[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