Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024; Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024, 20582-20603 [2024-05996]
Download as PDF
20582
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 19, 2024.
Charles E. Fosse,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2024–06224 Filed 3–22–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR 166 and 167
[Docket No. USCG–2019–0279]
RIN 1625–AC57
Shipping Safety Fairways Along the
Atlantic Coast Public Meeting
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of public meeting
and extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has decided
to host a public meeting regarding the
proposed establishment of shipping
safety fairways along the Atlantic coast.
In addition, the Coast Guard is
extending the comment period on the
proposed rule in order to allow
participants in the public meeting
sufficient time to prepare their comment
submissions.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published January 19,
2024, at 89 FR 3587, is extended.
Comments should be received on or
before May 17, 2024. The meeting will
be held on April 17, 2024 at 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
101 Vera King Farris Drive, Galloway,
NJ 08205 in the L-Wing Building,
Classroom 112.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document call or
email Brian Mottel, Coast Guard;
telephone 206–815–4657, email
David.b.mottel2@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on January 19,
2024, proposing the establishment of
shipping safety fairways along the
Atlantic coast. 89 FR 3587. The
proposed rule is intended to protect
traditional shipping routes as well as to
help facilitate development on the outer
continental shelf (OCS). Since
publication, we’ve received multiple
requests from commenters requesting
further public engagement from the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is
committed to the meaningful
participation of stakeholders in the
rulemaking process and to receiving the
highest quality input and expertise that
the private sector has to offer. In that
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
spirit, we have decided to host a public
meeting to gather further information on
the potential impacts of the proposed
fairways.
The meeting will be hosted at
Stockton University at 6 p.m. on April
17, 2024. The meeting will be held at
101 Vera King Farris Drive, Galloway,
NJ 08205 in the L-Wing Building,
Classroom 112. The meeting will consist
of a brief presentation by the Coast
Guard followed by the submissions of
public comments. This is not a
question-and-answer session, but an
opportunity for the public to hear from
the Coast Guard and to provide feedback
on the proposed fairways.
This document also extends the
comment period for the Shipping Safety
Fairways along the Atlantic Coast
NPRM for 30 days in order to allow the
public to gather their thoughts following
the public meeting. The extended
comment period will close on May 17,
2024. This document is issued under
authority found in 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Dated: March 18, 2024.
K.J. Boda,
Deputy Director, Marine Transportation
System.
[FR Doc. 2024–06225 Filed 3–22–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket Nos. 24–85, 24–86; FCC 24–
31; FR ID 209752]
Assessment and Collection of Space
and Earth Station Regulatory Fees for
Fiscal Year 2024; Review of the
Commission’s Assessment and
Collection of Regulatory Fees for
Fiscal Year 2024
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopted a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that
seeks comments on revising the
regulatory fees for space and earth
station payors for fiscal year (FY) 2024.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
April 12, 2024; and reply comments on
or before April 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MD Docket No. 24–85 and
MD Docket No. 24–86, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Filers. Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.
gov/ecfs.
• Paper Filers. Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Duall, Space Bureau, at (202)
418–1103 or Stephen.Duall@fcc.gov;
Roland Helvajian, Office of the
Managing Director, at (202) 418–0444 or
Roland.Helvajian@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MD
Docket Nos. 24–85 and 24–86; FCC 24–
31, adopted and released on March 13,
2024. The full text of this document is
available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-24-31A1.pdf.
Comment Filing Requirements.
Interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS).
Providing Accountability Through
Transparency Act. The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency
Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
agency, in providing notice of a
rulemaking, to post online a brief plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule.
The required summary of the NPRM is
available at https://www.fcc.gov/
proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Presentations. The
Commission will treat this proceeding
as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA), requires that an
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for notice and comment
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies
that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.’’
The Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
concerning the potential impact of the
proposed rule and policy changes
contained in the NPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in appendix A of the FCC
Document https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-24-31A1.pdf and a
summary is included below. Written
public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the NPRM
indicated on the DATES section of this
document and must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Pursuant to section 9 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, (Communications Act or Act),
the Commission undertakes the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
commence the assessment of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors
for fiscal year (FY) 2024.
2. In January 2023, the Commission
reorganized its International Bureau
into: (1) a Space Bureau to handle
policy and licensing matters related to
satellite communications and other inspace activities under the Commission’s
jurisdiction; and (2) an Office of
International Affairs to handle issues
involving foreign and international
regulatory authorities as well as
international telecommunications and
submarine cable licensing. When the
Commission adopted regulatory fees for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 in the FY 2023
Regulatory Fees Report and Order, 88
FR 63694 (Sept. 15, 2023), it noted that
it would be the last year for doing so for
the International Bureau, and that the
creation of the Space Bureau and Office
of International Affairs could result in
changes in the assessment of regulatory
fees due to changes in Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs), due to increased
oversight on various relevant industries.
One FTE, sometimes also referring to a
Full Time Employee, is a unit of
measure equal to the work performed
annually by a full-time person (working
a 40-hour workweek for a full year)
assigned to the particular job, and
subject to agency personnel staffing
limitations established by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). In
particular, the FY 2023 Regulatory Fees
Report and Order stated that an
examination of the regulatory fees and
categories for non-geostationary orbit
(NGSO) space stations would be useful
in light of changes resulting from the
creation of the Space Bureau. The
Commission anticipated that the
changes in the industry that resulted in
the creation of the Space Bureau would
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20583
likely also result in changes in the
relative FTE burdens between and
among space and earth station fee
payors. Accordingly, the Commission
found that it would be more efficient to
seek comment on proposals to examine
the categories of regulatory fees for
NGSO space stations at the same time as
other proposals that might arise as part
of a ‘‘more holistic review’’ of the fee
burden of the Space Bureau in FY 2024.
3. The NPRM commences that
examination and review of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors
that are regulated by the new Space
Bureau. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on a range of proposed
changes related to the assessment of
regulatory fees for space and earth
stations under its existing methodology.
4. In addition, the Commission
proposes an alternative methodology for
assessing space station regulatory fees.
Unlike the proposals made to adjust the
existing methodology, the alternative
methodology is a more comprehensive
departure from the way that space
station regulatory fees have been
assessed since 1994 in that it eliminates
the separate categories of regulatory fees
for Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and
NGSO space stations, as well as existing
subcategories for NGSO space stations.
It would retain the existing separate
regulatory fee category for small
satellites and spacecraft licensed under
47 CFR 25.122 through 25.123. For the
reasons discussed in the NPRM, this
alternative methodology may be more
fair, administrable, and sustainable than
the existing methodology, and the
Commission seeks comment on all
aspects of this alternative approach.
II. Background
A. Communications Act Requirements
5. Section 9 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 159,
obligates the Commission to assess and
collect regulatory fees each year in an
amount that can reasonably be expected
to equal the amount of its annual
salaries and expenses (S&E)
appropriation. In accordance with the
statute, each year, in an annual fee
proceeding, the Commission proposes
adjustments to the prior fee schedule
under 47 U.S.C. 159(c) to reflect
unexpected increases or decreases in the
number of units subject to the payment
of such fees, and result in the collection
of the amount required by the
Commission’s annual appropriation.
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(1) of the
Act, the Commission must notify
Congress immediately upon adoption of
any adjustment. The Commission will
also propose amendments to the fee
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
20584
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
schedule under 47 U.S.C. 159(d) if the
Commission determines that the
schedule requires amendment so that
such fees reflect the full-time equivalent
number of employees within the
bureaus and offices of the Commission,
adjusted to take into account factors that
are reasonably related to the benefits
provided to the payor of the fee by the
Commission’s activities. Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 159A(b)(2), the Commission must
notify Congress at least 90 days prior to
making effective any amendments to the
regulatory fee schedule.
6. The Commission initiates the
proceeding to seek comment on possible
changes to the existing methodology for
assessing space and earth station
regulatory fees, ahead of its annual
Commission-wide regulatory fee
proceeding for the fiscal year, to adopt
amendments to the existing space and
earth station regulatory fee categories or
to adopt new regulatory fee categories in
time for those changes to be effective for
FY 2024. Because changes to the
regulatory fee categories require 90-day
prior notification to Congress to be
effective for FY 2024, any changes to the
space and earth station regulatory fee
categories would have to be adopted
and notification of the changes would
have to be timely provided to Congress
to become effective before the end of FY
2024. While the Commission initiates
the examination and review of the
existing methodology for assessing
regulatory fees for space and earth
station payors in NPRM, it will propose
and finalize the regulatory fee rates for
space and earth station payors as part of
its annual Commission-wide regulatory
fee proceeding for FY 2024.
Commenters will have an opportunity
in that proceeding to provide comments
on the proposed regulatory fee rates for
space and earth station payors.
B. Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees and Methodology
7. The existing schedule of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors
is contained in 47 CFR 1.1156. There are
four current categories of space station
payors: Space Stations (Geostationary
Orbit); Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Less Complex;
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary
Orbit)—Other; and Space Station (Small
Satellites). ‘‘Less Complex’’ NGSO
systems are 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). ‘‘Small Satellites’’ are space
stations licensed pursuant to the
streamlined small satellite process
contained in 47 CFR 25.122. The Space
Stations (Small Satellites) category also
includes ‘‘small spacecraft’’ licensed
pursuant to the analogous streamlined
procedures of 47 CFR 25.123. In
addition, there is a single category of
earth station payors—Earth Stations:
Transmit/Receive & Transmit only.
Since the Commission’s fiscal year 2020
proceeding, non-U.S. licensed space
stations granted market access to the
United States through a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling or through earth
station licenses are subject to regulatory
fees.
8. For FY 2023, the regulatory fee
amount per category of space and earth
station payor were as follows:
FY 2023
fee amount
Fee category
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit) ..................................................................................................................................................
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Less Complex ...............................................................................................................
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other .............................................................................................................................
Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites) ...........................................................................
Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per authorization or registration) .......................................................................
9. Under the existing methodology of
calculating regulatory fees for space and
earth station payors, the Commission
multiplies the space station and earth
station FTE allocation percentages by
the target goal of collections (overall
total amount to collect), respectively, to
determine the amount to be collected
from each regulatory fee category. Since
2020, the space station allocation
percentages reflect an 80/20 split
between the GSO and NGSO regulatory
fee categories, respectively. The amount
to be collected by the space station and
earth station regulatory fee categories,
divided by the projected number of
units, determines the fee rate. There are
several space station regulatory fee
categories—GSO, NGSO—Other,
NGSO—Less Complex, and small
satellites—and each of these regulatory
fee categories has its own respective
FTE allocation percentage to determine
the fee rate. The small satellite fee rate
is calculated by taking the average of the
calculated fee rate for space stations in
the NGSO—Other and NGSO§Less
Complex categories. The average fee rate
is then multiplied by 5% (1/20) and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
rounded to the nearest $5 to determine
the small satellite fee rate. The small
satellite fee rate is then multiplied by
the number of small satellite units, and
the amount derived is divided by an 80/
20 split and reduced from the target
goals of NGSO—Other and NGSO—Less
Complex, respectively. After reducing
the NGSO—Other and NGSO—Less
Complex target goal amounts, the fee
rates for both of these NGSO regulatory
fee categories are re-calculated (dividing
the revised target goal by its respective
unit count) to reflect a slightly lower fee
rate.
10. The units of assessment for GSO
and NGSO space station regulatory fee
categories differ in that the fee for Space
Stations (Geostationary Orbit) is
assessed per satellite in geostationary
orbit, whereas the fee assessed for Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit),
either ‘‘less complex’’ or ‘‘other,’’ is per
‘‘system’’ of satellites, with no limit on
the number of satellites per system. Fees
for Space Stations (Small Satellites) are
assessed per license/call sign, which
can include up to 10 satellites or
spacecraft. This means that the unit of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$117,580
130,405
347,755
12,215
575
regulatory fees for GSO space stations is
a single satellite, whereas the unit of
regulatory fees for NGSO space stations
can include tens, if not thousands, of
satellites. Thus, although the single
highest regulatory fee for space stations
for FY 2023 is $347,755 for Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Other, this fee reflects the regulatory
burden associated with the licensing
and oversight of numerous space
stations in the system, usually subject to
processing rounds, complex spectrum
sharing arrangements, and providing
global coverage. By contrast, the per
unit fee for Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit) for FY 2023 is
lower at $117,580, but an operator
providing global coverage may be
paying regulatory fees on multiple space
stations in geostationary orbit, which
could result in annual regulatory fee
payments by a single fee payor in
aggregate far greater than the regulatory
fee for Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other providing
similar services and coverage. Earth
station regulatory fees are assessed ‘‘per
license or registration,’’ and each license
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
or registration may include a single
earth station, or multiple earth stations.
11. In addition, regulatory fees are
assessed solely on ‘‘operational’’ space
stations. A space station is considered to
be operational when the operator
reports under the Commission’s
reporting requirements for space
stations that the space station or stations
have been successfully placed into orbit
and that operations conform to the
terms and conditions of the space
station authorization. Similarly, if an
earth station’s license limits its
operational authority to a particular
satellite system, a regulatory fee
payment is not due until the first
satellite in that system becomes
operational.
12. For FY 2023, the number of units
for the earth station fee category was
2,900. The number of units for Space
Stations (Geostationary Orbit) was 136;
the number of units for Space Stations
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other was
nine; the number of units for Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Less Complex was six; and the number
of units for Space Stations (Small
Satellites) was seven. These unit counts
and fees resulted in a total expected
regulatory fee revenue of $21,656,110
from space and earth station payors for
FY 2023, which is the sum of
$1,667,500 expected to be paid by earth
station payors (7.69% of all space and
earth station regulatory fees),
$15,990,880 expected to be paid by
Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)
(73.84%), $3,129,795 expected to be
paid by Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other (14.45%),
$782,430 expected to be paid by Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Less Complex (3.61%), and $85,505
expected to be paid by Space Stations
(Small Satellites) (0.39%).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion
A. Space Bureau FTEs
13. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159(d), the
Commission’s methodology for
assessing regulatory fees must reflect the
full-time equivalent number of
employees within the bureaus and
offices of the Commission, adjusted to
take into account factors that are
reasonably related to the benefits
provided to the payor of the fee by the
Commission’s activities. The
Commission first sets forth the
anticipated number of full-time
equivalent number of employees, or
FTEs, that will be in the new Space
Bureau for purposes of assessing
regulatory fees for FY 2024. The
Commission previously anticipated that
the changes in the satellite industry,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
which led to the reorganization of the
International Bureau into the Space
Bureau and the Office of International
Affairs, might result in a larger number
of FTEs devoted to space and earth
station licensing, regulation, industry
analysis, and oversight due to increased
regulatory complexity that resulted from
technological changes in the industry.
Accordingly, the Commission stated
that it would closely review the Space
Bureau and Office of International
Affairs FTEs to determine the
appropriate number of FTEs in each
entity as a result of the reorganization
and how they will be apportioned
among the different services.
14. The Commission’s Human
Resources Management office provided
initial data identifying 54 FTEs in the
Space Bureau to be counted for FY
2024. The Commission anticipates that
these FTEs will be categorized as direct
FTEs, with the exception of a small
number of FTEs that work exclusively,
or nearly exclusively, on administrative
activities, with the staff of the Office of
International Affairs on covering
International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) World
Radiocommunications Conference
(WRC) agenda items, or with the staff of
the Commission’s Office of Engineering
& Technology on experimental licenses
involving space or earth stations. The
Commission expects such FTEs to be
categorized as indirect FTEs, since such
work does not focus on the oversight
and regulation of a specific category of
regulatory fee payors, but instead
benefits the Commission, the
telecommunications industry, or the
public as a whole, or in the case of work
done on experimental licenses, is in
furtherance of licenses that are not
subject to a regulatory fee. The
Commission also anticipates that a
small number of FTEs from the Office of
Economic and Analytics and the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
will be attributed as direct FTEs to the
Space Bureau. For the sake of efficiency,
the Commission will make its final
proposals regarding the Space Bureau’s
total share of all Commission direct
FTEs, as part of a notice of proposed
rulemaking to be released at a later date
for the Commission-wide assessment of
regulatory fees for FY 2024.
15. Nonetheless, the Commission
anticipates that the number of direct
FTEs in the Space Bureau for FY 2024
will be greater than the 28 direct FTEs
that were allocated to the International
Bureau for FY 2023. Based on initial
estimates, the Space Bureau FTEs could
account for 10.76% of all Commission
direct FTEs for FY 2024, compared with
the International Bureau accounting for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20585
7.77% in FY 2023. The Commission
also expects that space and earth station
payors will pay significantly more in
regulatory fees in FY 2024 than in FY
2023. This is chiefly because the
Commission anticipates there will be
more direct FTEs in the Space Bureau
attributable to space and earth station
fee payors than there were in the
International Bureau, due to the
increased regulatory complexity and
oversight required, which will result in
a larger percentage of overall regulatory
fees being allocated to the Space
Bureau, assuming there is no offsetting
increase in the number of FTEs in other
core bureaus and offices. Accordingly,
there is increased importance in
examining how FTEs are apportioned
among the categories of Space Bureau
fee payors to ensure that the fee
apportionment methodology is
administrable, fair, and sustainable.
B. Space Station Fee Proposals
1. Allocation Between GSO and NGSO
Space Stations
16. If the existing methodology for
assessing regulatory fees for space
stations is maintained, the Commission
proposes to change the allocation of the
regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO
fee payors to reflect more accurately the
apportionment of current FTE work
between these two classes of regulatory
fee payors. Under the existing allocation
adopted in 2020, 80% of space station
regulatory fees are allocated to GSO
space station fee payors and 20% of the
space station regulatory fees to NGSO
space station fee payors. For the reasons
stated in the NPRM, the Commission
proposes to change this allocation to
60% of space station regulatory fees
being allocated to GSO space station
payors and 40% to NGSO space station
payors.
17. In proposing this change in
allocation, the Commission employs the
same methodology that was used by the
Commission in 2020 in adopting the
‘‘80/20’’ split between GSO and NGSO
space station fee payors. Specifically,
the Commission focuses on three factors
that collectively reflect its oversight of
GSO and NGSO operators: the number
of applications processed, the number of
changes made to the Commission’s
rules, and FTEs devoted to oversight of
each category of operators.
18. First, using the advanced search
function of the International
Communications Filing System (ICFS),
the Commission identified all
applications for space stations (service
type: SAT) filed during the three most
recent fiscal years (that is, FY 2021–
2023) for both GSO (class of service:
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20586
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
SSG) and NGSO (class of service: SSN).
A total of 526 distinct applications for
space stations were filed during this
time period, with 322 applications being
filed for GSO space stations (61%) and
204 applications for NGSO space
stations (39%). Thus, the number of
applications received during this threeyear period supports a larger allocation
of FTE time to GSO fee payors than to
NGSO fee payors, but in a narrower
range than the current 80/20 split.
19. Second, using compiled data
through a search of the FCC’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) and a
cross check of items on the web pages
of the FCC and the International
Bureau/Space Bureau for the last three
fiscal years, the Commission identified
docketed proceedings originating from
the International Bureau’s Satellite
Division, or from the Space Bureau, and
considered to the involvement of GSO
and NGSO space stations in each
proceeding. The Commission analyzed
the data to estimate whether a particular
docketed proceeding involved GSO or
NGSO space station payors, or both. It
did not count docketed proceedings for
transfer of control or assignment
applications or other docketed
proceedings that did not make changes
to the Commission’s rules. It included,
however, a docketed proceeding to
modify the conditions relating to the
International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization placed on the
licenses of a GSO space station operator,
even though it was not a rulemaking
proceeding, because it involved changes
to the conditions on a large number of
space station licenses that required
significant FTE resources to process.
20. The Commission identified 16
proceedings during FY 2021–2023, of
which 8 substantively involved GSO
space stations (50%) and 12
substantively involved NGSO space
stations (75%). Accordingly, the data
presented suggests that there were more
rulemakings substantively involving
NGSO space stations than GSO space
stations. The Commission notes that
quantifying only the most recent
rulemaking activities does not take into
account past rulemakings that are of
continued relevance to space stations
and are administered by Commission
FTEs either through licensing,
interpretation and application of those
rules in other proceedings, or in
consultation with the space station
regulatees. Thus, attributing a value to
rulemaking activities directly is not an
exercise in scientific precision, but
rather an exercise in reasonable analysis
and a mechanism to verify the other
data the Commission reviews. On
balance, however, the Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
tentatively concludes that these
rulemaking data support a greater
allocation of regulatory fees to NGSO
space station payors than is currently
the case.
21. Third, the Commission considered
whether it could examine FTE activities
directly, but although there has been a
change in the number of FTEs
attributable to satellite regulatory
activities due to the creation of the
Space Bureau, it remains challenging to
segregate the time spent by FTEs on
work done on GSO versus NGSO
matters. As was the case in the
International Bureau, staff time spent in
the Space Bureau on authorizations and
rulemakings may benefit both categories
of satellite operations. Based on its
experience and judgement, the
Commission estimates as closely as
possible the relative percentage of FTEs
that are attributable to benefitting either
GSO or NGSO systems based on the
factors above.
22. While there are issues of fact, law,
engineering, and the physics of
electromagnetic propagation that may be
unique to GSO or NGSO space stations,
many issues that Space Bureau staff
work on are not segregable in a manner
that is beneficial to clearly apportioning
FTE time between GSO and NGSO
regulatory fee categories. Taking all of
the foregoing factors and data into
consideration, the Commission
tentatively concludes, however, that the
GSO/NGSO ratio should be adjusted to
reflect that GSO space stations derived
roughly 60% of the benefit from the
Commission’s regulatory efforts and
NGSO space stations derived roughly
40%. Accordingly, for FY 2024, the
Commission proposes that GSO and
NGSO space stations will be allocated
60% and 40% of space station
regulatory fees, respectively. The
Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion and proposal.
2. Allocation Between NGSO—Other
and NGSO—Less Complex
23. If the existing methodology for
assessing regulatory fees for space
stations is maintained, the Commission
proposes to maintain the existing
allocation of the regulatory fee burden
between ‘‘Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Less Complex’’
and ‘‘Space Stations (Non-Geostationary
Orbit)—Other.’’ Currently, 20% of
NGSO space station regulatory fees are
allocated to Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Less Complex
and 80% are allocated to Space Stations
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other fee
payors. As discussed elsewhere in the
NPRM, the Commission has defined
‘‘less complex’’ NGSO systems as NGSO
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
satellite systems planning to
communicate with 20 or fewer U.S.
authorized earth stations that are
primarily used for EESS and/or AIS.
The Commission has concluded that
EESS systems are less burdensome to
regulate than other types of services
when the systems plan to communicate
with 20 or fewer earth stations. NGSO
satellite systems outside of this
definition are included in the NGSO
‘‘other’’ fee category, unless they qualify
as ‘‘small satellites’’ under Commission
rules and are included in the regulatory
fee category for small satellites.
24. The Commission tentatively
concludes that there have not been any
significant changes to the amount of
FTE burdens allocated between these
two fee categories since the ‘‘20/80’’
split of regulatory fees between NGSO
‘‘less complex’’ and NGSO ‘‘other’’
subcategories was adopted in 2021. As
was the case in 2021, the Commission
considers its experience and analysis of
the time that FTEs in the International
Bureau and the Space Bureau devote to
oversight and regulation of ‘‘less
complex’’ and ‘‘other’’ NGSO systems.
Specifically, now—as then—the
Commission considers the number of
applications processed, the number of
changes made to the Commission’s
rules, and the number of FTEs working
on oversight for each category of
operators. This methodology is the same
as used for determining the allocation of
regulatory fees among GSO and NGSO
space station fee payors. In evaluating
the FTE time devoted to the ‘‘less
complex’’ and ‘‘other’’ subcategories,
the Commission considers its
adjudicatory role in connection with
different types of NGSO systems, which
is typically more intensive for those
systems authorized as part of processing
rounds. The Commission also considers
the number of rulemakings over the last
three fiscal years, as well as current
rulemakings, and which types of NGSO
systems are implicated in those
rulemaking activities.
25. Based on its experience and
judgement, the Commission estimates as
close as possible the relative percentage
of FTE time attributable to oversight of
each subcategory of NGSO space
stations. Its examination does not reveal
any rulemaking proceedings in the last
three fiscal years that are specific to
EESS space stations eligible for the ‘‘less
complex’’ NGSO subcategory, but did
reveal several rulemakings in that same
period specific to NGSO ‘‘other’’
systems. Similarly, an examination of
applications filed over the previous
three fiscal years (FY 2021–2023) shows
that 44 NGSO applications out of 204
NGSO applications were by systems
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
categorized as NGSO ‘‘less complex’’
(22%). The Commission’s consideration
of activities engaged in by staff and the
time spent on oversight of different
NGSO systems does not indicate any
change from its consideration in 2021,
which resulted in a determination that
NGSO ‘‘other’’ were the majority
beneficiaries of FTE efforts.
26. The Commission recognizes the
considerable challenge of segregating
the time spent by Space Bureau staff
among the subcategories of NGSO space
stations, nonetheless the considerations
above support the tentative conclusion
that more FTE time is spent on the
NGSO ‘‘other’’ subcategory than on the
NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ subcategory. The
number of applications in the NGSO
‘‘less complex’’ subcategory received
over the last three fiscal years supports
a tentative conclusion that the relative
regulatory burden of such ‘‘less
complex’’ space stations remains
consistent with the current 20%
allocation. The Commission seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion.
27. The Commission does not propose
at this time to revisit the definition of
‘‘less complex’’ NGSO space stations,
which has been adopted and affirmed
over the course of several regulatory fee
rulemaking proceedings. As expressly
recognized, however, the Commission
does not foreclose the possibility of
designating other categories of NGSO
systems as ‘‘less complex’’ systems in
the future if the Commission’s
experience supports a finding that its
regulatory work for such systems is
significantly less than those for other
NGSO systems. The Commission’s
experience to date has not supported
such a designation for other types of
NGSO systems, and the Commission
does not have a sufficient record to
make proposals for such designations at
this time.
3. Creation of Tiers of NGSO—Other
28. If the existing methodology for
assessing regulatory fees for space
stations is maintained, the Commission
proposes to divide the existing
regulatory fee subcategory of ‘‘Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Other’’ into two tiers: ‘‘Large
Constellations’’ of more than 1,000
authorized space stations; and ‘‘Small
Constellations’’ of 1,000 or fewer
authorized space stations. Currently,
there is a single subcategory for NGSO
‘‘other’’ space station systems, which
assesses the same annual regulatory
fee—$347,755 for FY 2023—for all
NGSO space station systems that are not
categorized as ‘‘less complex’’ or ‘‘small
satellites.’’ NGSO space station payors
have argued that this ‘‘one fee fits all’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
assessment is unfair, as it assesses the
same regulatory fee on an NGSO system
consisting of 100 space stations as the
fee assessed for an NGSO system
consisting of potentially 10,000 or more
space stations. The current single
regulatory fee for all NGSO ‘‘other’’
space station payors resulted in requests
by fee payors of smaller NGSO systems
seeking to be assessed regulatory fees as
NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ systems, even
though the record at the time did not
support a finding that the regulatory
work for such systems was significantly
less than other types of NGSO systems.
The Commission uses this proceeding to
explore whether its existing regulatory
fee structure can be better tailored to the
varying nature of NGSO systems and
differing levels of licensing and
regulatory oversight burdens required
for these various systems, while
maintaining a system that is fair,
administrable, and sustainable.
29. The unit of assessment for Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit),
either ‘‘less complex’’ or ‘‘other,’’ is ‘‘per
system’’ of satellites. This unit of
assessment reflects the ability of
applicants to apply for, and be
authorized to operate, a ‘‘system’’ of
NGSO space stations, with no limit on
the number of space stations per system.
Each initial application for authority is
granted under a single ‘‘call sign’’ as a
regulatory identifier. In many cases the
Commission has assessed a single
regulatory fee for an NGSO system
consisting of space stations requested
and authorized under different call
signs. The assessment of regulatory fees
for NGSO space stations on a ‘‘per
system’’ basis extends back to the first
time that the Commission assessed
regulatory fees for ‘‘Low Earth Orbit
(LEO) Satellite Systems’’ in 1996. The
choice of a ‘‘system’’ as the unit of
assessment for LEO satellites was based
in the original text of 47 U.S.C. 159,
which included a ‘‘Schedule of
Regulatory Fees’’ that the FCC was
required to assess and collect, until
amended by the Commission. The
Schedule of Regulatory Fees included
fee categories for ‘‘Space Station (per
operational station in geosynchronous
orbit)’’ and ‘‘Space Station (per system
in low-earth orbit).’’ The Schedule of
Regulatory Fees, however, was deleted
from 47 U.S.C. 159 by the RAY BAUM’s
Act of 2018.
30. The sole exception made to
assessment of NGSO space station
regulatory fees on a ‘‘per system’’ basis
is for small satellites, for which the
Commission adopted a separate
regulatory fee category in which small
satellites are assessed on a ‘‘per license/
call sign’’ basis. The Commission found
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20587
that adopting the regulatory fee on a
per-license basis would not only
accurately reflect the increased
oversight and regulation for these small
satellite systems when an operator has
multiple small satellite licenses, but
also it would be more efficient and
administrable because it avoids
potential complications and additional
FTE time spent in determining whether
various sets of small satellites are part
of the same system.
31. In creating the separate fee
categories of ‘‘less complex’’ NGSO
space stations and small satellites
operating in non-geostationary orbit, the
Commission has previously recognized
that not all NGSO space stations are the
same, and that different NGSO space
stations can be assessed different
regulatory fees based on the differing
amount of FTE regulatory work is
devoted to them, consistent with the
statutory obligations of 47 U.S.C. 159.
Accordingly, the default unit of fee
assessment for NGSO space stations—
the ‘‘system’’—by itself does not
indicate the amount of regulatory fees to
be recovered from a particular NGSO
space station payor. Instead, the
Commission has used other factors as
proxies for the amount of regulatory
work required for a category of fee
payors. For ‘‘less complex’’ space
stations, the Commission relied on the
primary service to be provided (EESS or
AIS) and the number if U.S.-licensed
earth station planned for
communications (20 or fewer) as proxies
for other factors for determining
whether a category of NGSO space
station system involved less staff
resources to license and regulate than
NGSO space station ‘‘other’’ systems:
whether processing rounds are required,
whether the system will have a global
presence, the range and intensity of
spectrum needs, and the variety of
frequency bands, technical issues, and
services presented.
32. The Commission in the NPRM
seeks to explore whether the number of
space stations requested for an NGSO
system could serve as a proxy for the
Commission’s regulatory burden, when
combined with other factors that went
into determining whether an NGSO
system is, or is not, ‘‘less complex’’ for
regulatory fee assessment purposes.
Does a greater number of space stations
authorized per system equate to greater
staff burdens to license and regulate, if
the greater number of space stations per
system also correlates to the other
factors relevant to NGSO systems that
do not qualify for inclusion in the
NGSO space stations ‘‘less complex’’
subcategory (that is, they fall within the
‘‘other’’ NGSO fee category because they
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20588
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
are subject to processing rounds, have a
global presence, have significant
spectrum needs, and present a variety of
frequency bands, technical issues, and
services)? If so, is it reasonable to
assume that a greater number of space
stations authorized per system would
equate to greater amount of FTE time to
license and regulate? Although the
Commission has previously stated that
number of space stations in an NGSO
system does not always correspond to
increased regulatory complexity, those
statements were based on consideration
of the regulatory impact of the number
of space stations in isolation, not when
considered in connection with the other
factors relevant to non-‘‘less complex’’
NGSO space station systems. Is it a
reasonable expectation that, if an NGSO
space station system is not found to be
‘‘less complex’’ for regulatory fee
assessment purposes, the amount of FTE
resources needed to license and regulate
that system increases as the number of
space stations increases because, on
average, the greater the number of space
station considered, the greater the
amount of spectrum resources required
for the system, the greater complexity of
spectrum sharing with other systems,
the more complicated the orbital debris
mitigation plan will be, and the greater
number of earth stations required to
support the space station system? The
Commission seeks comment on this
expectation.
33. Accordingly, if the Commission
maintains the existing space station
regulator fee methodology, it proposes
to transform the existing ‘‘Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Other’’ category into a two-tiered
category, with one tier for ‘‘Large
Constellations’’ and one tier for ‘‘Small
Constellations.’’ The proposal to create
tiers of NGSO space station regulatory
fees is not new, being first made in
1999. As recently as 2021 and 2020, the
Commission was presented with
proposals to assess NGSO space station
regulatory fees based on the total
number of satellites deployed, but it
declined to do so because the evidence
in the record at the time was insufficient
to establish different fees for different
sized NGSO space station systems. The
Commission proposes to use the NPRM
to establish such a record to evaluate the
appropriateness of adopting regulatory
fees for large and small NGSO systems.
Although the Commission
acknowledges that it is inherently
challenging to establish the dividing
line between such tiers, it proposes
1,000 space stations as the dividing
number for large and small systems. The
Commission seeks comment on this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
proposal. Is 1,000 the right number, or
is there a different number, greater or
less than 1,000, that better reflects the
delineation in the amount of FTE
burdens to license and regulate NGSO
systems of variable sizes (for example,
500 space stations)?
34. If the Commission adopts the
tiered approach for the NGSO space
station ‘‘other’’ category under its
existing methodology, it proposes to
create two tiers, rather than three or
more tiers, in order to facilitate
administrability, because there are
relatively few units within the existing
NGSO space station ‘‘other’’ category,
and dividing that category into many
tiers with a narrow range of space
stations per tier may result in only one
payor being responsible for the entire
cost of the tier, or there being no payor
for a particular tier in a fiscal year,
shifting the costs of that tier to payors
in other tiers. Importantly, it may be
harder to justify the difference in FTE
burdens when tiers are more narrowly
defined. The Commission tentatively
concludes that a two-tiered approach
will not only appropriately account for
differences in regulatory burdens
between NGSO space station systems of
different sizes, but also provide a
measure of consistency from one year to
the next in the number of payors and
the per unit fee. The Commission seeks
comment on the proposal to use two
tiers in its approach and its tentative
conclusion that a two-tiered approach
will result in greater administrability
than a multi-tiered approach. The
Commission also proposes that its tiered
approach be based on the number of
authorized space stations in a system,
rather than the number of space stations
that are operational in a system at the
moment that regulatory fees for a
particular fiscal year are assessed. This
proposal is consistent with its proposal
elsewhere in the NPRM that all
regulatory fees be assessed on
authorized, rather than operational,
space and earth stations. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
35. The Commission proposes to
divide the total NGSO—‘‘other’’ fees
between the two subcategories on a 50/
50 basis (that is, half of the NGSO
‘‘other’’ fees paid by ‘‘large
constellations’’ and half paid by ‘‘small
constellations’’). It acknowledges the
difficulty in allocating regulatory fee
burdens between ‘‘large constellations’’
and ‘‘small constellations,’’ because staff
in the Space Bureau may work on both
types of constellations and rulemaking
proceedings often do not differentiate
between large and small constellations.
The Commission accordingly seeks
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment on its proposal to divide the
total NGSO—‘‘other’’ fees between small
and large constellations on a 50/50
basis. If the fees are not divided on a 50/
50 basis, what would be a more
appropriate division and why? The
Commission notes that although the
total costs would be allocated evenly
between ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘small’’
constellations, it expects that there will
be a greater number of units in the
‘‘small constellations’’ tier than the
‘‘large constellations’’ tier, and that that
number of units in the ‘‘small
constellations’’ tier will increase in the
future, thereby resulting in a smaller per
payor fee for the ‘‘small constellations’’
tier for future years. By contrast, the
Commission expects that there will be
only two to three payors in the large
constellation tier for FY 2024, and that
it is unlikely that that number will
increase substantially in the foreseeable
future. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposed division and its
expectations.
26. The Commission finds that the
proposal to create fee categories for
NGSO large and small constellations
would be an amendment as defined in
47 U.S.C. 159. Such an amendment
must be submitted to Congress at least
90 days before it becomes effective
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
27. The Commission also seeks
comment on other possible proxies that
might reasonably equate with the share
of FTE burdens associated with each
system within the ‘‘Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other’’ category,
as alternatives to the 50/50 two-tiered
approach proposed elsewhere in the
NPRM. Other possible proxies include
assessing regulatory fees for NGSO
space station ‘‘other’’ using any of the
following individual metrics: (1) per
space station; (2) per subscriber; (3) per
unit of spectrum authorized; (4) per
class of service provided; and (5) per
unit of on-orbit mass. The NPRM
describes each possible proxy.
38. Per Space Station. Under this
metric, the overall FTE burden of a
NGSO ‘‘other’’ system would be proxied
on the basis of the number of authorized
space stations in the system, without
utilizing a tiered system. The fee would
be assessed on a per space station basis,
with the total fee amount attributable to
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary)—
Other being divided by the number of
space stations authorized in that
category to establish a per space station
fee unit. Each space station in the
system would add incrementally to the
amount of regulatory fees paid by the
system. This alternative avoids the
situation where a system may exceed
the number of space stations eligible for
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the small constellation tier by only a
few space stations, which will result in
the system paying the substantially
higher fee for large constellations. The
alternative potentially presents the
situation, however, where systems with
a very large number of authorized space
stations (for example, 20,000 or more)
could effectively end up paying all, or
nearly all, the regulatory fees for the
NGSO ‘‘other’’ category, since the
number of space stations in that system
could be more than all other systems
combined in that category. Such an
outcome may not accurately reflect the
FTE burdens imposed by the various
payors of the NGSO space stations
‘‘other’’ category by substantially
underrepresenting the amount of FTE
resources spent on all other fee payors
in the NGSO ‘‘other’’ category. Could
this concern be addressed by setting a
‘‘cap’’ or ‘‘ceiling’’ on the number of
authorized space stations for which
regulatory fees would be assessed or
having a decreasing fee for each
additional space station? Although the
Commission has previously disagreed
with proposals to assess space station
regulatory fees on a per space station
basis, it nonetheless seeks comment on
the use of number of space stations as
an alternative metric for assessing the
regulatory fee burden for each NGSO
‘‘other’’ system.
39. Per Subscriber. Under this
alternative, regulatory fees for NGSO
space stations ‘‘other’’ would be
assessed on a per subscriber basis,
possibly using tiers of subscribers. The
Commission observes, however, that not
all NGSO systems have subscribers, and
it does not currently collect information
regarding subscriber numbers. Thus, to
utilize subscriber information a review
of an additional information collection
may be required in order to assess
regulatory fees on this basis. The time
required to obtain the approval and
collect the information would make the
possibility of assessing fees on this basis
for FY 2024 unlikely. The Commission
also expects that it would require
substantial FTE resources to calculate
and assign fees for individual systems
based on yearly subscriber numbers,
which could in turn result in more FTEs
being attributed to space station systems
for regulatory fee recovery purposes.
Furthermore, the Commission seeks
comment on whether subscriber
numbers are considered confidential by
regulatees and, if so, how would that
impact this approach?
40. Per Unit of Spectrum Authorized.
An alternative proxy for the amount of
FTE burden associated with a system in
the NGSO space station ‘‘other’’
category could be the amount of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
spectrum resources authorized for the
system. Systems that involve the use of
a large amount of spectrum can require
more FTE resources to license and
regulate due to the likelihood of the
increased need to coordinate with, and
to address the interference concerns of,
other spectrum users, compared to
systems with smaller spectrum
requirements. Thus, regulatory fees for
NGSO space stations ‘‘other’’ could be
assessed per unit of authorized
spectrum, for example, per megahertz of
spectrum authorized for the system. The
Commission observes that the
distinction between NGSO ‘‘other’’ and
NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ already takes into
account spectrum usage and ease of
coordination in delineating between
these two fee categories, so it is unclear
what further delineation could be made
within the NGSO space station ‘‘other’’
category based on authorized spectrum.
In addition, not all spectrum is uniform
in its complexity to license and regulate.
For example, it may be easier to license
and regulate an NGSO system operating
in 500 megahertz of spectrum allocated
to NGSO space station use on a primary
basis than licensing and regulating an
NGSO system operating in 20 megahertz
of spectrum operating on a secondary or
non-interference basis. The Commission
has previously found that total
bandwidth is not consistently indicative
of the complexity of NGSO regulation.
The NPRM seeks comment, however, on
this alternative proxy and whether there
any basis to question the Commission’s
previous conclusion that total
bandwidth does not consistently reflect
the complexity of NGSO regulation.
41. Per Class of Service Provided.
Commenters in previous regulatory fee
assessment proceedings have suggested
that the type of services provided by
NGSO space station systems could be
used as a proxy for the amount of FTE
resources dedicated to licensing and
regulating such systems. In addition to
the orbit used (GSO or NGSO), space
stations are regulated by the type of
service that they provide, for example
mobile-satellite service (MSS), fixedsatellite service (FSS), direct broadcast
satellite service (DBS), and satellite
digital audio radio service (SDARS). The
Commission has previously found that
the type of service primarily being
provided (EESS and/or AIS) was a
relevant factor in determining whether
an NGSO system was ‘‘less complex’’ for
purposes of regulatory fee assessments,
when combined with another factor (the
number of earth stations authorized by
the United States with which the system
plans to communicate). The
Commission has not found, however,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20589
that other types of satellite services
warrant a determination that a NGSO
system is ‘‘less complex’’ for regulatory
fee purposes, although it did not rule
out the possibility of doing so if the
record supported such a finding.
Although the Commission does not
propose that any particular additional
service be considered as a factor that an
NGSO system is ‘‘less complex’’ for
regulatory fee purposes, it may be
possible to use the type of service
provided as a proxy for FTE resources
to delineate additional fee subcategories
within the ‘‘Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other’’ category.
The NPRM seeks comment on this
possibility. Comments should focus on
the specific licensing and regulatory
factors that differentiate the services and
explain how the Commission would be
able to allocate FTE time among these
services. Comments should also address
the administrability and sustainability
of subcategories of regulatory fees in the
NGSO space station ‘‘other’’ category
based on the services provided by the
space stations. For example, if a space
station is authorized to provide multiple
types of services, such as both FSS and
MSS, how would it be determined
which regulatory fee subcategory it
belongs to? If it is determined based on
the primary service that is authorized
for a system, how should the
Commission determine which service is
primary? Would fee categories based on
the service provided be relatively stable
from year to year, or is it possible that
there could be substantial changes in
the number of fee payors in a service
category year to year? Would every
single service provided by a system
need to be taking into account, or just
the primary service? Would substantial
FTE resources be needed to calculate
and assign fees for individual systems
based on primary services provided,
which could in turn result in more FTEs
being attributed to space station systems
for regulatory fee recovery purposes?
42. Per Unit of On-Orbit Mass.
Comments in previous years’ regulatory
fee assessment proceedings have
suggested to use the mass of space
stations as one proxy for an NGSO
system’s complexity. This suggestion is
similar to the proposal in the NPRM to
use of number of authorized space
stations in an NGSO system as a proxy
for regulatory burdens of systems in the
NGSO space station ‘‘other’’ category,
but considers the mass of the space
stations in an NGSO system rather than
the number of space stations. Thus, an
NGSO system with 10 space stations
with a mass of 1,000 kilograms each
would pay more in regulatory fees than
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20590
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
a system of 100 space stations with a
mass of 10 kilograms each. Under this
proposal, it is assumed that space
station mass is a proxy for other factors
relevant to the amount of FTE work
required for the licensing and regulation
of the system, such as how much
spectrum the system will use, the
number of earth stations that the space
stations will communicate with, and the
complexity of a system’s orbital debris
mitigation plan. Although the
Commission has previously found that
space station mass is not a key driver of
NGSO system complexity, the NPRM
seeks comment on using space station
mass as a proxy for the regulatory
burden involved with an NGSO system.
Is it correct that regulatory complexity
increases in proportion to the mass of
the space stations in an NGSO system?
If so, should mass be assessed on a per
space station or on an aggregate basis for
all space stations in the system? Would
mass be addressed on a ‘‘wet’’ basis
(that is, including the mass of fuel and
other consumables) or ‘‘dry’’ basis (that
is, the mass of the space station without
fuel and consumables)? Which basis—
wet or dry—would more accurately
reflect regulatory burdens for that
system? Furthermore, the Space Bureau
no longer collects information regarding
the mass of a space station as part of the
technical information required as part of
an application for a space station
authorization or a petition for U.S.
market access. Thus, to utilize this
information in assessing regulatory fees
may require a review of an additional
information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The
Commission also observes that the time
required for such review, together with
the time needed to collect the
information, would rule out the
possibility of assessing fees on this basis
for FY 2024. The NPRM seeks comment
on the consequences of this observation.
Although the mass of a space station
may be a factor disclosed in the orbital
debris mitigation plan provided as a
part of a space station application, the
spacecraft mass is disclosed for the
specific purpose of that analysis, and it
is not clear whether it should be relied
on for the purpose of assessing
regulatory fees. Even if it may be
possible to obtain information about the
mass of space stations from third party
sources, the Commission questions
whether it is reasonable to rely on
information obtained from such sources
rather than from the fee payors
themselves. The NPRM seeks comments
on these issues. In addition, would
substantial FTE resources be needed to
calculate and assign fees for individual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
systems based on on-orbit mass, which
could in turn result in more FTEs being
attributed to space station systems for
regulatory fee recovery purposes?
43. The Commission finds that the
creation of fee categories for ‘‘other’’
NGSO space stations based on any of
these other possible proxies would be
an amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C.
159(d). Such an amendment must be
submitted to Congress at least 90 days
before it becomes effective pursuant to
47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
4. Small Satellites
44. The Commission seeks comment
on a proposal to set the regulatory fee
for ‘‘Space Stations (per license/call sign
in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part
25) (Small Satellite)’’ for FY 2024 and
future fiscal years at the level set for FY
2023 ($12,215), with only an annual
adjustments to reflect the percentage
change in the FCC appropriation, unit
count, and FTE allocation percentage
from the previous fiscal year. As
explained elsewhere in the NPRM, the
small satellite fee rate is calculated by
taking the average of the calculated fee
rate for space stations in the NGSO
other and NGSO ‘‘less complex’’
categories, multiplying this average by
5% (1/20) and rounding it to the nearest
$5. The small satellite fee rate is then
multiplied by the number of small
satellite units and deducted from the
NGSO share of space station regulatory
fees. This remaining amount is then
divided between NGSO ‘‘other’’ and
NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ based on an 80/
20 split and reduced from the target
goals of NGSO’’ ‘‘other’’ and NGSO
‘‘less complex’’ respectively. Because
the small satellite fee is based on the
fees assessed for NGSO other and NGSO
‘‘less complex’’ categories, the increased
fees expected for these two categories
would lead to greatly increased fees for
the small satellite regulatory fee
category beginning in FY 2024.
45. The Commission’s examination
reveals that the number of applications,
rulemaking procedures, and FTE staff
working on small satellite matters has
not increased greatly since the original
methodology of assessing regulatory fees
for small satellites was adopted. To the
contrary, the Commission expects that
the additional FTE resources allocated
to the Space Bureau as a result of the
reorganization of the International
Bureau are not intensively involved in
the licensing and regulatory oversight of
small satellites, so that the overall
percentage of FTE burden for small
satellites may be less than the 1/20th
burden of NGSO space stations. The
NPRM seeks comment on this
expectation and whether it supports the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reduction of fees paid by small
satellites. In addition, the proposals
made in the NPRM to create
subcategories within the NGSO ‘‘other’’
category for ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’
constellations will add to the
complexity of determining the
appropriate marker for determining the
appropriate share of FTE resources
allocated to small satellites. The
Commission proposes the
administrability and sustainability of its
regulatory fees for small satellites would
be better served by treating them as it
has historically treated the regulatory
fees for earth stations—that is, a fixed
regulatory fee that is adjusted from yearto-year on, rather than as a percentage
of the Space Bureau’s overall share of
regulatory fee allocation, or as a
percentage of other categories of space
station fee payors. The NPRM seeks
comment on all these proposals,
examinations, and expectations.
5. Treatment of RPO, OOS, and OTV
46. The Commission proposes, on an
interim basis, to assess regulatory fees
on spacecraft primarily performing
Rendezvous and Proximity Operations
(RPO) and On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) by
including them in the existing
regulatory fee category ‘‘Space Stations
(per license/call sign in nongeostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)’’
regardless of the orbit in which they are
designed to operate in. OOS and RPO
missions can include satellite refueling,
inspecting and repairing in-orbit
spacecraft, capturing and removing
debris, and transforming materials
through manufacturing while in space.
Due to the nascent nature of OOS and
RPO industry, or more generally ‘‘inspace servicing’’ industries, there is not
a distinct regulatory fee category for
such operations, despite that fact that
spacecraft have begun to operate under
47 CFR part 25 for
radiocommunications while conducting
these types of operations. Although the
Commission has previously determined
that the record is not sufficiently
complete to adopt a separate regulatory
fee category for spacecraft performing
OOS and RPO, it tentatively concludes
in the NPRM that it is appropriate to
assess regulatory fees on RPO and OOS
space stations as the Commission does
for small satellites, rather than as Space
Stations (Geostationary orbit) or Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Other. The Commission also tentatively
concludes that it is appropriate to assess
regulatory fees on Orbital Transfer
Vehicles (OTV) in the same manner.
47. The Commission first considered
adopting additional fee categories for
RPO and OOS in the notice initiating
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the FY 2022 regulatory fee assessment
proceeding. At that time, commenters
proposing such additional fee categories
cited the similarities between the
characteristics of small satellites and
RPO and OOS. The commenters
distinguished between OOS spacecraft
and traditional NGSO satellites in that
OOS spacecraft have limited duration
and scope of use, as well as a limited
number of earth stations; require a
smaller investment in OOS technology;
require less ongoing regulation owing to
the shorter duration of OOS spacecraft;
will likely be licensed on a shared use
of spectrum basis, and without the need
for processing round procedures or postprocessing round disputes over matters
such as interference protection and
spectrum priority. Commenters also
submitted that a fee category for RPO
services would provide much need
permanency and clarity to support this
nascent infrastructure.
48. The Commission found, however,
that it was premature at that time to
adopt new fee categories for OOS and
RPO operations. It observed that there
have been a limited number of such
operations and these were treated on a
case-by-case basis, without a specific
license processing regime. It also
expressed the expectation that most
OOS and RPO operations would involve
NGSO space stations, but tentatively
concluded that it was too early to
identify exactly where operations such
as those in low-Earth orbit might fit into
the regulatory fee structure in the future.
Accordingly, it found that the record
was insufficient to propose to establish
fee categories or a methodology for
assessing fees to such categories. The
Commission sought comment on those
tentative conclusions, as well as
whether and how to assess fees for RPO
and OOS spacecraft that operate near
the GSO arc.
49. Since that time, the Commission
has continued to find that the record
was insufficient to adopt a new
regulatory fee category for in-space
servicing operations, such as OOS and
RPO. In the order adopting regulatory
fees for FY 2022, the Commission
determined that the record was
insufficient to support adopting new
regulatory fee categories for OOS and
RPO due to the nascent nature of these
systems and the need for more
experience with the operations of such
systems and the FTE time required to
support them. For the same reasons, the
Commission declined to adopt separate
fee categories for OOS and RPO in the
FY 2023 regulatory fee proceeding,
again finding that the record remained
too incomplete and concluding that
there was insufficient understanding of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
the nature and regulation of such
spacecraft to consider concrete
proposals for assessing regulatory fee
categories for OOS and RPO space
stations at that time. The Commission
noted that it was still in the early stages
of considering the regulatory
environment for such services as a
whole, and the definitions of which
services would fit into OOS and RPO
were yet to be adopted. Instead, the
Commission stated it would continue to
develop a record that would inform
possible establishment of a fee category
for OOS and RPO and an appropriate
methodology for assessing fees for such
a category.
50. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposes that it should no longer delay
adopting a regulatory fee category for
OOS and RPO space stations, even if it
has not yet adopted a separate
regulatory environment for such
services. In 2022, the Commission
initiated a Notice of Inquiry, 87 FR
56365 (Sept. 14, 2022), regarding the
regulatory needs related to in-space
servicing, assembly, and
manufacturing—or ‘‘ISAM’’—that could
include such services as RPO and OOS.
The Commission has since adopted a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 89 FR
18875 (Mar. 15, 2024), seeking comment
on a framework for licensing ISAM
space stations. That proceeding is still
in the early stages of considering the
regulatory environment for such
services. Nonetheless, the Space Bureau
has considered applications for space
stations performing RPO and OOS and
issued licenses for such space stations
under the existing regulatory framework
of 47 CFR part 25, and such stations are
already operational and subject to
payment of regulatory fees. The Space
Bureau anticipates that it will receive
additional applications for such services
in the near future, likely before the
conclusion of any proceeding that may
consider a separate licensing regime for
such systems. Accordingly, there is a
need to propose a method for assessing
regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily
performing RPO and OOS now, even
while the consideration of the
regulatory environment for such
services is ongoing.
51. Although the record remains
insufficient to propose a new category of
regulatory fees for these services, the
Commission proposes, on an interim
basis, to include RPO and OOS within
an existing category of regulatory fees.
In this respect, the Commission
tentatively concludes that the regulatory
fee categories of Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit) and Space Stations
(Non-geostationary Orbit)—Other do not
reflect the amount of regulatory work
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20591
required by these nascent RPO and OOS
services. Those fee categories are
reflective of the greater FTE burden
associated with regulation of more
numerous and more complex space
stations that primarily provide ‘‘always
on’’ communication services, using
spectrum and orbital resources on a
protected basis, subject to processing
rounds or ‘‘first-come, first-served’’
procedures, and requiring the use of a
large number of associated earth
stations. The Commission also
tentatively concludes that the regulatory
fee category of ‘‘Space Stations (Nongeostationary Orbit)—Less complex’’ is
not the most appropriate fit, since space
stations providing primarily RPO and
OOS do not fall within the existing
definition of ‘‘less complex’’ NGSO
space stations, which is limited to space
stations primarily providing EESS and/
or AIS and the regulatory framework for
RPO and OOS space stations is not
sufficiently clear at this time. The
Commission does not propose to use the
existing NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ fee
category for RPO or OOS space stations,
since it tentatively concludes that the
regulatory burden of RPO and OOS
space stations is currently far less than
that of ‘‘less complex’’ NGSO space
stations. The Space Bureau has received
relatively few applications for RPO or
OOS space stations, and although it
anticipates receiving more in the near
future, the amount of FTE resources
required at the present time to regulate
these services is not comparable to the
resources required for regulation of
NGSO ‘‘less complex’’ space stations. It
is possible that, in the future, the
regulatory burden of RPO and OOS may
significantly increase and justify
revisiting this tentative conclusion, but
at the present moment the regulatory
burden of RPO and OOS space stations
is more similar to that presented by
small satellite space station licensees,
which are also few in number and
involve a relatively small number of
space stations that have limited
duration and scope of use and operate
using shared spectrum resources.
52. Although the Commission
previously declined to adopt an interim
fee for RPO and OOS space stations,
including one equivalent to the fee
assessed for small satellites, it did so
due, in part, to time constraints that
would not allow for the adoption of a
new fee and the desire for more
experience before adopting a separate
fee for RPO and OOS space stations. In
the NPRM, the Commission is not
proposing to adopt a new fee for RPO
and OOS space stations, but rather, on
an interim basis, to assess fees using the
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20592
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
existing Space Stations (Small
Satellites) fee category. Given the
immediate need to assess regulatory fees
on RPO and OOS space stations now
and in the near future, the Commission
tentatively concludes that the purposes
of 47 U.S.C. 159 would be best met by
erring on the side of caution and
assessing regulatory fees under the
category of fees associated with the
least-burdensome set of space station
regulatees, rather than waiting for
additional experience and in the interim
potentially subjecting existing RPO and
OOS space stations subject to regulatory
fees for Space Stations (Geostationary
Orbit) or Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other, that may
not reflect the amount of regulatory
work required by these nascent services.
As the Commission gains more
experience with the regulation of RPO
and OOS space stations, it will be in a
better position to adopt a separate fee
category for RPO and OOS space
stations, if appropriate. The NPRM seeks
comment on this proposal and tentative
conclusions.
53. The Commission also proposes to
assess RPO and OOS space stations
using the small satellite fee category on
an interim basis, regardless of the orbit
utilized. Small satellites are limited to
NGSO operations under 47 CFR part 25,
and the Commission stresses that it is
not proposing or suggesting that RPO or
OOS space stations would meet the
definition of a ‘‘small satellite’’ or
‘‘small spacecraft’’ under 47 CFR part
25. Instead, solely for the purpose of
assessing regulatory fees, the
Commission proposes to include RPO or
OOS space stations within the existing
Space Stations (Small Satellite)
regulatory fee category, rather than
creating a new regulatory fee category
for RPO and OOS space stations. The
Commission tentatively concludes that
the rational above for using the small
satellite regulatory fee category to assess
fees on RPO and OOS space stations
applies regardless of whether the RPO
or OOS space stations operate in GSO or
NGSO. The Commission also proposes
to assess the regulatory fee for RPO or
OOS space stations on a ‘‘per license/
call sign’’ basis as is the case for small
satellites payors, rather than on the ‘‘per
system’’ basis used for Space Stations
(Non-geostationary Orbit). In addition,
the Commission proposes to assess
regulatory fees on OTV space stations in
the same manner; that is, to assess
regulatory fees for OTV space stations
using the existing regulatory fee
category of small satellite space stations
on a per license/call sign basis. Like
RPO and OOS space stations, OTVs are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
also few in number and involve a
relatively small number of space
stations that have limited duration and
scope of use and operate using shared
spectrum resources in a manner that
reduces the amount of FTE resources
needed for their licensing and
regulation. The Commission has already
licensed OTV space stations under its
existing 47 CFR part 25 regulatory
framework, and it anticipates that
additional applications for OTV will be
filed in the near future. Accordingly, the
same rationale applies to erring on the
side of caution and assessing regulatory
fees under the category of fees
associated with the least-burdensome
set of space station regulatees, at least
until the Commission gains more
experience in this matter. The NPRM
seeks comment on these proposals and
tentative conclusions. It also seeks
comment on whether this proposed
approach for assessing regulatory fees
for RPO, OOS, and OTV could also be
applied to all space stations that fall
within the definition of ISAM.
54. The Commission finds that the
proposal to assess regulatory fees for
RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations
using the existing fee category for small
satellites would be an amendment as
defined in 47 U.S.C. 159(d). Such an
amendment must be submitted to
Congress at least 90 days before it
becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
159A(b)(2).
55. Finally, the Commission proposes
that RPO or OOS space stations that are
attached to another space station as part
of servicing or mission extension
operations be assessed regulatory fees
separate from, and in addition to, any
regulatory fees assessed on the space
station that is being serviced or that is
having its mission extended. The
Commission acknowledges that this
tentative conclusion is the opposite of
the Commission’s prior tentative
conclusion that RPO and OOS space
stations joined to GSO space stations
during servicing or mission extension
operations should not be assessed
separate regulatory fees, despite the
RPO or OOS space stations being
assigned their own call signs, which is
the unit usually used to assess
regulatory fees for space stations. This
tentative conclusion was never adopted,
and as such was only tentative in
nature. Upon further consideration, the
Commission tentatively concludes that
the requirements and purpose of 47
U.S.C. 159 would be better met by
assessing regulatory fees on such
attached RPO or OOS space stations.
56. The premise underlying the prior
tentative conclusion was that the RPO
or OOS space station is operating as part
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of an existing GSO space station, rather
than as a separate independent space
station, and therefore there is no
independent operating space station for
a separate fee assessment and that the
regulatory fee burden for the RPO or
OOS space station would be included in
the fees collected from the GSO space
station fee payors. Upon further
consideration, the Commission
tentatively concludes that this premise
is not correct. As long as a RPO or OOS
space station retains a separate
authorization, with its own call sign, it
is a separate space station for the
Commission’s regulatory purposes, so
that there is a space station for a
separate fee assessment independent of
the space station being serviced or
having its mission extended. Regulatory
work is associated with the licensing
and regulation of the RPO or OOS space
station that is separate and independent
from the regulatory work associated
with the space station that is being
serviced or having its mission extended.
FTE work expended on reviewing
license applications, issuing licenses,
and exercising regulatory supervision of
the RPO or OOS space stations is
completely separate from the FTE work
associated with the licensing and
regulation of the space station being
serviced or having its mission extended.
In addition, the Commission observes
that it would be difficult to administer
regulatory fees for RPO or OOS space
stations under the Commission’s prior
tentative conclusion, since the status of
the RPO or OOS space station for
regulatory fee purposes would depend
on whether the RPO or OOS space
station is attached to another space
station on the date when regulatory fees
are assessed, or whether it may be
operating unattached, for example,
between servicing missions, which
could lead to uncertainty as to whether
regulatory fees are due or not, as well
as potential gaming of regulatory fees
through the timing of missions.
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159, the
Commission is required to assess
regulatory fees to recover all of its FTE
work based on how FTE time is used.
The Commission tentatively concludes
that it would not be able to meet that
requirement if it was to consider the
RPO or OOS to be part of the serviced
space station, and not subject to
separate regulatory fees. The
Commission seeks comment on its
proposal and the reasoning in support of
it.
6. Assessment of Fees on Authorized,
But Not Operational, Space Stations
57. The Commission proposes to
assess regulatory fees on all authorized
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
space and earth stations, not only on
stations that are ‘‘operational.’’
Currently, regulatory fees for space
stations are payable only when the
space stations are certified by their
operator to be operational. An earth
station payor is required to pay a fee
once it has certified that the earth
station’s construction is complete, but
in the rare instances in which a license
limits an earth station’s operational
authority to a particular satellite system,
the fee is not due until the first satellite
of the related system becomes
‘‘operational’’ within the meaning of the
Commission’s rules. A space station is
authorized, in contrast, after an
application or petition has been
reviewed and granted by the
Commission and the grant is effective.
Because significant FTE resources are
involved with the licensing of space and
earth stations, the Commission
tentatively concludes that the objectives
of 47 U.S.C. 159 would be better met by
assessing regulatory fees once a space or
earth station is licensed, rather than
when a space station becomes
operational.
58. The origin for assessing regulatory
fees on space stations when they
become operational, rather than when
licensed, was the statutory text of 47
U.S.C. 159 from 1993. The Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that
created 47 U.S.C. 159 and proposed
regulatory fees in 47 U.S.C. 159(g),
which identified two fee categories and
amounts for space stations: (1) ‘‘Space
Station (per operational station in
geosynchronous orbit) (47 CFR part 25)’’
and (2) ‘‘Space Station (per system in
low-earth orbit) (47 CFR part 25)’’. The
Commission adopted the requirement
that GSO space stations be operational
before regulatory fees are assessed as
part of 1994 regulatory fee proceeding,
basing that decision on the statutory
language. In that same proceeding, the
Commission also applied to NGSO
space stations the requirement that
space stations be operational before
regulatory fees are payable, even though
the text of 47 U.S.C. 159(g) did not
include the word ‘‘operational’’ for
systems in low-earth orbit, as it did for
GSO space stations. The Commission
has kept the ‘‘operational’’ requirement
for assessing regulatory fees on space
stations through subsequent annual
regulatory fee assessment proceedings
without comment or reevaluation.
59. The Commission tentatively
concludes that there is no statutory bar
to assessing regulatory fees on
authorized, but not yet operational,
space and earth stations. Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 159, the Commission is explicitly
given authority to adjust its regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
fees by rule if it determines that the
schedule of fees requires amendment,
and such adjustment by rule is what is
being proposed in the NPRM. In
addition, Congress deleted 47 U.S.C.
159(g), which was the textual basis for
the operational requirement for
assessing regulatory fees on space
stations, in the 2018 RAY BAUM’s Act.
Accordingly, the original textual
language of 47 U.S.C. 159(g) appears no
longer relevant to the Commission’s
amendments of regulatory fee
schedules. The NPRM seeks comment
on this tentative conclusion and the
reasons underlying it.
60. In the NPRM, the Commission
tentatively concludes that now is an
appropriate time to reevaluate the
current policy that a space station must
be operational before regulatory fees can
be assessed. The recent creation of
Space Bureau provides an opportune
time to revisit past conclusions about
the regulatory burdens associated with
space and earth station fee payors and
how those fees should be assessed. The
increased burdens of regulating space
stations as a result of the changes in the
satellite industry and the creation of the
Space Bureau will increase the share of
regulatory fees to be assessed on space
and earth station regulatees, compared
to the number of FTEs regulating space
stations in the International Bureau, so
the Commission should look to have as
broad a base as possible for its
regulatory fees in a manner that
accounts for all regulatees that benefit
from Space Bureau oversight as a matter
of making its regulatory fees more fair.
61. The Commission observes that a
licensee or grantee already benefits from
the substantial FTE resources used to
review and grant the application or
petition, as well as from the FTE
resources used to protect the benefits
conferred by the grant of a license or of
U.S. market access, such as use of
spectrum and orbital resources and
protection from interference, which
convey upon issuance of the license or
grant. Moreover, given the bespoke
nature of many satellite systems, Space
Bureau staff expertise is utilized by the
industry before, during and after an
application (including modifications
thereof) or petitions for rulemaking are
filed. In addition, as observed elsewhere
in the NPRM, NGSO space stations are
taking an increased share of FTE
burdens relative to GSO space stations
and are being assessed higher regulatory
fees, so there is also increased
importance to make sure that all NGSO
beneficiaries of those FTE burdens are
assessed fees. For example, if five NGSO
FSS systems are licensed through a
single processing round, FTE licensing
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20593
work is necessitated by all five systems,
but under the current policy only the
operational systems would be required
to pay regulatory fees, and the entire
regulatory burden for that category of
space stations would be paid only by
operational systems. Systems that
become operational later, or not at all,
would not be assessed regulatory fees
associated with that FTE work for
potentially many years, or perhaps
never. As a result, systems that become
operational earlier than other licensed
systems would bear the entire fee
burden of regulatory work done on
behalf of all regulated systems. The
NPRM seeks comment on these
observations.
62. The Commission proposes that the
intent of Congress in 47 U.S.C. 159
would be better fulfilled by recovering
the costs of licensing and regulatory
oversight based on authorized space
stations, rather than operational space
stations. Congress has directed the FCC
to recover its annual S&E appropriation
through regulatory fees, and the S&E
appropriation includes funding for FTE
time spent reviewing and granting
applications, which is accrued
regardless of when a space station
becomes operational. In most cases, the
amount of FTE spent on reviewing
applications corresponds to the number
of space stations requested to be
authorized, rather than the number that
become operational, since Commission
staff must spend resources assessing the
space station system as proposed in the
application, regardless of whether all
the space stations actually become
operational. In addition, once a space
station is authorized, it is subject to
regulatory oversight by the Space
Bureau and is entitled to all the benefits
and privileges that come with an FCC
license or market access grant. The
NPRM seeks comment on this proposal.
63. The Commission also proposes
that assessing regulatory fees based on
authorized space stations, rather than
operational space stations, should not
present challenges to administer. No
additional information collection would
be needed to determine whether a space
station is authorized (as opposed to
operational), since the FCC’s license or
grant of market access displays the
authorization particulars, including the
date of grant and the number of space
stations authorized, and the grants and
the information contained within the
grants are readily available to the
Commission and the public. The
Commission proposes to continue its
practice of publishing a list of the space
stations and systems that would be
subject to regulatory fees as U.S.
licensed space stations or non-U.S.
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
20594
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
licensed space station that have been
granted U.S. market access. As is the
case now, the Commission proposes that
any party identifying errors will be able
to advise Commission staff of the error
and seek correction. The Commission
also proposes that NGSO licensees may
seek to modify their licenses under
existing 47 CFR part 25 requirements to
have the number of authorized space
stations modified to reflect the number
of actual operational space stations if
not as many space stations become
operational as were applied for, or the
number of authorized space stations
diminishes due to the retirement of
space stations at the end of their
missions. The Commission
acknowledges that permitting payors to
reduce the number of authorized space
stations after an application is granted
could be inconsistent with the proposal
that regulatory fees should be based on
the number of space station licensed,
rather than the number of operational
space stations, but the Commission
tentatively concludes that it is easier to
administer its fees if they are based on
the number of space stations authorized
in the current license, rather than
having to look back at previous
iterations of license grants in order to fix
the fee at the highest number of space
stations licensed. Furthermore, the
Commission does not anticipate that
licensees or grantees will seek to reduce
the number of authorized satellites
significantly after authorization to avoid
regulatory fees; rather, it anticipates that
such reductions will be marginal and be
due to business or operational
considerations, rather than due to
regulatory fee considerations. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. It also seeks comment on
whether, if the proposal to assess
regulatory fees based on authorized,
rather than operational, space stations is
adopted, the Commission should assess
fees on this basis in the current fiscal
year, or whether it would be more
appropriate to assess fees on this basis
beginning in FY 2025.
64. The Commission recognizes that
assessing regulatory fees before a GSO
space station, or a system of NGSO
space stations, is operational could lead
to collateral effects that are outside the
FTE-focused methodology required
under 47 U.S.C. 159. For example,
assessing regulatory fees on authorized,
but non-operational, space stations
could provide an incentive for
applicants to request the Space Bureau
to defer action on applications until
after the period has passed for assessing
which payors owe regulatory fees for the
fiscal year, so as to defer the assessment
of regulatory fees until the subsequent
fiscal year. Alternatively, it could
provide an incentive for space station
operators to seek licensing outside the
United States, and to apply for U.S.
market access only once the system has
become operational, thereby deferring
the assessment of regulatory fees in a
manner not available to U.S.-licensed
space station operators. It could also
increase the costs to the operator at the
initial funding phases of a space station
or system of space stations. The
Commission seeks comment on these, or
any other, potential collateral effects,
and whether they weigh against
assessing regulatory fees on authorized,
but not yet operational, space stations.
In addition, if the Commission does not
adopt the proposal to begin to assess
regulatory fees when a space station, or
system of space stations, is authorized,
could the benefits for the proposal still
be realized in part by assessing
regulatory fees on the number of
authorized space stations in the system,
once the system has been notified as
operational, as defined under 47 CFR
25.121(d)(2)?
65. The Commission finds that the
proposal to assess regulatory fees on
authorized, rather than operational,
space and earth stations would be an
amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C. 159.
Such an amendment must be submitted
to Congress at least 90 days before it
becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
159A(b)(2).
66. Summarizing the proposed
changes to the existing regulatory fee
methodology for space stations, the
Commission proposes to modify the fee
categories for space stations contained
in 47 CFR 1.1156 to read as follows:
Fee category
Space
Space
Space
Space
Space
Stations
Stations
Stations
Stations
Stations
(per
(per
(per
(per
(per
authorized station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) ..............................................................................
authorized system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Other—Large Constellations) .....................
authorized system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Other—Small Constellations) .....................
authorized system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Less Complex) ............................................
license/call sign) (Small Satellite) .......................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Earth Station Fee Proposals
67. The Commission proposes to
increase the amount of regulatory fees
assessed on earth stations in order to
reflect more accurately the amount of
FTE resources dedicated to their
regulatory oversight. Currently, there is
a single regulatory fee category for earth
stations—Transmit/Receive & Transmit
only (per authorization or registration).
For FY 2023, the fee amount for this
category per authorization or
registration was $575. For the reasons
set forth in the NPRM, the methodology
used to assess regulatory fees for earth
station payors may underestimate the
FTE burdens associated with regulatory
oversight of this category of fee payors,
and the Commission seeks comment on
proposals to adjust its regulatory fees to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Fee amount
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
more accurately recover the amount of
FTE resources devoted to licensing and
regulation of earth stations.
68. The unit for assessing regulatory
fees for earth stations—per
authorization or registration—is not
uniform. In some cases, an authorization
can be for a single earth station, such as
a feeder link station in the mobilesatellite service. In other cases, a single
authorization could be for several
thousand earth stations under what is
often called a ‘‘blanket license.’’ When
first established in 1994, the fee
category for earth stations had four subcategories with different fee amounts.
These sub-categories were: (1) VSAT &
Equivalent C-band antennas (per 100
antennas)—$6; (2) Mobile Satellite Earth
Stations (per 100 antennas)—$6; (3) Less
than 9 meters (per 100 antennas)—$6;
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[TBD]
[TBD]
[TBD]
[TBD]
[TBD]
and (4) 9 Meters or More—Transmit/
Receive and Transmit Only (per
meter)—$85; Receive Only (per meter)—
$55. In 1995, the Commission deleted
receive-only earth stations as a service
subject to regulatory fee requirements
and determined that assessing fees on a
per authorization or registration basis
was more equitable method than on a
per meter or per 100 earth station basis.
The Commission set the earth station
regulatory fee per authorization or
registration at $330 for all three
remaining sub-categories (i.e., VSAT,
Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations, Fixed
Earth Stations—Transmit/Receive &
Transmit Only). 47 CFR 25.1156,
however, lists only a single category and
fee for earth station payors: Earth
Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit
only (per authorization or registration).
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
69. The Commission has not assessed
earth station regulatory fees as a
percentage of overall bureau regulatory
burdens. Rather, the assessment of
regulatory fees for earth stations has
been based on the initial per unit fee for
earth stations—Transmit/Receive &
Transmit only (per authorization or
registration) that was established by the
Commission in 1995. This initial fee has
been adjusted on a year-to-year basis,
but usually only in terms of a
percentage change in the fee to reflect
the changes in the amount of
appropriated S&E each year and the
number of anticipated units of payors.
Since 1995, the Commission has
periodically discussed earth station
regulatory fees or considered adjusting
earth station regulatory fees for factors
beyond a change in the annual S&E
appropriation or the number of units of
earth station fee payors. In 2014, the
Commission increased the earth station
regulatory fee per unit by 7.5%, from
$275 in FY 2013 to $295 for FY 2014,
in order to reflect more appropriately
the number of FTEs devoted to the
regulation and oversight of the earth
stations in response to concerns raised
by commenters that space stations paid
an unreasonably high portion of the
regulatory fees for the regulation of the
satellite industry. The following year, in
2015, the Commission sought comment
on whether to raise the earth station
regulatory fees again but declined to do
so finding that the issue required further
analysis. In particular, due to comments
suggesting that the Commission adopt
different regulatory fees for different
types of earth stations and an ongoing
proceeding that held the possibility of
affecting the distribution of FTE work,
the Commission deferred the issue for
the next year’s proceeding. The
Commission ceased consideration of
different regulatory fees for different
types of earth stations in 2016, however,
when the commenter chiefly advocating
for such consideration ceased to back its
earlier proposal and no other entity
commented on the record in favor of the
proposal to assess different levels of
regulatory fees on different types of
earth station licensees. In 2020,
commenters in the annual regulatory fee
assessment proceeding proposed that
the Commission review the
apportionment of regulatory fees
between earth and space station payors
and implement different earth station
subcategories for regulatory fee
purposes. The Commission declined to
do so, finding that there was insufficient
evidence in the record at that time to
increase apportionment of fees paid by
earth station licensees or on which to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
base the creation of subcategories of
earth station fees.
70. The Commission’s focused
examination of space and earth station
fees as a result of the creation of the
Space Bureau provides an opportunity
to reconsider whether its regulatory fees
adequately reflect the amount of FTE
resources devoted to licensing and
regulation of earth stations. The
Commission tentatively conclude that
they do not, and that a change in
methodology in assessing regulatory
fees for earth stations is required.
Specifically, for the reason set forth in
the NPRM, the Commission proposes to
adopt an apportionment of the total
regulatory fees allocated to the Space
Bureau between space and earth station
payors on a percentage basis, similar to
the manner that space station fees are
apportioned between GSO and NGSO
space stations, and proposes that the
apportionment be 20 percent for earth
stations and 80 percent for space
stations. The NPRM seeks comment on
this proposal and apportionment.
71. For FY 2023, earth station
licensees were assessed a total of
$1,667,500 in regulatory fees, which
amounted to 7.69% of the $21,656,110
in regulatory fees assessed for all space
and earth station payors. Several factors
lead to the Commission’s tentative
conclusion that this percentage
underestimates the amount of FTE
resources dedicated to earth station
licensing and regulation. First, unlike
the case for apportionment of space
station fees between GSO and NGSO
space stations, or among various
subcategories of NGSO space stations, it
may be feasible to attribute Space
Bureau FTE resources that are dedicated
exclusively, or nearly exclusively, to
earth station licensing and regulation.
Within the Space Bureau is the Earth
Station Licensing Division (ESLD),
which lists eleven staff members that
work almost exclusively on earth station
licensing and regulation and that are not
routinely involved in matters of space
station licensing or regulation. If each
staff member were to account for an
FTE, these eleven staff members would
account for approximately 20% of the
54 FTEs that could be categorized as
direct FTEs for the Space Bureau for FY
2024, minus a small number of FTEs
that may be categorized as indirect FTEs
as discussed elsewhere in the NPRM.
The Commission tentatively concludes
that apportioning regulatory fee
percentages between earth and space
station payors based on the percentage
of direct FTEs involved the licensing
and regulation of each category, where
feasible to do so, is a reasonable way to
fulfill Congress’ mandate in 47 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20595
159 that the Commission’s regulatory
fees must reflect the full-time equivalent
number of employees within the
bureaus and offices of the Commission,
adjusted to take into account factors that
are reasonably related to the benefits
provided to the payor of the fee by the
Commission’s activities. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
using FTEs in the ESLD to determine
the proportion of earth station fees
relative to space station fees is
reasonable and reflective of
Congressional intent. Are there other
factors that are reasonably related to the
FTE resources provided to earth station
licensees that are not reflected in the
Commission’s proposal? Are there
alternatives to using the percentage of
direct FTEs involved in earth station
licensing and regulation that should be
considered?
72. The Commission recognizes that
the proposal to apportion 20% of all
Space Bureau regulatory fees to earth
station licensees beginning in FY 2024
will result in a substantial increase in
the per unit regulatory fee paid by earth
station licensees, both because the
percentage share of Space Bureau
regulatory fees is likely to increase as a
whole due to the increased number of
direct FTEs in the Space Bureau
compared to the International Bureau,
and because the percentage share of
earth station fees of Space Bureau fees
would increase from around from
around 8% to 20% under the
Commission’s proposal. Nonetheless,
the Commission tentatively concludes
that the increase in earth station
regulatory fees is consistent with the
mandate given by Congress in 47 U.S.C.
159 for the Commission to recover its
costs of regulation through fees that
reflect the full-time equivalent number
of employees within the Commission
that provide the regulatory benefits to
the payors. The NPRM seeks comment
on this tentative conclusion and
observation.
73. In light of the tentative conclusion
that earth station licensees should be
apportioned 20% of all fees allocated to
Space Bureau fee payors, the
Commission seeks to revisit the
question of whether to create
subcategories of earth station regulatory
fee payors to better differentiate the
amount of regulatory burdens associated
with different types of earth station
licenses. For example, should Very
Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT),
Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations, and
Fixed Earth Stations—Transmit/Receive
& Transmit Only be reinstated as
distinct fee categories, each with a
separate fee assessment? The
Commission also seeks to develop a
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
20596
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
record as to whether there are types of
earth station licenses that require more
FTE resources to license and regulate,
and that account for a higher share of
FTE burdens than other categories of
earth station licensees, for which a
higher regulatory fee should be
assessed. Likewise, are there categories
of earth station licensees that require
less FTE resources to license and
regulate and therefore should be
assessed a lower regulatory fee? For
example, in the past commenters have
suggested that blanket-licensed earth
station licensees involving multiple
antennas under a single authorization
should pay higher fees than other earth
station licensees because blanketlicensed earth stations require more
regulatory oversight. The NPRM asks
commenters to provide evidentiary
support for their propositions and to
provide specific proposals for what
these categories should be and how to
allocate fees among any categories.
Furthermore, comments should address
the administrability of any proposed
categories and whether the Space
Bureau would be able to assign costs of
specific regulatory activities to any
proposed categories of earth station
regulatory fees.
74. The Commission finds that the
creation of any new fee categories for
earth stations would be an amendment
as defined in 47 U.S.C. 159. Such an
amendment must be submitted to
Congress at least 90 days before it
becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
159A(b)(2).
75. If the proposals made in the
NPRM are not adopted, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should, at
a minimum, increase the amount of the
per unit fee for the existing fee category
of ‘‘Earth Station—Transmit/Receive &
Transmit only (per authorization or
registration)’’ in order to reflect the
increase of the Space Bureau’s share of
overall Commission regulatory fees as
compared to the International Bureau’s
share in FY 2023. If so, how should this
increase be calculated and what should
be the percentage increase over the FY
2023 fee?
D. Alternative Methodology for
Assessing Space Station Regulatory Fees
76. The proposals made elsewhere in
the NPRM are amendments or
adjustments to the existing methodology
of assessing regulatory fees for space
stations. This existing methodology was
founded on the original regulatory fees
proposed by Congress in 1994, which
provided for earth station regulatory
fees and separate categories of space
station fees depending on the orbit used
by the space station(s): geostationary or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
non-geostationary. Since then, the
Commission has created subcategories
for NGSO space stations and has
continuously tried to adjust the
allocation of FTE burdens among GSO
space stations and the various
subcategories of NGSO space stations.
The Commission now seeks comment
on an alternative methodology for
assessing space station regulatory fees
that eliminates the distinction between
GSO, NGSO, and all the subcategories of
NGSO, while preserving a separate fee
category for small satellites. For the
reasons discussed in the NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
this alternative methodology would be
more administrable, fair, and
sustainable than the existing
methodology, even if all the proposals
made elsewhere in the NPRM are
adopted.
77. The initial stages of the alternative
methodology are the same as under the
existing methodology. The Commission
would first determine the Space
Bureau’s share of the total FCC annual
S&E appropriation for the given fiscal
year using the existing methodology
used by the Commission. After the
Space Bureau’s share is determined, the
Commission proposes that the share be
allocated between earth station and
space station fee payors proportional to
the Space Bureau FTE resources that are
involved in the licensing and regulation
of each segment. As stated elsewhere in
the NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concludes that it is feasible to attribute
Space Bureau FTE resources that are
dedicated exclusively, or nearly
exclusively, to earth station licensing
and regulation. The Commission
anticipates that the FTE resources
attributed to earth stations will be 20
percent of the total Space Bureau share,
resulting in 80 percent of regulatory fees
to be attributed to space station
regulatory fees. Earth station fees would
be determined by dividing the total
share attributable to earth station
licensing and regulation by the number
of units for the fiscal year, which were
2900 in FY 2023.
78. The Commission’s alternative
methodology also would preserve a
separate fee category for Space Stations
(per license/call sign) (Small Satellite),
with the inclusion of RPO, OOS, OTV,
and potentially other ISAM space
stations in this category on an interim
basis, as was proposed elsewhere in the
NPRM. It would also retain the proposal
to set this regulatory fee at the level set
for FY 2023, with only an adjustment
each year to reflect the percentage
change in the FCC appropriation from
the previous fiscal year. This fixed
regulatory fee for Space Stations (Small
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Satellite) would be multiplied by the
number of small satellite licenses/call
signs required to pay regulatory fees for
the fiscal year, and this total amount
would be subtracted from the amount of
space station regulatory fees to be
assessed on all remaining space station
payors. Fees would be assessed on
authorized space stations, not just
operational space stations, as proposed
in the NPRM. This treatment of small
satellite regulatory fees would be
consistent with the Commission’s
existing methodology for assessing
space station regulatory fees, taking into
account the proposals made in the
NPRM.
79. The main change from the existing
methodology is a proposal to establish
a common initial unit of regulatory fee
payment for all space stations,
regardless of which orbit they are
designed to operate in, and to eliminate
separate fee categories for Space
Stations (Geostationary Orbit), Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—
Less complex, and Space Stations (NonGeostationary Orbit)—Other. The
alternative methodology would have a
single space station fee category for
‘‘Space Stations (Per Call Sign in
Geostationary Orbit or Per System in
Non-Geostationary Orbit).’’ The category
would be tiered, with a single GSO
space station or a NGSO system with up
to 100 authorized space stations
constituting this initial tier and being
counted as one unit for assessment of
space station regulatory fees. Additional
tiers would be created to account for
NGSO systems with more than 100
authorized space stations, for example
500 or 1,000 space stations per NGSO
system per additional tier. Each tier
would be counted as an additional unit
for assessment of space station
regulatory fees. The total number of
units (initial and additional units)
would be added together and the total
space station allocation of the Space
Bureau share would be evenly divided
among the total number of units,
resulting in a per unit regulatory fee for
the fiscal year.
80. If the unit tiers are defined per 500
additional authorized space stations, the
initial unit range will be 1–100
authorized space stations, the first
additional unit will be assessed to
systems with 101–500 authorized space
stations, and an additional unit will
then be assessed for each additional
block of 500 authorized space stations.
Similarly, if the additional unit tiers are
defined per 1,000 additional authorized
space stations, the initial unit range will
be 1–100 authorized space stations, the
first additional unit will be assessed to
systems with 101–1,000 authorized
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
space stations, and an additional unit
will then be assessed for additional
block of 1,000 authorized space stations.
For example, a single GSO space station
or a NGSO system of 100 authorized
space stations or fewer would be
assessed one unit’s share of space
station regulatory fees. If that NGSO
system were to have 500 authorized
space stations, it would be assessed an
additional unit’s share of regulatory
fees, regardless of whether the
additional tiers are based on 500 or
1,000 additional space stations per
NGSO system. If that NGSO system
were to have 1,000 authorized space
stations, it would either be assessed one
additional unit’s share (if the additional
tiers are based per 1,000 authorized
space stations) or two additional units’
share (if the additional tiers are based
per 500 authorized space stations).
Accordingly, GSO payors and NGSO
systems of 100 authorized space stations
or fewer would be assessed the lowest
regulatory fees, while payors with
multiple authorized GSO space stations
or with NGSO systems with more than
100 authorized space stations would be
assessed higher regulatory fees, with the
highest regulatory fees assessed to
payors with a large number of GSO
space stations and to payors with NGSO
systems consisting of thousands of
authorized space stations.
81. The Commission seeks comment
on whether this alternative methodology
would be more administrable, fair, and
sustainable than the existing
methodology. First, it could be more
administrable because it does not
require the Space Bureau to make the
challenging determination of how FTE
resources are allocated among space
station payors. The Commission has
previously recognized the considerable
challenge of apportioning regulatory
fees among space stations fee categories.
Under the alternative methodology,
tiered units are used as a proxy for the
amount of FTE resources that are
attributable to the system without
having to repeatedly make challenging
determinations of the amount of FTE
resources attributable to particular
categories or subcategories of space
station regulatory fee payors.
Furthermore, unless the number of
authorized space stations substantially
decreases over a year, the amount of
regulatory fee assessed to a system on a
per unit basis is unlikely to increase and
is likely to remain stable (or possibly
decrease) year to year. The alternative
methodology does not utilize any
characteristics of a space station system
other than the number of authorized
space stations in the system and is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
dependent on potentially difficult
evaluations of the complexity of a
system under the Commission’s
licensing and regulatory framework. It
would not require the Commission to
collect more information from operators.
Thus, the Commission anticipates that
the alternative methodology can remain
stable longer than the existing
methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees. The NPRM seeks
comment on these issues.
82. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the alternative methodology
is more fair than the existing
methodology, because it better
corresponds FTE resources spent on
licensing and regulating space stations
with the types of space station systems
that benefit from the FTE resources,
thereby decreasing the per unit
regulatory fees for space station payors
that benefit less from FTE resources.
Under the alternative methodology,
higher aggregate fees will be assessed to
systems with large numbers of
authorized space stations, GSO or
NGSO, but the Commission expects
those higher fees will be borne by
payors that benefit from more FTE
resources in support of licensing and
regulating their systems. The alternative
methodology also increases the number
of units over which space station
regulatory fees are spread, thereby
decreasing the per unit regulatory fees
for all space station payors as additional
units are added, regardless of their
orbital configuration. The tiered system
also avoids the situation where systems
with a very large number of authorized
space stations could effectively end up
paying all, or nearly all, space station
regulatory fees, and where the fee per
unit for a single GSO space station or a
NGSO system of up to 100 authorized
space stations would be diluted to an
amount that may not adequately reflect
the amount of FTE resources allocated
to such fee payors.
83. In addition, under the existing
methodology, regulatory fees for a
particular category of fee payors go
down per payor as more space stations
or systems become operational in that
category. Although such a decrease is
beneficial for payors in that category, it
may not reflect the increased amount of
FTE resources required for that category
of fee payors because of the additional
resources needed for authorizing and
regulating an increasing number of
space stations or systems. This can lead
to a discrepancy in that a category with
rapidly increasing number of space
stations or systems becoming
operational is assessed lower regulatory
fees than a category where the number
of payors remains steady or even
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20597
declines. This discrepancy continues
until the Commission makes the
challenging determination to alter the
allocation of regulatory fees among the
fee categories, which could take years to
implement. For example, if additional
NGSO systems become operational
under the existing methodology, the
regulatory fee per system for that
particular subcategory of NGSO system
would decrease because of the broader
base over which the fees for that
category would be spread, but it would
not decrease the fees assessed on GSO
space station payors or on NGSO space
station payors in other NGSO
subcategories—unless the Commission
reallocates the percentage of space
station regulatory fees among the GSO
and NGSO categories. Under the
alternative methodology this
discrepancy is eliminated, because the
addition of units of authorized space
stations will automatically decrease the
per unit regulatory fee for all space
station regulatory fee payors, because
the denominator used to divide the
overall space station regulatory fee
amount becomes larger. For example,
the per unit regulatory fee for GSO
space stations will decrease if the
number of units assessed to NGSO space
station systems increases, even if the
number of units assessed to GSO space
stations remains the same. Under this
example, the per unit regulatory fee for
all NGSO space stations would decrease
as well. Furthermore, the alternative
system avoids assessing the same
regulatory fee on systems with a small
number of authorized space stations as
the fee assessed on systems with a large
number of authorized space stations, as
is the case under the existing NGSO
space stations ‘‘other’’ subcategory. The
NPRM seeks comment on these issues.
84. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the alternative
methodology is more sustainable than
the existing methodology. The
Commission has reason to expect that
the number of authorized space stations
will increase in the future, rather than
decrease, which will result in an even
broader base on which to assess space
station regulatory fees and which will
lower per unit fees for all space station
payors, regardless of the orbit in which
the space station operates or the services
it provides. Because fees are spread
across all space station payors, it avoids
the situation where the loss of a single
payor in an existing fee category could
result in significant increases to the
regulatory fees paid by the remaining
payors in that category, absent
Commission action to reexamine fee
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20598
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
allocations. The NPRM seeks comment
on these issues.
85. The Commission observes that
this alternative methodology relies
exclusively on the number of authorized
space stations to assess space station
regulatory fees, rather than the more
nuanced approach of the existing
methodology of assessing the
complexity of a system (and thus the
amount of FTE resources required to
regulate the system) based on a number
of factors. The Commission also
acknowledges that it has previously
found that the number of space stations
in a system is not the key driver of the
amount of FTE time devoted to
regulatory oversight of such systems.
For example, an NGSO system
consisting of a single space station that
is designed to operate in a novel
manner, subject to a processing round,
and in a way that requires extensive
coordination of spectrum and orbital
resources may require significantly
more regulatory oversight than a NGSO
system of hundreds of space stations
having non-exclusive use of spectrum
and operating under well-established
parameters. But is it reasonable to
assume that NGSO systems with
hundreds or thousands of authorized
space stations require more FTE
resources, on average and ignoring
outliers, than NGSO systems with 100
authorized space stations or fewer, since
as the number of space stations in a
system increases, the complexity of
spectrum sharing, frequency usage, and
orbital debris mitigation plans also
increases, generally speaking? While the
number of space stations in a system
may not be the key driver of the amount
of FTE devoted to regulatory oversight
of such systems, the Commission
expects that it may be a driver, and one
that is easier to administer than the
more nuanced approach of the existing
methodology or the use of other possible
proxies for complexity, such as
spectrum usage, services provided, or
on-orbit mass. In order to gain the
potential advantages of the alternative
methodology, the number of space
stations authorized may be the more
administrable metric to serve as a proxy
for the amount of FTE resources devoted
to a system in order to accomplish the
objectives 47 U.S.C. 159, rather than to
continue the challenging task of
determining which categories or aspects
of NGSO systems are more or less
complex to regulate on a recurring basis,
particularly as new technologies,
services, and orbital operations rapidly
develop. The NPRM seeks comment on
these issues.
86. Although the regulatory fees that
would be assessed under the alternative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
methodology for most space station fee
payors may be roughly the same or
potentially lower than those that would
be assessed using the existing
methodology, even with the changes
proposed in the NPRM, the fees assessed
for some space station payors could be
substantially higher under the
alternative methodology. For example,
NGSO systems with more than 500
authorized space stations that are
categorized as ‘‘less complex’’ under the
existing methodology could pay more
under the alternative methodology. For
NGSO systems that are categorized as
‘‘less complex’’ under the Commission’s
existing methodology, it may be
possible to reflect that categorization by
allowing a greater number of space
stations to be included in the first or
second tier for those systems. For
example, an NGSO system used
primarily for EESS and/or AIS
communicating with 20 or fewer U.S.licensed earth stations with up to 500
authorized space stations could be
assessed only the initial unit of fees,
even though it exceeds the proposed
limit of up to 100 authorized space
stations for the initial unit. The NPRM
seeks comment on these issues.
87. Furthermore, if NGSO systems
have a significantly larger number of
authorized space stations than is the
case today, it is possible that tiers of
units based on 500 or 1,000 space
stations could result in such NGSO
systems being assessed a very large
percentage share of all space station
regulatory fees. In this case, the concern
is similar to using a ‘‘per space station’’
basis as a proxy for the complexity of a
space station system that was discussed
elsewhere in the NPRM. As discussed,
the NPRM seeks comment on whether a
‘‘cap’’ or ‘‘ceiling’’ on the number of
authorized space stations on which
regulatory fees are assessed could
alleviate this concern.
88. The use of tiers also presents the
situation where a system with only a
handful of authorized space stations
over the cut off number of space stations
in a tier would be assessed fees under
the next higher tier. For example, under
a tiered system where an additional unit
of fees is assessed per 500 additional
authorized space stations, an NGSO
system with 501 authorized space
stations would be assessed fees for three
units (the initial tier of up to 100
authorized space stations, the second
tier of up to 500 authorized space
stations, and the third tier of 501–1,000
authorized space stations), even though
it crossed the second tier threshold by
a single authorized space station. While
the payor in such a case could seek
authorization for one less space station,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or modify an existing space station
license to remove an authorized space
station from its license, this may not
make sense from a systems engineering
perspective, particularly if the ‘‘spill
over’’ is 50 or 100 additional authorized
space stations. A potential remedy for
this situation is to allow partial units for
assessing regulatory fees. For example,
if the additional authorized space
stations per unit is set at 500, and an
NGSO system has 508 authorized space
stations, it could be assessed 1.016
additional units (508/500) instead of
rounding up and being assessed two
additional units. If the same NGSO
system had 580 authorized space
stations, it could be assessed 1.16
additional units (580/500) instead of
two additional units. This fractional
approach could result in more granular
assessments of regulatory fees than a
tiered system using cut offs. The NPRM
seeks comment on these issues,
particularly on the feasibility of
implementing such an approach and
whether it requires too much precision
in assessing the number of authorized
space stations in a system.
89. The Commission seeks comment
on all aspects of this alternative
methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees. Would it be more
administrable, fair, and sustainable than
the existing methodology? Is it
reasonable to use the number of
authorized space stations in a system to
reflect the amount of FTE resources
devoted to a system, as proposed in the
alternative methodology? Is the
regulatory burden of one GSO space
station approximate to the regulatory
burden of an NGSO system of up to 100
authorized space stations? If tiers of
units are utilized, what should the
number of additional authorized space
stations per tier be set at? Would 500 or
1,000 additional authorized space
stations be a reasonable number?
Should there be a cap on the number of
space stations on which tiers of units
are assessed, in order to prevent NGSO
systems with tens of thousands of
authorized space stations from
potentially being assessed a fee that is
disproportionate to the amount of FTE
resources devoted to licensing and
regulating such systems? Should partial
units be utilized instead of cut offs for
tiers, as discussed in the previous
paragraph? Under the alternative
methodology, should small satellite fees
be fixed, as proposed for changes to the
existing methodology elsewhere in the
NPRM?
90. Summarizing the proposed
changes under the proposed alternative
regulatory fee methodology for space
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
20599
stations above, 47 CFR 1.1156 would be
proposed to read as follows:
Fee category
Fee amount
Space Stations (Per Call Sign of Authorized Space Station in Geostationary Orbit or Per System of 100 or Fewer Authorized
Space Stations in Non-Geostationary Orbit) ...................................................................................................................................
Space Stations (Per Tier of Up to 500 [or 1,000] Additionally Authorized Space Stations in Non-Geostationary Orbit) ..................
Space Station (per license/call sign) (Small Satellites) .......................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
91. The Commission finds that the
proposal to use the alternative
methodology to assess regulatory fees
for space and earth stations would be an
amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C.
159(d). Such an amendment must be
submitted to Congress at least 90 days
before it becomes effective pursuant to
47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
E. Other Matters
92. Changing the Title of 47 CFR
1.1156. The Commission proposes to
change the title of 47 CFR 1.1156 to
make it clear that it contains space and
earth station regulatory fees. Currently,
satellite regulatory fees are contained in
47 CFR 1.1156, which is titled,
‘‘Schedule of regulatory fees for
international services.’’ The
Commission proposes to rename this
section as ‘‘Schedule of regulatory fees
for space and international services’’ to
reflect more accurately that the section
contains the regulatory fees for space
and earth stations, as well as the fees for
international bearer circuits and
submarine cables regulated by the Office
of International Affairs. The current title
of 47 CFR 1.1156 was accurate when all
categories of fees within it were
regulated by the International Bureau.
After the reorganization of the
International Bureau into the Space
Bureau and the Office of International
Affairs, the current title can cause
confusion by suggesting that only the
fees for regulatees of the Office of
International Affairs are contained
within 47 CFR 1.1156. The Commission
tentatively concludes that it would be
easier to change the title of 47 CFR
1.1156 than to create a new section in
47 CFR part 1, subpart G, containing
space and earth station regulatory fees.
The Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion and proposal.
93. Digital Equity and Inclusion. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to advance digital equity for all,
including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or
Tribal areas, and others who are or have
been historically underserved,
marginalized, or adversely affected by
persistent poverty or inequality, invites
comment on any equity-related
considerations and benefits (if any) that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
may be associated with the proposals
and issues discussed in the NPRM.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on how its proposals may
promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well the scope of the
Commission’s relevant legal authority.
The NPRM notes that diversity and
equity considerations, however, do not
allow the Commission to shift fees from
one party of fee payors to another, nor
to use fees under 47 U.S.C. 159 for any
purpose other than as an offsetting
collection in the amount of the
Commission’s annual S&E
appropriation.
94. Space Innovation Agenda. The
Commission has an open proceeding on
advancing opportunities for innovation
in the new space age by taking measures
to expedite the application processes for
space stations and earth stations,
consistent with the Commission’s
objective to promote a competitive and
innovative global telecommunications
marketplace via space services’’ In
September 2023, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order (Dec. 6,
2023, 88 FR 84737) that further
streamlined its application review
process, including establishing clear
timeframes for placing space and earth
station applications on public notice.
The Commission also sought comment
on several proposed changes to further
streamline the licensing process and
reduce applicant and staff burdens in a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Dec. 8, 2023, 88 FR 85553). Finally, the
Commission announced a Transparency
Initiative with the goal of providing
information and guidance, in a variety
of forms, to interested parties so they
can understand the Commission’s
procedures and what is needed to obtain
authorization for their proposed space
station and earth station operations. The
Commission seeks comment, generally,
how that proceeding and initiative
might inform its consideration of the
issues raised in the NPRM.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
95. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared an
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[TBD]
[TBD]
[TBD]
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
NPRM. Written comments are requested
on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by
the deadlines for comments on the
NPRM indicated on the DATES section of
this document and must have a separate
and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objective of, the
Proposed Rules
96. The Commission is required by
Congress pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159 to
assess and collect regulatory fees each
year to recover the regulatory costs
associated with the Commission’s
oversight and regulatory activities in an
amount that can reasonably be expected
to equal the amount of its annual
appropriation. As part of last year’s
adoption of regulatory fees, the
Commission noted that FY 2023 would
be the last year where the Commission
will do so for the International Bureau,
given the creation of the Space Bureau,
and Office of International Affairs. The
Commission also noted that an
examination of the regulatory fees, and
categories for NGSO space stations
would be useful in light of changes
resulting from the creation of the Space
Bureau, and as part of a more holistic
review of the FTE burden of the Space
Bureau in FY 2024.
97. The NPRM commences the
examination and review of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors
regulated by the new Space Bureau,
specifically seeking comment on a range
of proposed changes to the assessment
of regulatory fees for space and earth
stations under the existing
methodology. It proposes to: (1) change
the allocation of fee burdens between
GSO and NGSO space stations and
maintain the existing allocation of fee
burdens between the categories of ‘‘less
complex’’ and ‘‘other’’ NGSO space
stations; (2) create new fee categories
within the existing fee category of
‘‘Space Station (Non-Geostationary
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
20600
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Orbit)—Other’’ to make assessment of
the Commission’s regulatory fees fairer,
more administrable, and more
sustainable; (3) set the regulatory fee for
‘‘Space Stations (per license/call sign in
non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part
25) (Small Satellite)’’ for FY 2024 and
future fiscal years at the level set for FY
2023, annually adjusted to reflect the
percentage change in the appropriation
from the previous fiscal year; (4)
include, on an interim basis, space
stations that are principally used for
RPO or OOS, including OTV, in the
existing fee category for ‘‘small
satellites’’ until the Commission can
develop more experience in how these
space stations will be regulated; (5)
assess regulatory fees on all authorized
space stations, not just on operational
space stations, in order to adhere more
closely to the framework of 47 U.S.C.
159, and to make the Commission’s fees
fairer, more administrable, and more
sustainable; and (6) increase the
allocation of fees payable by earth
station licensees in order to reflect more
accurately the fee burden attributable to
their licensing and regulation and seek
comment on whether additional earth
station fee categories should be created.
98. Additionally, the NPRM proposes
to amend the title of 47 CFR 1.1156,
currently titled ‘‘Schedule of regulatory
fees for international services,’’ to
clarify that the rule includes space and
earth station regulatory fees, following
the reorganization of the Commission’s
International Bureau. The NPRM also
proposes an alternative methodology for
assessing space station regulatory fees
by eliminating the separate categories of
regulatory fees for GSO and NGSO space
stations, as well as existing
subcategories for NGSO space stations,
while retaining the existing separate
regulatory fee category for small
satellites and spacecraft licensed under
47 CFR 25.122 through 25.123. The goal
of these proposals is to update the
regulatory fees and categories for earth
and space stations in light of changes
resulting from the creation of the Space
Bureau and as part of a more holistic
review of the regulatory fees for earth
and space stations in FY 2024.
B. Legal Basis
99. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 159,
159A, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
100. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
101. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions,
over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present.
The Commission therefore describes, at
the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected
herein. First, while there are industry
specific size standards for small
businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, according
to data from the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is
an independent business having fewer
than 500 employees. These types of
small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which
translates to 33.2 million businesses.
102. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of
$50,000 or less to delineate its annual
electronic filing requirements for small
exempt organizations. Nationwide, for
tax year 2020, there were approximately
447,689 small exempt organizations in
the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000
or less according to the registration and
tax data for exempt organizations
available from the IRS.
103. Finally, the small entity
described as a ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as
‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of
Governments indicate that there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number there were 36,931 general
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,040 special purpose governments—
independent school districts with
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
enrollment populations of less than 5ll
governmental jurisdictions.’’
104. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service. DBS service is a nationally
distributed subscription service that
delivers video and audio programming
via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’
antenna at the subscriber’s location.
DBS is included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry
which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.
105. The SBA small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054
firms operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms
operated with fewer than 250
employees. Based on this data, the
majority of firms in this industry can be
considered small under the SBA small
business size standard. According to
Commission data however, only two
entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV
(owned by AT&T) and DISH Network—
which require a great deal of capital for
operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network
both exceed the SBA size standard for
classification as a small business.
Therefore, the Commission must
conclude, based on internally developed
Commission data, in general DBS
service is provided only by large firms.
106. Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/
Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA
nor the Commission have developed a
small business size standard specifically
applicable to Fixed Satellite Small
Transmit/Receive Earth Stations.
Satellite Telecommunications is the
closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA size
standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has $38.5 million
or less in annual receipts. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there was a total of 275
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of
less than $25 million. Additionally,
based on Commission data in the 2022
Universal Service Monitoring Report, as
of December 31, 2021, there were 65
providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite
telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that approximately 42 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA’s small
business size standard, a little more
than half of these providers can be
considered small entities.
107. Fixed Satellite Very Small
Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems.
Neither the SBA nor the Commission
have developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to Fixed
Satellite VSAT Systems. A VSAT is a
relatively small satellite antenna used
for satellite-based point-to-multipoint
data communications applications.
VSAT networks provide support for
credit verification, transaction
authorization, and billing and inventory
management. Satellite
Telecommunications is the closest
industry with an SBA small business
size standard. The SBA size standard for
this industry classifies a business as
small if it has $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were a total of 275 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 242 firms had revenue of less than
$25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65
providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite
telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that approximately 42 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently
using the SBA’s small business size
standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small
entities.
108. Home Satellite Dish (HSD)
Service. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) or
the large dish segment of the satellite
industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers and
involves the home reception of signals
transmitted by satellites operating
generally in the C-band frequency.
Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes,
HSD antennas are between four and
eight feet in diameter and can receive a
wide range of unscrambled (free)
programming and scrambled
programming purchased from program
packagers that are licensed to facilitate
subscribers’ receipt of video
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
programming. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within
the industry category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees
as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 3,054 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer
than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the majority of firms
in this industry can be considered
small.
109. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations.
Neither the SBA nor the Commission
have developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to
Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite
Telecommunications is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size
standard. The SBA small business size
standard classifies a business with $38.5
million or less in annual receipts as
small. For this industry, U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 275 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 242 firms
had revenue of less than $25 million.
Thus, for this industry under the SBA
size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of Mobile Satellite
Earth Station licensees are small
entities. Additionally, based on
Commission data as of February 1, 2024,
there were 16 Mobile Satellite Earth
Stations licensees. The Commission
does not request nor collect annual
revenue information and is therefore
unable to estimate the number of mobile
satellite earth stations that would be
classified as a small business under the
SBA size standard.
110. Satellite Master Antenna
Television (SMATV) Systems, also
known as Private Cable Operators
(PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are
video distribution facilities that use
closed transmission paths without using
any public right-of-way. They acquire
video programming and distribute it via
terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
multiple dwelling units such as
apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such
as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are included in the
Wired Telecommunications Carriers’
industry which includes wireline
telecommunications businesses. The
SBA small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2017 show that there were 3,054
firms in this industry that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms
operated with fewer than 250
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20601
employees. Thus, under the SBA size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
111. Satellite Telecommunications.
This industry comprises firms
‘‘primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ Satellite
telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station
operators. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a
business with $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that 275
firms in this industry operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 242 firms
had revenue of less than $25 million.
Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2021, there were 65 providers that
reported they were engaged in the
provision of satellite
telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that approximately 42 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA’s small
business size standard, a little more
than half of these providers can be
considered small entities.
112. All Other Telecommunications.
This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Providers of internet
services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice
over internet Protocol (VoIP) services,
via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies
firms with annual receipts of $35
million or less as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 1,079 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of those
firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than
$25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’
firms can be considered small.
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
20602
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
113. The NPRM does not propose any
changes to the Commission’s current
information collection, reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements for small entities. Small
and other regulated entities are required
to pay regulatory fees on an annual
basis. The cost of compliance with the
annual regulatory assessment for small
entities is the amount assessed for their
regulatory fee category and should not
require small entities to hire
professionals to comply.
114. Small entities that qualify can
take advantage of the exemption from
payment of regulatory fees allowed
under the de minimis threshold. In
addition, small entities may request a
waiver, reduction, deferral, and/or
installment payment of their regulatory
fees. The waiver process is an easier
filing process for smaller entities that
may not be familiar with the
Commission’s procedural filing rules.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
115. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives, among
others: (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2)
the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance or
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.
116. The NPRM seeks comment on a
number of amendments to the existing
methodology of assessing regulatory fees
paid by space and earth station payors.
While the NPRM initiates the
examination and review of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors
under the existing regulatory fee
methodology, the Commission will
propose and finalize the regulatory fee
rates for space and earth station payors
as part of its annual Commission-wide
regulatory fee proceeding for FY 2024.
Commenters will have an opportunity
in that proceeding to provide comments
on the proposed regulatory fee rates for
space and earth station payors. The
NPRM gives parties an opportunity to
file comments on possible changes to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
the existing methodology for assessing
space and earth station regulatory fees.
If any of these proposals are adopted, it
may reduce the regulatory fee burden on
some satellite entities.
117. Specifically, the NPRM seeks
comment on a proposal to divide the
existing regulatory fee subcategory of
‘‘Space Stations (Non-Geostationary
Orbit)—Other’’ into two tiers: ‘‘Large
Constellations’’ of more than 1,000
authorized space stations; and ‘‘Small
Constellations’’ of 1,000 or fewer
authorized space stations. The current
single regulatory fee for all NGSO
‘‘other’’ space station payors has
resulted in requests by fee payors of
smaller NGSO systems seeking to be
assessed regulatory fees as NGSO ‘‘less
complex’’ systems. If adopted, the
proposal for the tiered approach for the
NGSO space station ‘‘other’’ category
would likely reduce the regulatory fee
burden on smaller satellite
constellations, and likely on smaller
entities.
118. As another example, the NPRM
notes that, based on preliminary
calculations, the fee amount for the
small satellite category for FY 2024
could be substantially greater than the
fee assessed for FY 2023. The NPRM
proposes that the administrability and
sustainability of regulatory fees for
small satellites would be better served
by treating them as the Commission has
historically treated the regulatory fees
for earth stations—that is, a fixed
regulatory fee that is adjusted from yearto-year on, rather than as a percentage
of the Space Bureau’s overall share of
regulatory fee allocation, or as a
percentage of other categories of space
station fee payors. This proposal if
adopted would significantly minimize
the economic impact of regulatory fees
potentially faced by small satellites.
119. The NPRM also proposes, on an
interim basis, to assess regulatory fees
on spacecraft primarily performing RPO
and OOS by including them in the
existing regulatory fee category ‘‘Space
Stations (per license/call sign in nongeostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)’’
regardless of the orbit in which they are
designed to operate in. The Space
Bureau has received relatively few
applications for RPO or OOS space
stations, and although it anticipates
receiving more in the near future, the
amount of FTE resources required at the
present time to regulate these services is
more similar to that presented by small
satellite space station licensees, which
are also few in number, and involve a
relatively small number of space
stations that have limited duration and
scope of use and operate using shared
spectrum resources. Therefore, the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NPRM tentatively concludes that the
purposes of 47 U.S.C. 159 would be best
met by erring on the side of caution and
assessing regulatory fees under the
category of fees associated with the
least-burdensome set of space station
regulates which would result in lower
regulatory fees, and have less economic
impact.
120. The NPRM also seeks comment
on possibly creating subcategories of
earth station regulatory fee payors to
better differentiate the amount of
regulatory burdens associated with
different types of earth station licenses.
This may reduce the regulatory fee
burden on some smaller earth station
payees who could face a substantial
increase in the per unit regulatory fee if
the Commission adopts the proposal in
the NPRM to apportion 20% of all Space
Bureau regulatory fees to earth station
licensees beginning in FY 2024.
121. Finally, the NPRM seeks
comment on an alternative methodology
for assessing space station regulatory
fees that eliminates the distinction
between GSO, NGSO, and all the
subcategories of NGSO, while
preserving a separate fee category for
small satellites. The alternative
methodology would have a single
category for ‘‘Space Stations (Per Call
Sign in Geostationary Orbit or Per
System in Non-Geostationary Orbit),’’
which would be tiered, with a single
GSO space station or a NGSO system
with up to 100 authorized space stations
constituting the first tier and being
counted as one unit for assessment of
space station regulatory fees, and
additional tiers added to account for
NGSO systems with more than 100
authorized space stations, with the
possibility of 500 or 1,000 additional
space stations per NGSO system per tier.
Each tier would be counted as an
additional unit for assessment of space
station regulatory fees. Accordingly,
GSO payors and NGSO systems of 100
authorized space stations or fewer
would be assessed the lowest regulatory
fees, while payors with multiple
authorized GSO space stations, or with
NGSO systems with more than 100
authorized space stations would be
assessed higher regulatory fees, with the
highest regulatory fees assessed to
payors with a large number of GSO
space stations, and to payors with
NGSO systems consisting of thousands
of authorized space stations. The
Commission believes this alternative
methodology could be more
administrable, fair, and sustainable than
the existing methodology, and the
NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of
this alternative methodology for
assessing space station regulatory fees.
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 58 / Monday, March 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
122. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–05996 Filed 3–22–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 8
[PS Docket Nos. 23–239; FR ID 210016]
Cybersecurity Labeling for Internet of
Things
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) adopts a voluntary
cybersecurity labeling program for
wireless consumer Internet of Things, or
IoT, products. The final rule also
requires applicant manufacturers to
make certain disclosures related to their
product(s) for authorization to use the
FCC IoT Label. This is a summary of the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Further Notice), in which the
Commission proposes rules on
additional national security declarations
for the IoT labeling program. These
requirements would further help
consumers make safer purchasing
decisions, raise consumer confidence
regarding the cybersecurity of the IoT
products they buy, and encourage
manufacturers to develop IoT products
with security-by-design principles in
mind.
SUMMARY:
Comments are due on or before
April 24, 2024 and reply comments are
due on or before May 24, 2024. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before May 24, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 23–239, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: https://www.
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Mar 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
caption of this proceeding, filers must
submit two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554. Effective March
19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand
or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect
the health and safety of individuals, and
to mitigate the transmission of COVID–
19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
• People with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
For
further information regarding these
proposed rules, please contact Zoe Li,
Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and
Communications Reliability Division,
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, (202) 418–2490, or by email to
Zoe.Li@fcc.gov.
For additional information concerning
the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an
email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole
Ongele, Office of Managing Director,
Performance Evaluation and Records
Management, 202–418–2991, or by
email to PRA@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM), FCC 24–26, adopted March
14, 2024, and released March 15, 2024.
The full text of this document is
available by downloading the text from
the Commission’s website at: https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC24-26A1.pdf.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20603
Synopsis
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this FNPRM, we seek comment
on additional declarations intended to
provide consumers with assurances that
the products bearing the FCC IoT Label
do not contain hidden vulnerabilities
from high-risk countries, that the data
collected by the products does not sit
within or transit high-risk countries,
and that the products cannot be
remotely controlled by servers located
within high-risk countries. Specifically,
we seek comment on whether we
should require manufacturers to
disclose to the Commission whether
firmware and/or software were
developed and manufactured in a ‘‘highrisk country,’’ as well as where firmware
and software updates will be developed
and deployed from. We also seek
comment on whether to require
manufacturers to disclose to consumers
in the registry whether firmware and/or
software were developed and
manufactured in a ‘‘high-risk country,’’
as well as where firmware and software
updates will be developed and deployed
from. We propose to include as highrisk countries those foreign adversary
countries defined by the Department of
Commerce in 15 CFR 7.4. Are there
other sources that the Commission
should consider for identifying high-risk
countries? Specifically, we seek
comment on whether to require the
applicant seeking to use the FCC IoT
Label to make one of the following
declarations under penalty of perjury to
accompany its application to use the
label:
a. No software or software update or
part of any software or software update
that runs on or controls the product was
or will be developed or deployed from
within a country on the Secretary of
Commerce’s list of high-risk countries,
except that this commitment does not
apply to the origin of open-source
contributions not paid for directly or
indirectly by us or our direct or indirect
partners in offering this product; or
b. This device runs, or due to future
software updates might run, software
developed within the Secretary of
Commerce’s list of high-risk country or
countries. Applicant is not aware of any
backdoors or other sabotage, or any
reason to believe that there is a
particular heightened risk for such
backdoors or sabotage relative other
software developed within such a
country, but we inform purchasers and
users that the Department of Commerce
has designated high-risk country or
countries as jurisdictions whose
conduct is significantly adverse to the
national security of the United States or
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 58 (Monday, March 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20582-20603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket Nos. 24-85, 24-86; FCC 24-31; FR ID 209752]
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees for Fiscal Year 2024; Review of the Commission's Assessment and
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that
seeks comments on revising the regulatory fees for space and earth
station payors for fiscal year (FY) 2024.
DATES: Submit comments on or before April 12, 2024; and reply comments
on or before April 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 24-85
and MD Docket No. 24-86, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Duall, Space Bureau, at (202)
418-1103 or [email protected]; Roland Helvajian, Office of the
Managing Director, at (202) 418-0444 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MD Docket Nos. 24-85 and 24-86; FCC
24-31, adopted and released on March 13, 2024. The full text of this
document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-31A1.pdf.
Comment Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES
section above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each
[[Page 20583]]
agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief
plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary of
the NPRM is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Presentations. The Commission will treat this proceeding
as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of the
proposed rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in appendix A of the FCC Document https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-31A1.pdf and a summary is included below. Written
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by
the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the DATES section
of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, (Communications Act or Act), the Commission undertakes the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to commence the assessment of
regulatory fees for space and earth station payors for fiscal year (FY)
2024.
2. In January 2023, the Commission reorganized its International
Bureau into: (1) a Space Bureau to handle policy and licensing matters
related to satellite communications and other in-space activities under
the Commission's jurisdiction; and (2) an Office of International
Affairs to handle issues involving foreign and international regulatory
authorities as well as international telecommunications and submarine
cable licensing. When the Commission adopted regulatory fees for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2023 in the FY 2023 Regulatory Fees Report and Order, 88 FR
63694 (Sept. 15, 2023), it noted that it would be the last year for
doing so for the International Bureau, and that the creation of the
Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs could result in
changes in the assessment of regulatory fees due to changes in Full
Time Equivalents (FTEs), due to increased oversight on various relevant
industries. One FTE, sometimes also referring to a Full Time Employee,
is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full-
time person (working a 40-hour workweek for a full year) assigned to
the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing
limitations established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
In particular, the FY 2023 Regulatory Fees Report and Order stated that
an examination of the regulatory fees and categories for non-
geostationary orbit (NGSO) space stations would be useful in light of
changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau. The Commission
anticipated that the changes in the industry that resulted in the
creation of the Space Bureau would likely also result in changes in the
relative FTE burdens between and among space and earth station fee
payors. Accordingly, the Commission found that it would be more
efficient to seek comment on proposals to examine the categories of
regulatory fees for NGSO space stations at the same time as other
proposals that might arise as part of a ``more holistic review'' of the
fee burden of the Space Bureau in FY 2024.
3. The NPRM commences that examination and review of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors that are regulated by the new
Space Bureau. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on a range of
proposed changes related to the assessment of regulatory fees for space
and earth stations under its existing methodology.
4. In addition, the Commission proposes an alternative methodology
for assessing space station regulatory fees. Unlike the proposals made
to adjust the existing methodology, the alternative methodology is a
more comprehensive departure from the way that space station regulatory
fees have been assessed since 1994 in that it eliminates the separate
categories of regulatory fees for Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and NGSO
space stations, as well as existing subcategories for NGSO space
stations. It would retain the existing separate regulatory fee category
for small satellites and spacecraft licensed under 47 CFR 25.122
through 25.123. For the reasons discussed in the NPRM, this alternative
methodology may be more fair, administrable, and sustainable than the
existing methodology, and the Commission seeks comment on all aspects
of this alternative approach.
II. Background
A. Communications Act Requirements
5. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 159, obligates the Commission to assess and collect regulatory
fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal
the amount of its annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. In
accordance with the statute, each year, in an annual fee proceeding,
the Commission proposes adjustments to the prior fee schedule under 47
U.S.C. 159(c) to reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the
number of units subject to the payment of such fees, and result in the
collection of the amount required by the Commission's annual
appropriation. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(1) of the Act, the
Commission must notify Congress immediately upon adoption of any
adjustment. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee
[[Page 20584]]
schedule under 47 U.S.C. 159(d) if the Commission determines that the
schedule requires amendment so that such fees reflect the full-time
equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the
Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably
related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the
Commission's activities. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2), the
Commission must notify Congress at least 90 days prior to making
effective any amendments to the regulatory fee schedule.
6. The Commission initiates the proceeding to seek comment on
possible changes to the existing methodology for assessing space and
earth station regulatory fees, ahead of its annual Commission-wide
regulatory fee proceeding for the fiscal year, to adopt amendments to
the existing space and earth station regulatory fee categories or to
adopt new regulatory fee categories in time for those changes to be
effective for FY 2024. Because changes to the regulatory fee categories
require 90-day prior notification to Congress to be effective for FY
2024, any changes to the space and earth station regulatory fee
categories would have to be adopted and notification of the changes
would have to be timely provided to Congress to become effective before
the end of FY 2024. While the Commission initiates the examination and
review of the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for
space and earth station payors in NPRM, it will propose and finalize
the regulatory fee rates for space and earth station payors as part of
its annual Commission-wide regulatory fee proceeding for FY 2024.
Commenters will have an opportunity in that proceeding to provide
comments on the proposed regulatory fee rates for space and earth
station payors.
B. Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees and Methodology
7. The existing schedule of regulatory fees for space and earth
station payors is contained in 47 CFR 1.1156. There are four current
categories of space station payors: Space Stations (Geostationary
Orbit); Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex; Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other; and Space Station (Small
Satellites). ``Less Complex'' NGSO systems are 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).
``Small Satellites'' are space stations licensed pursuant to the
streamlined small satellite process contained in 47 CFR 25.122. The
Space Stations (Small Satellites) category also includes ``small
spacecraft'' licensed pursuant to the analogous streamlined procedures
of 47 CFR 25.123. In addition, there is a single category of earth
station payors--Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only. Since
the Commission's fiscal year 2020 proceeding, non-U.S. licensed space
stations granted market access to the United States through a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling or through earth station licenses are subject to
regulatory fees.
8. For FY 2023, the regulatory fee amount per category of space and
earth station payor were as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2023 fee
Fee category amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit).................... $117,580
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex.. 130,405
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other......... 347,755
Space Stations (per license/call sign in non- 12,215
geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)................
Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per 575
authorization or registration).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Under the existing methodology of calculating regulatory fees
for space and earth station payors, the Commission multiplies the space
station and earth station FTE allocation percentages by the target goal
of collections (overall total amount to collect), respectively, to
determine the amount to be collected from each regulatory fee category.
Since 2020, the space station allocation percentages reflect an 80/20
split between the GSO and NGSO regulatory fee categories, respectively.
The amount to be collected by the space station and earth station
regulatory fee categories, divided by the projected number of units,
determines the fee rate. There are several space station regulatory fee
categories--GSO, NGSO--Other, NGSO--Less Complex, and small
satellites--and each of these regulatory fee categories has its own
respective FTE allocation percentage to determine the fee rate. The
small satellite fee rate is calculated by taking the average of the
calculated fee rate for space stations in the NGSO--Other and
NGSOSec. Less Complex categories. The average fee rate is then
multiplied by 5% (1/20) and rounded to the nearest $5 to determine the
small satellite fee rate. The small satellite fee rate is then
multiplied by the number of small satellite units, and the amount
derived is divided by an 80/20 split and reduced from the target goals
of NGSO--Other and NGSO--Less Complex, respectively. After reducing the
NGSO--Other and NGSO--Less Complex target goal amounts, the fee rates
for both of these NGSO regulatory fee categories are re-calculated
(dividing the revised target goal by its respective unit count) to
reflect a slightly lower fee rate.
10. The units of assessment for GSO and NGSO space station
regulatory fee categories differ in that the fee for Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit) is assessed per satellite in geostationary orbit,
whereas the fee assessed for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit),
either ``less complex'' or ``other,'' is per ``system'' of satellites,
with no limit on the number of satellites per system. Fees for Space
Stations (Small Satellites) are assessed per license/call sign, which
can include up to 10 satellites or spacecraft. This means that the unit
of regulatory fees for GSO space stations is a single satellite,
whereas the unit of regulatory fees for NGSO space stations can include
tens, if not thousands, of satellites. Thus, although the single
highest regulatory fee for space stations for FY 2023 is $347,755 for
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other, this fee reflects the
regulatory burden associated with the licensing and oversight of
numerous space stations in the system, usually subject to processing
rounds, complex spectrum sharing arrangements, and providing global
coverage. By contrast, the per unit fee for Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit) for FY 2023 is lower at $117,580, but an operator
providing global coverage may be paying regulatory fees on multiple
space stations in geostationary orbit, which could result in annual
regulatory fee payments by a single fee payor in aggregate far greater
than the regulatory fee for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--
Other providing similar services and coverage. Earth station regulatory
fees are assessed ``per license or registration,'' and each license
[[Page 20585]]
or registration may include a single earth station, or multiple earth
stations.
11. In addition, regulatory fees are assessed solely on
``operational'' space stations. A space station is considered to be
operational when the operator reports under the Commission's reporting
requirements for space stations that the space station or stations have
been successfully placed into orbit and that operations conform to the
terms and conditions of the space station authorization. Similarly, if
an earth station's license limits its operational authority to a
particular satellite system, a regulatory fee payment is not due until
the first satellite in that system becomes operational.
12. For FY 2023, the number of units for the earth station fee
category was 2,900. The number of units for Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit) was 136; the number of units for Space Stations
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other was nine; the number of units for
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex was six; and the
number of units for Space Stations (Small Satellites) was seven. These
unit counts and fees resulted in a total expected regulatory fee
revenue of $21,656,110 from space and earth station payors for FY 2023,
which is the sum of $1,667,500 expected to be paid by earth station
payors (7.69% of all space and earth station regulatory fees),
$15,990,880 expected to be paid by Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)
(73.84%), $3,129,795 expected to be paid by Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Other (14.45%), $782,430 expected to be paid by
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex (3.61%), and
$85,505 expected to be paid by Space Stations (Small Satellites)
(0.39%).
III. Discussion
A. Space Bureau FTEs
13. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159(d), the Commission's methodology for
assessing regulatory fees must reflect the full-time equivalent number
of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted
to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the
benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's
activities. The Commission first sets forth the anticipated number of
full-time equivalent number of employees, or FTEs, that will be in the
new Space Bureau for purposes of assessing regulatory fees for FY 2024.
The Commission previously anticipated that the changes in the satellite
industry, which led to the reorganization of the International Bureau
into the Space Bureau and the Office of International Affairs, might
result in a larger number of FTEs devoted to space and earth station
licensing, regulation, industry analysis, and oversight due to
increased regulatory complexity that resulted from technological
changes in the industry. Accordingly, the Commission stated that it
would closely review the Space Bureau and Office of International
Affairs FTEs to determine the appropriate number of FTEs in each entity
as a result of the reorganization and how they will be apportioned
among the different services.
14. The Commission's Human Resources Management office provided
initial data identifying 54 FTEs in the Space Bureau to be counted for
FY 2024. The Commission anticipates that these FTEs will be categorized
as direct FTEs, with the exception of a small number of FTEs that work
exclusively, or nearly exclusively, on administrative activities, with
the staff of the Office of International Affairs on covering
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) World Radiocommunications
Conference (WRC) agenda items, or with the staff of the Commission's
Office of Engineering & Technology on experimental licenses involving
space or earth stations. The Commission expects such FTEs to be
categorized as indirect FTEs, since such work does not focus on the
oversight and regulation of a specific category of regulatory fee
payors, but instead benefits the Commission, the telecommunications
industry, or the public as a whole, or in the case of work done on
experimental licenses, is in furtherance of licenses that are not
subject to a regulatory fee. The Commission also anticipates that a
small number of FTEs from the Office of Economic and Analytics and the
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will be attributed as direct
FTEs to the Space Bureau. For the sake of efficiency, the Commission
will make its final proposals regarding the Space Bureau's total share
of all Commission direct FTEs, as part of a notice of proposed
rulemaking to be released at a later date for the Commission-wide
assessment of regulatory fees for FY 2024.
15. Nonetheless, the Commission anticipates that the number of
direct FTEs in the Space Bureau for FY 2024 will be greater than the 28
direct FTEs that were allocated to the International Bureau for FY
2023. Based on initial estimates, the Space Bureau FTEs could account
for 10.76% of all Commission direct FTEs for FY 2024, compared with the
International Bureau accounting for 7.77% in FY 2023. The Commission
also expects that space and earth station payors will pay significantly
more in regulatory fees in FY 2024 than in FY 2023. This is chiefly
because the Commission anticipates there will be more direct FTEs in
the Space Bureau attributable to space and earth station fee payors
than there were in the International Bureau, due to the increased
regulatory complexity and oversight required, which will result in a
larger percentage of overall regulatory fees being allocated to the
Space Bureau, assuming there is no offsetting increase in the number of
FTEs in other core bureaus and offices. Accordingly, there is increased
importance in examining how FTEs are apportioned among the categories
of Space Bureau fee payors to ensure that the fee apportionment
methodology is administrable, fair, and sustainable.
B. Space Station Fee Proposals
1. Allocation Between GSO and NGSO Space Stations
16. If the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for
space stations is maintained, the Commission proposes to change the
allocation of the regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO fee payors to
reflect more accurately the apportionment of current FTE work between
these two classes of regulatory fee payors. Under the existing
allocation adopted in 2020, 80% of space station regulatory fees are
allocated to GSO space station fee payors and 20% of the space station
regulatory fees to NGSO space station fee payors. For the reasons
stated in the NPRM, the Commission proposes to change this allocation
to 60% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space
station payors and 40% to NGSO space station payors.
17. In proposing this change in allocation, the Commission employs
the same methodology that was used by the Commission in 2020 in
adopting the ``80/20'' split between GSO and NGSO space station fee
payors. Specifically, the Commission focuses on three factors that
collectively reflect its oversight of GSO and NGSO operators: the
number of applications processed, the number of changes made to the
Commission's rules, and FTEs devoted to oversight of each category of
operators.
18. First, using the advanced search function of the International
Communications Filing System (ICFS), the Commission identified all
applications for space stations (service type: SAT) filed during the
three most recent fiscal years (that is, FY 2021-2023) for both GSO
(class of service:
[[Page 20586]]
SSG) and NGSO (class of service: SSN). A total of 526 distinct
applications for space stations were filed during this time period,
with 322 applications being filed for GSO space stations (61%) and 204
applications for NGSO space stations (39%). Thus, the number of
applications received during this three-year period supports a larger
allocation of FTE time to GSO fee payors than to NGSO fee payors, but
in a narrower range than the current 80/20 split.
19. Second, using compiled data through a search of the FCC's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) and a cross check of items on
the web pages of the FCC and the International Bureau/Space Bureau for
the last three fiscal years, the Commission identified docketed
proceedings originating from the International Bureau's Satellite
Division, or from the Space Bureau, and considered to the involvement
of GSO and NGSO space stations in each proceeding. The Commission
analyzed the data to estimate whether a particular docketed proceeding
involved GSO or NGSO space station payors, or both. It did not count
docketed proceedings for transfer of control or assignment applications
or other docketed proceedings that did not make changes to the
Commission's rules. It included, however, a docketed proceeding to
modify the conditions relating to the International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization placed on the licenses of a GSO space station
operator, even though it was not a rulemaking proceeding, because it
involved changes to the conditions on a large number of space station
licenses that required significant FTE resources to process.
20. The Commission identified 16 proceedings during FY 2021-2023,
of which 8 substantively involved GSO space stations (50%) and 12
substantively involved NGSO space stations (75%). Accordingly, the data
presented suggests that there were more rulemakings substantively
involving NGSO space stations than GSO space stations. The Commission
notes that quantifying only the most recent rulemaking activities does
not take into account past rulemakings that are of continued relevance
to space stations and are administered by Commission FTEs either
through licensing, interpretation and application of those rules in
other proceedings, or in consultation with the space station
regulatees. Thus, attributing a value to rulemaking activities directly
is not an exercise in scientific precision, but rather an exercise in
reasonable analysis and a mechanism to verify the other data the
Commission reviews. On balance, however, the Commission tentatively
concludes that these rulemaking data support a greater allocation of
regulatory fees to NGSO space station payors than is currently the
case.
21. Third, the Commission considered whether it could examine FTE
activities directly, but although there has been a change in the number
of FTEs attributable to satellite regulatory activities due to the
creation of the Space Bureau, it remains challenging to segregate the
time spent by FTEs on work done on GSO versus NGSO matters. As was the
case in the International Bureau, staff time spent in the Space Bureau
on authorizations and rulemakings may benefit both categories of
satellite operations. Based on its experience and judgement, the
Commission estimates as closely as possible the relative percentage of
FTEs that are attributable to benefitting either GSO or NGSO systems
based on the factors above.
22. While there are issues of fact, law, engineering, and the
physics of electromagnetic propagation that may be unique to GSO or
NGSO space stations, many issues that Space Bureau staff work on are
not segregable in a manner that is beneficial to clearly apportioning
FTE time between GSO and NGSO regulatory fee categories. Taking all of
the foregoing factors and data into consideration, the Commission
tentatively concludes, however, that the GSO/NGSO ratio should be
adjusted to reflect that GSO space stations derived roughly 60% of the
benefit from the Commission's regulatory efforts and NGSO space
stations derived roughly 40%. Accordingly, for FY 2024, the Commission
proposes that GSO and NGSO space stations will be allocated 60% and 40%
of space station regulatory fees, respectively. The Commission seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion and proposal.
2. Allocation Between NGSO--Other and NGSO--Less Complex
23. If the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for
space stations is maintained, the Commission proposes to maintain the
existing allocation of the regulatory fee burden between ``Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex'' and ``Space Stations
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other.'' Currently, 20% of NGSO space
station regulatory fees are allocated to Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex and 80% are allocated to Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other fee payors. As discussed
elsewhere in the NPRM, the Commission has defined ``less complex'' NGSO
systems as NGSO satellite systems planning to communicate with 20 or
fewer U.S. authorized earth stations that are primarily used for EESS
and/or AIS. The Commission has concluded that EESS systems are less
burdensome to regulate than other types of services when the systems
plan to communicate with 20 or fewer earth stations. NGSO satellite
systems outside of this definition are included in the NGSO ``other''
fee category, unless they qualify as ``small satellites'' under
Commission rules and are included in the regulatory fee category for
small satellites.
24. The Commission tentatively concludes that there have not been
any significant changes to the amount of FTE burdens allocated between
these two fee categories since the ``20/80'' split of regulatory fees
between NGSO ``less complex'' and NGSO ``other'' subcategories was
adopted in 2021. As was the case in 2021, the Commission considers its
experience and analysis of the time that FTEs in the International
Bureau and the Space Bureau devote to oversight and regulation of
``less complex'' and ``other'' NGSO systems. Specifically, now--as
then--the Commission considers the number of applications processed,
the number of changes made to the Commission's rules, and the number of
FTEs working on oversight for each category of operators. This
methodology is the same as used for determining the allocation of
regulatory fees among GSO and NGSO space station fee payors. In
evaluating the FTE time devoted to the ``less complex'' and ``other''
subcategories, the Commission considers its adjudicatory role in
connection with different types of NGSO systems, which is typically
more intensive for those systems authorized as part of processing
rounds. The Commission also considers the number of rulemakings over
the last three fiscal years, as well as current rulemakings, and which
types of NGSO systems are implicated in those rulemaking activities.
25. Based on its experience and judgement, the Commission estimates
as close as possible the relative percentage of FTE time attributable
to oversight of each subcategory of NGSO space stations. Its
examination does not reveal any rulemaking proceedings in the last
three fiscal years that are specific to EESS space stations eligible
for the ``less complex'' NGSO subcategory, but did reveal several
rulemakings in that same period specific to NGSO ``other'' systems.
Similarly, an examination of applications filed over the previous three
fiscal years (FY 2021-2023) shows that 44 NGSO applications out of 204
NGSO applications were by systems
[[Page 20587]]
categorized as NGSO ``less complex'' (22%). The Commission's
consideration of activities engaged in by staff and the time spent on
oversight of different NGSO systems does not indicate any change from
its consideration in 2021, which resulted in a determination that NGSO
``other'' were the majority beneficiaries of FTE efforts.
26. The Commission recognizes the considerable challenge of
segregating the time spent by Space Bureau staff among the
subcategories of NGSO space stations, nonetheless the considerations
above support the tentative conclusion that more FTE time is spent on
the NGSO ``other'' subcategory than on the NGSO ``less complex''
subcategory. The number of applications in the NGSO ``less complex''
subcategory received over the last three fiscal years supports a
tentative conclusion that the relative regulatory burden of such ``less
complex'' space stations remains consistent with the current 20%
allocation. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
27. The Commission does not propose at this time to revisit the
definition of ``less complex'' NGSO space stations, which has been
adopted and affirmed over the course of several regulatory fee
rulemaking proceedings. As expressly recognized, however, the
Commission does not foreclose the possibility of designating other
categories of NGSO systems as ``less complex'' systems in the future if
the Commission's experience supports a finding that its regulatory work
for such systems is significantly less than those for other NGSO
systems. The Commission's experience to date has not supported such a
designation for other types of NGSO systems, and the Commission does
not have a sufficient record to make proposals for such designations at
this time.
3. Creation of Tiers of NGSO--Other
28. If the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for
space stations is maintained, the Commission proposes to divide the
existing regulatory fee subcategory of ``Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Other'' into two tiers: ``Large Constellations''
of more than 1,000 authorized space stations; and ``Small
Constellations'' of 1,000 or fewer authorized space stations.
Currently, there is a single subcategory for NGSO ``other'' space
station systems, which assesses the same annual regulatory fee--
$347,755 for FY 2023--for all NGSO space station systems that are not
categorized as ``less complex'' or ``small satellites.'' NGSO space
station payors have argued that this ``one fee fits all'' assessment is
unfair, as it assesses the same regulatory fee on an NGSO system
consisting of 100 space stations as the fee assessed for an NGSO system
consisting of potentially 10,000 or more space stations. The current
single regulatory fee for all NGSO ``other'' space station payors
resulted in requests by fee payors of smaller NGSO systems seeking to
be assessed regulatory fees as NGSO ``less complex'' systems, even
though the record at the time did not support a finding that the
regulatory work for such systems was significantly less than other
types of NGSO systems. The Commission uses this proceeding to explore
whether its existing regulatory fee structure can be better tailored to
the varying nature of NGSO systems and differing levels of licensing
and regulatory oversight burdens required for these various systems,
while maintaining a system that is fair, administrable, and
sustainable.
29. The unit of assessment for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary
Orbit), either ``less complex'' or ``other,'' is ``per system'' of
satellites. This unit of assessment reflects the ability of applicants
to apply for, and be authorized to operate, a ``system'' of NGSO space
stations, with no limit on the number of space stations per system.
Each initial application for authority is granted under a single ``call
sign'' as a regulatory identifier. In many cases the Commission has
assessed a single regulatory fee for an NGSO system consisting of space
stations requested and authorized under different call signs. The
assessment of regulatory fees for NGSO space stations on a ``per
system'' basis extends back to the first time that the Commission
assessed regulatory fees for ``Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite
Systems'' in 1996. The choice of a ``system'' as the unit of assessment
for LEO satellites was based in the original text of 47 U.S.C. 159,
which included a ``Schedule of Regulatory Fees'' that the FCC was
required to assess and collect, until amended by the Commission. The
Schedule of Regulatory Fees included fee categories for ``Space Station
(per operational station in geosynchronous orbit)'' and ``Space Station
(per system in low-earth orbit).'' The Schedule of Regulatory Fees,
however, was deleted from 47 U.S.C. 159 by the RAY BAUM's Act of 2018.
30. The sole exception made to assessment of NGSO space station
regulatory fees on a ``per system'' basis is for small satellites, for
which the Commission adopted a separate regulatory fee category in
which small satellites are assessed on a ``per license/call sign''
basis. The Commission found that adopting the regulatory fee on a per-
license basis would not only accurately reflect the increased oversight
and regulation for these small satellite systems when an operator has
multiple small satellite licenses, but also it would be more efficient
and administrable because it avoids potential complications and
additional FTE time spent in determining whether various sets of small
satellites are part of the same system.
31. In creating the separate fee categories of ``less complex''
NGSO space stations and small satellites operating in non-geostationary
orbit, the Commission has previously recognized that not all NGSO space
stations are the same, and that different NGSO space stations can be
assessed different regulatory fees based on the differing amount of FTE
regulatory work is devoted to them, consistent with the statutory
obligations of 47 U.S.C. 159. Accordingly, the default unit of fee
assessment for NGSO space stations--the ``system''--by itself does not
indicate the amount of regulatory fees to be recovered from a
particular NGSO space station payor. Instead, the Commission has used
other factors as proxies for the amount of regulatory work required for
a category of fee payors. For ``less complex'' space stations, the
Commission relied on the primary service to be provided (EESS or AIS)
and the number if U.S.-licensed earth station planned for
communications (20 or fewer) as proxies for other factors for
determining whether a category of NGSO space station system involved
less staff resources to license and regulate than NGSO space station
``other'' systems: whether processing rounds are required, whether the
system will have a global presence, the range and intensity of spectrum
needs, and the variety of frequency bands, technical issues, and
services presented.
32. The Commission in the NPRM seeks to explore whether the number
of space stations requested for an NGSO system could serve as a proxy
for the Commission's regulatory burden, when combined with other
factors that went into determining whether an NGSO system is, or is
not, ``less complex'' for regulatory fee assessment purposes. Does a
greater number of space stations authorized per system equate to
greater staff burdens to license and regulate, if the greater number of
space stations per system also correlates to the other factors relevant
to NGSO systems that do not qualify for inclusion in the NGSO space
stations ``less complex'' subcategory (that is, they fall within the
``other'' NGSO fee category because they
[[Page 20588]]
are subject to processing rounds, have a global presence, have
significant spectrum needs, and present a variety of frequency bands,
technical issues, and services)? If so, is it reasonable to assume that
a greater number of space stations authorized per system would equate
to greater amount of FTE time to license and regulate? Although the
Commission has previously stated that number of space stations in an
NGSO system does not always correspond to increased regulatory
complexity, those statements were based on consideration of the
regulatory impact of the number of space stations in isolation, not
when considered in connection with the other factors relevant to non-
``less complex'' NGSO space station systems. Is it a reasonable
expectation that, if an NGSO space station system is not found to be
``less complex'' for regulatory fee assessment purposes, the amount of
FTE resources needed to license and regulate that system increases as
the number of space stations increases because, on average, the greater
the number of space station considered, the greater the amount of
spectrum resources required for the system, the greater complexity of
spectrum sharing with other systems, the more complicated the orbital
debris mitigation plan will be, and the greater number of earth
stations required to support the space station system? The Commission
seeks comment on this expectation.
33. Accordingly, if the Commission maintains the existing space
station regulator fee methodology, it proposes to transform the
existing ``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other'' category
into a two-tiered category, with one tier for ``Large Constellations''
and one tier for ``Small Constellations.'' The proposal to create tiers
of NGSO space station regulatory fees is not new, being first made in
1999. As recently as 2021 and 2020, the Commission was presented with
proposals to assess NGSO space station regulatory fees based on the
total number of satellites deployed, but it declined to do so because
the evidence in the record at the time was insufficient to establish
different fees for different sized NGSO space station systems. The
Commission proposes to use the NPRM to establish such a record to
evaluate the appropriateness of adopting regulatory fees for large and
small NGSO systems. Although the Commission acknowledges that it is
inherently challenging to establish the dividing line between such
tiers, it proposes 1,000 space stations as the dividing number for
large and small systems. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Is 1,000 the right number, or is there a different number, greater or
less than 1,000, that better reflects the delineation in the amount of
FTE burdens to license and regulate NGSO systems of variable sizes (for
example, 500 space stations)?
34. If the Commission adopts the tiered approach for the NGSO space
station ``other'' category under its existing methodology, it proposes
to create two tiers, rather than three or more tiers, in order to
facilitate administrability, because there are relatively few units
within the existing NGSO space station ``other'' category, and dividing
that category into many tiers with a narrow range of space stations per
tier may result in only one payor being responsible for the entire cost
of the tier, or there being no payor for a particular tier in a fiscal
year, shifting the costs of that tier to payors in other tiers.
Importantly, it may be harder to justify the difference in FTE burdens
when tiers are more narrowly defined. The Commission tentatively
concludes that a two-tiered approach will not only appropriately
account for differences in regulatory burdens between NGSO space
station systems of different sizes, but also provide a measure of
consistency from one year to the next in the number of payors and the
per unit fee. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to use two
tiers in its approach and its tentative conclusion that a two-tiered
approach will result in greater administrability than a multi-tiered
approach. The Commission also proposes that its tiered approach be
based on the number of authorized space stations in a system, rather
than the number of space stations that are operational in a system at
the moment that regulatory fees for a particular fiscal year are
assessed. This proposal is consistent with its proposal elsewhere in
the NPRM that all regulatory fees be assessed on authorized, rather
than operational, space and earth stations. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
35. The Commission proposes to divide the total NGSO--``other''
fees between the two subcategories on a 50/50 basis (that is, half of
the NGSO ``other'' fees paid by ``large constellations'' and half paid
by ``small constellations''). It acknowledges the difficulty in
allocating regulatory fee burdens between ``large constellations'' and
``small constellations,'' because staff in the Space Bureau may work on
both types of constellations and rulemaking proceedings often do not
differentiate between large and small constellations. The Commission
accordingly seeks comment on its proposal to divide the total NGSO--
``other'' fees between small and large constellations on a 50/50 basis.
If the fees are not divided on a 50/50 basis, what would be a more
appropriate division and why? The Commission notes that although the
total costs would be allocated evenly between ``large'' and ``small''
constellations, it expects that there will be a greater number of units
in the ``small constellations'' tier than the ``large constellations''
tier, and that that number of units in the ``small constellations''
tier will increase in the future, thereby resulting in a smaller per
payor fee for the ``small constellations'' tier for future years. By
contrast, the Commission expects that there will be only two to three
payors in the large constellation tier for FY 2024, and that it is
unlikely that that number will increase substantially in the
foreseeable future. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
division and its expectations.
26. The Commission finds that the proposal to create fee categories
for NGSO large and small constellations would be an amendment as
defined in 47 U.S.C. 159. Such an amendment must be submitted to
Congress at least 90 days before it becomes effective pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
27. The Commission also seeks comment on other possible proxies
that might reasonably equate with the share of FTE burdens associated
with each system within the ``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary
Orbit)--Other'' category, as alternatives to the 50/50 two-tiered
approach proposed elsewhere in the NPRM. Other possible proxies include
assessing regulatory fees for NGSO space station ``other'' using any of
the following individual metrics: (1) per space station; (2) per
subscriber; (3) per unit of spectrum authorized; (4) per class of
service provided; and (5) per unit of on-orbit mass. The NPRM describes
each possible proxy.
38. Per Space Station. Under this metric, the overall FTE burden of
a NGSO ``other'' system would be proxied on the basis of the number of
authorized space stations in the system, without utilizing a tiered
system. The fee would be assessed on a per space station basis, with
the total fee amount attributable to Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary)--Other being divided by the number of space stations
authorized in that category to establish a per space station fee unit.
Each space station in the system would add incrementally to the amount
of regulatory fees paid by the system. This alternative avoids the
situation where a system may exceed the number of space stations
eligible for
[[Page 20589]]
the small constellation tier by only a few space stations, which will
result in the system paying the substantially higher fee for large
constellations. The alternative potentially presents the situation,
however, where systems with a very large number of authorized space
stations (for example, 20,000 or more) could effectively end up paying
all, or nearly all, the regulatory fees for the NGSO ``other''
category, since the number of space stations in that system could be
more than all other systems combined in that category. Such an outcome
may not accurately reflect the FTE burdens imposed by the various
payors of the NGSO space stations ``other'' category by substantially
underrepresenting the amount of FTE resources spent on all other fee
payors in the NGSO ``other'' category. Could this concern be addressed
by setting a ``cap'' or ``ceiling'' on the number of authorized space
stations for which regulatory fees would be assessed or having a
decreasing fee for each additional space station? Although the
Commission has previously disagreed with proposals to assess space
station regulatory fees on a per space station basis, it nonetheless
seeks comment on the use of number of space stations as an alternative
metric for assessing the regulatory fee burden for each NGSO ``other''
system.
39. Per Subscriber. Under this alternative, regulatory fees for
NGSO space stations ``other'' would be assessed on a per subscriber
basis, possibly using tiers of subscribers. The Commission observes,
however, that not all NGSO systems have subscribers, and it does not
currently collect information regarding subscriber numbers. Thus, to
utilize subscriber information a review of an additional information
collection may be required in order to assess regulatory fees on this
basis. The time required to obtain the approval and collect the
information would make the possibility of assessing fees on this basis
for FY 2024 unlikely. The Commission also expects that it would require
substantial FTE resources to calculate and assign fees for individual
systems based on yearly subscriber numbers, which could in turn result
in more FTEs being attributed to space station systems for regulatory
fee recovery purposes. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on
whether subscriber numbers are considered confidential by regulatees
and, if so, how would that impact this approach?
40. Per Unit of Spectrum Authorized. An alternative proxy for the
amount of FTE burden associated with a system in the NGSO space station
``other'' category could be the amount of spectrum resources authorized
for the system. Systems that involve the use of a large amount of
spectrum can require more FTE resources to license and regulate due to
the likelihood of the increased need to coordinate with, and to address
the interference concerns of, other spectrum users, compared to systems
with smaller spectrum requirements. Thus, regulatory fees for NGSO
space stations ``other'' could be assessed per unit of authorized
spectrum, for example, per megahertz of spectrum authorized for the
system. The Commission observes that the distinction between NGSO
``other'' and NGSO ``less complex'' already takes into account spectrum
usage and ease of coordination in delineating between these two fee
categories, so it is unclear what further delineation could be made
within the NGSO space station ``other'' category based on authorized
spectrum. In addition, not all spectrum is uniform in its complexity to
license and regulate. For example, it may be easier to license and
regulate an NGSO system operating in 500 megahertz of spectrum
allocated to NGSO space station use on a primary basis than licensing
and regulating an NGSO system operating in 20 megahertz of spectrum
operating on a secondary or non-interference basis. The Commission has
previously found that total bandwidth is not consistently indicative of
the complexity of NGSO regulation. The NPRM seeks comment, however, on
this alternative proxy and whether there any basis to question the
Commission's previous conclusion that total bandwidth does not
consistently reflect the complexity of NGSO regulation.
41. Per Class of Service Provided. Commenters in previous
regulatory fee assessment proceedings have suggested that the type of
services provided by NGSO space station systems could be used as a
proxy for the amount of FTE resources dedicated to licensing and
regulating such systems. In addition to the orbit used (GSO or NGSO),
space stations are regulated by the type of service that they provide,
for example mobile-satellite service (MSS), fixed-satellite service
(FSS), direct broadcast satellite service (DBS), and satellite digital
audio radio service (SDARS). The Commission has previously found that
the type of service primarily being provided (EESS and/or AIS) was a
relevant factor in determining whether an NGSO system was ``less
complex'' for purposes of regulatory fee assessments, when combined
with another factor (the number of earth stations authorized by the
United States with which the system plans to communicate). The
Commission has not found, however, that other types of satellite
services warrant a determination that a NGSO system is ``less complex''
for regulatory fee purposes, although it did not rule out the
possibility of doing so if the record supported such a finding.
Although the Commission does not propose that any particular additional
service be considered as a factor that an NGSO system is ``less
complex'' for regulatory fee purposes, it may be possible to use the
type of service provided as a proxy for FTE resources to delineate
additional fee subcategories within the ``Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Other'' category. The NPRM seeks comment on this
possibility. Comments should focus on the specific licensing and
regulatory factors that differentiate the services and explain how the
Commission would be able to allocate FTE time among these services.
Comments should also address the administrability and sustainability of
subcategories of regulatory fees in the NGSO space station ``other''
category based on the services provided by the space stations. For
example, if a space station is authorized to provide multiple types of
services, such as both FSS and MSS, how would it be determined which
regulatory fee subcategory it belongs to? If it is determined based on
the primary service that is authorized for a system, how should the
Commission determine which service is primary? Would fee categories
based on the service provided be relatively stable from year to year,
or is it possible that there could be substantial changes in the number
of fee payors in a service category year to year? Would every single
service provided by a system need to be taking into account, or just
the primary service? Would substantial FTE resources be needed to
calculate and assign fees for individual systems based on primary
services provided, which could in turn result in more FTEs being
attributed to space station systems for regulatory fee recovery
purposes?
42. Per Unit of On-Orbit Mass. Comments in previous years'
regulatory fee assessment proceedings have suggested to use the mass of
space stations as one proxy for an NGSO system's complexity. This
suggestion is similar to the proposal in the NPRM to use of number of
authorized space stations in an NGSO system as a proxy for regulatory
burdens of systems in the NGSO space station ``other'' category, but
considers the mass of the space stations in an NGSO system rather than
the number of space stations. Thus, an NGSO system with 10 space
stations with a mass of 1,000 kilograms each would pay more in
regulatory fees than
[[Page 20590]]
a system of 100 space stations with a mass of 10 kilograms each. Under
this proposal, it is assumed that space station mass is a proxy for
other factors relevant to the amount of FTE work required for the
licensing and regulation of the system, such as how much spectrum the
system will use, the number of earth stations that the space stations
will communicate with, and the complexity of a system's orbital debris
mitigation plan. Although the Commission has previously found that
space station mass is not a key driver of NGSO system complexity, the
NPRM seeks comment on using space station mass as a proxy for the
regulatory burden involved with an NGSO system. Is it correct that
regulatory complexity increases in proportion to the mass of the space
stations in an NGSO system? If so, should mass be assessed on a per
space station or on an aggregate basis for all space stations in the
system? Would mass be addressed on a ``wet'' basis (that is, including
the mass of fuel and other consumables) or ``dry'' basis (that is, the
mass of the space station without fuel and consumables)? Which basis--
wet or dry--would more accurately reflect regulatory burdens for that
system? Furthermore, the Space Bureau no longer collects information
regarding the mass of a space station as part of the technical
information required as part of an application for a space station
authorization or a petition for U.S. market access. Thus, to utilize
this information in assessing regulatory fees may require a review of
an additional information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Commission also observes that the time required for such review,
together with the time needed to collect the information, would rule
out the possibility of assessing fees on this basis for FY 2024. The
NPRM seeks comment on the consequences of this observation. Although
the mass of a space station may be a factor disclosed in the orbital
debris mitigation plan provided as a part of a space station
application, the spacecraft mass is disclosed for the specific purpose
of that analysis, and it is not clear whether it should be relied on
for the purpose of assessing regulatory fees. Even if it may be
possible to obtain information about the mass of space stations from
third party sources, the Commission questions whether it is reasonable
to rely on information obtained from such sources rather than from the
fee payors themselves. The NPRM seeks comments on these issues. In
addition, would substantial FTE resources be needed to calculate and
assign fees for individual systems based on on-orbit mass, which could
in turn result in more FTEs being attributed to space station systems
for regulatory fee recovery purposes?
43. The Commission finds that the creation of fee categories for
``other'' NGSO space stations based on any of these other possible
proxies would be an amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C. 159(d). Such an
amendment must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it
becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
4. Small Satellites
44. The Commission seeks comment on a proposal to set the
regulatory fee for ``Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)'' for FY 2024
and future fiscal years at the level set for FY 2023 ($12,215), with
only an annual adjustments to reflect the percentage change in the FCC
appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation percentage from the
previous fiscal year. As explained elsewhere in the NPRM, the small
satellite fee rate is calculated by taking the average of the
calculated fee rate for space stations in the NGSO other and NGSO
``less complex'' categories, multiplying this average by 5% (1/20) and
rounding it to the nearest $5. The small satellite fee rate is then
multiplied by the number of small satellite units and deducted from the
NGSO share of space station regulatory fees. This remaining amount is
then divided between NGSO ``other'' and NGSO ``less complex'' based on
an 80/20 split and reduced from the target goals of NGSO'' ``other''
and NGSO ``less complex'' respectively. Because the small satellite fee
is based on the fees assessed for NGSO other and NGSO ``less complex''
categories, the increased fees expected for these two categories would
lead to greatly increased fees for the small satellite regulatory fee
category beginning in FY 2024.
45. The Commission's examination reveals that the number of
applications, rulemaking procedures, and FTE staff working on small
satellite matters has not increased greatly since the original
methodology of assessing regulatory fees for small satellites was
adopted. To the contrary, the Commission expects that the additional
FTE resources allocated to the Space Bureau as a result of the
reorganization of the International Bureau are not intensively involved
in the licensing and regulatory oversight of small satellites, so that
the overall percentage of FTE burden for small satellites may be less
than the 1/20th burden of NGSO space stations. The NPRM seeks comment
on this expectation and whether it supports the reduction of fees paid
by small satellites. In addition, the proposals made in the NPRM to
create subcategories within the NGSO ``other'' category for ``small''
and ``large'' constellations will add to the complexity of determining
the appropriate marker for determining the appropriate share of FTE
resources allocated to small satellites. The Commission proposes the
administrability and sustainability of its regulatory fees for small
satellites would be better served by treating them as it has
historically treated the regulatory fees for earth stations--that is, a
fixed regulatory fee that is adjusted from year-to-year on, rather than
as a percentage of the Space Bureau's overall share of regulatory fee
allocation, or as a percentage of other categories of space station fee
payors. The NPRM seeks comment on all these proposals, examinations,
and expectations.
5. Treatment of RPO, OOS, and OTV
46. The Commission proposes, on an interim basis, to assess
regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily performing Rendezvous and
Proximity Operations (RPO) and On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) by including
them in the existing regulatory fee category ``Space Stations (per
license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)''
regardless of the orbit in which they are designed to operate in. OOS
and RPO missions can include satellite refueling, inspecting and
repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and removing debris, and
transforming materials through manufacturing while in space. Due to the
nascent nature of OOS and RPO industry, or more generally ``in-space
servicing'' industries, there is not a distinct regulatory fee category
for such operations, despite that fact that spacecraft have begun to
operate under 47 CFR part 25 for radiocommunications while conducting
these types of operations. Although the Commission has previously
determined that the record is not sufficiently complete to adopt a
separate regulatory fee category for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO,
it tentatively concludes in the NPRM that it is appropriate to assess
regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations as the Commission does
for small satellites, rather than as Space Stations (Geostationary
orbit) or Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other. The
Commission also tentatively concludes that it is appropriate to assess
regulatory fees on Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV) in the same manner.
47. The Commission first considered adopting additional fee
categories for RPO and OOS in the notice initiating
[[Page 20591]]
the FY 2022 regulatory fee assessment proceeding. At that time,
commenters proposing such additional fee categories cited the
similarities between the characteristics of small satellites and RPO
and OOS. The commenters distinguished between OOS spacecraft and
traditional NGSO satellites in that OOS spacecraft have limited
duration and scope of use, as well as a limited number of earth
stations; require a smaller investment in OOS technology; require less
ongoing regulation owing to the shorter duration of OOS spacecraft;
will likely be licensed on a shared use of spectrum basis, and without
the need for processing round procedures or post-processing round
disputes over matters such as interference protection and spectrum
priority. Commenters also submitted that a fee category for RPO
services would provide much need permanency and clarity to support this
nascent infrastructure.
48. The Commission found, however, that it was premature at that
time to adopt new fee categories for OOS and RPO operations. It
observed that there have been a limited number of such operations and
these were treated on a case-by-case basis, without a specific license
processing regime. It also expressed the expectation that most OOS and
RPO operations would involve NGSO space stations, but tentatively
concluded that it was too early to identify exactly where operations
such as those in low-Earth orbit might fit into the regulatory fee
structure in the future. Accordingly, it found that the record was
insufficient to propose to establish fee categories or a methodology
for assessing fees to such categories. The Commission sought comment on
those tentative conclusions, as well as whether and how to assess fees
for RPO and OOS spacecraft that operate near the GSO arc.
49. Since that time, the Commission has continued to find that the
record was insufficient to adopt a new regulatory fee category for in-
space servicing operations, such as OOS and RPO. In the order adopting
regulatory fees for FY 2022, the Commission determined that the record
was insufficient to support adopting new regulatory fee categories for
OOS and RPO due to the nascent nature of these systems and the need for
more experience with the operations of such systems and the FTE time
required to support them. For the same reasons, the Commission declined
to adopt separate fee categories for OOS and RPO in the FY 2023
regulatory fee proceeding, again finding that the record remained too
incomplete and concluding that there was insufficient understanding of
the nature and regulation of such spacecraft to consider concrete
proposals for assessing regulatory fee categories for OOS and RPO space
stations at that time. The Commission noted that it was still in the
early stages of considering the regulatory environment for such
services as a whole, and the definitions of which services would fit
into OOS and RPO were yet to be adopted. Instead, the Commission stated
it would continue to develop a record that would inform possible
establishment of a fee category for OOS and RPO and an appropriate
methodology for assessing fees for such a category.
50. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes that it should no longer
delay adopting a regulatory fee category for OOS and RPO space
stations, even if it has not yet adopted a separate regulatory
environment for such services. In 2022, the Commission initiated a
Notice of Inquiry, 87 FR 56365 (Sept. 14, 2022), regarding the
regulatory needs related to in-space servicing, assembly, and
manufacturing--or ``ISAM''--that could include such services as RPO and
OOS. The Commission has since adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
89 FR 18875 (Mar. 15, 2024), seeking comment on a framework for
licensing ISAM space stations. That proceeding is still in the early
stages of considering the regulatory environment for such services.
Nonetheless, the Space Bureau has considered applications for space
stations performing RPO and OOS and issued licenses for such space
stations under the existing regulatory framework of 47 CFR part 25, and
such stations are already operational and subject to payment of
regulatory fees. The Space Bureau anticipates that it will receive
additional applications for such services in the near future, likely
before the conclusion of any proceeding that may consider a separate
licensing regime for such systems. Accordingly, there is a need to
propose a method for assessing regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily
performing RPO and OOS now, even while the consideration of the
regulatory environment for such services is ongoing.
51. Although the record remains insufficient to propose a new
category of regulatory fees for these services, the Commission
proposes, on an interim basis, to include RPO and OOS within an
existing category of regulatory fees. In this respect, the Commission
tentatively concludes that the regulatory fee categories of Space
Stations (Geostationary Orbit) and Space Stations (Non-geostationary
Orbit)--Other do not reflect the amount of regulatory work required by
these nascent RPO and OOS services. Those fee categories are reflective
of the greater FTE burden associated with regulation of more numerous
and more complex space stations that primarily provide ``always on''
communication services, using spectrum and orbital resources on a
protected basis, subject to processing rounds or ``first-come, first-
served'' procedures, and requiring the use of a large number of
associated earth stations. The Commission also tentatively concludes
that the regulatory fee category of ``Space Stations (Non-geostationary
Orbit)--Less complex'' is not the most appropriate fit, since space
stations providing primarily RPO and OOS do not fall within the
existing definition of ``less complex'' NGSO space stations, which is
limited to space stations primarily providing EESS and/or AIS and the
regulatory framework for RPO and OOS space stations is not sufficiently
clear at this time. The Commission does not propose to use the existing
NGSO ``less complex'' fee category for RPO or OOS space stations, since
it tentatively concludes that the regulatory burden of RPO and OOS
space stations is currently far less than that of ``less complex'' NGSO
space stations. The Space Bureau has received relatively few
applications for RPO or OOS space stations, and although it anticipates
receiving more in the near future, the amount of FTE resources required
at the present time to regulate these services is not comparable to the
resources required for regulation of NGSO ``less complex'' space
stations. It is possible that, in the future, the regulatory burden of
RPO and OOS may significantly increase and justify revisiting this
tentative conclusion, but at the present moment the regulatory burden
of RPO and OOS space stations is more similar to that presented by
small satellite space station licensees, which are also few in number
and involve a relatively small number of space stations that have
limited duration and scope of use and operate using shared spectrum
resources.
52. Although the Commission previously declined to adopt an interim
fee for RPO and OOS space stations, including one equivalent to the fee
assessed for small satellites, it did so due, in part, to time
constraints that would not allow for the adoption of a new fee and the
desire for more experience before adopting a separate fee for RPO and
OOS space stations. In the NPRM, the Commission is not proposing to
adopt a new fee for RPO and OOS space stations, but rather, on an
interim basis, to assess fees using the
[[Page 20592]]
existing Space Stations (Small Satellites) fee category. Given the
immediate need to assess regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations
now and in the near future, the Commission tentatively concludes that
the purposes of 47 U.S.C. 159 would be best met by erring on the side
of caution and assessing regulatory fees under the category of fees
associated with the least-burdensome set of space station regulatees,
rather than waiting for additional experience and in the interim
potentially subjecting existing RPO and OOS space stations subject to
regulatory fees for Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit) or Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other, that may not reflect the
amount of regulatory work required by these nascent services. As the
Commission gains more experience with the regulation of RPO and OOS
space stations, it will be in a better position to adopt a separate fee
category for RPO and OOS space stations, if appropriate. The NPRM seeks
comment on this proposal and tentative conclusions.
53. The Commission also proposes to assess RPO and OOS space
stations using the small satellite fee category on an interim basis,
regardless of the orbit utilized. Small satellites are limited to NGSO
operations under 47 CFR part 25, and the Commission stresses that it is
not proposing or suggesting that RPO or OOS space stations would meet
the definition of a ``small satellite'' or ``small spacecraft'' under
47 CFR part 25. Instead, solely for the purpose of assessing regulatory
fees, the Commission proposes to include RPO or OOS space stations
within the existing Space Stations (Small Satellite) regulatory fee
category, rather than creating a new regulatory fee category for RPO
and OOS space stations. The Commission tentatively concludes that the
rational above for using the small satellite regulatory fee category to
assess fees on RPO and OOS space stations applies regardless of whether
the RPO or OOS space stations operate in GSO or NGSO. The Commission
also proposes to assess the regulatory fee for RPO or OOS space
stations on a ``per license/call sign'' basis as is the case for small
satellites payors, rather than on the ``per system'' basis used for
Space Stations (Non-geostationary Orbit). In addition, the Commission
proposes to assess regulatory fees on OTV space stations in the same
manner; that is, to assess regulatory fees for OTV space stations using
the existing regulatory fee category of small satellite space stations
on a per license/call sign basis. Like RPO and OOS space stations, OTVs
are also few in number and involve a relatively small number of space
stations that have limited duration and scope of use and operate using
shared spectrum resources in a manner that reduces the amount of FTE
resources needed for their licensing and regulation. The Commission has
already licensed OTV space stations under its existing 47 CFR part 25
regulatory framework, and it anticipates that additional applications
for OTV will be filed in the near future. Accordingly, the same
rationale applies to erring on the side of caution and assessing
regulatory fees under the category of fees associated with the least-
burdensome set of space station regulatees, at least until the
Commission gains more experience in this matter. The NPRM seeks comment
on these proposals and tentative conclusions. It also seeks comment on
whether this proposed approach for assessing regulatory fees for RPO,
OOS, and OTV could also be applied to all space stations that fall
within the definition of ISAM.
54. The Commission finds that the proposal to assess regulatory
fees for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations using the existing fee
category for small satellites would be an amendment as defined in 47
U.S.C. 159(d). Such an amendment must be submitted to Congress at least
90 days before it becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
55. Finally, the Commission proposes that RPO or OOS space stations
that are attached to another space station as part of servicing or
mission extension operations be assessed regulatory fees separate from,
and in addition to, any regulatory fees assessed on the space station
that is being serviced or that is having its mission extended. The
Commission acknowledges that this tentative conclusion is the opposite
of the Commission's prior tentative conclusion that RPO and OOS space
stations joined to GSO space stations during servicing or mission
extension operations should not be assessed separate regulatory fees,
despite the RPO or OOS space stations being assigned their own call
signs, which is the unit usually used to assess regulatory fees for
space stations. This tentative conclusion was never adopted, and as
such was only tentative in nature. Upon further consideration, the
Commission tentatively concludes that the requirements and purpose of
47 U.S.C. 159 would be better met by assessing regulatory fees on such
attached RPO or OOS space stations.
56. The premise underlying the prior tentative conclusion was that
the RPO or OOS space station is operating as part of an existing GSO
space station, rather than as a separate independent space station, and
therefore there is no independent operating space station for a
separate fee assessment and that the regulatory fee burden for the RPO
or OOS space station would be included in the fees collected from the
GSO space station fee payors. Upon further consideration, the
Commission tentatively concludes that this premise is not correct. As
long as a RPO or OOS space station retains a separate authorization,
with its own call sign, it is a separate space station for the
Commission's regulatory purposes, so that there is a space station for
a separate fee assessment independent of the space station being
serviced or having its mission extended. Regulatory work is associated
with the licensing and regulation of the RPO or OOS space station that
is separate and independent from the regulatory work associated with
the space station that is being serviced or having its mission
extended. FTE work expended on reviewing license applications, issuing
licenses, and exercising regulatory supervision of the RPO or OOS space
stations is completely separate from the FTE work associated with the
licensing and regulation of the space station being serviced or having
its mission extended. In addition, the Commission observes that it
would be difficult to administer regulatory fees for RPO or OOS space
stations under the Commission's prior tentative conclusion, since the
status of the RPO or OOS space station for regulatory fee purposes
would depend on whether the RPO or OOS space station is attached to
another space station on the date when regulatory fees are assessed, or
whether it may be operating unattached, for example, between servicing
missions, which could lead to uncertainty as to whether regulatory fees
are due or not, as well as potential gaming of regulatory fees through
the timing of missions. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159, the Commission is
required to assess regulatory fees to recover all of its FTE work based
on how FTE time is used. The Commission tentatively concludes that it
would not be able to meet that requirement if it was to consider the
RPO or OOS to be part of the serviced space station, and not subject to
separate regulatory fees. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal
and the reasoning in support of it.
6. Assessment of Fees on Authorized, But Not Operational, Space
Stations
57. The Commission proposes to assess regulatory fees on all
authorized
[[Page 20593]]
space and earth stations, not only on stations that are
``operational.'' Currently, regulatory fees for space stations are
payable only when the space stations are certified by their operator to
be operational. An earth station payor is required to pay a fee once it
has certified that the earth station's construction is complete, but in
the rare instances in which a license limits an earth station's
operational authority to a particular satellite system, the fee is not
due until the first satellite of the related system becomes
``operational'' within the meaning of the Commission's rules. A space
station is authorized, in contrast, after an application or petition
has been reviewed and granted by the Commission and the grant is
effective. Because significant FTE resources are involved with the
licensing of space and earth stations, the Commission tentatively
concludes that the objectives of 47 U.S.C. 159 would be better met by
assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth station is licensed,
rather than when a space station becomes operational.
58. The origin for assessing regulatory fees on space stations when
they become operational, rather than when licensed, was the statutory
text of 47 U.S.C. 159 from 1993. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993 that created 47 U.S.C. 159 and proposed regulatory fees in 47
U.S.C. 159(g), which identified two fee categories and amounts for
space stations: (1) ``Space Station (per operational station in
geosynchronous orbit) (47 CFR part 25)'' and (2) ``Space Station (per
system in low-earth orbit) (47 CFR part 25)''. The Commission adopted
the requirement that GSO space stations be operational before
regulatory fees are assessed as part of 1994 regulatory fee proceeding,
basing that decision on the statutory language. In that same
proceeding, the Commission also applied to NGSO space stations the
requirement that space stations be operational before regulatory fees
are payable, even though the text of 47 U.S.C. 159(g) did not include
the word ``operational'' for systems in low-earth orbit, as it did for
GSO space stations. The Commission has kept the ``operational''
requirement for assessing regulatory fees on space stations through
subsequent annual regulatory fee assessment proceedings without comment
or reevaluation.
59. The Commission tentatively concludes that there is no statutory
bar to assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not yet
operational, space and earth stations. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159, the
Commission is explicitly given authority to adjust its regulatory fees
by rule if it determines that the schedule of fees requires amendment,
and such adjustment by rule is what is being proposed in the NPRM. In
addition, Congress deleted 47 U.S.C. 159(g), which was the textual
basis for the operational requirement for assessing regulatory fees on
space stations, in the 2018 RAY BAUM's Act. Accordingly, the original
textual language of 47 U.S.C. 159(g) appears no longer relevant to the
Commission's amendments of regulatory fee schedules. The NPRM seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion and the reasons underlying it.
60. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that now is
an appropriate time to reevaluate the current policy that a space
station must be operational before regulatory fees can be assessed. The
recent creation of Space Bureau provides an opportune time to revisit
past conclusions about the regulatory burdens associated with space and
earth station fee payors and how those fees should be assessed. The
increased burdens of regulating space stations as a result of the
changes in the satellite industry and the creation of the Space Bureau
will increase the share of regulatory fees to be assessed on space and
earth station regulatees, compared to the number of FTEs regulating
space stations in the International Bureau, so the Commission should
look to have as broad a base as possible for its regulatory fees in a
manner that accounts for all regulatees that benefit from Space Bureau
oversight as a matter of making its regulatory fees more fair.
61. The Commission observes that a licensee or grantee already
benefits from the substantial FTE resources used to review and grant
the application or petition, as well as from the FTE resources used to
protect the benefits conferred by the grant of a license or of U.S.
market access, such as use of spectrum and orbital resources and
protection from interference, which convey upon issuance of the license
or grant. Moreover, given the bespoke nature of many satellite systems,
Space Bureau staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during
and after an application (including modifications thereof) or petitions
for rulemaking are filed. In addition, as observed elsewhere in the
NPRM, NGSO space stations are taking an increased share of FTE burdens
relative to GSO space stations and are being assessed higher regulatory
fees, so there is also increased importance to make sure that all NGSO
beneficiaries of those FTE burdens are assessed fees. For example, if
five NGSO FSS systems are licensed through a single processing round,
FTE licensing work is necessitated by all five systems, but under the
current policy only the operational systems would be required to pay
regulatory fees, and the entire regulatory burden for that category of
space stations would be paid only by operational systems. Systems that
become operational later, or not at all, would not be assessed
regulatory fees associated with that FTE work for potentially many
years, or perhaps never. As a result, systems that become operational
earlier than other licensed systems would bear the entire fee burden of
regulatory work done on behalf of all regulated systems. The NPRM seeks
comment on these observations.
62. The Commission proposes that the intent of Congress in 47
U.S.C. 159 would be better fulfilled by recovering the costs of
licensing and regulatory oversight based on authorized space stations,
rather than operational space stations. Congress has directed the FCC
to recover its annual S&E appropriation through regulatory fees, and
the S&E appropriation includes funding for FTE time spent reviewing and
granting applications, which is accrued regardless of when a space
station becomes operational. In most cases, the amount of FTE spent on
reviewing applications corresponds to the number of space stations
requested to be authorized, rather than the number that become
operational, since Commission staff must spend resources assessing the
space station system as proposed in the application, regardless of
whether all the space stations actually become operational. In
addition, once a space station is authorized, it is subject to
regulatory oversight by the Space Bureau and is entitled to all the
benefits and privileges that come with an FCC license or market access
grant. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal.
63. The Commission also proposes that assessing regulatory fees
based on authorized space stations, rather than operational space
stations, should not present challenges to administer. No additional
information collection would be needed to determine whether a space
station is authorized (as opposed to operational), since the FCC's
license or grant of market access displays the authorization
particulars, including the date of grant and the number of space
stations authorized, and the grants and the information contained
within the grants are readily available to the Commission and the
public. The Commission proposes to continue its practice of publishing
a list of the space stations and systems that would be subject to
regulatory fees as U.S. licensed space stations or non-U.S.
[[Page 20594]]
licensed space station that have been granted U.S. market access. As is
the case now, the Commission proposes that any party identifying errors
will be able to advise Commission staff of the error and seek
correction. The Commission also proposes that NGSO licensees may seek
to modify their licenses under existing 47 CFR part 25 requirements to
have the number of authorized space stations modified to reflect the
number of actual operational space stations if not as many space
stations become operational as were applied for, or the number of
authorized space stations diminishes due to the retirement of space
stations at the end of their missions. The Commission acknowledges that
permitting payors to reduce the number of authorized space stations
after an application is granted could be inconsistent with the proposal
that regulatory fees should be based on the number of space station
licensed, rather than the number of operational space stations, but the
Commission tentatively concludes that it is easier to administer its
fees if they are based on the number of space stations authorized in
the current license, rather than having to look back at previous
iterations of license grants in order to fix the fee at the highest
number of space stations licensed. Furthermore, the Commission does not
anticipate that licensees or grantees will seek to reduce the number of
authorized satellites significantly after authorization to avoid
regulatory fees; rather, it anticipates that such reductions will be
marginal and be due to business or operational considerations, rather
than due to regulatory fee considerations. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. It also seeks comment on whether, if the proposal
to assess regulatory fees based on authorized, rather than operational,
space stations is adopted, the Commission should assess fees on this
basis in the current fiscal year, or whether it would be more
appropriate to assess fees on this basis beginning in FY 2025.
64. The Commission recognizes that assessing regulatory fees before
a GSO space station, or a system of NGSO space stations, is operational
could lead to collateral effects that are outside the FTE-focused
methodology required under 47 U.S.C. 159. For example, assessing
regulatory fees on authorized, but non-operational, space stations
could provide an incentive for applicants to request the Space Bureau
to defer action on applications until after the period has passed for
assessing which payors owe regulatory fees for the fiscal year, so as
to defer the assessment of regulatory fees until the subsequent fiscal
year. Alternatively, it could provide an incentive for space station
operators to seek licensing outside the United States, and to apply for
U.S. market access only once the system has become operational, thereby
deferring the assessment of regulatory fees in a manner not available
to U.S.-licensed space station operators. It could also increase the
costs to the operator at the initial funding phases of a space station
or system of space stations. The Commission seeks comment on these, or
any other, potential collateral effects, and whether they weigh against
assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not yet operational, space
stations. In addition, if the Commission does not adopt the proposal to
begin to assess regulatory fees when a space station, or system of
space stations, is authorized, could the benefits for the proposal
still be realized in part by assessing regulatory fees on the number of
authorized space stations in the system, once the system has been
notified as operational, as defined under 47 CFR 25.121(d)(2)?
65. The Commission finds that the proposal to assess regulatory
fees on authorized, rather than operational, space and earth stations
would be an amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C. 159. Such an amendment
must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it becomes
effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
66. Summarizing the proposed changes to the existing regulatory fee
methodology for space stations, the Commission proposes to modify the
fee categories for space stations contained in 47 CFR 1.1156 to read as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee category Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Stations (per authorized station in geostationary [TBD]
orbit) (47 CFR part 25)................................
Space Stations (per authorized system in non- [TBD]
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Other--Large
Constellations)........................................
Space Stations (per authorized system in non- [TBD]
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Other--Small
Constellations)........................................
Space Stations (per authorized system in non- [TBD]
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Less Complex)...
Space Stations (per license/call sign) (Small Satellite) [TBD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Earth Station Fee Proposals
67. The Commission proposes to increase the amount of regulatory
fees assessed on earth stations in order to reflect more accurately the
amount of FTE resources dedicated to their regulatory oversight.
Currently, there is a single regulatory fee category for earth
stations--Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per authorization or
registration). For FY 2023, the fee amount for this category per
authorization or registration was $575. For the reasons set forth in
the NPRM, the methodology used to assess regulatory fees for earth
station payors may underestimate the FTE burdens associated with
regulatory oversight of this category of fee payors, and the Commission
seeks comment on proposals to adjust its regulatory fees to more
accurately recover the amount of FTE resources devoted to licensing and
regulation of earth stations.
68. The unit for assessing regulatory fees for earth stations--per
authorization or registration--is not uniform. In some cases, an
authorization can be for a single earth station, such as a feeder link
station in the mobile-satellite service. In other cases, a single
authorization could be for several thousand earth stations under what
is often called a ``blanket license.'' When first established in 1994,
the fee category for earth stations had four sub-categories with
different fee amounts. These sub-categories were: (1) VSAT & Equivalent
C-band antennas (per 100 antennas)--$6; (2) Mobile Satellite Earth
Stations (per 100 antennas)--$6; (3) Less than 9 meters (per 100
antennas)--$6; and (4) 9 Meters or More--Transmit/Receive and Transmit
Only (per meter)--$85; Receive Only (per meter)--$55. In 1995, the
Commission deleted receive-only earth stations as a service subject to
regulatory fee requirements and determined that assessing fees on a per
authorization or registration basis was more equitable method than on a
per meter or per 100 earth station basis. The Commission set the earth
station regulatory fee per authorization or registration at $330 for
all three remaining sub-categories (i.e., VSAT, Mobile-Satellite Earth
Stations, Fixed Earth Stations--Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only). 47
CFR 25.1156, however, lists only a single category and fee for earth
station payors: Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per
authorization or registration).
[[Page 20595]]
69. The Commission has not assessed earth station regulatory fees
as a percentage of overall bureau regulatory burdens. Rather, the
assessment of regulatory fees for earth stations has been based on the
initial per unit fee for earth stations--Transmit/Receive & Transmit
only (per authorization or registration) that was established by the
Commission in 1995. This initial fee has been adjusted on a year-to-
year basis, but usually only in terms of a percentage change in the fee
to reflect the changes in the amount of appropriated S&E each year and
the number of anticipated units of payors. Since 1995, the Commission
has periodically discussed earth station regulatory fees or considered
adjusting earth station regulatory fees for factors beyond a change in
the annual S&E appropriation or the number of units of earth station
fee payors. In 2014, the Commission increased the earth station
regulatory fee per unit by 7.5%, from $275 in FY 2013 to $295 for FY
2014, in order to reflect more appropriately the number of FTEs devoted
to the regulation and oversight of the earth stations in response to
concerns raised by commenters that space stations paid an unreasonably
high portion of the regulatory fees for the regulation of the satellite
industry. The following year, in 2015, the Commission sought comment on
whether to raise the earth station regulatory fees again but declined
to do so finding that the issue required further analysis. In
particular, due to comments suggesting that the Commission adopt
different regulatory fees for different types of earth stations and an
ongoing proceeding that held the possibility of affecting the
distribution of FTE work, the Commission deferred the issue for the
next year's proceeding. The Commission ceased consideration of
different regulatory fees for different types of earth stations in
2016, however, when the commenter chiefly advocating for such
consideration ceased to back its earlier proposal and no other entity
commented on the record in favor of the proposal to assess different
levels of regulatory fees on different types of earth station
licensees. In 2020, commenters in the annual regulatory fee assessment
proceeding proposed that the Commission review the apportionment of
regulatory fees between earth and space station payors and implement
different earth station subcategories for regulatory fee purposes. The
Commission declined to do so, finding that there was insufficient
evidence in the record at that time to increase apportionment of fees
paid by earth station licensees or on which to base the creation of
subcategories of earth station fees.
70. The Commission's focused examination of space and earth station
fees as a result of the creation of the Space Bureau provides an
opportunity to reconsider whether its regulatory fees adequately
reflect the amount of FTE resources devoted to licensing and regulation
of earth stations. The Commission tentatively conclude that they do
not, and that a change in methodology in assessing regulatory fees for
earth stations is required. Specifically, for the reason set forth in
the NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt an apportionment of the
total regulatory fees allocated to the Space Bureau between space and
earth station payors on a percentage basis, similar to the manner that
space station fees are apportioned between GSO and NGSO space stations,
and proposes that the apportionment be 20 percent for earth stations
and 80 percent for space stations. The NPRM seeks comment on this
proposal and apportionment.
71. For FY 2023, earth station licensees were assessed a total of
$1,667,500 in regulatory fees, which amounted to 7.69% of the
$21,656,110 in regulatory fees assessed for all space and earth station
payors. Several factors lead to the Commission's tentative conclusion
that this percentage underestimates the amount of FTE resources
dedicated to earth station licensing and regulation. First, unlike the
case for apportionment of space station fees between GSO and NGSO space
stations, or among various subcategories of NGSO space stations, it may
be feasible to attribute Space Bureau FTE resources that are dedicated
exclusively, or nearly exclusively, to earth station licensing and
regulation. Within the Space Bureau is the Earth Station Licensing
Division (ESLD), which lists eleven staff members that work almost
exclusively on earth station licensing and regulation and that are not
routinely involved in matters of space station licensing or regulation.
If each staff member were to account for an FTE, these eleven staff
members would account for approximately 20% of the 54 FTEs that could
be categorized as direct FTEs for the Space Bureau for FY 2024, minus a
small number of FTEs that may be categorized as indirect FTEs as
discussed elsewhere in the NPRM. The Commission tentatively concludes
that apportioning regulatory fee percentages between earth and space
station payors based on the percentage of direct FTEs involved the
licensing and regulation of each category, where feasible to do so, is
a reasonable way to fulfill Congress' mandate in 47 U.S.C. 159 that the
Commission's regulatory fees must reflect the full-time equivalent
number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission,
adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to
the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's
activities. The Commission seeks comment on whether using FTEs in the
ESLD to determine the proportion of earth station fees relative to
space station fees is reasonable and reflective of Congressional
intent. Are there other factors that are reasonably related to the FTE
resources provided to earth station licensees that are not reflected in
the Commission's proposal? Are there alternatives to using the
percentage of direct FTEs involved in earth station licensing and
regulation that should be considered?
72. The Commission recognizes that the proposal to apportion 20% of
all Space Bureau regulatory fees to earth station licensees beginning
in FY 2024 will result in a substantial increase in the per unit
regulatory fee paid by earth station licensees, both because the
percentage share of Space Bureau regulatory fees is likely to increase
as a whole due to the increased number of direct FTEs in the Space
Bureau compared to the International Bureau, and because the percentage
share of earth station fees of Space Bureau fees would increase from
around from around 8% to 20% under the Commission's proposal.
Nonetheless, the Commission tentatively concludes that the increase in
earth station regulatory fees is consistent with the mandate given by
Congress in 47 U.S.C. 159 for the Commission to recover its costs of
regulation through fees that reflect the full-time equivalent number of
employees within the Commission that provide the regulatory benefits to
the payors. The NPRM seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and
observation.
73. In light of the tentative conclusion that earth station
licensees should be apportioned 20% of all fees allocated to Space
Bureau fee payors, the Commission seeks to revisit the question of
whether to create subcategories of earth station regulatory fee payors
to better differentiate the amount of regulatory burdens associated
with different types of earth station licenses. For example, should
Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT), Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations,
and Fixed Earth Stations--Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only be
reinstated as distinct fee categories, each with a separate fee
assessment? The Commission also seeks to develop a
[[Page 20596]]
record as to whether there are types of earth station licenses that
require more FTE resources to license and regulate, and that account
for a higher share of FTE burdens than other categories of earth
station licensees, for which a higher regulatory fee should be
assessed. Likewise, are there categories of earth station licensees
that require less FTE resources to license and regulate and therefore
should be assessed a lower regulatory fee? For example, in the past
commenters have suggested that blanket-licensed earth station licensees
involving multiple antennas under a single authorization should pay
higher fees than other earth station licensees because blanket-licensed
earth stations require more regulatory oversight. The NPRM asks
commenters to provide evidentiary support for their propositions and to
provide specific proposals for what these categories should be and how
to allocate fees among any categories. Furthermore, comments should
address the administrability of any proposed categories and whether the
Space Bureau would be able to assign costs of specific regulatory
activities to any proposed categories of earth station regulatory fees.
74. The Commission finds that the creation of any new fee
categories for earth stations would be an amendment as defined in 47
U.S.C. 159. Such an amendment must be submitted to Congress at least 90
days before it becomes effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
75. If the proposals made in the NPRM are not adopted, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should, at a minimum, increase
the amount of the per unit fee for the existing fee category of ``Earth
Station--Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per authorization or
registration)'' in order to reflect the increase of the Space Bureau's
share of overall Commission regulatory fees as compared to the
International Bureau's share in FY 2023. If so, how should this
increase be calculated and what should be the percentage increase over
the FY 2023 fee?
D. Alternative Methodology for Assessing Space Station Regulatory Fees
76. The proposals made elsewhere in the NPRM are amendments or
adjustments to the existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees
for space stations. This existing methodology was founded on the
original regulatory fees proposed by Congress in 1994, which provided
for earth station regulatory fees and separate categories of space
station fees depending on the orbit used by the space station(s):
geostationary or non-geostationary. Since then, the Commission has
created subcategories for NGSO space stations and has continuously
tried to adjust the allocation of FTE burdens among GSO space stations
and the various subcategories of NGSO space stations. The Commission
now seeks comment on an alternative methodology for assessing space
station regulatory fees that eliminates the distinction between GSO,
NGSO, and all the subcategories of NGSO, while preserving a separate
fee category for small satellites. For the reasons discussed in the
NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether this alternative
methodology would be more administrable, fair, and sustainable than the
existing methodology, even if all the proposals made elsewhere in the
NPRM are adopted.
77. The initial stages of the alternative methodology are the same
as under the existing methodology. The Commission would first determine
the Space Bureau's share of the total FCC annual S&E appropriation for
the given fiscal year using the existing methodology used by the
Commission. After the Space Bureau's share is determined, the
Commission proposes that the share be allocated between earth station
and space station fee payors proportional to the Space Bureau FTE
resources that are involved in the licensing and regulation of each
segment. As stated elsewhere in the NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concludes that it is feasible to attribute Space Bureau FTE resources
that are dedicated exclusively, or nearly exclusively, to earth station
licensing and regulation. The Commission anticipates that the FTE
resources attributed to earth stations will be 20 percent of the total
Space Bureau share, resulting in 80 percent of regulatory fees to be
attributed to space station regulatory fees. Earth station fees would
be determined by dividing the total share attributable to earth station
licensing and regulation by the number of units for the fiscal year,
which were 2900 in FY 2023.
78. The Commission's alternative methodology also would preserve a
separate fee category for Space Stations (per license/call sign) (Small
Satellite), with the inclusion of RPO, OOS, OTV, and potentially other
ISAM space stations in this category on an interim basis, as was
proposed elsewhere in the NPRM. It would also retain the proposal to
set this regulatory fee at the level set for FY 2023, with only an
adjustment each year to reflect the percentage change in the FCC
appropriation from the previous fiscal year. This fixed regulatory fee
for Space Stations (Small Satellite) would be multiplied by the number
of small satellite licenses/call signs required to pay regulatory fees
for the fiscal year, and this total amount would be subtracted from the
amount of space station regulatory fees to be assessed on all remaining
space station payors. Fees would be assessed on authorized space
stations, not just operational space stations, as proposed in the NPRM.
This treatment of small satellite regulatory fees would be consistent
with the Commission's existing methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees, taking into account the proposals made in the NPRM.
79. The main change from the existing methodology is a proposal to
establish a common initial unit of regulatory fee payment for all space
stations, regardless of which orbit they are designed to operate in,
and to eliminate separate fee categories for Space Stations
(Geostationary Orbit), Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less
complex, and Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other. The
alternative methodology would have a single space station fee category
for ``Space Stations (Per Call Sign in Geostationary Orbit or Per
System in Non-Geostationary Orbit).'' The category would be tiered,
with a single GSO space station or a NGSO system with up to 100
authorized space stations constituting this initial tier and being
counted as one unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees.
Additional tiers would be created to account for NGSO systems with more
than 100 authorized space stations, for example 500 or 1,000 space
stations per NGSO system per additional tier. Each tier would be
counted as an additional unit for assessment of space station
regulatory fees. The total number of units (initial and additional
units) would be added together and the total space station allocation
of the Space Bureau share would be evenly divided among the total
number of units, resulting in a per unit regulatory fee for the fiscal
year.
80. If the unit tiers are defined per 500 additional authorized
space stations, the initial unit range will be 1-100 authorized space
stations, the first additional unit will be assessed to systems with
101-500 authorized space stations, and an additional unit will then be
assessed for each additional block of 500 authorized space stations.
Similarly, if the additional unit tiers are defined per 1,000
additional authorized space stations, the initial unit range will be 1-
100 authorized space stations, the first additional unit will be
assessed to systems with 101-1,000 authorized
[[Page 20597]]
space stations, and an additional unit will then be assessed for
additional block of 1,000 authorized space stations. For example, a
single GSO space station or a NGSO system of 100 authorized space
stations or fewer would be assessed one unit's share of space station
regulatory fees. If that NGSO system were to have 500 authorized space
stations, it would be assessed an additional unit's share of regulatory
fees, regardless of whether the additional tiers are based on 500 or
1,000 additional space stations per NGSO system. If that NGSO system
were to have 1,000 authorized space stations, it would either be
assessed one additional unit's share (if the additional tiers are based
per 1,000 authorized space stations) or two additional units' share (if
the additional tiers are based per 500 authorized space stations).
Accordingly, GSO payors and NGSO systems of 100 authorized space
stations or fewer would be assessed the lowest regulatory fees, while
payors with multiple authorized GSO space stations or with NGSO systems
with more than 100 authorized space stations would be assessed higher
regulatory fees, with the highest regulatory fees assessed to payors
with a large number of GSO space stations and to payors with NGSO
systems consisting of thousands of authorized space stations.
81. The Commission seeks comment on whether this alternative
methodology would be more administrable, fair, and sustainable than the
existing methodology. First, it could be more administrable because it
does not require the Space Bureau to make the challenging determination
of how FTE resources are allocated among space station payors. The
Commission has previously recognized the considerable challenge of
apportioning regulatory fees among space stations fee categories. Under
the alternative methodology, tiered units are used as a proxy for the
amount of FTE resources that are attributable to the system without
having to repeatedly make challenging determinations of the amount of
FTE resources attributable to particular categories or subcategories of
space station regulatory fee payors. Furthermore, unless the number of
authorized space stations substantially decreases over a year, the
amount of regulatory fee assessed to a system on a per unit basis is
unlikely to increase and is likely to remain stable (or possibly
decrease) year to year. The alternative methodology does not utilize
any characteristics of a space station system other than the number of
authorized space stations in the system and is not dependent on
potentially difficult evaluations of the complexity of a system under
the Commission's licensing and regulatory framework. It would not
require the Commission to collect more information from operators.
Thus, the Commission anticipates that the alternative methodology can
remain stable longer than the existing methodology for assessing space
station regulatory fees. The NPRM seeks comment on these issues.
82. The Commission seeks comment on whether the alternative
methodology is more fair than the existing methodology, because it
better corresponds FTE resources spent on licensing and regulating
space stations with the types of space station systems that benefit
from the FTE resources, thereby decreasing the per unit regulatory fees
for space station payors that benefit less from FTE resources. Under
the alternative methodology, higher aggregate fees will be assessed to
systems with large numbers of authorized space stations, GSO or NGSO,
but the Commission expects those higher fees will be borne by payors
that benefit from more FTE resources in support of licensing and
regulating their systems. The alternative methodology also increases
the number of units over which space station regulatory fees are
spread, thereby decreasing the per unit regulatory fees for all space
station payors as additional units are added, regardless of their
orbital configuration. The tiered system also avoids the situation
where systems with a very large number of authorized space stations
could effectively end up paying all, or nearly all, space station
regulatory fees, and where the fee per unit for a single GSO space
station or a NGSO system of up to 100 authorized space stations would
be diluted to an amount that may not adequately reflect the amount of
FTE resources allocated to such fee payors.
83. In addition, under the existing methodology, regulatory fees
for a particular category of fee payors go down per payor as more space
stations or systems become operational in that category. Although such
a decrease is beneficial for payors in that category, it may not
reflect the increased amount of FTE resources required for that
category of fee payors because of the additional resources needed for
authorizing and regulating an increasing number of space stations or
systems. This can lead to a discrepancy in that a category with rapidly
increasing number of space stations or systems becoming operational is
assessed lower regulatory fees than a category where the number of
payors remains steady or even declines. This discrepancy continues
until the Commission makes the challenging determination to alter the
allocation of regulatory fees among the fee categories, which could
take years to implement. For example, if additional NGSO systems become
operational under the existing methodology, the regulatory fee per
system for that particular subcategory of NGSO system would decrease
because of the broader base over which the fees for that category would
be spread, but it would not decrease the fees assessed on GSO space
station payors or on NGSO space station payors in other NGSO
subcategories--unless the Commission reallocates the percentage of
space station regulatory fees among the GSO and NGSO categories. Under
the alternative methodology this discrepancy is eliminated, because the
addition of units of authorized space stations will automatically
decrease the per unit regulatory fee for all space station regulatory
fee payors, because the denominator used to divide the overall space
station regulatory fee amount becomes larger. For example, the per unit
regulatory fee for GSO space stations will decrease if the number of
units assessed to NGSO space station systems increases, even if the
number of units assessed to GSO space stations remains the same. Under
this example, the per unit regulatory fee for all NGSO space stations
would decrease as well. Furthermore, the alternative system avoids
assessing the same regulatory fee on systems with a small number of
authorized space stations as the fee assessed on systems with a large
number of authorized space stations, as is the case under the existing
NGSO space stations ``other'' subcategory. The NPRM seeks comment on
these issues.
84. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
alternative methodology is more sustainable than the existing
methodology. The Commission has reason to expect that the number of
authorized space stations will increase in the future, rather than
decrease, which will result in an even broader base on which to assess
space station regulatory fees and which will lower per unit fees for
all space station payors, regardless of the orbit in which the space
station operates or the services it provides. Because fees are spread
across all space station payors, it avoids the situation where the loss
of a single payor in an existing fee category could result in
significant increases to the regulatory fees paid by the remaining
payors in that category, absent Commission action to reexamine fee
[[Page 20598]]
allocations. The NPRM seeks comment on these issues.
85. The Commission observes that this alternative methodology
relies exclusively on the number of authorized space stations to assess
space station regulatory fees, rather than the more nuanced approach of
the existing methodology of assessing the complexity of a system (and
thus the amount of FTE resources required to regulate the system) based
on a number of factors. The Commission also acknowledges that it has
previously found that the number of space stations in a system is not
the key driver of the amount of FTE time devoted to regulatory
oversight of such systems. For example, an NGSO system consisting of a
single space station that is designed to operate in a novel manner,
subject to a processing round, and in a way that requires extensive
coordination of spectrum and orbital resources may require
significantly more regulatory oversight than a NGSO system of hundreds
of space stations having non-exclusive use of spectrum and operating
under well-established parameters. But is it reasonable to assume that
NGSO systems with hundreds or thousands of authorized space stations
require more FTE resources, on average and ignoring outliers, than NGSO
systems with 100 authorized space stations or fewer, since as the
number of space stations in a system increases, the complexity of
spectrum sharing, frequency usage, and orbital debris mitigation plans
also increases, generally speaking? While the number of space stations
in a system may not be the key driver of the amount of FTE devoted to
regulatory oversight of such systems, the Commission expects that it
may be a driver, and one that is easier to administer than the more
nuanced approach of the existing methodology or the use of other
possible proxies for complexity, such as spectrum usage, services
provided, or on-orbit mass. In order to gain the potential advantages
of the alternative methodology, the number of space stations authorized
may be the more administrable metric to serve as a proxy for the amount
of FTE resources devoted to a system in order to accomplish the
objectives 47 U.S.C. 159, rather than to continue the challenging task
of determining which categories or aspects of NGSO systems are more or
less complex to regulate on a recurring basis, particularly as new
technologies, services, and orbital operations rapidly develop. The
NPRM seeks comment on these issues.
86. Although the regulatory fees that would be assessed under the
alternative methodology for most space station fee payors may be
roughly the same or potentially lower than those that would be assessed
using the existing methodology, even with the changes proposed in the
NPRM, the fees assessed for some space station payors could be
substantially higher under the alternative methodology. For example,
NGSO systems with more than 500 authorized space stations that are
categorized as ``less complex'' under the existing methodology could
pay more under the alternative methodology. For NGSO systems that are
categorized as ``less complex'' under the Commission's existing
methodology, it may be possible to reflect that categorization by
allowing a greater number of space stations to be included in the first
or second tier for those systems. For example, an NGSO system used
primarily for EESS and/or AIS communicating with 20 or fewer U.S.-
licensed earth stations with up to 500 authorized space stations could
be assessed only the initial unit of fees, even though it exceeds the
proposed limit of up to 100 authorized space stations for the initial
unit. The NPRM seeks comment on these issues.
87. Furthermore, if NGSO systems have a significantly larger number
of authorized space stations than is the case today, it is possible
that tiers of units based on 500 or 1,000 space stations could result
in such NGSO systems being assessed a very large percentage share of
all space station regulatory fees. In this case, the concern is similar
to using a ``per space station'' basis as a proxy for the complexity of
a space station system that was discussed elsewhere in the NPRM. As
discussed, the NPRM seeks comment on whether a ``cap'' or ``ceiling''
on the number of authorized space stations on which regulatory fees are
assessed could alleviate this concern.
88. The use of tiers also presents the situation where a system
with only a handful of authorized space stations over the cut off
number of space stations in a tier would be assessed fees under the
next higher tier. For example, under a tiered system where an
additional unit of fees is assessed per 500 additional authorized space
stations, an NGSO system with 501 authorized space stations would be
assessed fees for three units (the initial tier of up to 100 authorized
space stations, the second tier of up to 500 authorized space stations,
and the third tier of 501-1,000 authorized space stations), even though
it crossed the second tier threshold by a single authorized space
station. While the payor in such a case could seek authorization for
one less space station, or modify an existing space station license to
remove an authorized space station from its license, this may not make
sense from a systems engineering perspective, particularly if the
``spill over'' is 50 or 100 additional authorized space stations. A
potential remedy for this situation is to allow partial units for
assessing regulatory fees. For example, if the additional authorized
space stations per unit is set at 500, and an NGSO system has 508
authorized space stations, it could be assessed 1.016 additional units
(508/500) instead of rounding up and being assessed two additional
units. If the same NGSO system had 580 authorized space stations, it
could be assessed 1.16 additional units (580/500) instead of two
additional units. This fractional approach could result in more
granular assessments of regulatory fees than a tiered system using cut
offs. The NPRM seeks comment on these issues, particularly on the
feasibility of implementing such an approach and whether it requires
too much precision in assessing the number of authorized space stations
in a system.
89. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this alternative
methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees. Would it be
more administrable, fair, and sustainable than the existing
methodology? Is it reasonable to use the number of authorized space
stations in a system to reflect the amount of FTE resources devoted to
a system, as proposed in the alternative methodology? Is the regulatory
burden of one GSO space station approximate to the regulatory burden of
an NGSO system of up to 100 authorized space stations? If tiers of
units are utilized, what should the number of additional authorized
space stations per tier be set at? Would 500 or 1,000 additional
authorized space stations be a reasonable number? Should there be a cap
on the number of space stations on which tiers of units are assessed,
in order to prevent NGSO systems with tens of thousands of authorized
space stations from potentially being assessed a fee that is
disproportionate to the amount of FTE resources devoted to licensing
and regulating such systems? Should partial units be utilized instead
of cut offs for tiers, as discussed in the previous paragraph? Under
the alternative methodology, should small satellite fees be fixed, as
proposed for changes to the existing methodology elsewhere in the NPRM?
90. Summarizing the proposed changes under the proposed alternative
regulatory fee methodology for space
[[Page 20599]]
stations above, 47 CFR 1.1156 would be proposed to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee category Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Stations (Per Call Sign of Authorized Space [TBD]
Station in Geostationary Orbit or Per System of 100 or
Fewer Authorized Space Stations in Non-Geostationary
Orbit).................................................
Space Stations (Per Tier of Up to 500 [or 1,000] [TBD]
Additionally Authorized Space Stations in Non-
Geostationary Orbit)...................................
Space Station (per license/call sign) (Small Satellites) [TBD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. The Commission finds that the proposal to use the alternative
methodology to assess regulatory fees for space and earth stations
would be an amendment as defined in 47 U.S.C. 159(d). Such an amendment
must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it becomes
effective pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
E. Other Matters
92. Changing the Title of 47 CFR 1.1156. The Commission proposes to
change the title of 47 CFR 1.1156 to make it clear that it contains
space and earth station regulatory fees. Currently, satellite
regulatory fees are contained in 47 CFR 1.1156, which is titled,
``Schedule of regulatory fees for international services.'' The
Commission proposes to rename this section as ``Schedule of regulatory
fees for space and international services'' to reflect more accurately
that the section contains the regulatory fees for space and earth
stations, as well as the fees for international bearer circuits and
submarine cables regulated by the Office of International Affairs. The
current title of 47 CFR 1.1156 was accurate when all categories of fees
within it were regulated by the International Bureau. After the
reorganization of the International Bureau into the Space Bureau and
the Office of International Affairs, the current title can cause
confusion by suggesting that only the fees for regulatees of the Office
of International Affairs are contained within 47 CFR 1.1156. The
Commission tentatively concludes that it would be easier to change the
title of 47 CFR 1.1156 than to create a new section in 47 CFR part 1,
subpart G, containing space and earth station regulatory fees. The
Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and proposal.
93. Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people
of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or
Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved,
marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or
inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed in the NPRM. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
how its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority. The NPRM notes that diversity and equity
considerations, however, do not allow the Commission to shift fees from
one party of fee payors to another, nor to use fees under 47 U.S.C. 159
for any purpose other than as an offsetting collection in the amount of
the Commission's annual S&E appropriation.
94. Space Innovation Agenda. The Commission has an open proceeding
on advancing opportunities for innovation in the new space age by
taking measures to expedite the application processes for space
stations and earth stations, consistent with the Commission's objective
to promote a competitive and innovative global telecommunications
marketplace via space services'' In September 2023, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order (Dec. 6, 2023, 88 FR 84737) that further
streamlined its application review process, including establishing
clear timeframes for placing space and earth station applications on
public notice. The Commission also sought comment on several proposed
changes to further streamline the licensing process and reduce
applicant and staff burdens in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Dec. 8, 2023, 88 FR 85553). Finally, the Commission announced a
Transparency Initiative with the goal of providing information and
guidance, in a variety of forms, to interested parties so they can
understand the Commission's procedures and what is needed to obtain
authorization for their proposed space station and earth station
operations. The Commission seeks comment, generally, how that
proceeding and initiative might inform its consideration of the issues
raised in the NPRM.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
95. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM.
Written comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by
the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the DATES section
of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
96. The Commission is required by Congress pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
159 to assess and collect regulatory fees each year to recover the
regulatory costs associated with the Commission's oversight and
regulatory activities in an amount that can reasonably be expected to
equal the amount of its annual appropriation. As part of last year's
adoption of regulatory fees, the Commission noted that FY 2023 would be
the last year where the Commission will do so for the International
Bureau, given the creation of the Space Bureau, and Office of
International Affairs. The Commission also noted that an examination of
the regulatory fees, and categories for NGSO space stations would be
useful in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space
Bureau, and as part of a more holistic review of the FTE burden of the
Space Bureau in FY 2024.
97. The NPRM commences the examination and review of regulatory
fees for space and earth station payors regulated by the new Space
Bureau, specifically seeking comment on a range of proposed changes to
the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations under
the existing methodology. It proposes to: (1) change the allocation of
fee burdens between GSO and NGSO space stations and maintain the
existing allocation of fee burdens between the categories of ``less
complex'' and ``other'' NGSO space stations; (2) create new fee
categories within the existing fee category of ``Space Station (Non-
Geostationary
[[Page 20600]]
Orbit)--Other'' to make assessment of the Commission's regulatory fees
fairer, more administrable, and more sustainable; (3) set the
regulatory fee for ``Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)'' for FY 2024
and future fiscal years at the level set for FY 2023, annually adjusted
to reflect the percentage change in the appropriation from the previous
fiscal year; (4) include, on an interim basis, space stations that are
principally used for RPO or OOS, including OTV, in the existing fee
category for ``small satellites'' until the Commission can develop more
experience in how these space stations will be regulated; (5) assess
regulatory fees on all authorized space stations, not just on
operational space stations, in order to adhere more closely to the
framework of 47 U.S.C. 159, and to make the Commission's fees fairer,
more administrable, and more sustainable; and (6) increase the
allocation of fees payable by earth station licensees in order to
reflect more accurately the fee burden attributable to their licensing
and regulation and seek comment on whether additional earth station fee
categories should be created.
98. Additionally, the NPRM proposes to amend the title of 47 CFR
1.1156, currently titled ``Schedule of regulatory fees for
international services,'' to clarify that the rule includes space and
earth station regulatory fees, following the reorganization of the
Commission's International Bureau. The NPRM also proposes an
alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees by
eliminating the separate categories of regulatory fees for GSO and NGSO
space stations, as well as existing subcategories for NGSO space
stations, while retaining the existing separate regulatory fee category
for small satellites and spacecraft licensed under 47 CFR 25.122
through 25.123. The goal of these proposals is to update the regulatory
fees and categories for earth and space stations in light of changes
resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau and as part of a more
holistic review of the regulatory fees for earth and space stations in
FY 2024.
B. Legal Basis
99. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i)
and (j), 159, 159A, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
100. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
101. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in
the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
102. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
103. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 5ll governmental
jurisdictions.''
104. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.
105. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054
firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number,
2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data,
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under
the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data
however, only two entities provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T)
and DISH Network--which require a great deal of capital for operation.
DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for
classification as a small business. Therefore, the Commission must
conclude, based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS
service is provided only by large firms.
106. Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither
the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/
Receive Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
$38.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there was a total of 275
[[Page 20601]]
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had
revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December
31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in
the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small
business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can
be considered small entities.
107. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems.
Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite VSAT Systems. A
VSAT is a relatively small satellite antenna used for satellite-based
point-to-multipoint data communications applications. VSAT networks
provide support for credit verification, transaction authorization, and
billing and inventory management. Satellite Telecommunications is the
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
$38.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were a total of 275 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue
of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's small business size
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered
small entities.
108. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. Home Satellite Dish (HSD)
or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original
satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home
reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in
the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas
are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide
range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming
purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate
subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 3,054 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under
the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be
considered small.
109. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the
Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard. The SBA small business size standard classifies a
business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. For
this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms
had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Mobile
Satellite Earth Station licensees are small entities. Additionally,
based on Commission data as of February 1, 2024, there were 16 Mobile
Satellite Earth Stations licensees. The Commission does not request nor
collect annual revenue information and is therefore unable to estimate
the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would be classified
as a small business under the SBA size standard.
110. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also
known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are
video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths
without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming
and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers'
industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
111. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
112. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
[[Page 20602]]
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
113. The NPRM does not propose any changes to the Commission's
current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements for small entities. Small and other regulated entities are
required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The cost of
compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small entities is
the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category and should not
require small entities to hire professionals to comply.
114. Small entities that qualify can take advantage of the
exemption from payment of regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis
threshold. In addition, small entities may request a waiver, reduction,
deferral, and/or installment payment of their regulatory fees. The
waiver process is an easier filing process for smaller entities that
may not be familiar with the Commission's procedural filing rules.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
115. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching
its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives, among others: (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
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.
116. The NPRM seeks comment on a number of amendments to the
existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees paid by space and
earth station payors. While the NPRM initiates the examination and
review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors under the
existing regulatory fee methodology, the Commission will propose and
finalize the regulatory fee rates for space and earth station payors as
part of its annual Commission-wide regulatory fee proceeding for FY
2024. Commenters will have an opportunity in that proceeding to provide
comments on the proposed regulatory fee rates for space and earth
station payors. The NPRM gives parties an opportunity to file comments
on possible changes to the existing methodology for assessing space and
earth station regulatory fees. If any of these proposals are adopted,
it may reduce the regulatory fee burden on some satellite entities.
117. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on a proposal to divide
the existing regulatory fee subcategory of ``Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit)--Other'' into two tiers: ``Large Constellations''
of more than 1,000 authorized space stations; and ``Small
Constellations'' of 1,000 or fewer authorized space stations. The
current single regulatory fee for all NGSO ``other'' space station
payors has resulted in requests by fee payors of smaller NGSO systems
seeking to be assessed regulatory fees as NGSO ``less complex''
systems. If adopted, the proposal for the tiered approach for the NGSO
space station ``other'' category would likely reduce the regulatory fee
burden on smaller satellite constellations, and likely on smaller
entities.
118. As another example, the NPRM notes that, based on preliminary
calculations, the fee amount for the small satellite category for FY
2024 could be substantially greater than the fee assessed for FY 2023.
The NPRM proposes that the administrability and sustainability of
regulatory fees for small satellites would be better served by treating
them as the Commission has historically treated the regulatory fees for
earth stations--that is, a fixed regulatory fee that is adjusted from
year-to-year on, rather than as a percentage of the Space Bureau's
overall share of regulatory fee allocation, or as a percentage of other
categories of space station fee payors. This proposal if adopted would
significantly minimize the economic impact of regulatory fees
potentially faced by small satellites.
119. The NPRM also proposes, on an interim basis, to assess
regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily performing RPO and OOS by
including them in the existing regulatory fee category ``Space Stations
(per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)''
regardless of the orbit in which they are designed to operate in. The
Space Bureau has received relatively few applications for RPO or OOS
space stations, and although it anticipates receiving more in the near
future, the amount of FTE resources required at the present time to
regulate these services is more similar to that presented by small
satellite space station licensees, which are also few in number, and
involve a relatively small number of space stations that have limited
duration and scope of use and operate using shared spectrum resources.
Therefore, the NPRM tentatively concludes that the purposes of 47
U.S.C. 159 would be best met by erring on the side of caution and
assessing regulatory fees under the category of fees associated with
the least-burdensome set of space station regulates which would result
in lower regulatory fees, and have less economic impact.
120. The NPRM also seeks comment on possibly creating subcategories
of earth station regulatory fee payors to better differentiate the
amount of regulatory burdens associated with different types of earth
station licenses. This may reduce the regulatory fee burden on some
smaller earth station payees who could face a substantial increase in
the per unit regulatory fee if the Commission adopts the proposal in
the NPRM to apportion 20% of all Space Bureau regulatory fees to earth
station licensees beginning in FY 2024.
121. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on an alternative methodology
for assessing space station regulatory fees that eliminates the
distinction between GSO, NGSO, and all the subcategories of NGSO, while
preserving a separate fee category for small satellites. The
alternative methodology would have a single category for ``Space
Stations (Per Call Sign in Geostationary Orbit or Per System in Non-
Geostationary Orbit),'' which would be tiered, with a single GSO space
station or a NGSO system with up to 100 authorized space stations
constituting the first tier and being counted as one unit for
assessment of space station regulatory fees, and additional tiers added
to account for NGSO systems with more than 100 authorized space
stations, with the possibility of 500 or 1,000 additional space
stations per NGSO system per tier. Each tier would be counted as an
additional unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees.
Accordingly, GSO payors and NGSO systems of 100 authorized space
stations or fewer would be assessed the lowest regulatory fees, while
payors with multiple authorized GSO space stations, or with NGSO
systems with more than 100 authorized space stations would be assessed
higher regulatory fees, with the highest regulatory fees assessed to
payors with a large number of GSO space stations, and to payors with
NGSO systems consisting of thousands of authorized space stations. The
Commission believes this alternative methodology could be more
administrable, fair, and sustainable than the existing methodology, and
the NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of this alternative methodology
for assessing space station regulatory fees.
[[Page 20603]]
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
122. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-05996 Filed 3-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P