[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12498-12500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6525]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, FCC 02-45]


Satellite License Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on two 
alternatives for revising the satellite licensing process, both of 
which are intended to enable the Commission to issue satellite licenses 
more quickly. One alternative is the first-come, first-served approach. 
The other alternative is to streamline the current processing round 
approach. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on adopting several 
rule revisions regardless of whether it adopts a first-come, first-
served approach or streamlines the current procedure.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 3, 2002. Reply comments are 
due on or before July 2, 2002. Written comments by the public on the 
proposed information collections are due April 18, 2002. Written 
comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
on the proposed information collection(s) on or before May 20, 2002.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
William F. Caton, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to be submitted to Judy Boley 
Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected] and to Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 
NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Spaeth, Satellite and 
Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1539. For 
additional information concerning the information collection(s) 
contained in this document, contact Judy Boley Herman at 202-418-0214, 
or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking adopted February 14, 2002 and released February 
28, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Public 
Reference Room, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 
Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
    Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments 
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet to 
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an 
electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking 
numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters 
must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal 
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form your e-mail address>.'' A sample 
form and directions will be sent in reply.
    Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four 
copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two 
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains proposed new and modified information 
collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) 
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same 
time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due 
April 18, 2002. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX (new collection).
    Title: Streamlining and Other Revisions of part 25 of the 
Commission's
    Form No.: FCC Form 312 Schedule S.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 146.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 2-18 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Annual Burden: 1,436 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $193,500.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements accounted 
for in this collection are necessary to determine the technical and 
legal

[[Page 12499]]

qualifications of applicants or licensees to operate a station, 
transfer or assign a license, and to determine whether the 
authorization is in the public interest, convenience and necessity. 
Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to 
permit respondents to provide telecommunication services in the U.S. 
The Commission would therefore be unable to fulfill its statutory and 
responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the WTO Basic 
Telecom Agreement.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Currently, the Commission uses processing rounds to review 
satellite applications. Under this process, when an application is 
filed, the commission establishes a cut-off date--that is, a deadline 
for other applicants to file mutually exclusive applications to be 
considered together with the lead application. If sufficient spectrum 
is not available to accommodate all the applicants, the Commission 
requests them to negotiate a way to accommodate all of their proposed 
systems. These negotiations can be long, and can cause substantial 
delay in licensing satellites.
    The Commission seeks comment on two options for revising the 
satellite licensing process. One option is a first-come, first-served 
approach. Under this approach, the commission would initially focus its 
attention on the lead application. Subsequently filed mutually 
exclusive applications would be included in a queue according to their 
date and time of filing. If for any reason the Commission could not 
grant the lead application, it would dismiss it and begin consideration 
of the next application in the queue. The Commission would continue 
this process until it could grant an application.
    The other option is modifying the current processing round 
procedure. The Commission seeks comment on placing a 60-day time limit 
on negotiations during processing rounds. The Commission also invites 
comment on criteria for selecting among applicants if they cannot reach 
agreement within 60 days. As an alternative to the proposed selection 
criteria, the Commission invites comment on dividing the available 
spectrum evenly among the qualified applicants participating in the 
processing round.
    The Commission also seeks comment on adopting several rule 
revisions regardless of whether it adopts a first-come, first-served 
approach or streamlines the current procedure. First, the Commission 
seeks comment on revising the satellite license information 
requirements. In particular, the Commission invites comment on 
expanding the proposed ``Schedule S,'' which would be an attachment to 
the current Form FCC 312 satellite license filing form. The Commission 
initially proposed Schedule S in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
IB Docket No. 00-248, 66 FR 1283. In addition to seeking comment on 
revising the satellite license information requirements, the Commission 
invites comment on (1) eliminating financial qualifications; (2) 
strengthening milestone requirements; (3) eliminating the anti-
trafficking rules; (4) requiring electronic filing for satellite 
license applications; and (5) streamlining the procedures for 
replacement satellite applications.
    Finally, the Commission solicits comment on revising the procedure 
for non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators to request access to the U.S. 
market. Some of the proposed revisions would codify certain procedural 
requirements currently applicable to non-U.S.-licensed satellite 
operators. The rest of the proposals in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking are intended to make the procedures applicable to non-U.S.-
licensed satellite operators consistent with the procedure applicable 
to U.S. satellite operators.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In 
addition, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The objective of the proposed rules is to enable the Commission to 
process applications for satellite licenses more quickly than it can 
under its current rules. These rule revisions are needed because delays 
in the current satellite licensing process may impose economic costs on 
society, and because recent changes in the International 
Telecommunication Union procedures require us to issue satellite 
licenses more quickly in order to meet U.S. international treaty 
obligations. In addition, the current satellite licensing process is 
not well suited to some satellite systems employing current technology. 
Finally, revision of the satellite licensing process will facilitate 
the Commission's efforts to meet its spectrum management 
responsibilities.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is supported by sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 
303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r).

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

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\2\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.''\3\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\4\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).\5\ A small 
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not

[[Page 12500]]

dominant in its field.''\6\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were 
approximately 275,801 small organizations.\7\ ``Small governmental 
jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, 
with a population of less than 50,000.''\8\ As of 1992, there were 
approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.\9\ This 
number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, 
or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.\10\ The Census 
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all 
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we 
estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities. Below, we further 
describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \3\ Id. 601(6).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless 
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are 
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \5\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \7\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
    \8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \9\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census 
of Governments.''
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would 
affect satellite operators, if adopted. The Commission has not 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to satellite 
operators. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is 
generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Satellite 
Telecommunications.\11\ This definition provides that a small entity is 
expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts.\12\ 
1997 Census Bureau data indicate that, for 1997, 273 satellite 
communication firms had annual receipts of under $10 million. In 
addition, 24 firms had receipts for that year of $10 million to 
$24,999,990.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in providing point-to-point 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.'' Small 
Business Administration, 1997 NAICS Definitions, NAICS 513340.
    \12\ 13 CFR 120.121, NAICS code 513340.
    \13\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Service: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size,'' Table 4, NAICS 513340 
(Issued Oct. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Commission records reveal that there are approximately 
240 space station operators licensed by this Commission. We do not 
request or collect annual revenue information, and thus are unable to 
estimate of the number of licensees that would constitute a small 
business under the SBA definition. Small businesses may not have the 
financial ability to become space station licensees because of the high 
implementation costs associated with satellite systems and services.

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

    With few exceptions, none of the proposed rules in this notice are 
expected to increase the reporting, record keeping and other compliance 
requirements of any telecommunications carrier. The exceptions are as 
follows: (1) We propose requiring space station applicants to provide 
the antenna gain pattern contour diagrams in the .gxt format required 
in submissions to the ITU. (2) We propose requiring space station 
applicants to specify power flux density (PFD) values at angles of 
arrival equal to 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 degrees. (3) We propose expanding 
Schedule S so that space station license applicants can provide 
information on polarization isolation, polarization switching, and 
alignment of polarization vectors relative to the equatorial plan. (4) 
We propose mandating that applicants certify that they will comply with 
the service area requirements of 47 CFR 25.143, 25.145, and 25.208, and 
the out-of-band emission requirements of 47 CFR 25.202.
    These proposed increased reporting requirements are necessary 
because we also propose substantially decreasing the administrative 
burdens associated with the current satellite licensing process. 
Specifically, there are two options proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for reforming the satellite licensing process. Under one of 
the options, the first-come, first-served approach, there may be an 
increased incentive to apply for a satellite license merely to sell it. 
In addition, under both options, we invite comment on eliminating our 
current method of preventing speculation, the anti-trafficking rule. 
Therefore, more detailed reporting requirements will be needed in the 
event that we adopt these proposed license procedure reforms to help us 
determine whether an applicant is seeking a satellite license merely 
for speculative purposes. The anti-trafficking rule is more 
administratively burdensome than the proposed increased data 
collections.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 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 small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    We have attempted not to foreclose any option. One alternative we 
have not embraced is the need to adopt any filing window in the event 
that we adopt a first-come, first-served procedure.\14\ We believe that 
the alternative of a first-come, first-served satellite licensing 
procedure without a filing window better serves the interests of all 
possible applicants, including small entity applicants. For instance, 
for some applicants, the first-come, first-served procedure may be less 
expensive than maintaining an application throughout the longer 
processing round procedure under the Commission's current rules.\15\ A 
filing window in a first-come, first-served satellite licensing 
procedure would tend to duplicate some of the delay inherent in the 
processing round procedure under the Commission's current rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at paragraph 44.
    \15\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at paragraph 41.
    \16\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at paragraph 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is hereby Adopted.
    The Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, 
Shall send a copy of this Order, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-6525 Filed 3-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P