems as separate
   networks and there are still separate licenses for each system. Currently, SiriusXM and its subsidiary companies have licenses
   for geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) space stations operating at the nominal 85° West Longitude (W.L.) and 115° W.L. orbital
   locations, which transmit in the space-to-Earth direction to subscriber terminals in the 2320-2345 MHz band, with fixed earth
   stations providing uplinks in the 7.025-7.075 GHz band. On-station TT&C for SiriusXM's satellites is provided in the X-band
   for command uplinks and S-band for telemetry downlinks. SiriusXM reported it had approximately 32.8 million subscribers as
   of June 30, 2025.

3. The 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger block of spectrum from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between SDARS and Wireless
   Communications Services (WCS) licensees. In 1996, Congress directed that this block of spectrum be reallocated from Federal
   to non-Federal use and auctioned.

4. Within the 2320-2345 MHz band, SiriusXM operates a network of terrestrial repeaters in the center portion of each of the
   two 12.5 megahertz assigned to Sirius and XM (2320.0-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5-2345 MHz). Because a direct line of sight is generally
   required to receive an acceptable satellite signal, ground-based terrestrial repeaters are used in many areas to re-transmit
   the same signals provided by satellites directly to subscribers in order to maintain adequate signal power. SiriusXM may also
   provide telemetry beacons in each of these assignments.

5. Domestically, the 2320-2345 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non-Federal BSS, which includes SDARS. Footnote
   US327 to the United States Table states that the band is allocated to BSS (sound) and complementary terrestrial repeaters
   on a primary basis, and such use is limited to digital audio broadcasting. The United States Table provides Federal allocations
   for fixed service and radiolocation service on a secondary basis, subject to a footnote that recognizes the primary allocation
   for BSS (sound) and restricts radiolocation service in this band to the military services.

6. Internationally, the 2300-2450 MHz band is allocated in ITU Regions 2 & 3 to radiolocation services and fixed and mobile
   terrestrial services on a primary basis, and to the amateur service on a secondary basis. In ITU Region 1, the 2300-2450 MHz
   band is allocated to fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and amateur and radiolocation services on a secondary basis.
   There are no allocations for satellite services internationally in the 2300-2450 MHz band in any of the three ITU regions,
   but international footnote 5.393 does allocate the 2310-2360 MHz band to BSS (sound) on a primary basis in Canada, the United
   States, and India. Currently, BSS (sound) in the 2310-2360 MHz band is being provided solely in the United States and parts
   of Canada through SiriusXM. The United States entered into bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the provision
   of SDARS, which remain in force.

b. Suitability for Space Ops

1. We tentatively find that three factors make the 2320-2345 MHz band particularly well suited for more intensive use for
   TT&C in support of emergent space operations. First, the 2320-2345 MHz band is located within the S-band and is in relatively
   close spectrum proximity to the 2025-2110 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands already used for Federal
   space operations. As observed above, these two bands are frequently requested for TT&C operations in support of ISAM and other
   spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. Although there is significant separation between these
   Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band, the propagation characteristics of the spectrum and the antennas and radios used
   to transmit and receive are expected to be similar

   for both the Federal S-bands and the 2320-2345 MHz band. Accordingly, we have reason to expect that, from a technical perspective,
   the 2320-2345 MHz could be readily used to provide space operation services in a manner adequately equivalent to the Federal
   S-bands. We seek comment on these observations and expectations.

2. Second, there are very few spectrum users of the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States. SiriusXM acquired exclusive
   use of the 2320-2345 MHz band at auction in 1997. No other non-Federal operators are licensed to operate in the 2320-2345
   MHz band in the United States. Likewise, there are no primary allocations for Federal operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
   As such, we expect that the ability of new spectrum users to operate within the 2320-2345 MHz band in the United States are
   not heavily constrained by incumbent operations, other than the operations of SiriusXM and incumbent WCS operations in adjacent
   spectrum blocks. We seek comment on this expectation.

3. Third, SiriusXM does not use the 2320-2345 MHz band uniformly throughout the United States. Because of the location of
   its satellites in geostationary orbit at the nominal 85° and 115° W.L. orbital locations, none of the existing SiriusXM satellites
   provide service to subscribers in Hawaii, or in the northern portions of Alaska, which we characterize as being north of Anchorage.
   For example, a review of the coverage footprints presented in the 2320-2345 MHz band downlinks for the newest SiriusXM satellites
   shows that neither satellite intends to use those downlinks in northern Alaska. This is not surprising given that satellites
   located on the equatorial plane, such as GSO satellites, appear very low on the horizon to earth stations located in far northern
   and southern latitudes and are susceptible to increased signal blockage and attenuation from such a low angle on the horizon.
   Similarly, SiriusXM satellites do not provide downlinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band to Hawaii or to U.S. Territories and Possessions
   in the Pacific, since the footprints of the service areas of existing SDARS satellites are focused on CONUS. Although SiriusXM
   may elect to provide service into northern Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. Territories and Possessions in the future, currently it
   has not proven feasible to do so under its existing deployment of satellites. We seek comment on these observations.

4. In addition, although the 25 megahertz of spectrum in the 2320-2345 MHz band is less than the spectrum available in the
   2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands, 25 megahertz could nonetheless provide meaningful additional spectrum resources for
   space operations. Currently, non-Federal operations do not have access to the full 85 megahertz of spectrum in the 2025-2110
   MHz band due to its heavy use by Federal operations and the need to avoid particular frequencies within the Federal S-band
   altogether. As a result, only a portion of the Federal S-band is able to be coordinated for non-Federal use. Because TT&C
   functions are not always transmitting and employ narrowband signals, often 100 kilohertz in bandwidth or less, we anticipate
   that a large number of TT&C communications can be accommodated in the 25 megahertz of the 2320-2345 MHz band, particularly
   if multiple earth station uplink sites can be coordinated with SiriusXM. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that making
   the 2320-2345 MHz band accessible for TT&C could meaningfully supplement or replace, at least in part, the requested use for
   non-Federal operations in the Federal S-bands. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the reasoning that underlies
   it.

c. Proposal for Secondary Allocation for SOS in 2320-2345 MHz Band

1. We propose to create a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the non-Federal column of the United
   States Table in the Earth-to-space direction. We propose a new allocation because the current allocations in the band in the
   United States Table do not provide for satellite communications other than BSS (sound) in the space-to-Earth direction. We
   also propose to add this allocation on a secondary basis to provide status for the TT&C operations, but to make clear that
   they are secondary to the primary use of the band for BSS (sound) in the space-to-Earth direction. These two proposals balance
   the desire for more intensive use of the band for satellite communications with the need to protect the operations of SiriusXM
   in a band from harmful interference in which it is exclusively authorized to operate throughout the United States. We seek
   comment on these two proposals and on our objective in balancing the interests of more intensive spectrum use and the need
   to protect SiriusXM's use of the band.

2. We tentatively conclude that an SOS allocation in the Earth-to-space direction is less likely to cause interference to
   SiriusXM's operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band than an allocation in the space-to-Earth direction. SiriusXM provides sensitive
   service links to subscribers in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the space-to-Earth direction. We observe that allowing other space
   stations to transmit in the 2320-2345 MHz band could risk causing harmful signal degradation to those service links, which
   could in turn cause subscribers to become dissatisfied with their service and to cancel their subscriptions to SiriusXM, causing
   significant economic harm to SiriusXM. Even if space stations were restricted by rule to transmitting solely into a particular
   geographic area where there are unlikely to be SiriusXM subscribers, such as northern Alaska, there remains the risk of disruption
   to SiriusXM's subscribers if a space station, even inadvertently, does not comply with that restriction and transmits over
   CONUS in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Earth-to-space operations in the 2320-2345 MHz bands can be more easily and reliably geographically
   restricted, with terrain and distance attenuating the risk of any interference from Earth-to-space use of the 2320-2345 MHz
   band into SiriusXM's downlink operations in the same band in CONUS. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the observations
   underlying it, as well as whether it may be possible to allow downlinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band through a secondary SOS
   allocation or footnote to the United States Table, without causing interference or economic harm to SiriusXM. We also propose
   that any applicant seeking Commission authority to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under this secondary
   allocation must certify that the proposed operations in the band have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM to ensure
   that SiriusXM's operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band are strongly safeguarded from interference. We seek comment on this certification
   proposal.

3. We also seek comment on whether any technical or legal requirements need to be adopted by the Commission and codified
   in our rules in order to provide reasonable certainty as to what kind of operations are permitted under this secondary allocation.
   For example, would power limits, antenna elevation angle restrictions, or further geographical limitations help to protect
   SiriusXM and spectrum users outside of the 2320-2345 MHz band from potential harmful interference from earth stations transmitting
   in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would such limits and restrictions also provide certainty to potential spectrum lessees as to the
   parameters of what operations could be provided? We observe that our rules place power limits and out of band

   emission limits on SiriusXM terrestrial repeaters in the 2320-2345 MHz band in order to protect WCS licensees in adjacent
   bands from harmful interference. Could such power and out of band emission limitations be extrapolated to earth station operations
   in a way that provides similar protection to WCS licensees from earth station uplink transmissions in the 2320-2345 MHz band?
   Would limiting operations of earth stations to areas of northern Alaska mitigate the risk of harmful interference to spectrum
   users, particularly WCS licensees, in adjacent and nearby bands, given the sparse population density and rugged geography
   of northern Alaska? If so, how would we define these areas in a way that is objective and clear? We seek comment on these
   questions.

d. Proposal To Permit Leased Spectrum in 2320-2345 MHz Band

1. We propose to permit SiriusXM to lease use of the 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum to earth station licensees that will use
   the frequencies to provide command uplinks in support of emergent space operations. This proposal aligns with, but is not
   identical to, the ability of wireless radio service licensees to lease spectrum under our existing secondary markets policy
   and rules. We seek comment on how the leasing proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band aligns generally with our secondary markets
   policy and rules.

2. In 2000, the Commission adopted a policy statement setting forth the Commission's plans for facilitating secondary markets
   for radio spectrum to allow and encourage licensees to make all or portions of their assigned frequencies and/or service areas
   available to other entities and uses. The Commission found that such secondary market transactions would complement the primary
   assignment function performed by the Commission through its spectrum auctions and licensing processes. It also found that,
   while secondary markets are not a substitute for finding additional spectrum when needed, and should not supplant spectrum
   allocation processes, a robust and effective secondary market for spectrum usage rights could help alleviate spectrum shortages
   by making unused or underutilized spectrum held by existing licensees more readily available to other users and uses and help
   to promote the development of new, spectrum efficient technologies.

3. The Commission first adopted rules to implement the secondary markets policy in 2003. Although the Commission expressly
   declined to adopt secondary market rules for satellite services at that time, it did establish rules whereby certain wireless
   radio service licensees could lease their spectrum to other entities under arrangements that are suited to the parties' respective
   needs. Under our existing secondary market rules, terrestrial wireless licensee lessors and their lessees have two spectrum
   leasing options that each provide different rights and responsibilities for the wireless licensee and lessee: de facto transfer leasing arrangements; and spectrum manager leasing arrangements. Under either leasing option, the lessor and the
   lessee may choose to enter into a long-term (more than one year) or short-term (one year or less) arrangement. Spectrum manager
   leasing arrangements generally do not require prior Commission approval; rather, the licensee/lessor must notify the Commission
   in advance of commencing operations. In contrast, de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangements are typically subject to the Commission's general approval procedures, under which
   the Commission must grant the application prior to the parties putting the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement into effect.

4. We seek comment on whether a variation of the de facto transfer leasing arrangement may be an efficient and effective way to encourage SiriusXM to make the 2320-2345 MHz band available
   to earth station licensees on an expedited basis. As proposed above, any earth station licensee that seeks to operate in the
   2320-2345 MHz band would have to certify that its proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM
   in order to avoid harmful interference to SiriusXM's current and potential operations. We propose that no authorization for
   such uplinks will be accepted for filing absent such coordination and approval. We also propose that any existing authority
   to operate in the 2320-2345 MHz band will be conditioned on such coordination and approval, and the authority will terminate
   automatically unless the licensee maintains coordination with and approval by SiriusXM. Such coordination is likely to require
   expenditure of resources by SiriusXM, or the forgoing of future rights to operate in certain areas, for the benefit of third
   party spectrum users. As such, we tentatively conclude it is reasonable for SiriusXM to require financial compensation for
   the expenditures under these conditions. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that SiriusXM and potential earth station
   licensees should be permitted to reach private arrangements suited to each party's needs, including financial consideration,
   in order to permit the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for uplink TT&C functions to support emergent space operations. Such
   private leasing arrangements would provide incentive for SiriusXM to make as much of its spectrum rapidly available for use
   by others as feasible, while still maintaining protection from interference for its own operations in the band. We seek comment
   on these tentative conclusions, proposals, and reasoning underlying them.

5. Under this leasing proposal, private spectrum leasing arrangements with SiriusXM can be made with earth station licensees
   for individual earth stations or for multiple earth stations. They also can be made for earth stations communicating with
   the earth station licensee's own space stations, or through an earth station licensee that provides Ground-Station-as-a-Service
   (GSaaS) for multiple third-party space stations. We seek comment on whether there are efficiencies to be gained from conducting
   TT&C for emergent space operations as GSaaS, rather than having each space station license also build its own facilities for
   TT&C. For example, these efficiencies could include reducing the overall number of earth stations that need to be constructed,
   coordinated, and licensed, or facilitating the ability of TT&C to be provided on an unprotected and non-interference basis
   through a single GSaaS licensee acting as a de facto spectrum coordinator. We seek comment on these questions.

6. We also propose that space stations can be authorized by the Commission to receive in the 2320-2345 MHz band without needing
   to certify that such use has been coordinated with and approved by SiriusXM, but such authority would be limited to reception
   of commands from earth stations licensed by the FCC or from earth stations located outside of the United States. For reception
   of commands in the 2320-2345 MHz from earth stations located outside the United States, we tentatively see no harm should
   such TT&C uplinks be permitted outside the United States, since SiriusXM satellites do not receive in the 2320-2345 MHz band
   and there are no SiriusXM subscribers outside the United States, with the exception of Canada. We seek comment on these proposals
   for earth and space station applications in the 2320-2345 MHz band.

7. We also propose, unlike the spectrum leasing arrangements under our secondary markets policy and rules, lessees of the
   2320-2345 MHz band will

   be licensed for earth stations under the proposal made today. As proposed above, entities wishing to use the 2320-2345 MHz
   band to provide command uplinks must still obtain an earth station license from the Commission prior to transmitting in the
   band and will be subject to all licensing and regulatory requirements applicable to earth station licensees. A review of the
   license application will allow the Commission to review the lessee's qualifications under section 310 of the Act. We seek
   comment on this proposal and whether instead the Commission should seek to adopt the requirements for approving long and short
   term de facto transfers of control of spectrum under our spectrum leasing rules applicable to wireless radio services, which generally presume
   that no separate Commission license is needed to permit the operations using leased spectrum.

8. We also seek comment on whether a variation of the spectrum manager lease approach could be adopted in the 2320-2345 MHz
   band in which SiriusXM retains legal control and remains primarily responsible for ensuring lessees' compliance with our rules
   and policies We seek comment on whether requiring a license for the earth station operations in the leased spectrum would
   allow better assurance that interference is not caused to SiriusXM or other adjacent spectrum users and would allow the Commission
   to check compliance with any geographic areas restrictions on the use of the spectrum. The Commission would still review the
   qualifications of the lessees through their applications to operate earth stations using the leased spectrum, and the use
   of the leased spectrum would be expressly authorized by the Commission through the earth station licenses. As a result, we
   tentatively conclude that the de facto transfer lease approach (modified by requiring an earth station license) avoids the need for potentially complicated notification
   and eligibility requirements designed under the spectrum manager lease approach to address compliance of the lessee with our
   rules and policies. We seek comment on this approach and tentative conclusions, as well as whether we should adopt a spectrum
   manager approach instead of a de facto transfer approach.

9. We also seek comment on whether SiriusXM is obliged to lease or coordinate use by others of its exclusive use spectrum
   under the leased spectrum, secondary markets proposal above, or under any of the alternatives discussed in the NPRM. We also seek comment on whether the incentives provided by the leased spectrum, secondary markets proposal would make additional
   spectrum resources available more quickly and efficiently than a process that provides no incentives for SiriusXM to forego
   use of its exclusive use spectrum and to expend resources on coordination solely for the benefit of other potential spectrum
   users.

e. International Issues

1. We seek comment on any international issues that may arise from our proposal to allow the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band
   for command uplinks to non-communications satellites. We tentatively conclude that authorizing earth stations in the United
   States to transmit in the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplink would be unlikely to cause harmful interference to spectrum
   users in other countries that do not share borders with the United States. As observed above, only the United States, India,
   and Canada stated an intent to use this band for satellite communications, and only the United States and Canada are actually
   using the band for satellite communications. In the remainder of the world, this band is used for terrestrial fixed and mobile
   communications. The geographic distance between transmitting earth stations in the United States and the terrestrial operations
   of other countries is likely to attenuate greatly any in-band or out of band emissions, thereby avoiding interference to those
   terrestrial operations. We seek comment on this observation and the potential of interference to the terrestrial operations
   of other countries. In addition, the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico do not address such Earth-to-space
   operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band. To what extent would the United States need to request changes to those agreements in
   order to implement the proposal, if it is adopted? We also seek comment on whether space stations could receive commands in
   the 2320-2345 MHz band, on either a protected or unprotected basis, consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an allocation
   for SOS in the International Table.

2. We also seek comment on to what extent other countries might explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide command
   uplinks in the 2320-2345 MHz band if there is sufficient demand globally for such services. We observe that global networks
   of TT&C facilities are often used for NGSO spacecraft that do not remain fixed relative to a location on the earth, unlike
   GSO spacecraft. Although the 2320-2345 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for terrestrial fixed and mobile service in
   the rest of the world, and is not allocated for satellite communications, individual countries may be amenable to licensing
   earth stations at fixed locations to uplink in this band, if those uplinks would not cause harmful interference to terrestrial
   and mobile services in the band. Of course, this is a matter of decision for the regulatory authorities of other countries,
   but we seek comment on these observations and whether world-wide facilities are needed to provide TT&C in the 2320-2345 MHz
   band to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public.

f. Potential Alternatives

1. We seek comment on alternatives to the specific proposals above. In particular, we seek comment on whether allowing the
   use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communication satellites or spacecraft could be better effectuated
   through a non-governmental (NG) footnote to the United States Table than through a secondary allocation. For example, the
   footnote could state that “the frequency band 2320-2345 MHz can also be used for command uplinks to non-Federal space stations
   in the Earth-to-space direction.” If additional restrictions are desired on those operations, such as limiting them to a particular
   geographic area, those restrictions could be incorporated into the text of the footnote. In this regard, such restrictions
   may not be necessary in the footnote, since the footnote would only apply in the United States to non-Federal communications,
   such that any such transmitting earth stations conducting those communications would need to be licensed by the Commission
   and would have to comply with any Commission rules that could also set forth restrictions on use of the band. We seek comment
   on the possible advantages and disadvantages of allowing use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks in the Earth-to-space
   direction by footnote, in addition to or in lieu of a secondary allocation for SOS, and what should be the specific language
   of any such footnote.

2. We also seek comment on whether to allow earth stations to provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites in
   the 2320-2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an area of northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring
   coordination and approval of SiriusXM. If SiriusXM

   satellites do not currently provide service into these areas, there may not be need for coordination and approval prior to
   operations to avoid harmful interference to SiriusXM operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Although such a process would obviate
   the need for SiriusXM to lease spectrum or to spend resources reviewing coordination requests, is it possible to adequately
   define the area of operations where coordination would not be necessary? Is it possible to foresee and address potential cases
   of harmful interference in advance and to adopt rules to prevent them, rather than relying on the parties to address potential
   harmful interference concerns on a case-by-case basis, and to reach an arrangement suitable to both parties? Does such a process
   take into account the fact that SiriusXM maintains the ability to provide service in all of the United States? We seek comment
   on these questions.

3. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other market mechanisms, such as competitive bidding, that could be
   used to effectuate the efficient and expeditious use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks consistent with statutory
   limitations. For example, could the Commission auction earth station licenses to operate in the United States, using the 2320-2345
   MHz band spectrum that may not be internationally allocated for satellite communications? We seek comment on whether more
   intensive use of the band could be effectuated by auctioning the use to bidders who value the spectrum the highest for operations
   in a particular geographic area, for example by auctioning the use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks in a specific
   geographic area to a single earth station licensee. If so, how would we define those geographic areas? Are any restrictions
   or other limitations needed on what entities are eligible to bid for the spectrum use in a geographic area? We seek comment
   on these questions.

4. We also seek comment on our statutory authority to use auctions to authorize earth station operations using the 2320-2345
   MHz band. The Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, enacted in 2000 (ORBIT
   Act), prohibits the Commission from assigning orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of international or global
   satellite communications services through competitive bidding (i.e., auctions). This prohibition, codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f, was intended to prevent the imposition of auction-based licensing
   regimes on international satellite operators, which could lead to burdensome and duplicative auction requirements in multiple
   jurisdictions. We ask for comment on these questions in the specific context of our proposals to authorize earth stations
   to provide command uplinks to non-communication satellites and spacecraft in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Does the fact that the
   proposal does not seek to use competitive bidding for orbital locations comport with both the letter and intent of the ORBIT
   Act? Does the fact that SiriusXM provides SDARS service into Canada in the 2320-2345 MHz band transform the band into spectrum
   “that is used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services,” even though the purpose for
   which the 2320-2345 MHz band could be used is not SDARS, but SOS, which is not currently being provided in the 2320-2345 MHz
   band anywhere in the world? Are SOS or TT&C “international or global satellite communications services” as that term is used
   in the ORBIT Act?

2. Possible Application to Other Frequency Bands

1. We seek comment on whether there are frequency bands, besides the 2320-2345 MHz band, that are allocated for non-Federal use that could be used more intensively to address the need for spectrum for emergent space operations. Although the 2320-2345 MHz band appears particularly promising due to the exclusive use of the band by a single non-Federal licensee, low level of use by Federal operations, and the proximity of the spectrum to existing S-band spectrum that is in high demand, we seek comment on whether there are other frequency bands that also possess these characteristics. In particular, we seek comment on whether frequency bands adjacent to the 2320-2345 MHz band could also be made available, in the same or similar manner as the proposals for the 2320-2345 MHz band, for the provision of command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services.

a. 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz

1. On each side of the 2320-2345 MHz band that is used for SDARS subscriber downlinks are five megahertz of spectrum that
   served as “guard band” spectrum between SDARS and WCS operations in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands. These two spectrum
   bands, known as WCS Blocks C & D, were acquired by SiriusXM in 2024. We seek comment on whether these two 5-megahertz spectrum
   bands could also be used to provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use in the 2320-2345 MHz band.

2. If the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands were to be used to provide command uplinks similar to the proposed use of
   the 2320-2345 MHz band, the same mechanisms—adding a secondary allocation for SOS or by adding a footnote to the non-Federal
   column of the United States Table—could be used to implement such use. Likewise, we propose that any use of the bands by applicants
   for earth station licenses would require certification that the proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved
   by SiriusXM and subject to any spectrum leasing regimes that may be adopted for the 2320-2345 MHz band. We seek comment on
   the use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands for uplink commands to non-communications satellites. We also seek comment
   on use of these bands under any of the alternatives discussed above. In addition, footnote US100 provides for use of the 2345-2360
   MHz band for Federal aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned
   aircraft, missiles, or major components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions
   on earth station uplinks in the 2345-2350 MHz band be necessary to protect such Federal secondary allocations from harmful
   interference? Footnote US97 states that WCS base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band must be subject to a coordination agreement
   with NASA prior to operations within 145 kilometers of Goldstone, California. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions
   be necessary to protect the NASA radioastronomy site in Goldstone from harmful interference in the 2315-2320 MHz band, as
   required for WCS base stations operating in that band under footnote US97? Would a requirement for prior coordination of any
   earth stations seeking to provide command uplinks in the 2315-2320 MHz band within 145 kilometers of Goldstone be adequate
   to provide the same level of protection that NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band? The near adjacent
   2360-2395 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) for flight
   testing, and WCS base station operations in the 2345-2360 MHz band must be coordinated to ensure AMT receive stations are
   protected. Would additional technical or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in the 2345-2350

   MHz band be necessary to protect Federal and non-Federal flight test operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band from harmful interference
   caused by SOS out-of-band emissions? We also seek comment on the impact that use of the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands
   for command uplinks could have on the proposed use of these bands by SiriusXM for the provision of public safety communication
   services originating from SiriusXM satellites.

b. 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz

1. We seek comment on whether a secondary allocation for SOS could also be made in the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2350-2360 MHz
   band in the non-Federal column of the United States Table in the Earth-to-space direction and whether to allow WCS licensees,
   particularly AT&T, to lease the use of the spectrum that they acquired through competitive bidding to earth station licensees
   to provide uplink commands to non-communications satellites in a manner similar to that proposed for the 2320-2345 MHz band.

2. As observed above, the 2320-2345 MHz band is part of a larger block of spectrum from 2305-2360 MHz that is divided between
   WCS and SDARS licensees. Within this block of spectrum, 2305-2310 MHz is allocated on a primary basis to non-Federal operations
   in the fixed, mobile (except aeronautical mobile), and radiolocation services. There is also a secondary non-Federal allocation
   for the amateur service. There are no Federal allocations in 2305-2310 MHz, although footnote G122 provides that Federal operations
   may be authorized on a non-interference basis to authorized non-Federal operations and shall not constrain the implementation
   of any non-Federal operation. In addition, footnote US97 states that space-to-Earth operations in the 2305-2310 MHz band are
   prohibited, and that WCS base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band must be subject to a coordination agreement with NASA prior
   to operations within 145 kilometers of Goldstone, California.

3. The 2310-2320 MHz band has primary allocations for non-Federal fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services, as well as a
   primary allocation for BSS (sound). There are secondary allocations in this band for Federal fixed, mobile, and radiolocation
   services. The 2310-2320 MHz band also is subject to footnote US97. Footnote US100 also provides for use of the band for Federal
   aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles,
   or major components thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS, and that 2312.5 MHz is shared on a co-equal basis by Federal stations
   for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and reusable launch vehicles. Footnote US100 also provides
   that other Federal mobile telemetering uses may be provided in the 2310-2320 MHz band on a non-interference basis to all other
   uses authorized pursuant to footnote US100.

4. The 2345-2360 MHz band has the same allocations as the 2310-2320 MHz band, and is also subject to footnotes G2, US100,
   and US327. Provisions of footnote US100 that made the 2324-2360 MHz band available for non-Federal aeronautical telemetering
   and telecommand flight testing operations on a secondary basis to WCS expired on January 1, 2020.

5. WCS was established in 1997. Mutually exclusive initial applications for WCS in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands
   are subject to competitive bidding, and in 1997 the Commission auctioned and issued 128 WCS licenses. WCS licenses are issued
   by FCC market areas and channel blocks, with 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAG) and 52 Major Economic Areas (MEA).
   Blocks A (2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz) and B (2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz) are issued by MEAs, and blocks C (2315-2320
   MHz) and D (2345-2350 MHz) are issued by REAGs. AT&T currently holds all WCS licenses in Blocks A and B. Thus, similar to
   SiriusXM in the 2320-2345 MHz band, AT&T has exclusive use of the Block A and B licenses in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360
   MHz bands.

6. We seek comment on whether, for the same reasons discussed above for the 2320-2345 MHz band, the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360
   MHz bands could be well suited for more intensive use for command uplinks in support of emergent space operations. First,
   the two bands are also relatively close in proximity to the Federal S-band spectrum that is currently being requested for
   command and control of ISAM and other spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services to the public.
   In addition, allowing leased use of the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands for command uplinks would provide nearly contiguous
   45 megahertz of S-band spectrum, or 55 megahertz of contiguous S-band spectrum if the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands
   were also allowed leased use for command uplinks. Second, there are relatively few existing licensed users of the bands, with
   AT&T having exclusive, or near exclusive use, of the bands in the United States. Finally, similar to the situation with SiriusXM,
   AT&T does not operate in Blocks A and B uniformly throughout its licensed areas, and there may be geographical areas where
   earth stations may be able to transmit without causing harmful interference to AT&T's current or future operations. We expect
   that this may be particularly true in remote and rural areas, such as northern Alaska. We seek comment on these observations
   and expectations.

7. We also seek comment on whether the same general framework could be implemented for making spectrum available in the 2305-2320
   MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that was discussed for the 2320-2345 MHz band, that is, adding a secondary allocation for SOS
   in the bands or alternatively adding a footnote to the United States Table to permit SOS in the bands, and allowing AT&T to
   lease use of its spectrum in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands (Blocks A and B) to earth station licensees to provide
   command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services, subject to a certification by the
   earth station licensee that the proposed operations have been coordinated with and approved by AT&T. We observe that the Commission
   already permits leased access to WCS spectrum, including that held currently by AT&T, through secondary market mechanisms,
   although those mechanisms are limited to the provision of wireless radio services and do not apply to use of the spectrum
   by earth stations to provide SOS. We seek comment on what changes to our rules would be necessary to permit AT&T to lease
   use of its Block A and B WCS spectrum for use by earth station licensees to provide command uplinks in support of emergent
   space operations. Are there any concerns for such leasing of spectrum by AT&T that are not implicated by the proposed leasing
   of the 2320-2345 MHz band by SiriusXM? We seek comment on these questions.

8. We also seek comment on whether there should be any technical or geographic restrictions or limitations on the use of
   the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that are different from technical or geographic restrictions in the 2320-2345 MHz
   band. For example, footnote US100 provides for use of the 2310-2320 MHz band and 2345-2360 MHz band for Federal aeronautical
   telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles, or major components
   thereof, on a secondary basis to WCS. We also seek comment on whether coordination with Aerospace and Flight Test Radio

   Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) and Federal AMT coordinators would be needed to protect AMT operations in the 2360-2395 MHz
   band, much as WCS base stations operating in the 2350-2360 MHz band must coordinated today with AFTRCC. Would additional technical
   or geographic restrictions on earth station uplinks in these bands be necessary to protect such Federal secondary allocations
   from harmful interference? Similarly, would additional technical or geographic restrictions be necessary to protect the NASA
   radioastronomy site in Goldstone from harmful interference in the 2305-2320 MHz band, as required for WCS base stations operating
   in that band under footnote US97? Would a requirement for prior coordination of any earth stations seeking to provide command
   uplinks in the 2305-2320 MHz band within 145 kilometers of Goldstone be adequate to provide the same level of protection that
   NASA currently has for WCS operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band? Would new earth station uplink operations be compatible with
   sensitive Moon bounce operations conducted under the amateur radio service in the 2305-2310 MHz band? We also seek comment
   on whether it may be possible to allow downlinks in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands through a secondary SOS allocation
   or footnote to the United States Table, without causing interference or economic harm to WCS licensees or other authorized
   Federal or non-Federal spectrum users in the same or adjacent spectrum bands.

9. We also seek comment on any international issues that may arise from our proposal to allow the use of the 2305-2315 MHz
   and 2350-2360 MHz bands for command uplinks to spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. We observe
   that these bands are subject to the same allocations internationally as the 2320-2345 MHz band. Are any differences expected
   in the potential for interference to spectrum users outside of the United States from those addressed above in the context
   of our proposal for the 2320-2345 MHz band? Would any changes to the current bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico be
   needed to address Earth-to-space operations in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands that would not be needed to address
   such operations in the 2320-2345 MHz band? Could stations could receive commands in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands,
   on either a protected or unprotected basis, consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations, absent an allocation for SOS in the
   International Table? To what extent might other countries explore ways to authorize earth stations to provide command uplinks
   in the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands if there is sufficient demand globally for such services? If other countries
   allow use of these bands for SOS, could such frequencies be considered to be spectrum “that is used for the provision of international
   or global satellite communications services” under the ORBIT Act? We seek comment on these questions.

10. We also seek comment on whether any future auctions involving WCS license that are currently in inventory might specifically
    address the ability of future WCS licensees to lease spectrum to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft
    that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. We observe that there are ten WCS licenses in the Pacific Island
    REAG that are in the Commission's inventory of spectrum. Would the value of such licenses be increased in an auction if the
    winner would also be able to lease spectrum to earth station licensees to provide command uplinks to spacecraft that do not
    otherwise provide radiocommunication services? Would the ability of earth station licensees to provide such command uplinks
    in the Pacific Islands be useful in creating a global network of TT&C facilities that are often used for NGSO spacecraft?
    We seek comment on these questions.

3. Intersatellite Links

1. We seek comment on whether licensed satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites
   and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks in support of emergent space operations, without the need to file
   a modification or obtain additional authorization from the Commission. We expect that such authorization could provide additional
   spectrum because it will allow the use of off-the-shelf equipment, such as MSS user terminals, and already established ground
   and space infrastructure. Additionally, we expect such authorization could open up a new avenue of business for established
   NGSO or GSO space station licensees if there is a regulatory framework for clear authorization for these kinds of radiofrequency
   communications. We seek comment on these expectations.

2. Many spacecraft that are used to test technologies or perform experiments on-orbit do not have large antennas. This is
   largely due to financial and launch constraints, and the need for satellites to be small. Since the spacecraft are not intended
   to provide radiocommunication service to the public, much of a spacecraft's mass could be taken up by non-radio equipment,
   such as robot arms or other tools, and radios and antennas will need to be as small as possible. As a result, many small satellites
   and experimental satellites rely on intersatellite links whereby one satellite sends data and TT&C information to the ground
   via another satellite system. The Commission has experience with this kind of arrangement for experimental part 5 satellite
   applications and Iridium companion filings. In this arrangement, an experimental satellite operator files a part 5 application
   for experimental authority and the other satellite system then files a companion application for part 5 experimental authority
   to communicate with the other experimental satellite using its constellation that is licensed under part 25. We observe that
   this can be a cost-effective way for many new companies to deploy experimental satellites because they do not have to invest
   in large antennas or an extensive ground station network. We seek comment on this observation.

3. We seek comment on allowing space stations already licensed by the Commission to use intersatellite links to provide TT&C
   and payload data downlinks and uplinks to and from spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication services. Are
   there any concerns with allowing satellite operators to communicate with such spacecraft via intersatellite links without
   the need to file a modification? Should we require these operators, like Iridium, to file a notification that they consent
   to the communications as part of the license application, or should the obligation fall on the applicant to certify that the
   other satellite system operator has consented to the intersatellite links? We seek comment on these questions.

4. Additionally, should we limit or identify the specific frequency bands in which intersatellite links may be used in connection
   with spacecraft that do not otherwise provide radiocommunication service? We expect that satellite operators already licensed
   to use specific frequencies for intersatellite links, like Iridium, are best placed to coordinate the use of their licensed
   spectrum and determine the amount of capacity they have to provide intersatellite links to other spacecraft. Should we allow
   operators to use these intersatellite links in any frequency band in which their satellite partner (e.g., Iridium would be the satellite

   partner for part 5 experimental satellites described above) is licensed and willing to offer the intersatellite service? It
   is also likely that other satellite operators besides Iridium will be able to offer this proposed intersatellite link service
   if the Commission provides a regulatory pathway. Are there additional interference concerns that need to be considered if
   multiple NGSO or GSO satellite operators are providing intersatellite links in support of emergent space operations? We seek
   comment on these questions.

5. We also seek comment on how to address international coordination of such intersatellite links, given the absence of an
   international allocation for inter-satellite links and the ongoing discussion of intersatellite links at recent World Radio
   Conferences (WRC). Should we only allow intersatellite links in bands that are allocated internationally for intersatellite
   links? Should we allow intersatellite links as a non-conforming use provided that applicants provide compatibility showings?
   We seek comment on these questions.

6. Finally, we seek comment on any other changes to our rules or allocations under the United States Table that would be
   necessary to facilitate the ability of spacecraft to communicate with existing commercial communications satellites in NGSO
   or GSO to relay TT&C or payload data. How would any changes to existing rules and allocations be consistent with studies or
   initiatives that have been made internationally, particularly at the WRC regarding this type of activity? What further steps
   would be necessary to allow this domestically and/or internationally? We seek comment on these questions.

C. Benefits and Costs

1. The rules we propose, if adopted, will make additional spectrum available for spacecraft engaged in TT&C functions while
   also promoting efficiency by clarifying our rules concerning TT&C. In particular, we expect that our proposals would significantly
   reduce costly federal coordination for TT&C missions by making available a non-federal alternative. We estimate that total
   cost savings from this and other proposals would amount to approximately $6.8 million per year. We therefore tentatively conclude
   that the proposed rules are in the public interest. We seek comment on these findings.

2. The NPRM first proposes or seeks comment on codifying several Commission policies to provide additional regulatory clarity for these
   operators. This includes (1) codification of frequency piggybacking; (2) allowing additional applications for frequencies
   for emergent space operations under existing service allocations; (3) permitting TT&C functions within existing radiocommunication
   service allocations; and (4) refining the definition of TT&C. To the extent that lack of clarity in our rules has prevented
   stakeholders from engaging in certain TT&C operations, we could anticipate real benefits of providing stakeholders with regulatory
   clarity. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

3. We find that the proposal to add a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band will benefit the public by reducing
   regulatory costs. The proposal could potentially eliminate costly coordination with NTIA to use Federal bands for TT&C by
   giving a non-Federal alternative. While leasing the 2320-2345 MHz band may entail a payment to SiriusXM, this payment is a
   pure transfer from the operator to SiriusXM and so has no effect on total costs and benefits. Negotiating with SiriusXM would
   generate some new costs, but these would be smaller than the costs of coordinating with NTIA or else operators would not seek
   to negotiate with SiriusXM. Further, operators could set up a longstanding contract with SiriusXM, limiting negotiation during
   the term of the contrast. By contrast, at present, to the extent that operators are unable to conduct TT&C functions within
   non-Federal bands such as those for FSS, MSS, BSS, or EESS, operators must engage in frequency coordination with NTIA to use
   the S-band or other Federal allocations of spectrum on a case-by-case basis. We also believe that the proposal has the potential
   to generate additional space operations by expanding the total bandwidth available to space operators and allowing operations
   that may not have been justified by the costs and uncertainty of NTIA coordination, which is not guaranteed to result in approval.
   We seek comment on these observations.

4. We estimate the magnitude of the annual regulatory cost savings to be $8.2 million. We estimate this by assuming the NTIA
   coordination process is handled on the operator's side by a team of two lawyers and two engineers. We assume they work through
   the application process over two months, which we approximate as eight forty-hour workweeks or three hundred and twenty work
   hours for each worker. We estimate that the lawyers have an hourly compensation of $106.10/hour and that the engineers have
   an hourly compensation of $94.64. Total compensation for one space operator's team in an NTIA coordination is therefore $128,473.60.
   We estimate on the NTIA side, a team of three government employees handle the coordination. We estimate the average government
   hourly compensation is $80.67, so the total NTIA team compensation for the coordination process is $77,443.20. The total labor
   costs of coordination combining both private and public expenses is $205,916.80. Based on the number of application requests
   in the Federal S-band (2025-2110 MHz) from 2021 to 2025, we estimate the future average for such applications to be about

   1. Not all of these applications are related to TT&C, and we assume that some operators will rely on non-Federal bands or prefer to continue coordinating with NTIA, so we estimate that only 50% of applications, 40 annually, will be replaced by leases in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Multiplying this number by the per coordination labor costs results in a total annual labor cost saving of approximately $8.2 million. Total benefits would equal the economic value of additional operations allowed by the new spectrum plus the cost savings. Given the uncertain nature of additional operations, we do not estimate them here, such that $8.2 million is a lower bound on benefits. We seek comment on this methodology.

5. We estimate additional negotiation costs by assuming every negotiation between a space operator and SiriusXM is handled
   by two teams of two lawyers. Using the 2025-2110 MHz band allows operators to avoid the complex coordination needed for other
   bands, so that we assume no engineers are involved and the negotiation time falls to two weeks. With these assumptions, and
   the earlier assumption of hourly compensation for lawyers being $106.10/hour, total negotiations costs for each lease is only
   $33,952.00. Assuming, again, 40 leases leads to total negotiation costs of approximately $1.4 million. These costs are likely
   to be front-loaded because we predict negotiations will result in long-term contracts, allowing operators to bypass such costs
   for a number of years. The long-run average negotiation cost is likely lower than $1.4 million, so $1.4 million represents
   an upper bound on costs. The lower bound of $8.2 million for benefits is higher than the upper bound of $1.4 million for costs,
   so we tentatively conclude that the benefits of the 2320-2345 MHz band proposal will exceed its costs and be at least $6.8
   million, annually. We seek comment on this methodology.

6. We postpone until a later date estimating the benefits and costs associated with possible secondary allocations in addition
   to the 2320-2345 MHz band. Currently, we do not have a specific proposal on how to implement other secondary allocations,
   so it is not possible to estimate benefits or costs at this time. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

7. Although we only seek comment on whether satellite operators should be authorized by rule to use their FCC-licensed satellites
   and intersatellite links to provide TT&C and data downlinks to spacecraft, we can tentatively estimate benefits as costs avoided
   from no longer needing to file modification applications. Currently, there are about 25 annual applications for experimental
   modifications for TT&C related activities, so we will assume that number of applications going forward. Applications involve
   labor costs from a lawyer, which we estimate to be 1.5 hours of work at a total hourly compensation of $106.10/hour. We will
   assume the avoided fee is equal to $140, the modification fee for experimental licenses. Total benefit from the intersatellite
   links proposal is then approximately $7.4 thousand, which is a lower bound given potentially higher future demand for intersatellite
   links and additional space operations that might be spurred on by lower costs. We predict no costs would result from simply
   reducing application requirements, so we conclude that the net benefit of the intersatellite links proposal also has a lower
   bound of $7.4 thousand. While this is positive, it is only a small increase relative to the net benefits of the 2320-2345
   MHz band proposal, so to avoid an impression of false precision, we do not add this to the net benefit total. We seek comment
   on this methodology.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

1. In the NPRM, we initiate this rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on ways in which to make additional spectrum available to support emergent
   space operations. We continue our efforts to identify spectrum or ways in which spectrum can be used more efficiently to support
   emergent space operations. We therefore propose to establish regulatory clarity for the use of existing spectrum allocations
   in support of emergent space operations, and to codify certain Commission policies to provide further regulatory clarity.
   We also propose to make additional non-Federal spectrum available for TT&C in support of emergent space operations.

2. The primary objectives of the proposals in the NPRM are to identify additional spectrum for spacecraft that conduct emergent space operations and to identify ways in which existing
   allocated spectrum can be used more efficiently to support such spacecraft. To that end, the NPRM proposes to codify the use of frequency piggybacking to allow certain spacecraft engaged in servicing a client spacecraft
   to operate in frequency bands consistent with the client's authorized radiofrequency communications. The NPRM seeks comment on how to codify the potential use of frequency piggybacking, how such codification might be structured to accommodate
   a broad range of scenarios while ensuring both regulatory certainty and operational flexibility, and whether additional use
   cases—beyond servicing, monitoring, or collaborating with a client spacecraft—should also be considered for piggybacking.
   The NPRM also proposes to refine the definition of “TT&C” to encompass radiofrequency usage by spacecraft that do not otherwise provide
   radiocommunication services and to permit TT&C within existing radiocommunication service allocations.

3. Finally, the NPRM proposes to add a secondary allocation for space operation service (SOS) (Earth-to-space) in the 2320-2345 MHz band in the
   non-Federal column of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (United States Table), and allow leasing of spectrum by the
   exclusive licensee within this frequency band in the U.S., to earth station licensees for command of spacecraft that do not
   otherwise provide radiocommunication services. The secondary allocation proposal includes a requirement for applicants to
   seek authority from the Commission to operate an earth station in the 2320-2345 MHz band under secondary allocation, and to
   certify that their proposed operations have been coordinated with, and approved by, the exclusive licensee within this frequency
   band to safeguard the existing operations from interference. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposed certification requirement, and on whether there are additional non-Federally allocated spectrum
   bands such as the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands, and the 2305-2315 MHz and 2350-2360 MHz bands, that could be used
   in support of emergent space operations.

B. Legal Basis

1. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, and 332.

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

1. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
   that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same
   meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term
   “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the SBA. A “small business concern” is one
   in which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
   criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when
   promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs,
   but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

2. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three
   broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. In general, a small business is an independent business
   having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small business represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which
   translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently

   owned and operated and not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet
   that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are
   defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than
   fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
   jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

3. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification
   System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated
   number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of
   small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities
   in the industries identified below.

| Regulated industry | NAICS
code | SBA size standard | Total
firms | Small
firms | % Small firms in industry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Wired Telecommunications Carriers | 517111 | 1,500 employees | 3,403 | 3.027 | 88.95 |
| Satellite Telecommunications | 517410 | $44 million | 332 | 195 | 88.69 |
| All Other Telecommunications | 517810 | $40 million | 1,673 | 1,007 | 60.19 |

D. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

1. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
   recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject
   to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

2. In the NPRM, we seek to make additional spectrum available for certain types of spacecraft and satellite operators, and do not propose
   to change the way the space station licensing process works. By clarifying the use of existing allocations and permitting
   TT&C on a non-interference basis as proposed in the NPRM, we may reduce the time and expense for small and other entities associated with acquiring spectrum access. Further, these
   clarifications and the codification of practices such as frequency piggybacking and spectrum leasing should lower barriers
   to entry, eliminate the need for small entities to file requests for waiver of the United States Table (47 CFR 2.106) to access
   certain spectrum, and allow small entities to avoid lengthy coordination with Federal users making the application process
   easier and avoid some legal and administrative costs. We estimate a total cost savings of approximately $6.8 million annually
   from the proposals discussed in the NPRM.

3. Notwithstanding the benefits of streamlined access to spectrum, small and other entities would be subject to complying
   with certification and coordination requirements to lease spectrum from incumbent licensees, and are likely to incur new costs
   in the form of lease payments to incumbent licensees. Small and other entities seeking to lease spectrum would also be required
   to obtain their own earth station license from the Commission, and would be subject to the applicable reporting, recordkeeping,
   and compliance obligations for licensees. Additionally, while the proposals in the NPRM will reduce regulatory complexities, burdens and costs, small entities may incur compliance costs and may need to engage the
   assistance of professionals such as engineers, lawyers or consultants to meet their obligation to demonstrate technical compliance
   with spectrum use parameters, negotiate leasing agreements and certify coordination with incumbent licensees, and to assist
   with filings involving coordination with Federal users or international obligations.

4. If the proposals in the NPRM are adopted, we expect the overall burden for small and other entities to be less than under our current requirements. Adding
   a secondary allocation for SOS in the 2320-2345 MHz band has the potential to eliminate costly coordination with the National
   Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to use Federal bands for TT&C by giving small and other entities
   a non-Federal alternative. Further, while leasing 2320-2345 MHz band spectrum may require small and other entities to negotiate
   with, and make lease payments to, the exclusive licensee in the band, SiriusXM, we anticipate that these costs would be significantly
   lower than those associated with any individual NTIA coordination effort, since leasing spectrum will eliminate the need for
   engineering coordination. We estimate the annual regulatory cost savings from the elimination of NTIA coordination will be
   $8.2 million. By eliminating NTIA coordination, we estimate that small and other entities will each save $128,473.60 in legal
   and engineering compensation costs. Our estimate assumes an operator's NTIA coordination process uses two lawyers and two
   engineers working through the application process over a two months period—eight forty-hour workweeks or three hundred and
   twenty work hours for each worker, with an hourly compensation rate of $106.10/hour for the lawyers, and $94.64 for the engineers.
   The total calculated compensation for an operator's NTIA coordination is therefore $128,473.60. Additional cost savings may
   be realized by small and other operators by establishing long-term contracts reducing the need for ongoing negotiations during
   the contract period. In contrast, frequency coordination with NTIA for each specific use case is required under the current
   process.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

1. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
   the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant impact on small entities. The discussion is required
   to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
   take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
   and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards;
   and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

2. The NPRM proposes ways to identify more spectrum for spacecraft

   that conduct emergent space operations and to make it easier for operators of these spacecraft to apply for and use spectrum.
   We consider some alternatives that would minimize the economic impact on small entities while achieving our goal of expanding
   spectrum availability for space operations in an evolving space industry and economy. These alternatives would balance regulatory
   certainty with flexibility, and could enable small entities to access spectrum more efficiently and affordably.

3. We generally propose to continue reviewing requests to operate space stations within specific service allocations on
   a case-by-case basis to assess whether the proposed communications can justifiably fit within the definition of the service
   allocation; however, we consider and seek comment on allowing TT&C operations within existing service allocations, provided
   the operations fit within the service allocation definition. Another option upon which we seek comment is allowing licensees
   and market access grantees to conduct TT&C in any band where TT&C may already be provided within the radiocommunication service.
   Allowing such flexible use of existing allocations would avoid the need for new rulemakings to create new allocations or conduct
   spectrum reallocation. We also consider and seek comments on whether to grant applicants authority to provide fixed-satellite
   service (FSS) in bands allocated for non-Federal FSS, limited to the provision of TT&C on an unprotected, non-interference
   basis, subject to coordination with other spectrum users, outside of a first-come, first service procedure or a processing
   round.

4. While our proposed allowance of spectrum leasing in the 2320-2345 MHz band discussed in the NPRM would have certification and coordination requirements for lessees, we consider and propose allowing space station authorization
   in the 2320-2345 MHz band with a certification and coordination requirement in the limited circumstance of reception of commands
   from earth stations licensed by the Commission, or from earth stations located outside of the United States. We also consider
   and seek comment on allowing earth stations to provide command uplinks to non-communications satellites and spacecraft in
   the 2320-2345 MHz band within a defined geographic area, such as an area of northern Alaska defined by latitude, without requiring
   coordination and approval. These approaches offer regulatory flexibility and would minimize the need for complex coordination
   which could lower compliance costs for small and other entities.

5. Our proposal for spectrum leasing would still require small and other entities that want to use the 2320-2345 MHz band
   to provide command uplinks to obtain an earth station license from the Commission prior to transmitting in the band, and lessees
   would be subject to all licensing and regulatory obligations applicable to earth station licensees. As an alternative, we
   seek comment on whether to adopt the more extensive requirements for approving long and short term de facto transfers of control of spectrum under the Commission's spectrum leasing rules applicable to Wireless Radio Services and other
   wireless licensees. Adoption of this approach presumes no additional license authorization is required from the Commission
   to allow the operations using leased spectrum.

6. Other alternatives we consider and seek comment on in the NPRM include whether a non-governmental (NG) footnote to the United States Table is a better method than our proposed secondary
   allocation allowance to permit use of the 2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks to non-communications satellites, and whether
   competitive bidding or alternative market-based approaches can be employed to promote the efficient and timely use of the
   2320-2345 MHz band for command uplinks, consistent with statutory limitations. We specifically inquire whether earth station
   licenses to operate in the U.S. using the 2320-2345 MHz band—spectrum that is not internationally allocated for satellite
   communications—could be auctioned by the Commission. If we decide to use an auction process, as in prior auctions, small entity
   bidding credits could be made available to promote competitive entry for small entities.

7. To assist with our evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the proposals and matters
   upon which we seek comment in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks alternative proposals, and requests information from small and other licensees. We expect to consider more fully the
   economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including any costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters may help the Commission
   further minimize the economic impact on small entities. Our evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape
   the final conclusions we reach, the final alternatives we consider, and the actions we ultimately take in this proceeding
   to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.

8. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small entities are encouraged to bring to our attention any specific concerns that
   they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.

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

1. None.

Ordering Clauses

1. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
   47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, that the NPRM is adopted.

2. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2026-06865 Filed 4-8-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

Download File

Download