Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021, 26677-26681 [2021-10261]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 93 (Monday, May 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26677-26681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10261]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket Nos. 20-105; MD Docket Nos. 21-190; FCC 21-49; FRS 26030]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) acts on several proposals that will impact FY 2021 
regulatory fees.

DATES: This final action is effective June 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 
21-49, MD Docket No. 21-190, and MD Docket No. 20-105, adopted on May 
3, 2021 and released on May 4, 2021. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's 
website at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.a.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 
Director at (202) 418-0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is located towards the end 
of this document.

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    2. This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

C. Congressional Review Act

    3. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this 
Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

II. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, we adopt a new distinction between 
non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems, as further described 
below, by creating two new fee subcategories, one for ``less complex'' 
NGSO systems and a second for all other NGSO systems identified as 
``other'' NGSO systems, both under the broader category of ``Space 
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)''.

III. Report and Order--New Regulatory Fee Categories for Certain NGSO 
Space Stations

    2. We first address the recent modifications in methodology for 
International Bureau licensee fees to more closely reflect the 
statutory requirement. After previously increasing the allocation of 
indirect full time equivalents (FTEs) in the International Bureau, in 
FY 2020 the Commission adopted a regulatory fee for foreign licensed 
space stations with U.S. market access, recharacterizing and thereby 
increasing the total number of direct FTEs for the International Bureau 
to 28. The Commission also adjusted the FTE allocation for the 
international bearer circuit (IBC) category to eight FTEs, from 6.9 
FTEs, to better reflect the direct FTE work in the International Bureau 
for that fee category, resulting in 20 FTEs assigned to the satellite 
and earth station regulatory fee category. The Commission also adjusted 
the allocation of FTEs among geostationary orbit (GSO) and NGSO space 
station and earth station operators. The Commission noted the disparity 
in number of units between GSO space stations (98) and NGSO space 
stations (seven), and noted that under a single NGSO license, many 
satellites can be operated while counting as a single unit for 
regulatory fee purposes, but only one satellite can be operated per GSO 
space station regulatory fee unit. To ensure that regulatory fees more 
closely reflect the work of processing applications and rulemaking for 
each category, the Commission allocated 80% of space station regulatory 
fees to GSOs and 20%

[[Page 26678]]

of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs.
    3. In the further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) (85 FR 
71593, Nov. 10, 2020) accompanying the FY 2020 Report and Order (85 FR 
59864, Sept. 23, 2020), the Commission sought comment on different 
proposals for new fee categories for different types of NGSO systems. 
In response to the FNPRM, some commenters generally argue that the size 
of an NGSO system, or the services the system may provide, does not 
correlate to Commission resources. Others support adopting various 
aspects of the FNPRM proposals, and that NGSO systems should be 
distinguished by type. For purposes of calculating regulatory fees, we 
determine that the number of U.S.-authorized earth stations with which 
an NGSO system will communicate and the primary use of the NGSO system 
are complementary considerations that together define the complexity of 
the system. After consideration of the record, we conclude that the 
majority of our NGSO-related regulatory activities involve certain 
types of NGSO systems, and that the NGSO category can be divided into 
two types of systems for purposes of the assessment of regulatory fees: 
(1) ``less complex'' systems, defined as NGSO satellite systems 
planning to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S. authorized earth stations 
that are primarily used for Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) 
and/or Automatic Identification System (AIS); and (2) ``other'' NGSO 
satellite systems. We therefore adopt two subcategories under the Space 
Station (Non-Geostationary Orbit) fee category: (1) Space Station (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex; and (2) Space Station (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Other, as discussed below.
    4. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on several specific 
proposals to define multiple NGSO system fee categories. Among these 
was a proposal from Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS) to adopt a nominal 
regulatory fees for NGSO systems with five or fewer U.S.-licensed earth 
stations for Telemetry, Tracking, and Control (TT&C) and non-domestic 
data and downlink purposes. As discussed below, we adopt a variation on 
this proposal. The Commission also sought comment on a proposal from 
Kineis to use a formula to calculate fee tiers for an NGSO system based 
on the number of operating satellites and the total transmit bandwidth. 
Kineis had argued that its proposal would allow for fair allocation of 
fees in consideration of the varying facets of each NGSO system, such 
as size, number of space stations, necessary spectrum, and services 
provided. In comments to the FNPRM, Kepler Communications Inc. (Kepler) 
recommends a variation on Kineis's approach, proposing fee tiers based 
on quantity of desired bandwidth, the ``value'' of the desired spectral 
band, and aggregate on-orbit mass. Additionally, the Commission sought 
comment on a proposal from Eutelsat S.A. (Eutelsat) to create two 
regulatory fee categories for NGSO systems based on the number of 
satellites, as well as a proposal of Myriota Pty. Ltd. (Myriota) to 
assign each NGSO system into one of three fee categories: Fixed-
satellite service (FSS), mobile satellite service (MSS) and remote 
sensing (EESS), and other NGSO systems.
    5. In connection with these various proposals, a number of 
commenters agree that the Commission expends more resources on certain 
types of NGSO systems. Commenters focus on various characteristics of 
the NGSO systems. AWS, for example, suggests that EESS systems that 
communicate with five or fewer U.S.-licensed earth stations for TT&C 
and non-domestic data downlink purposes do not meaningfully gain access 
to the United States market. AWS explains that instead, the U.S.-
located earth stations function as a data transit location, and actual 
service occurs in the cloud where the data is processed. Planet Labs 
Inc. (Planet) supports Myriota's proposal to distinguish between 
systems based solely on the type of service offered. Planet asserts 
that the Commission expended greater resources in 2020 on FSS-related 
report and orders, proceedings, rulemakings, and processing 
adjudications than it did for other services.
    6. Not all commenters take this view, however. For example, Space 
Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) disagrees with Myriota's 
proposal and contends that the record contains no evidence that the 
service provided by an NGSO system correlates with the expenditure of 
Commission resources. SpaceX offers that many EESS systems require 
Commission staff to coordinate with government systems through the 
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee process, while many FSS 
systems do not, and that the Commission has recently conducted 
rulemakings affecting various types of satellite systems beyond FSS 
systems. Planet counters that, although processing EESS applications 
can also be time consuming, the vast majority of the processing burden 
is borne by the applicant.
    7. After reviewing and evaluating the regulatory tasks for all NGSO 
systems, we agree with commenters asserting that we should 
differentiate within the NGSO space station category for regulatory 
fees. The amount of work involved in regulating NGSO systems and the 
number of reasonably related benefits provided to the payors of the 
NGSO fee category by our activities appear to directly correlate with 
certain characteristics in a requested authorization for an NGSO 
system. Both the number of earth stations and the primary use of the 
system are relevant. Accordingly, we adopt a regulatory fee category 
for ``less complex'' NGSO systems and define this ``less complex'' NGSO 
system category by adopting elements of several of the FNPRM proposals. 
For regulatory fee purposes, we define a ``less complex'' systems as 
NGSO satellite systems that plan to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S. 
authorized earth stations, primarily used for EESS and/or AIS. Any NGSO 
satellite systems that do not qualify as ``less complex'' would fall 
into the category of ``other'' NGSO satellite systems, for regulatory 
fee purposes.
    8. Our experience demonstrates that the systems providing EESS and 
or AIS are most likely to be ``less complex'' systems if they also are 
planning to communicate with 20 or fewer earth stations. These ``less 
complex'' systems require fewer Commission resources because, for 
example, they are nearly always granted pursuant to waivers of 
resource-intensive processing rounds, based on their ability to share 
with other operators in the requested frequency bands. We agree with 
Planet's assertion that those systems authorized through a processing 
round typically do involve considerable time and effort adjudicating 
contentious processing round disputes and related licensing matters. In 
addition, the Commission has expended significant resources on 
rulemakings and licensing proceedings for ``more complex'' NGSO 
systems. These rulemakings and licensing proceedings have focused on 
issues that correlate to systems planning to communicate with a large 
number of earth stations. As Planet notes in its comments, the 
Commission historically has devoted significant resources to NGSO FSS-
related rulemaking matters. The Commission has also expended 
considerable resources evaluating spectrum sharing issues between NGSO 
FSS and terrestrial services, which increase in complexity as the 
number of earth stations increase. Moreover, systems planning to 
communicate with larger numbers of earth stations typically have a 
large global presence. These global systems are likely to

[[Page 26679]]

require more International Bureau staff resources in connection with 
international forums, such as the International Telecommunication 
Union, because of the significant global presence of these systems. 
They also require, in many cases, more significant spectrum needs, 
which may involve increased multi-lateral coordination. Taking all of 
these facts together, we find both that adopting a category for ``less 
complex'' NGSO systems is appropriate, and that the criteria we have 
identified for this category generally correlates with those systems 
that receive fewer regulatory benefits from the Commission's overall 
activities benefiting NGSOs.
    9. We also find the Commission's regulatory work and related 
benefits provided to the payor of this fee category appear to have a 
direct correlation with the number of U.S.-authorized earth stations 
with which an NGSO system will communicate. As AWS points out, the 
complexity of that system relates generally with the amount of 
regulatory resources expended in connection with this type of system. 
Specifically, we find that those systems planning to use 20 or fewer 
earth stations have generally limited scope of authorization and 
require significantly less Commission oversight than the regulatory 
work involved with other NGSO systems. Our internal analysis also shows 
that regulation of NGSO systems planning to communicate with 20 or 
fewer U.S.-authorized earth stations tends to be noticeably less 
complex compared to the regulation of NGSO systems planning to 
communicate with more than 20 earth stations. Although 20 earth 
stations are greater in number than AWS's proposed five earth stations, 
we think that it would be a more accurate number as a proxy to reflect 
the complexity of space systems based on our analysis.
    10. We use the phrase ``planning to communicate'' since some more 
complex NGSO systems may communicate with a small number of earth 
stations during initial operational phases, but actually intend to 
communicate with a significantly larger set of earth stations. We find 
this initial phase to not be reflective of Commission costs, and 
therefore we will look to longer-term system design in order to 
determine complexity. We will interpret ``planning to communicate'' 
based on the system design provided at the NGSO space station 
application stage. For regulatory fee purposes, the term ``earth 
station'' encompasses all stations, including satellite gateways and 
user terminals. Transmitters, such as AIS, do not fall within the 
definition of ``earth station'' under part 25 of the Commission's rules 
since satellite reception is not intended, but rather is an incidental 
monitoring of a signal primarily intended for reception by terrestrial 
stations.
    11. We are persuaded by AWS to include TT&C earth stations used for 
spacecraft control in this earth station count. In addition, the total 
number of earth stations include all earth stations planning to 
communicate with the relevant system--whether the earth station is 
operated by the system operator or a third party is irrelevant for 
regulatory fee purposes.
    12. As discussed above, we expect less complex NGSO space systems 
operations would involve primarily EESS and/or AIS. NGSO systems that 
plan to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S.-authorized stations often are 
developed for collecting earth exploration data and utilize 
communications primarily for the purpose of transferring data collected 
in space back to the ground. Such operations do not include objectively 
complex services like industrial Internet of Things services and other 
data services which involve space stations that typically communicate 
with hundreds or thousands of user terminals, and impose larger 
regulatory review burdens. Although we expect less complex NGSO space 
systems would be used primarily for EESS and/or AIS, we decline to 
explicitly limit ``less complex'' system eligibility to a particular 
service class alone, as proposed by Myriota, because some ``less 
complex'' systems may use multiple types of services, and the number of 
earth stations with which a system plans to communicate is a reasonable 
proxy for identifying complexity of NGSO space stations systems, and 
our regulatory costs. We note that EESS services typically are 
authorized to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S.-authorized earth 
stations. With respect to AIS, as a shipboard broadcast system that 
transmits a marine vessel's identification and position to aid in 
navigation and maritime safety, we also found that these systems 
receiving AIS signals and planning to operate with 20 or fewer earth 
stations involve less Commission oversight compared to other NGSO 
systems. We do not, however, foreclose the possibility of designating 
other categories of NGSO systems as ``less complex'' systems in the 
future if our experience supports a finding that our regulatory work 
for such systems is significantly less than those for other NGSO 
systems.
    13. We assess the ``less complex'' regulatory fee on a per NGSO 
space station system basis, rather than on a per-earth station basis as 
proposed by AWS. Additionally, although AWS proposes that we assess 
only a nominal fee for NGSO systems with a small number of earth 
stations, we find that NGSO systems communicating with even a small 
number of earth stations do still benefit from the Commission's 
regulation, including enforcement, rulemakings, and international 
activities, and require Commission resources, therefore justifying a 
substantive, rather than nominal, fee. As AWS notes, most NGSO systems 
plan to utilize earth stations globally to remain competitive, and, for 
these NGSOs, downlinking to the United States is done as a function of 
needing a robust earth station network for its operations. Regardless 
of whether a space system communicates with one or thousands of earth 
stations, the Commission still expends significant time and resources 
in regulating these space systems, and those considerations will be 
calculated accordingly into the ``less complex,'' yet substantive, fee. 
We also find that among the new less complex category of space systems, 
there are not significant differences with respect to our regulatory 
activities benefiting each space system. We further decline to assess 
fees for an NGSO space station system on a ``per earth station'' basis. 
We note that the number of earth stations does not drive the regulatory 
resources expended for regulating space stations per se; rather, the 
number of earth stations typically correlates to the complexity of an 
NGSO space station. As noted elsewhere, we use the number of earth 
stations as a proxy to determine complexity of a space system. Our 
experience shows that there is not a meaningful resource difference, 
for example, between regulation of a system planning to communicate 
with four U.S. earth stations versus a system planning to communicate 
with 17 U.S. earth stations. The clear differentiation, at this point, 
appears to be between those NGSO systems planning to communicate with 
roughly 20 or fewer earth stations authorized by the United States and 
other NGSO systems, the vast majority of which plan to communicate with 
more than 100 earth stations authorized by the United States, which may 
include user terminals or otherwise ubiquitously deployed earth 
stations. In our experience, there are not ``close cases'' between 
these two categories of systems. Accordingly, we adopt this fee on a 
per NGSO space station system basis given the regulatory cost and

[[Page 26680]]

benefits directly related to NGSO space systems, not earth stations.
    14. We disagree with those commenters advocating against adopting 
additional categories of NGSO fees. The Commission collects regulatory 
fees based on the Commission's efforts spent on regulating a payor and 
taking into account the benefits provided to the payor by the 
Commission's activities. Telesat and SES suggest that, if a system 
operator believes that in a particular case the standard NGSO fee is 
substantially disproportionate, it can seek a fee waiver or reduction. 
While our rules do enable waiver requests, they are exceptional in 
nature, and we decline to set up a process based on an expectation of a 
fee waiver or reduction. As described above, we see a clear dividing 
point between systems that are more complex to regulate and systems 
that require far fewer resources to regulate, and find that this 
dividing line is fairer and easier to administer than a fee waiver or 
other process. We also disagree with Eutelsat and OneWeb that we need 
additional development of the record before creating a new NGSO fee 
category. We sought further comment in the FNPRM to develop the record 
on this issue and using a combination of factors explored in the 
record, conclude that certain NGSO systems should pay a different fee 
based on the resources required to regulate such systems. If 
circumstances warrant, the Commission may choose revisit or revise this 
new category in the future.
    15. We also disagree, at this time, with the formula-based systems 
proposed by Kineis and Kepler, since these proposals are overly complex 
and would require the additional expenditure of Commission resources to 
calculate and assign fees for each individual system. Moreover, we do 
not find that all aspects proposed to be factored into these formulas 
correlate with the resources the Commission expends in regulating each 
system. In our experience, number of satellites, total bandwidth, on-
orbit mass, and market share of the service type are not consistently 
indicative of the complexity of NGSO regulation. We also decline to 
adopt Eutelsat's proposal to create two regulatory fee categories for 
NGSO systems based on the number of satellites. It is not our 
experience that number of satellites (or satellite mass) is the key 
driver of system complexity and regulation. For example, an NGSO system 
with a small number of satellites, authorized as part of a processing 
round to operate in the FSS to provide broadband to user terminals in a 
particular area, will receive significant continuous benefits 
reasonably related to our regulatory work. Instead, we find that the 
number of earth stations authorized by the United States with which a 
system plans to communicate provides a clearer proxy for identifying 
system complexity upon which to allocate fees. This approach ensures 
that our fee apportionment is reasonably related to our regulatory cost 
and that the fee structure is easier to administer.
    16. In summary, after reviewing the record and analyzing the 
resources the International Bureau devotes to NGSO oversight and 
regulation, we adopt an additional NGSO space station category for 
``less complex'' NGSO systems, for regulatory fees. In addition, we 
create a fee category for ``other'' NGSO systems that do not qualify as 
``less complex'' systems. We place these two categories: (1) Space 
Station (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex; and (2) Space Station 
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other under the current Space Station (Non-
Geostationary Orbit) fee category.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
included in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) 
accompanying the regulatory fee Report and Order for fiscal year 2020. 
The Commission sought written public comment on these proposals 
including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the IRFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    2. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a modified 
version of a proposal to the FNPRM on creating a new regulatory fee 
category for ``less complex'' non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite 
systems. The Commission defines ``less complex'' NGSO satellite systems 
as those NGSO systems that plan to communicate with 20 or fewer earth 
stations in the United States primarily used for Earth Exploration 
Satellite Service (EESS) and/or Automatic Identification System (AIS).
    3. Under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
(Communications Act or Act), regulatory fees are mandated by Congress 
and collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the 
Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and 
international activities in an amount that can be reasonably expected 
to equal the amount of the Commission's annual appropriation. The 
objective in the Report and Order for adopting the new regulatory fee 
category is to have a new category (and lower fee) for the smaller NGSO 
systems instead of grouping them with the larger NGSO systems.

B. Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA

    4. None.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    5. No comments were filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    6. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small 
businesses, according to the SBA.
    7. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS code category is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this 
FRFA. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, most Other Toll Carriers 
can be considered small. According to internally developed Commission 
data, 284 companies reported that their

[[Page 26681]]

primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other 
toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll 
Carriers are small entities.
    8. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of 
establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for ``All Other Telecommunications,'' 
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $35 
million or less. For this category, census data for 2012 show that 
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these 
firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 
million. Thus, most ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially 
affected by the rules adopted can be considered small.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    9. This Report and Order does not adopt any new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

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

    10. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small 
entities.
    11. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it 
should adopt a new fee category for certain types of NGSO systems, and 
in the Report and Order the Commission adopted a new category for a 
type of smaller ``less complex'' NGSO system that would have a lower 
regulatory fee than the other NGSO systems. The Commission reviewed and 
evaluated the regulatory work done for all NGSO systems and found that 
those systems planning to use 20 or fewer earth stations have generally 
limited scope of authorization, i.e., Earth Exploration Satellite 
Service (EESS) and/or Automatic Identification System (AIS) only, 
require significantly less Commission oversight than the regulatory 
work involved with other NGSO systems. For that reason, the Commission 
adopted a new regulatory fee category for these smaller NGSO systems.
    12. In keeping with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, we have considered certain alternative means of mitigating the 
effects of fee increases. This new fee category adopted for ``less 
complex'' NGSO systems will have a lower regulatory fee than that for 
the other NGSO systems, because these systems are much smaller than 
traditional NGSO systems.

V. Ordering Clauses

    13. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 4(i) and (j), 9, 9A, and 303(r) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, 159A, and 
303(r), this Report and Order is hereby adopted.
    14. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be 
effective30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    15. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis in this document to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-10261 Filed 5-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P