[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11642-11644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04028]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 16-408; FCC 20-119; FR ID 17497]


Updates Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service 
Systems and Related Matters

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) eliminates the domestic coverage requirement for non-
geostationary-satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) 
systems.

DATES: Effective February 26, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay DeCell, International Bureau, 
[email protected], 202-418-0803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order, FCC 20-119, adopted August 26, 2020, and released 
August 28, 2020. The full text of the Second Report and Order is 
available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-20-199A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 
proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments 
were received on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document eliminates, and thus does not contain new or revised, 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, 
therefore, it does not contain any new or modified ``information burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees'' pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Congressional Review Act

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

Synopsis

    In this Second Report and Order, the Commission eliminates the 
domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS systems. This action will 
provide greater regulatory certainty and operational flexibility to 
innovative NGSO FSS systems, while meeting the Commission's goal of 
promoting widespread NGSO service offerings.
    The Commission's rules currently require NGSO FSS systems to be 
capable of providing continuous service within the fifty states, Puerto 
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This domestic coverage requirement 
was originally adopted for mobile-satellite service (MSS) systems to 
promote efficient and ubiquitous service by satellite systems that are, 
as a general matter, unable to share spectrum. It was subsequently 
expanded to NGSO FSS systems to maximize use of a global spectrum 
resource allocated to this service, based on the assumption that NGSO 
FSS systems were inherently global in nature.
    Since the Commission adopted its NGSO FSS domestic coverage 
requirements in 1997 and 2002, a number of NGSO FSS systems have been 
proposed that were not inherently global in nature. These systems have 
been designed to meet the requirements of certain underserved areas, 
where satellite services in general are especially valuable, such as in 
Alaska or on islands and ships in the Pacific Ocean. In addition, not 
all NGSO FSS systems may provide general consumer or enterprise 
broadband services. Instead, they may focus on a narrower set of 
services for which there is no significant nationwide demand or 
rationale for imposing nationwide coverage for these services. 
Furthermore, in 47 CFR 25.261 the Commission has developed new, more 
efficient sharing criteria among NGSO FSS systems to encourage multiple 
systems to operate in different areas of the United States 
simultaneously. These spectrum sharing possibilities among NGSO FSS 
systems also allow both broad coverage and specialized coverage systems 
to coexist. Accordingly, one NGSO FSS system with only partial coverage 
of the United States does not preclude another NGSO FSS system from 
covering the remainder of the United States or from providing full U.S. 
coverage. Indeed, allowing targeted or regional coverage may promote 
more intense and efficient use of this spectrum by enabling geographic 
sharing in addition to other forms of sharing already in use.
    Retaining the domestic coverage rule requires design tradeoffs that 
may hamper or preclude innovative satellite system designs, which could 
otherwise better address market needs. Eliminating this rule serves the 
public interest by removing this unnecessary limit on design and 
operational flexibility, which imposes an artificial constraint on such 
technological evolution and innovation.
    Cumulatively, NGSO FSS systems that have already been approved by 
the Commission will provide complete coverage of the United States, and 
the long reach of satellite technology, with the particular advantages 
of lower-latency associated with NGSO FSS systems, provide inherent 
incentives for future NGSO FSS systems to likewise provide coverage 
across the United States, especially the underserved areas. For 
example, the domestic coverage requirements were waived for the first, 
currently operating NGSO FSS system, but this system was later expanded 
to provide full coverage of the United States not because of a 
regulatory imposition but growing business rationales. We are therefore 
not persuaded by parties claiming that elimination of the domestic 
coverage requirement would weaken incentives for NGSO FSS operators to 
provide service in rural and remote areas, notably in Alaska.
    For similar reasons, we disagree with commenters who argue that, 
absent the domestic coverage requirement, NGSO FSS operators will 
concentrate on high-population areas to the exclusion of rural and 
remote areas. NGSO FSS

[[Page 11643]]

satellite technology is relatively efficient at serving rural and 
remote areas when compared with alternative, terrestrial services. NGSO 
FSS operators have more of an incentive to serve areas which 
terrestrial providers find it more costly to serve, and less of an 
incentive to serve high-population areas which already have multiple 
terrestrial suppliers that would be more challenging to compete 
against. So while some NGSO FSS operators might not provide coverage 
throughout the United States, they have the incentive to concentrate 
their efforts in those areas where they have a cost advantage, 
typically in areas where there might be fewer terrestrial providers, 
and where those terrestrial providers might have higher costs per 
subscriber than in more highly populated areas.
    Given these incentives and the coverage provided by already-
approved NGSO FSS systems, we also do not agree that, in eliminating 
this requirement, we should require NGSO FSS system applicants that 
will not serve the entire United States to demonstrate in their 
application that they will provide substantial service to the rural 
areas within their coverage area. Like with the domestic coverage 
requirement itself, without this requirement, we believe that systems 
already in operation or proposed will continue to provide coverage of 
all of the United States because of the technical and financial 
advantages that NGSO FSS satellite systems have in providing services 
to sparsely populated areas when compared with terrestrial alternatives 
that are relatively more costly to deploy in these areas. And providing 
greater flexibility to NGSO FSS system designers will allow greater 
deployment and more cost-effective solutions for consumers, including 
in rural areas.
    We also disagree with one comment that the domestic coverage 
requirement is mandated by section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (the ``Act''). The Commission has authorized a large variety 
of GSO satellite networks and terrestrial wireless systems without ever 
interpreting the Act to require that a single wireless applicant cover 
the entire United States. Nor did the Commission so interpret the Act 
when adopting the particular NGSO FSS coverage requirements at issue 
here. Indeed, the deregulatory and procompetitive purposes of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 suggest we should welcome competition in 
all its forms. The Commission fulfills its mission to ``to make 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States . 
. . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio 
communication service'' by adopting rules and licensing policies that 
facilitate the authorization of multiple, innovative NGSO FSS systems 
capable of serving a variety of needs throughout the nation.
    We also reject the approach of considering waivers on a case-by-
case basis, as suggested by some commenters, as this would create 
regulatory uncertainty for NGSO FSS system proponents while they design 
systems that will ultimately seek a waiver. Even greater regulatory 
uncertainty, and higher costs of deployment, would result from 
Commission efforts to force the re-engineering of a satellite 
constellation until it complied with the domestic coverage requirement.
    Instead, in light of NGSO FSS systems which have been licensed or 
granted U.S. market access to address underserved communities, 
including in Alaska, we conclude that affording satellite operators 
regulatory certainty and design flexibility will best serve the 
interests of connectivity across American communities. We therefore 
eliminate the domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS systems.
    We will apply the rules and procedures we adopt in this Report and 
Order to pending space station applications and petitions for U.S. 
market access. In addition, we will allow current licensees and market 
access recipients to submit a simple letter request to modify 
particular conditions in their grants consistent with the rule changes 
adopted in this Order. The Commission may apply new procedures to 
pending applications if doing so does not impair the rights an 
applicant possessed when it filed its application, increase an 
applicant's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties on 
applicants with respect to transactions already completed. Applicants 
do not gain any vested right merely by filing an application, and the 
simple act of filing an application is not considered a ``transaction 
already completed'' for purposes of this analysis. Accordingly, 
applying our new rules and procedures to pending space station 
applications will not impair the rights any applicant had at the time 
it filed its application. Nor will doing so increase an applicant's 
liability for past conduct.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the RFA, an IRFA was incorporated in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the 
IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms 
to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    The Order repeals a domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS 
satellite systems in order to provide additional regulatory certainty 
and flexibility, while encouraging the development of innovative 
satellite systems.

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

    There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.

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

    Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 
RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed 
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any 
comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will 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 rules adopted herein. 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. Below, we 
describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be 
affected by adoption of the final rules.

E. Satellite Telecommunications

    This category comprises firms ``primarily engaged in providing 
telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving

[[Page 11644]]

communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling 
satellite telecommunications.'' The category has a small business size 
standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA 
rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there 
were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. 
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite 
telecommunications providers are small entities.
    The rule changes adopted in this Order will affect space station 
applicants and licensees. Generally, space stations cost hundreds of 
millions of dollars to construct, launch, and operate. Consequently, we 
do not anticipate that any space station operators are small entities 
that would be affected by our actions.

F. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    The Order adopts rule changes that would affect compliance 
requirements for space station operators. As noted above, these parties 
rarely qualify as small entities.
    The Order eliminates a geographic service requirement that 
restricts the design possibilities of certain NGSO FSS satellite 
systems. This action is designed to achieve the Commission's mandate to 
regulate in the public interest while minimizing burdens on all 
affected parties, including small entities.

G. 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 developing its approach, which may include 
the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment 
of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that 
take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    In this Order, the Commission removes the domestic coverage 
requirement for NGSO FSS satellite systems. This action will reduce 
burdens on the affected licensees, including any small entities.

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

    None.
    Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Second 
Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including 
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 
Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 7(a), 10, 303, 308(b), 
and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 157(a), 160, 303, 308(b), 316, that this Second Report and 
Order is adopted and part 25 of the Commission's rules are amended.
    It is further ordered that this Second Report and Order and the 
rules as amended herein will become effective as of the date of 
publication of a summary in the Federal Register.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  25.146  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  25.146, remove and reserve paragraph (b).

0
3. Revise Sec.  25.217(b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.217  Default service rules.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite licenses, except as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for which the application was filed 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec.  25.157 after August 27, 
2003, authorizing operations in a frequency band for which the 
Commission has not adopted frequency band-specific service rules at the 
time the license is granted, the licensee will be required to comply 
with the technical requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of 
this section, notwithstanding the frequency bands specified in these 
sections: Sec. Sec.  25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except NGSO FSS systems) and 
(iii) (except NGSO FSS systems), 25.204(e), and 25.210(f) and (i).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-04028 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P