[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 48 (Thursday, March 13, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11918-11931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-03993]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[SB: MD Docket No. 24-85; FCC 25-11; FR ID 283344]
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) that seeks additional comments on revising the regulatory fees
for space and earth station payors.
DATES: Submit comments on or before March 27, 2025; and reply comments
on or before April 11, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 24-85,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format
[[Page 11919]]
documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
[email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Duall, Space Bureau, at (202)
418-1103, or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.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 hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
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.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of the FNPRM is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. This FNPRM continues an examination of how the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) assesses regulatory fees for
space and earth station fee payors consistent with section 9 of
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act), 47
U.S.C 159. This examination seeks to develop further the record on
proposals that were initially made earlier in the Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, 89 FR 20582 (Mar. 25, 2024), but which
were not adopted in fiscal year (FY) 2024.
II. Background
2. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159, the Commission must assess and
collect regulatory fees each fiscal 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 ``(A) reflect
unexpected increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the
payment of such fees; and (B) result in the collection of the amount
required'' by the Commission's annual appropriation. Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 159A(b)(1), the Commission must notify Congress immediately upon
adoption of any adjustment. The Commission will also propose amendments
to the fee 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.
3. 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: (1) Space Stations (Geostationary
Orbit); (2) Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex; (3)
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other; and (4) Space Station
(Small Satellites). For the purposes of inclusion in the ``Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex'' category, ``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). Similarly, ``Small Satellites''
are defined as space stations licensed pursuant to the streamlined
small satellite process contained in 47 CFR 25.103 and 25.122. The
Space Stations (Small Satellites) category also includes ``small
spacecraft'' licensed pursuant to the analogous streamlined procedures
of 47 CFR 25.103 and 25.123. In addition, there is a single category of
earth station payors--Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only.
4. Two categories of regulatory fees were initially established by
Congress for space stations fee payors in the initial statutory
schedule of regulatory fees adopted in 1993: (1) Space Station (per
operational station in geosynchronous orbit); and (2) Space Station
(per system in low-earth orbit). Although the latter category was
subsequently renamed in our rules to include all space stations in non-
geostationary orbit, these two categories remained the sole space
station regulatory fee categories for more than 25 years. Over the last
five fiscal years, however, the Commission has found it necessary to
amend repeatedly its categories of space station regulatory fees for
space stations, as well as the methodologies for assessing those
regulatory fees, in order to reflect more closely the requirements of
section 9 of the Act.
5. In 2019, the Commission created a new space station regulatory
fee category for small satellites and spacecraft that operate in non-
geostationary orbits, separate from the fee assessed for NGSO space
stations. The following year, in 2020, the Commission included non-U.S.
licensed space stations with U.S. market access within the fee
categories for GSO and NGSO space stations, finding that doing so was
necessary to level the playing field since non-U.S. licensed space
stations benefit from the Commission's regulatory activities in much
the same manner as U.S. licensees. At the same time, the Commission
reapportioned regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO space stations,
allocating 80% of space station regulatory fees to GSO space stations
and 20% to NGSO space stations.
6. In 2021, the Commission again revisited its space station fees
categories, this time to separate the NGSO space stations fee category
into two separate categories--``less complex'' NGSO space stations and
``other'' NGSO
[[Page 11920]]
space stations. The Commission adopted a 20/80 allocation between the
``less complex'' and ``other'' NGSO space station fee categories within
the NGSO fee category.
7. In 2022, the Commission adopted the methodology for calculating
the regulatory fee for the small satellite category. The Commission
adopted a methodology whereby small satellite regulatory fees were set
at 1/20th of the average of the NGSO ``less complex'' and ``other''
space station regulatory fees. In addition, the Commission determined
that it was appropriate to assess regulatory fees on small satellites
on a per license basis, rather than on the per system basis used for
``less complex'' and ``other'' NGSO space station categories.
8. In June 2024, the Commission amended the methodology used to
calculate regulatory fees for small satellites by no longer calculating
it as a percentage of the NGSO ``less complex'' and ``other'' space
station fee categories, and instead set the regulatory fee for ``Space
Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR
part 25) (Small Satellite)'' for FY 2024 at the level set for FY 2023
($12,215), with annual adjustments thereafter to reflect the percentage
change in the FCC appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation
percentage from the previous fiscal year. It also determined to assess
regulatory fees for space stations that are principally used for
Rendezvous & Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS),
including Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV), using the existing fee
category for ``small satellites'' on an interim basis until the
Commission can develop more experience in how these space stations will
be regulated.
9. Most recently, in September 2024, the Commission revised the
allocation of space station regulatory fees using the existing
methodology for calculating their proportional share of regulatory fees
from 80% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space
station fee payors and 20% of the space station regulatory fees being
allocated to NGSO space station fee payors to 60% of space station
regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space station payors and 40% to
NGSO space station payors (that is, changing from an ``80/20 GSO/NGSO
split'' to a ``60/40 GSO/NGSO split''). It also adopted a re-
apportionment of regulatory fees between earth and space station payors
based on the percentage of direct FTEs involved in the licensing and
regulation of each category.
10. In the June and September 2024 orders, the Commission did not
act on the remaining proposals that were made in the Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. Those proposals include assessing
regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational, space and earth
stations; using an alternative methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees; establishing tiers within existing NGSO space station
fee categories based on the number of space stations in the system; and
creating new categories of earth station regulatory fees. The
Commission instead concluded that action on these issues may benefit
from further consideration, and stated that further comment on these
remaining proposals would be sought in a further notice of proposed
rulemaking.
III. Discussion
A. Assessment of Fees on Authorized, but not Operational, Space and
Earth Stations
11. The Commission seeks comment on a proposal to assess regulatory
fees on all authorized space and earth stations beginning in FY 2025,
not only on stations that are operational, as is currently the case.
The Commission tentatively concluded in the Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fees NPRM that the objectives of section 9 of the Act would
be better met by assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth
station is licensed or authorized, rather than, as now, waiting until a
space or earth station becomes operational. The Commission seeks
additional comment on whether to assess regulatory fees on authorized,
not just operational, stations in time to make it effective for the
assessment and collection of FY 2025 regulatory fees.
12. 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 regulatory fees
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 our rules. The Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on whether the objectives
of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory
fees when the stations are authorized, rather than when they are
operational.
13. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM examined if
there is any statutory bar to assessing regulatory fees once a station
is authorized, rather than when it is operational. The origin for
assessing regulatory fees on space stations when they become
operational, rather than when licensed, appears to be the text of the
original fee schedule contained in section 9(g) of the Act from 1993.
Congress deleted section 9(g) in the 2018 RAY BAUM's Act. Both the new
and old versions of section 9 explicitly provides the Commission
authority to adjust its regulatory fees by rule if it determines that
the schedule of fees requires amendment. No comments were received in
response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that
identified any statutory bar to assessing regulatory fees on
authorized, but not operational, stations. Nor did any commenter object
to the Commission's tentative conclusion.
14. The majority of comments in response to the Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees NPRM strongly supports the proposal to assess
regulatory fees on authorized stations, rather than on operational
stations. As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM, significant FTE resources are involved with the licensing of
space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational.
The Commission also observed that a licensee or grantee already
benefits from the substantial FTE resources used to review and grant
the application or petition to operate a station, 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. 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 such situations, fee
payors with systems that become operational earlier than other licensed
systems bear the entire fee burden of regulatory work done on behalf of
all regulated systems. Other comments in response to the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM do not support the proposal to
assess regulatory fees on all non-operational stations.
15. The Commission tentatively concludes that the concerns raised
regarding costs, financial risks, and the stifling of innovation do not
outweigh the need to assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same
class who benefit from the Commission's FTE efforts. While the
Commission understands the desire to delay assessing regulatory fees
[[Page 11921]]
on a satellite operator until the system becomes operational and
generates revenue, it does not believe that this best comports with the
statute nor is it fair to other fee payors in the same category.
Moreover, assessing fees on all authorized space stations is consistent
with the requirements of the Act. In section 9 of the Communications
Act, Congress prescribed a method of collecting an amount equal to the
full S&E appropriation by keying the regulatory fee assessment to the
Commission's FTE burden. As a result, the fee assigned to each
regulatory fee category relates to the FTE burden associated with
oversight and regulation of each regulatory fee category by the
relevant core bureaus. The Space Bureau FTEs exercise oversight over
all authorized space stations regardless of whether they are
operational at the start of the fiscal year. Broadening the base of
regulatory fee payors to include authorized space and earth stations,
reduces the per unit measure fee for everyone in the same class. The
Commission tentatively finds that this broadening of the base of payors
to all authorized space stations would be an important component of the
alternative methodology for assessing space and earth station
regulatory fees that was proposed in the Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fees FNPRM. This is because including authorized space
stations could be more administrable to assess the number of authorized
space stations in a NGSO system than the number of actual operational
space stations at any given time. That is, the administrability of the
alternative methodology could be severely reduced if the current policy
of assessing regulatory fees only on operational space stations is
maintained, since it would be necessary to ascertain the operational
status of space stations in each NGSO system in order to calculate
regulatory fees. The Commission seeks comment on these observations,
tentative findings, and tentative conclusions.
16. Kepler urges that FTE resources spent on pre-operational
licensing activities would be better recovered through filing/
application fees than through regulatory fees. Fees collected pursuant
to our section 8 authority are deposited in the general fund of the
U.S. Treasury and are accordingly not available as an offsetting
collection for our annual S&E appropriation. The Commission continues
to tentatively conclude that the objectives of section 9 of the Act
would be better served by assessing regulatory fees on authorized, not
just operational, space stations, and the Commission seeks further
comment on this tentative conclusion.
17. The Commission seeks comment on specific ways that the proposal
to assess regulatory fees on authorized space and earth stations could
be implemented. Should the Commission continue to provide a list of all
space stations that are eligible to be assessed regulatory fees in an
appendix to the annual notice of proposed rulemaking for the assessment
and collection of regulatory fee for the fiscal year? Or is it
unnecessary to continue to publish this list in the notice of proposed
rulemaking since the list of authorized space stations is already
publicly available via the Space Bureau's Approved Space Station List?
The Commission also seeks comment on any changes that may be necessary
to the format of the information maintained on the Space Bureau's
Approved Space Station List if we were to rely on it as a means of
assessing regulatory fees in the future. Should the Approved Space
Station List include a column specifying the number of authorized space
stations for each approved NGSO system? In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should assess regulatory fees on authorized
space and earth stations regardless of when in the fiscal year the
authorizations are granted. The Commission currently assesses
regulatory fees on stations that are operational as of the start of the
fiscal year (i.e., October 1). The Commission also seeks comment
whether other points in time or periods of time should be referenced
when establishing that fees are due for a given fiscal year. Should the
Commission assess regulatory fees on stations authorized at the start
of the fiscal year and/or authorized for more than a certain percentage
of the fiscal year--half of the fiscal year, a quarter of the fiscal
year, or some other unit of the fiscal year? What procedure best
comports with the statutory requirements of section 9 and the
Commission's overarching goals of a fair, administrable, and
sustainable regulatory fee system?
18. If the Commission adopts the proposal to assess regulatory fees
on authorized space and earth stations, would it be fair,
administrable, and sustainable to adopt separate fee categories for
space and earth stations that are authorized, but not fully
operational? Kepler suggests that the FTE burdens associated with
licensing and oversight of authorized, but non-operational, stations
are less than those associated with operational stations. As observed
in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, substantial FTE
resources in the Space Bureau are dedicated to the review and action on
space and earth station applications, and the FNPRM tentatively
concludes that entities with authorized, but not yet operational
stations, still benefit from these resources, as well as from a wide-
range of regulatory benefits, utilizing both direct and indirect FTEs.
The Commission seeks comment on Kepler's suggestion, with particular
focus on how a separate fee category for authorized, but not
operational, space and earth stations could be calculated and
administered, if adopted.
19. The Commission also seeks comment specifically on whether it is
feasible to assess a separate category of annual regulatory fees for
space stations that remain authorized solely to conduct telemetry,
tracking, and command (TT&C) operations, for example in order to
complete end-of-life disposal plans pursuant to orbital debris
mitigation plans approved by the Commission as part of the
authorization process. In these instances, the space stations are still
authorized by the Commission because their license has not terminated,
and they continue to be subject to regulatory oversight by the
Commission for compliance with their end-of-life disposal plans. Astro
Digital asserts that ``licensees of the deorbiting space systems are
not providing any satellite service and, accordingly, not benefitting
from any FCC regulatory activities.'' Astro Digital states that
requiring an entity to pay regulatory fees for potentially years after
end of commercial service could impose significant costs on space
station operators. The Commission seeks comment on whether such space
stations authorized only to conduct TT&C differs, if at all, in the
context of assessing regulatory fees from authorized but not yet
operational space stations. If there are differences would such
differences, in the context of section 9 of the Communications Act,
support a separate fee category for either situation? The Commission
particularly seeks comment on how such categories could be calculated
and administered, as well as how they could fit into existing space
station fee categories or the alternative methodology for assessing
space station regulatory fees.
20. The Commission seeks further comment on the proposal to assess
regulatory fees in instances where there are separately identifiable
space station authorizations, but which the Commission currently does
not consider the space stations to be separably operational and
therefore not subject to regulatory fees. For example, space stations
classified as on-orbit spares
[[Page 11922]]
currently are not considered to be operational space stations separate
from the space stations that they are spares for and are not assessed
regulatory fees. Another category is space stations that are both
licensed by the Commission and also granted U.S. market access for
certain operations of the space stations, which currently are assessed
only a single regulatory fee rather than one for each authorization,
each under a different call sign. In these instances, however, the
Commission has observed that separable direct FTEs are utilized to
license and regulate these space stations. The Commission seeks further
comment on this observation.
21. In the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, the
Commission reevaluated a prior tentative conclusion that a space
station attached to a GSO space station as part of Rendezvous and
Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) operations would
not be assessed 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 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. Instead, the
Commission tentatively concluded just the opposite in the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, that 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 our 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. The Commission
reaffirms this tentative conclusion that assessing a regulatory fee on
authorized space stations performing RPO or OOS operations is more
administrable, since otherwise the fee status of the RPO or OOS space
station 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. The Commission seeks
further comment on this tentative conclusion.
22. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to assess
regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational, space stations in
FY 2025, or whether to delay such an assessment until FY 2026, or
later, in order to give the Commission and regulatees time to adjust to
the change in fee methodology. For example, if alterations to the
information maintained in Space Bureau's Approved Space Station List
are needed to implement the proposed change, would a delay until FY
2026 better allow such alterations to be made? Additionally, would
delay of assessing regulatory fees on authorized, rather than
operational, space stations until FY 2026 give regulatees the chance to
amend applications or modify existing licenses or grants of U.S. market
access to bring the number of authorized space stations more in line
with the number of their operational space stations?
B. Alternative Methodology for Assessing Space Station Regulatory Fees
23. The Commission seeks further comment on the proposal to assess
regulatory fees for space stations using an alternative methodology
from the one currently being used. Specifically, the Commission seeks
additional comment on whether to adopt the alternative methodology that
was proposed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt the alternative
methodology for assessing space station fees beginning for FY 2025. The
Commission also tentatively concludes that the alternative methodology
better achieves the objectives of section 9 of the Act, but seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion.
1. Challenges Leading to Alternative Fee Methodology Proposal
24. The development of the current space station fee categories has
occupied considerable time and efforts, and space station regulatory
fees have featured prominently in every proceeding to assess and
collect annual regulatory fees since fiscal year 2019. These efforts
have required Commission staff to spend considerable FTE resources
every year reviewing and evaluating space station regulatory fees.
25. Under the current methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees, the Commission first determines a percentage of the
Space Bureau's FTE resources allocated to the licensing and regulation
of GSO space stations compared to NGSO space stations. This requires
regular reevaluation of the share of work devoted to each category,
which is in turn endogenous to changes taking place in the satellite
industry. Without spending considerable FTE resources on this exercise,
the Commission could be faced with a GSO/NGSO allocation that does not
fairly reflect the share of FTE resources attributed to each payor
category.
26. In addition to reviewing the GSO/NGSO allocation, the
Commission further determines the percentage of FTE resources allocated
between ``less complex'' NGSO systems and all other NGSO systems. As
acknowledged repeatedly by the Commission, this step requires
challenging determinations of the expected FTE burdens to be allocated
to the various classes of space stations. The Commission must also
often respond to repeated challenges about which factors determine
whether an NGSO system is ``less complex'' or not, and if additional
NGSO space stations could be included in this category. Moreover,
regulatees argue that the ``other'' category for NGSO space stations is
too broad, leading to smaller systems with fewer space stations paying
the same regulatory fee as larger systems with many times the number of
space stations. The Commission must also often consider new types of
space stations, and whether they can be assessed regulatory fees under
an existing category, or if creation of a new category of regulatory
fees is needed. Accordingly, it is increasingly difficult to assess
regulatory fees using orbital parameters as a primary means of
allocation of FTE resources and the determination of ``complexity'' as
a secondary means of allocation among NGSO space stations given the
increasing diversity of the space stations being licensed and
regulated.
27. As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM, 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 will increase the share
of regulatory fees to be assessed on space station regulatees, compared
to the number of FTEs regulating space stations in the International
Bureau. Accordingly, there is increased importance now in examining how
FTEs are apportioned among the categories of Space Bureau fee payors to
ensure that the fee apportionment
[[Page 11923]]
methodology is administrable, fair, and sustainable.
28. Assessing regulatory fees for space stations is particularly
challenging due to the nature of the space stations that are authorized
and regulated by the Commission. First, the operations of space
stations are not homogenous. They differ in the orbits and spectrum
used, in terms of the quantity of spectrum used, which particular
frequency bands are utilized, and whether these frequencies are
utilized on a primary, secondary, or other basis. They also differ in
the number of space stations that can operate under a single
authorization, with one space station authorized per GSO call sign, up
to ten space stations authorized per NGSO small satellite license, and
anywhere from one to potentially tens of thousands under a single NGSO
space station system. Thus, there are myriad factors that could
distinguish one class of space stations from another, which in turn
affects the factors that can be considered in the regulation of such
space stations. Second, there is a relatively low number of units on
which to assess and collect space station regulatory fees. Under the
current methodology, for FY 2024 there were 16 units of small satellite
fee payors, 140 units of GSO space stations, 6 units of ``less
complex'' NGSO space stations, and 11 units of other NGSO space
stations. Thus, any increase in the amount of regulatory fees assessed
for space stations typically must be borne by a relatively small number
of units, a situation that is intensified if an NGSO system is able to
consolidate several individual space station authorizations into a
single system, counted as a single unit for regulatory fee purposes, as
is currently the case today.
29. In addition, many of the methods for assessing and collecting
regulatory fees for Commission regulatees outside of the Space Bureau's
purview appear ill-suited for space station regulatory fees. The Space
and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on a range of
these alternate methods, including assessing regulatory fees per
subscriber, per unit of spectrum authorized, and per class of service
authorized. It identified potential difficulties with use of each of
these alternate methods, and no commenter in response to the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM endorsed the use of any of them, by
themselves, as methods for assessing space station regulatory fees. The
combination of these alternate methods to assess regulatory fees, such
as establishing a matrix of regulatory fees based on multiple factors--
for example the amount of spectrum used and services provided--could be
challenging to administer because space stations rarely operate in a
single frequency band or provide a single type of service. The types
and purposes of space stations that seek authorization for spectrum
usage by the Commission continue to expand and diversify in ways that
make it increasingly unlikely to fit space stations used for novel
space activities within regulatory fee categories tailored to existing
narrow-defined factors such as services provided or nature of spectrum
usage. The Commission tentatively concludes that using subscriber
counts, units of spectrum authorized, or class of service, either
individually or in combination, is not a useful unit measure for
assessing regulatory fees on space and earth stations and may not
reflect the FTE burdens of oversight and regulation of these stations.
The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
2. Implementation of Alternative Fee Categories and Methodology
30. The Commission seeks further comment on whether to implement an
alternative methodology largely as it was proposed in the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. Under this alternative methodology,
the Commission would first determine the Space Bureau's share of the
total 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 FNPRM 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. The alternative methodology also would
preserve a separate fee category for Space Stations (per license/call
sign) (Small Satellite), with the inclusion of RPO, OOS, and OTV space
stations, on an interim basis, in this existing fee category, as
adopted in the Space Station Regulatory Fee Order in June 2024, 89 FR
60572 (Jul. 26, 2024). The amount assessed for regulatory fees for the
Space Stations (Small Satellite) fee category would be subtracted from
the amount of space station regulatory fees to be assessed on all
remaining space station payors. Under the alternative methodology, fees
would be assessed on authorized space stations, not just operational
space stations.
31. The alternative methodology would establish a common initial
unit of regulatory fees 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 of [to be determined] or Fewer
Authorized Space Stations in Non-Geostationary Orbit).'' The
alternative methodology creates a single unit for assessing a share of
Space Bureau FTE resources allocated to the licensing and regulation of
all space stations. It recognizes, however, the difference in GSO and
NGSO space stations in that a single GSO space station is not the same
as a system of potentially hundreds or thousands of NGSO space
stations. Accordingly, the unit provides for more than one space
station to be included in the category for an NGSO system. In the Space
and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, the number proposed for this
single unit was 100 space stations. The Commission seeks further
comment on this proposal.
32. The Commission also recognizes that NGSO systems can be
authorized to include substantially more than 100 space stations,
potentially in the thousands or tens of thousands, although such
systems become less typical as the number of space stations authorized
in the system increases. This is likely due to the fact that NGSO
systems with a larger number of authorized space stations require the
larger number of space stations to provide service in a large
geographic area (usually global) and provide more transmission capacity
in order to provide high-data rate, two-way connectivity. In addition,
a larger number of earth stations are needed to support global, high-
data rate two-way connectivity, and larger spectrum authorizations are
required to provide the spectrum bandwidth needed for the desired
services. More financial resources are generally required to construct,
launch, and operate an NGSO system as the number of space stations
authorized in a system increase. This is not always the case, however,
and there are NGSO systems with a relatively large number of authorized
space stations that are not used for high-data rate, two-way
connectivity, and which may be relatively inexpensive to construct,
launch, and operate. But as a general principle, a larger number of
space stations authorized in an NGSO system correlates to the rarity of
such systems due to the increased higher financial resources needed to
construct,
[[Page 11924]]
launch, and operate the system, and correlates to the use of such a
system to provide services with ubiquitous, high-data rate
connectivity.
33. The alternative methodology would account for these NGSO
systems with more than 100 authorized space stations. The Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM proposed to create additional tiers
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. For example, 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 would be assessed to systems with 101-500 authorized space
stations, and an additional unit would 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 would be 1-100 authorized space
stations, the first additional unit would be assessed to systems with
101-1,000 authorized space stations, and an additional unit would then
be assessed for additional block of 1,000 authorized space stations.
Thus, NGSO systems with larger numbers of authorized space stations
would be assessed higher regulatory fees in the aggregate than those
with a smaller number of authorized space stations, although the per
unit of regulatory fees would be the same for all space stations,
whether GSO or NGSO. The Commission seeks further comment on this
proposal, as well the observations that the Commission made in the
Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM about the impact of this
proposal compared to the existing methodology for assessing space
station regulatory fees.
34. The Commission seeks further comment on whether 500 or 1,000
authorized space stations per NGSO system per tier is the appropriate
metric for assessing additional units for regulatory fee assessments.
Although Iridium supports tiers that use increments of 500 additional
satellites after the initial tier of 100, the Commission otherwise
received a limited record on this issue in response to the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, and thus the Commission seeks
further comment on this question. Is 500 or 1,000 additional satellites
the appropriate number, or is another number more appropriate? Should
the number of authorized NGSO space stations per additional tier be
decided with the objective of achieving the same proportionate share of
Space Bureau FTE resources between GSO and NGSO space station fee
payors that we determined was the case for FY 2024 (that is, 60 percent
of space station FTE resources allocated to GSO space station fee
payors and 40 percent allocated to NGSO space station fee payors), at
least as an initial starting point for the alternative methodology? Or
is there another basis for determining the number of authorized NGSO
space stations per additional tier to reflect FTE resources and achieve
the Commission's goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable
regulatory fees?
35. The Commission recognizes that this alternative methodology
differs from the existing methodology for assessing space stations
fees, particularly for NGSO space stations. In particular, the
alternative methodology would discontinue the use the ``complexity'' of
an NGSO system as method for allocating regulatory fees. Assessing
regulatory fees on NGSO space station systems based on ``less complex''
or ``other'' is a relatively recent development and has proven to be
challenging to implement, since the ``complexity'' of a NGSO space
station system can involve myriad factors, such as the spectrum sharing
environment of frequency bands desired to be used, the quantity of
spectrum used, the services to be provided, and the orbital parameters
utilized. Adjudicating the complexity of all these factors, which
present themselves differently among NGSO systems, takes significant
staff resources and has involved repeated revisiting in annual
regulatory fee proceedings. In addition, some comments suggest that
that policy determinations involved in the FCC's regulation of space
stations should be incorporated into our regulatory fee proceeding in
order to assess fees.
36. The alternative methodology would discontinue attempts to use
any proxy for the allocation of FTE resources other than number of
space stations that are authorized. All FTEs involved with space
station licensing and regulation in the Space Bureau are assessed
equally among all units of space station fee payors, without any a
priori determinations about the allocation of FTE resources between GSO
or NGSO space stations, or between different types of NGSO systems,
other than the number of authorized space stations in the system. This
allocation of Space Bureau resources matches the practice of the staff
within the Space Bureau, which generally does not work in isolation on
any particular type of space station licensing or regulation, but may
work on different types and at different levels of intensity, from
month-to-month or year-to-year. Thus, it may be reasonable to allocate
all of Space Bureau resources that are allocated to space station
licensing and regulation to all space stations and to use the
alternative methodology to establish an objectively measurable metric
by which to assess a proportional share of Space Bureau space station
regulatory fees. This alternative methodology may have substantial
benefits compared to the existing methodology, even if it were to be
amended as proposed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on these benefits.
37. The Commission acknowledges that using the number of space
stations in an NGSO system to assess regulatory fees may not always
correlate perfectly to the FTE resources involved in licensing and
regulating a particular NGSO system. There may always be outlier
situations where an NGSO system with a handful of authorized space
stations could require more FTE resources to license and regulate than
an NGSO system with 1000 or more authorized space stations. The
Commission's methodology for calculating regulatory fees, however, need
not reach scientific precision and instead must simply be reasonable.
38. The Commission seeks comment on whether fee payors under NGSO
space station fee categories, other than fee payors in the Small
Satellites fee category, would continue to be assessed regulatory fees
on a per system, rather than per call sign basis. Under this approach,
if an NGSO system consists of space stations authorized under multiple
call signs, it would not be assessed an initial unit for each call
sign, but rather would be assessed an initial unit for its entire
system, but all space stations in the system authorized under all call
signs would be counted to assess additional units per tier of 500 or
1,000 space stations, as proposed above. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
39. The Commission seeks further comment on variations of the
alternative methodology that were raised in the Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fees NPRM, as well as in comments in response to it.
Kin[eacute]is proposes a multi-
[[Page 11925]]
tiered approach to the alternative fee methodology that incorporates
the aggregate authorized on-orbit mass of space stations as an
additional factor to the number of authorized space stations when
assessing space station regulatory fees. Kuiper proposes a modified
version of the alternative methodology, which would initially maintain
the relative share of Space Bureau regulatory fees that the existing
methodology places on fee payors. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals and whether and how the variations suggested in these
comments could be incorporated as part of the alternative fee
methodology.
3. Benefits of Alternative Fee Methodology
40. As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM, this alternative methodology may be more administrable, fair, and
sustainable than the existing methodology. Some comments received in
response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM support
this expectation. Other comments express support for further
examination of the alternative methodology, either as originally
proposed or as modified, through a further notice and comment
proceeding. SpaceX does not agree that the alternative methodology
would be more administrable, fair, and sustainable than the existing
methodology. The Commission seeks further comment on the potential
benefits of the proposed alternative fee methodology, both as set forth
in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, and as further
elucidated below.
41. The Commission tentatively finds that the main potential
benefit of the proposed alternative fee methodology is that it resolves
the allocation of Space Bureau FTE resources among various types of
space station fee payors in a manner that does not require the
Commission to make repeated determinations as to the percentage of FTE
resources attributable to various categories of fee payors. Instead,
once space stations are authorized, they are allocated a unit of share
of the Space Bureau's FTE resources attributable to space station
licensing and regulation. If the authorized space station is GSO, it
would increase the percentage share of overall space station fees
attributable to GSO space stations. If it is an NGSO system, it would
increase the overall percentage share of NGSO space stations.
Accordingly, it would no longer be necessary for the Commission to
calculate the percentage share of Space Bureau FTE resources
attributable to GSO versus NGSO licensing and regulation; the
percentage share would automatically adjust itself as space stations
are added, or as authorizations terminate and licensed space stations
are removed. Similarly, because NGSO space stations would not be
assessed a single regulatory fee unit, but may be assessed multiple
units of regulatory fees as the number of authorized space stations in
the system increase, the proportion of fees allocated among NGSO
systems also would automatically adjust, and NGSO systems with a
substantially larger number of authorized space stations would pay a
larger share of space station fees than NGSO systems with a small
number of authorized space stations. The Commission tentatively finds
that the balance of fees between GSO and NGSO, as well as among NGSO
systems, would automatically be accomplished. The Commission seeks
comment on this potential benefit.
42. In addition, every additional authorized space station or
system of space stations would add to the number of units over which
space station regulatory fees are apportioned, which would result in
the lowering of the per unit regulatory fee for all space station
payors, all other things being equal to the previous fiscal year. Under
the existing methodology, regulatory fees for a particular category of
fee payors go down per unit as more space stations or systems become
operational in that category. Although such a decrease in fees might be
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 a rapidly increasing
number of space stations or systems being authorized is assessed lower
regulatory fees than a category where the number of payors remains
steady or even declines. This discrepancy could continue until the
Commission makes the challenging determination to alter the allocation
of regulatory fees among the fee categories. The Commission seeks
further comment on this analysis.
43. As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM, the alternative methodology may be more sustainable than the
existing methodology. 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 allocations. For example, the
elimination of a single fee payor in the existing NGSO ``other'' space
station category could result in a large increase in the per unit fee
for the other payors in this fee category, absent additional Commission
action. Under the alternative methodology, the consequences of the
elimination would be spread across all space station fee payors. The
Commission seeks further comment on this potential benefit, as well as
any other potential benefits of the proposed alternative fee
methodology.
C. Amendment of Existing Methodology for Assessing Space Station
Regulatory Fees
44. Alternatively, the Commission seeks further comment on amending
the Commission's existing methodology to assess space station
regulatory fees for future fiscal years.
1. Creation of NGSO Small and Large Constellation Fee Categories
45. The Commission seeks further 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. This
proposal was made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee NPRM.
Although it was not adopted for FY 2024, it was identified for further
consideration in the FY 2024 Regulatory Fees Second Report and Order,
89 FR 78452 (Sept. 25, 2024).
46. As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM, the existing category for NGSO ``other'' space station systems
assesses the same annual regulatory fee 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.
[[Page 11926]]
The Commission expects that such arguments and requests will intensify
after the substantial increase in regulatory fees from FY 2023 to FY
2024, particularly for the NGSO space station categories.
47. Comments in response to Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM expressed broad, but not universal, support for the proposal to
create tiers within the NGSO space stations ``other'' regulatory fee
category. The majority of comments supported the proposal as justified
and reflective of the differences in regulatory and licensing burdens
between ``small'' and ``large'' NGSO constellations. SpaceX opposed the
proposal, however, arguing that the Commission has previously rejected
using the number of satellites in a system as a basis for apportioning
fees, and that number of satellites in an NGSO system is not a
reasonable proxy for the complexity of a NGSO system and the FTE
resources allocated to licensing and regulating such systems. In
addition, comments were not uniformly in support of the number of
authorized space stations to use as the dividing line between
categories. Although the majority of comments on this point supported
using 1,000 authorized space stations as the dividing line,
Kin[eacute]is opposed using a single metric or number of space stations
as the dividing line. No commenter supported using 500 space stations
as a dividing line or proposed an alternative number.
48. The Commission seeks additional comment on the 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 Commission specifically seeks further comment on why the number of
space stations in an NGSO system would or would not be an appropriate
metric for assessing FTE burdens associated with NGSO space station
systems, and whether 1,000 authorized space stations is the appropriate
dividing line between the proposed categories of ``small'' and
``large'' constellations.
49. The Commission observes that other possible proxies identified
in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that might
reasonably equate with the share of FTE burdens associated with NGSO
space station systems--the number of subscribers, the amount of
spectrum authorized, the class of service provided, or the on-orbit
mass--are not supported as viable metrics by commenters, and the
Commission tentatively concludes not to use them going forward, at
least as separate, individual metrics for assessing regulatory fees for
space stations. The Commission also tentatively concludes that the
creation of two tiers, rather than three or more tiers, will 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
would not have benefits that outweigh the costs and uncertainty created
by the need to revisit the tiers every year as the number of space
stations shift in relatively minor ways. The Commission seeks comment
on this observation and these tentative conclusion.
50. The Commission also seeks comment on the proposal by SpaceX to
adopt two tiers for the NGSO space stations ``other'' category based on
a ``risk-informed'' methodology that considers whether an NGSO space
station system is operated above or below an altitude of 600 kilometers
when determining the allocation of FTE burdens. SpaceX argues that
apportioning NGSO space station regulatory fees in this manner would be
the fairest, most administrable, and most sustainable proxy for FTE
regulatory burdens. It argues that NGSO space stations operating at
altitudes above 600 km generally present greater regulatory complexity
than if the same system were operated at lower altitudes. Comments
received as part of the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM
oppose SpaceX's ``risk-informed'' methodology, particularly the
proposal to use altitude as a basis for assessing regulatory fees among
space stations payors. The Commission seeks comment on SpaceX's
proposal.
51. The Commission seeks additional comment on the proposal 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''). Comments
in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM were
divided on this question. Many commenters expressed support for the
proposed division, while other comments opposed it and proposed an
alternate division. The Commission seeks further comment on what
division is appropriate and the reasoning supporting the division.
52. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the NGSO
``less complex'' and ``other'' categories and include all NGSO space
stations within NGSO ``small'' and ``large'' constellations fee
categories as proposed above. In light of proposals to move away from
assessing regulatory fees for space stations based on the
``complexity'' of the space stations as a proxy for FTE burden, would
it be reasonable to also discontinue the use of the term ``less
complex'' in our existing regulatory fee categories for NGSO space
stations? The Commission observes that all fee payors currently in the
NGSO space stations ``less complex'' category would fall within the
NGSO small constellations fee category using the proposal of 1,000
authorized space stations as the dividing line between ``small'' and
``large'' constellations. The Commission seeks comment on this
observation and proposal, as well as how the elimination of the ``less
complex'' and ``other'' fee categories would affect the proposal to
allocate FTE burdens between ``small'' and ``large'' constellation fee
categories on a 50/50 basis. Would a 50/50 allocation be appropriate if
the entirety of NGSO space station fees were allocated between
``small'' and ``large'' constellations, without first allocating 20% of
NGSO space station fees to the NGSO space stations ``less complex''
category and 80% to the NGSO space stations ``other'' category?
2. Additional Space Station Fee Proposals
53. The Commission also seeks further comment on any additional
proposals made by commenters to amend the existing NGSO ``less
complex'' and ``other'' fee categories. For example, Maxar and Telesat
propose to create additional tiers of ``small'' and ``large'' NGSO
constellations within the NGSO ``less complex'' fee category, with the
dividing line being 100 authorized space stations and the total ``less
complex'' share of NGSO space station fees allocated 50/50 between
large and small constellations. The Commission seeks further comment in
connection with this, or any other, outstanding proposal made in
response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM.
D. Creation of Additional Earth Station Fee Categories
54. The Commission seeks additional comment on 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. The Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on the question of whether to
create subcategories of earth station regulatory fee payors, in
addition to the existing
[[Page 11927]]
single category of ``Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only (per
authorization or registration).'' Although the Commission adopted the
proposal to apportion regulatory fees between earth and space station
payors based on the percentage of direct FTEs involved in the licensing
and regulation of each category, it declined to adopt additional
regulatory fee categories for earth stations. Comments in response to
the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM expressed doubt that
the creation of subcategories of earth stations with differing fee
amounts is feasible, and urged that the record be further developed
before creating subcategories of earth station regulatory fees. As a
result, the Commission stated that additional comment regarding the
creation of additional earth station regulatory fee categories would be
sought as part of a future further notice of proposed rulemaking.
55. The Commission now seeks further comment on the questions
raised in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM regarding
the possible creation of subcategories of earth station regulatory fee
payors. For example, should 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? Are there
certain 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? 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?
56. The Commission observes it is challenging to separate the time
spent by FTEs on different categories of earth station licenses because
Earth Station Licensing Division staff work on all categories of earth
stations and staff work is not recorded or segregated in a manner that
is beneficial to clearly apportioning FTE time between various
categories of earth station licenses. Some comments received in
response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM indicate
that such an undertaking would be ``exceedingly difficult'' or
``particularly challenging'' to administer fairly or efficiently, while
other comments state that it is possible to identify types of earth
stations that require less FTE burdens than other types. The Commission
seeks comment on whether there are any identifiable methods to
reasonably apportion FTE work to various subcategories of earth
stations? 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.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
57. 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 a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadline for comments specified on the DATES section of
this document. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
58. 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 non-geostationary orbit (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. Earlier this year, the
Commission took certain steps to revise regulatory fees for space and
earth station payors, but also determined that further consideration,
as part of a future notice of proposed rulemaking, would be beneficial.
The FNPRM continues the Commission's 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 remaining from the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
NPRM. The Commission examines and seeks comment on assessing regulatory
fees on authorized, but not operational space and earth stations; using
an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees;
establishing tiers with sub-categories for small and large
constellations of non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) space stations within
the existing Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other fee
category based on the number of authorized space stations in the NGSO
system; and creating new sub-categories of earth station regulatory
fees. 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.
B. Legal Basis
59. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 154(i),
154(j), 159, 159A, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
60. 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.
61. 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
[[Page 11928]]
businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million
businesses.
62. 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 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 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.
63. 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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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 $44
million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there was a total of 275 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of
less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard most fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth
stations can be considered small entities. The Commission notes
however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor
collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth stations that
would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
67. 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 Very Small Aperture
Terminal (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 $44 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. Thus, for
this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal
(VSAT) System licensees are small entities. The Commission notes
however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor
collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) System
licenses that would be classified as a small business under the SBA
size standard.
68. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. 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
[[Page 11929]]
in this industry can be considered small.
69. 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 $44 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. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. 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 from satellite telecommunications providers, and is
therefore unable to estimate the number of Mobile Satellite Earth
Station licensees that would be classified as a small business under
the SBA size standard.
70. 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.
71. 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 $44 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. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications
service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor
collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be
classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
72. 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 $40 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.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
73. The FNPRM 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.
74. The FNPRM continues the Commission's review of regulatory fees
for small and other space and earth station payors, and gives parties
an opportunity to file comments on possible changes to the existing
methodology for assessing space and earth station regulatory fees from
the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that were not
addressed by the Commission. If any of the proposals discussed in the
FNPRM are adopted the regulatory fee burden on some satellite entities
could be reduced. The Commission will propose and finalize the
regulatory fee rates for space and earth station payors as part of its
annual Commission-wide FY 2025 regulatory fee proceeding. Commenters
will have an opportunity in that proceeding to provide comments on the
proposed regulatory fee rates for small and other space and earth
station regulatees.
75. Notwithstanding the methodology for assessing space and earth
station regulatory fees the Commission adopts, small entities that
qualify will be able to take advantage of the exemption from payment of
regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis threshold. In addition, as
described in the FY 2023 Report and Order, 88 FR 63694 (Sept. 15,
2023), 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
76. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has
considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the
following four alternatives, among others: (1) the
[[Page 11930]]
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.
77. The proposal in the FNPRM to assess regulatory fees on all
authorized space and earth stations, not only on stations that are
deemed to be separably operational, which is the current Commission
policy, could lower the costs and financial risks for small and other
space and earth station regulatory fee payors overall as a result of
broadening the base of regulatory fee payors to include authorized
space and earth stations, which could produce lower per unit regulatory
fees. Although the current policy defers payment of regulatory fees
until the time that revenue can be generated through operations, and it
is possible that regulatees with operational systems may be able to
bear those costs more easily than those without, under the current
policy some FTE burdens are never recovered if an authorized system
does not become operational, and some FTE burdens are deferred for many
years to the detriment of small and other fee payors whose systems
become operational earlier, and consequently must pay higher regulatory
fees.
78. The tier approach, as part of 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, would likely reduce the
regulatory fee burden on smaller entities that may not qualify as small
satellites. The alternative methodology seeks comment on 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. Using
this approach, 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. This
alternative methodology could be more administrable, fair, and
sustainable than the existing methodology, and the FNPRM seeks comment
on all aspects of this alternative methodology for assessing space
station regulatory fees.
79. The FNPRM also seeks comment on amending its existing
methodology to assess space station regulatory fees for future fiscal
years. Specifically, the FNPRM seeks further 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 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. 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 on smaller entities. Related to the proposals to establish tiers,
the Commission considers, and the FNPRM specifically seeks further
comment on whether or not the number of space stations in an NGSO
system could be an appropriate metric for assessing FTE burdens
associated with NGSO space station systems, and whether 1,000
authorized space stations is the appropriate dividing line between the
proposed tiers for ``small'' and ``large'' constellations.
80. The Commission also seeks comment on an alternative proposed in
comments to adopt two tiers for the NGSO space stations ``other''
category based on a ``risk-informed'' methodology that determines the
allocation of FTE burdens based on whether an NGSO space station system
is operated above or below an altitude of 600 kilometers. Space X
claims that this option is the fairest, most administrable, and the
most sustainable proxy for FTE regulatory burdens. Another proposed
alternative which the FNPRM seeks additional comment on is dividing the
total NGSO--``other'' fees between the two subcategories on a 50/50
basis requiring ``large constellations'' to pay half of the NGSO--Other
fees and ``small constellations'' to pay the other half.
81. Moreover, the FNPRM seeks comment on any additional,
alternative proposals made by commenters to amend the existing NGSO
``less complex'' and ``other'' fee categories, or any other outstanding
proposals made in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees NPRM. For instance, the Commission requests comment on a proposal
by Maxar and Telesat to create additional tiers of ``small'' and
``large'' NGSO constellations within the NGSO ``less complex'' fee
category that designates 100 authorized space stations as the
appropriate benchmark to differentiate between small and large
constellations, and to allocate the total ``less complex'' share of
NGSO space station fees 50/50 between large and small constellations.
82. In the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees Report and
Order, the Commission considered but declined to create additional
subcategories of earth station regulatory fees. Consistent with its
determination that the record on this matter required further
development, the FNPRM considers and seeks further comment on this
issue. The Commission inquires whether VSAT, Mobile-Satellite Earth
Stations, and Fixed Earth Stations--Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only
should be reinstated as distinct fee categories, each with a separate
fee assessment, or alternatively, 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, justifying the assessment of a
higher regulatory fee, or similarly types of earth station licenses
that require less resources to license and regulate supporting lower
regulatory fee assessments. In light of mixed comments received in
response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, ranging
from ``exceedingly difficult'' or ``particularly challenging'' to
administer fairly or efficiently, to possible to identify types of
earth stations that require less FTE burdens than other types regarding
the feasibility of apportioning the time spent by FTEs on separate
categories of earth station licenses, the Commission's further
consideration of this approach in the FNPRM seeks comment on whether
[[Page 11931]]
there are any identifiable methods to reasonably apportion FTE work to
assign specific regulatory activity costs to various subcategories of
earth stations.
83. Lastly, another matter the Commission considers in the FNPRM
that could benefit small entities is when to assess regulatory fees if
the Commission adopts its proposal to assess all authorized space and
earth stations including those that are not operational. Specifically
the Commission inquires, and seeks comment on, whether to apply the
assessment based on the alternative fee calculation methodology, if
adopted, in FY2025, or to delay application of this assessment until
FY2026, or later, to provide the Commission and regulatees time to
adjust to the change in the fee calculation methodology.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
84. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-03993 Filed 3-12-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P