Rule2025-12579
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2024
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 7, 2025
Effective
September 14, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts targeted revisions to its existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations that will be effective for fiscal year 2025.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 127 (Monday, July 7, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 127 (Monday, July 7, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29760-29773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12579]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket No. 24-85; FCC 25-31; FR ID 301014]
Assessment and Collection of Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees for Fiscal Year 2024
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts targeted revisions to its existing
methodology of assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations
that will be effective for fiscal year 2025.
DATES: Effective on September 14, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Duall, 202-418-1103,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a597e6f7a626f64244e7f6b66664a6c6969246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d7e59485d4548430369584c41416d4b4e4e034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Report and Order in MD Docket No. 24-85, FCC 25-31, adopted June 5,
2025, and released June 9, 2025. The full text of this document is
available online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf</a>. The full text of this document is also available for
inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35737676000501755356561b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83c5c0c0b6b3b7c3e5e0e0ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The Commission has prepared an Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the proposed rule
and policy changes contained in the Commission's Third Report and
Order. The FRFA is set forth in the appendix of the FCC Document
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf</a> and a summary
is included below.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Commission's Third
Report and Order does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the
information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees. In the Commission's Third Report and Order, the
Commission assessed the effects of its adoption of rules implementing
the Part 25 licensing and operating provisions and technical
requirements. The Commission finds that such requirements are unlikely
to directly impact businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission
will send a copy of the Third Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In the Third Report and Order (Order), the Commission adopts
targeted amendments to its existing methodology of assessing regulatory
fees for space and earth stations pursuant to section 9 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended. These changes will be
effective for the fiscal year 2025 (FY 2025) assessment and collection
of regulatory fees.
2. The Commission began this proceeding after the creation of the
Space Bureau in 2023 to ensure that its regulatory fees structure for
space and earth station fee payors remain fair, administrable, and
sustainable in light of the substantial changes in the space industry
in recent years. The Commission is mindful of the significance of
ensuring its work is consistent with such overarching goals because the
fee schedule adopted for fiscal year 2024 contained sizable increases
in the fees assessed to space and earth station fee payors compared to
the previous fiscal year.
3. In the Order, the Commission takes two key actions for the
current fiscal year to address this situation. First, the Commission
assesses regulatory fees on stations once they are authorized, rather
than when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently
the case. Second, the Commission splits existing regulatory fee
categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new
fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space
stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or
more). These changes will better distinguish between space station
regulatees and will more accurately apportion fee burdens among them,
which should result in lower per unit regulatory fees for the majority
of space station fee payors compared to fiscal year 2024. The Order
also adopts an approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors
to better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less
subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the
estimated ``complexity'' of an NGSO system.
4. The changes adopted support the Commission's goal that its
regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. The
Commission views the targeted changes adopted as a step to quickly
improve the assessment of regulatory fees for the current fiscal year,
but the Commission also recognizes that as the industry develops, and
as the Commission seeks to streamline much of the Space Bureau's
operations, that additional improvements to the methodology may be
proposed in future fiscal years.
II. Background
5. Section 9 of the Act obligates the Commission to assess and
collect regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be
expected to equal the amount of its annual salaries and expenses (S&E)
appropriation. Thus, the Commission has no discretion regarding the
total amount to be collected in any given fiscal year. In accordance
with the statute, each year the Commission proposes adjustments to the
prior fee schedule under section 9(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
[[Page 29761]]
appropriation. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee
schedule under section 9(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.'' In administering its regulatory fee program,
the agency strives to adhere to the goals of ensuring that the program
is fair, administrable, and sustainable.
6. The Commission released the Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees NPRM on March 13, 2024, which initiated an examination and review
of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors that are
regulated by the new Space Bureau. When the Commission adopted
regulatory fees for FY 2023, it noted that it would be the last year
for doing so using the nomenclature of certain fee payors being
regulated by the International Bureau. The Commission noted that the
creation of the Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs could
result in changes in the assessment of regulatory fees for space and
earth station fee payors resulting from changes in FTEs, due to
increased oversight on various relevant industries. The Commission
anticipated that the changes in the industry that resulted in the
creation of the Space Bureau would likely also result in changes in the
relative FTE burdens between and among space and earth station fee
payors. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment in the Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on a range of proposed changes
related to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth
stations under its existing regulatory fee methodology, as well as
under a proposed alternative methodology for assessing space station
regulatory fees.
7. In June 2024, the Commission adopted an order in this proceeding
that 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.
Instead, the Commission 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.
8. In September 2024, the Commission adopted a Second Report and
Order in this proceeding that 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.
9. The Commission did not act on the remaining proposals that were
made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. It 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.
In February 2025, the Commission released a further notice in this
proceeding (Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM) that sought
comment on the proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees NPRM that were not adopted for FY 2024. 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.
10. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees FNPRM were due on March 27, 2025, and replies were due on April
11, 2025. The Commission received 19 comments and 17 reply comments. In
addition, several entities made presentations to the Commission
pursuant to its rules governing ex parte communications.
III. Discussion
11. The Commission now amends its existing methodology for
assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations by (1) assessing
regulatory fees based on when stations were authorized, rather than
when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently the
case, and (2) eliminating the existing regulatory fee categories for
``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Less Complex'' and ``Space
Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Other'' and creating new fee
categories for ``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Small
Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations)'' and
``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)--Large Constellations (1000
authorized space stations or more).'' The Commission adopts these
changes to become effective for fiscal year 2025. The Commission
declines at this time to adopt the alternative methodology to remove
the distinction between geostationary and non-geostationary space
stations and to assess space and earth station regulatory fees based on
a common unit of space station fees that was put forth in this
proceeding, as well as other suggestions to change its regulatory fee
methodologies for space and earth stations made by commenters. The
Commission also makes no changes at this time to the existing
methodology for assessing regulatory fees for earth stations.
A. Objectives of Proceeding
12. As explained above, the Commission commenced this proceeding in
2024 to focus on space and earth station regulatory fees. In
implementing its statutory authority, the Commission considers the
adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing
regulatory fee category only when the Commission develops a sufficient
basis for doing so under Section 9 ensuring that its actions are
consistent with the overarching goal that its regulatory fees are fair,
administrable, and sustainable. These goals must work within the
explicit statutory requirements of section 9 that the Commission
collect fees by determining ``the full-time equivalent number of
employees'' performing specified activities in the Bureaus and Offices,
and they are intended to guide adjustments that the Commission must
make from time to time to its regulatory fee assessments. As discussed
below, the Commission finds that it can better achieve these statutory
requirements and overarching goals by adopting targeted changes to its
existing fee
[[Page 29762]]
methodology than by adopting an entirely new regulatory fee
methodology.
B. Continued Use of the Existing Methodology
13. For fiscal year 2025, the Commission continues to use the
Commission's existing methodology, with targeted changes identified
below, to assess the regulatory fees for Space Bureau fee payors.
Accordingly, the Commission declines at this time to adopt the
alternative fee methodology set forth in the Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fees NPRM, and for which additional comment was sought in
the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM.
14. The Commission is acutely aware of the financial impact of
regulatory fees, particularly on smaller and less capitalized space
companies. Accordingly, the Commission is presently focused on reducing
the total fee burden to be divided among regulated entities by making
the Space Bureau's operations more efficient. The Commission finds that
continued use of the existing methodology will maintain stability and
prevent unnecessary disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At
the same time, targeted changes to the existing methodology will
substantially reduce the fee burden for a large class of payors.
15. Central to the alternative methodology is a common initial unit
of regulatory fee payment for all space stations, regardless of which
orbit they are designed to operate in, and the elimination of all
separate fee categories for GSO and NGSO space stations, except for the
fee category for Space Stations (per license/call sign) (Small
Satellite), which would be retained in its existing form. The
alternative methodology would create a single space station fee
category for ``Space Stations (Per Call Sign in Geostationary Orbit or
Per System in Non-Geostationary Orbit).'' The category would be tiered,
with a single GSO space station or a NGSO system with up to 100
authorized space stations constituting this initial tier and being
counted as one unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees.
Additional tiers would be created to account for NGSO systems with more
than 100 authorized space stations, for example 500 or 1000 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.
16. The Commission emphasizes that its decision not to adopt the
alternative methodology at this time does not foreclose consideration
of it (or a variation of it) in a future proceeding. As the Commission
has observed, the alternative methodology could achieve its goals of
making its Space Bureau regulatory fees fair, administrable, and
sustainable. Furthermore, comments received in response to the Space
and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM broadly supported adoption of
the alternative methodology as the preferred option for amending the
methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees. Nonetheless,
as the Commission streamlines and modernizes the Space Bureau's
licensing and related activities, there are likely to be corresponding
changes to FTE burdens related to oversight of Space Bureau regulatory
fee payors. Consequently, the Commission finds that now is not the time
to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees.
Rather, the Commission finds that the overarching goals of fair,
administrable, and sustainable regulatory fees can equally be achieved
by targeted changes to the existing methodology.
17. The Commission observes that the changes in the space industry
that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the Commission's re-
examination of space and earth station regulatory fees are still
ongoing. The Commission is accordingly mindful that any wholesale
departure from its existing methodology at this juncture runs
significant the risk of adopting a new fee methodology that still
reflects past assumptions about licensing and regulation of space and
earth stations. For example, the alternative methodology remains
committed to GSO space stations as the ``standard'' unit for assessing
space station regulatory fees, with fees for NGSO systems expressed in
terms of equivalence to a GSO space station. It is unclear whether this
is a suitable foundation on which to build a new regulatory fee
structure. Furthermore, the very nature of GSO space stations is
undergoing change with the increasing availability of ``small GSO''
space stations, which raise questions about whether the same level of
oversight is needed to license and regulate as traditional, large GSO
space stations upon which the alternative methodology relies. Thus, the
Commission declines to adopt an entirely new regulatory fee methodology
at this time while these substantial changes in the space industry are
still ongoing.
18. As the Commission has redoubled its efforts in recent months to
simplify and modernize its licensing and related operations, the
Commission expects changes in the FTE burden will be needed for
oversight of Space Bureau regulatory fee payors. The Commission also
agrees with comments that it should not undertake a major overhaul of
its space and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of
the ongoing modernization efforts. Since the fiscal year ends on
September 30, these modernization efforts may not be completed in time
to impact the FTE burden of oversight or otherwise relate to the
statutory framework for the exercise of its regulatory fee assessment
for fiscal year 2025. The Commission, however, expects these efforts to
bear fruit in the near future and, assuming so, will consider them in
relevant future fiscal years as they relate to its statutory authority
to assess and collect regulatory fees.
19. For all these reasons, the Commission determines that the best
course during these changing times is to focus on the core
responsibilities that the Commission undertakes during its regulatory
fee proceedings: to follow the requirements set forth in section 9 of
Act, with the overarching goals of making its regulatory fees fair,
administrable, and sustainable. For the reasons set forth below, the
Commission finds that it can meet these requirements and goals with
targeted amendments to its existing space and earth station regulatory
fee methodology. Since the Commission can do this, while preserving the
flexibility to make future targeted amendments in the future, the
Commission shall follow that course.
C. Assessment of Fees on Authorized Space and Earth Stations
20. Overview. The Commission amends its current methodology for
assessing regulatory fees for space and earth station regulatees from
assessing fees only after notification that the station is operational
to assessing fees when the station has received a license or grant of
market access from the Commission. In past years, regulatory fees for
space stations were assessed only when the space stations are certified
by their operator to be operational. An earth station payor was
required to pay regulatory fees only after it had certified that the
earth station's construction was complete, but in the rare instances in
which a license limits an earth station's operational authority to a
particular satellite system, the fee
[[Page 29763]]
was not due until the first satellite of the related system becomes
operational within the meaning of the Commission's rules. The
Commission finds, however, 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.
21. As the Commission has previously observed, significant FTE
burdens are involved with the licensing of space and earth stations,
even before a station becomes operational. A licensee or grantee
already benefits from the FTE levels necessary to review and grant the
application for future operations of the station, as well as from the
FTE levels used to protect the benefits conferred by the grant of a
license or of U.S. market access, such as use of spectrum and orbital
resources and protection from interference, which convey upon issuance
of the license or grant. Moreover, given the bespoke nature of many
satellite systems, Space Bureau staff expertise is used 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. Furthermore, if an authorized space station
never becomes operational, then the licensee would never be subject to
regulatory fees to recover the FTE burdens associated with regulating
such space stations, and other licensees with operational satellites
must bear the costs associated with space stations that were
authorized, but never become operational. In addition, assessing
regulatory fees on authorized, not just operational stations, broadens
the base of regulatory fee payors, spreading the recovery of fees from
all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and
regulatory activities, and potentially lowering the per unit regulatory
fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are
assessed.
22. Comments nearly unanimously support assessing regulatory fees
when space and earth stations are authorized, rather than when they are
operational, based on the observations previously made in the
proceeding. Only two objections were made to the proposal: one asking
not to apply regulatory fees to authorized, but not yet operational,
earth stations; and one arguing that the Commission should continue its
practice of assessing regulatory fees solely on operational stations,
absent explicit authority from Congress to do otherwise. Regarding the
former, the Commission sees no reason to treat earth stations
differently from space stations, because significant FTE burdens are
involved with the licensing of both prior to becoming operational, and
both benefit from FTE burdens used to protect the benefit conferred by
the authorization itself. As to the latter objection, Congress has
explicitly directed the Commission to recover its annual S&E
appropriation through regulatory fees, and the S&E appropriation
includes funding for FTE burdens spent reviewing and granting
applications, which is accrued regardless of when a station becomes
operational. Congress has also already explicitly provided the
Commission authority, in section 9(d) of the Act, to adjust its
regulatory fees by rule if it determines that the schedule of fees
requires amendment, and such adjustment by rule is what is being
adopted in this proceeding. Section 9 does not limit the assessment of
regulatory fees to operational stations, and Congress affirmatively
deleted, as obsolete, the prior portion of section 9 that was the basis
for the Commission's previous decision to assess regulatory fees only
on operational space stations. Accordingly, the assessment of
regulatory fees on authorized stations is wholly within the explicit
authority given by Congress and is consistent with section 9 of the
Act.
23. Consistent with past practice and for purposes of fiscal year
2025, the Commission will continue, however, to assess regulatory fees
on station licenses and market access grants as of the start of the
fiscal year, i.e. October 1, 2024. Although there is support on the
record for alternative methods for assessing regulatory fees on any
space station authorized during the fiscal year. At this time, the
Commission finds that it is not administrable to assess fees on space
stations authorized at any point during the fiscal year. One proposal
in the record is to assess regulatory fees on authorized space and
earth stations regardless of when in the fiscal year an authorization
is granted, and to ``pro rate'' the assessed fee based on the number of
calendar days or fiscal quarters that the station has been authorized
in the fiscal year. Because in most cases the Commission assesses
regulatory fees based on FTE share of the category of fee payors
divided by the number of units of fee payors, pro-rated regulatory fees
would require the Commission to take into account partial units, which
would introduce complexity into the calculation without clear benefit.
Such a result would not serve the Commission's goal of ensuring that
its fees are administrable. Accordingly, the Commission will continue
to assess regulatory fees on space and earth stations that are
authorized as of the start of the fiscal year.
24. Similarly, the Commission will continue the practice of
providing 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. Comments widely support the utility of this practice, and
the Commission agrees that it has been an efficient method of providing
notice and awareness of which fee payors are subject to regulatory fees
for the fiscal year. The Commission declines to rely instead on the
Space Bureau's Approved Space Station List for notice and awareness of
which space stations are subject to regulatory fees for the fiscal
year. The Commission finds that an appendix to the annual notice of
proposed rulemaking will better serve its goal of providing space
stations with notice of regulatory fees.
25. The Commission declines to adopt exceptions or other carve-outs
to assessing fees on all authorized space and earth stations,
regardless of their operational status. As an initial matter, the
Commission lacks the authority to exempt whole categories of fee payors
from regulatory fees, since the decision to exempt whole categories of
fee payors resides with Congress under section 9 of the Act. The
Commission also finds that broadening the base to include authorized,
but not operational, stations more accurately allocates the FTE burdens
and result in lower per unit regulatory fees for most space and earth
station operators. In any event, the rationales for assessing fees on
stations when they are authorized remain applicable, even in the
circumstances discussed below where proposals were made to exempt or
carve out certain categories of stations that are authorized, but are
non-operational or conduct solely non-revenue producing operations.
Each are discussed in turn.
26. Pre-operational stations. The Space and Earth Station
Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether to adopt new, separate
fee categories for space and earth stations that are authorized, but
not fully operational, based on a suggestion that the FTE burdens
associated with licensing and oversight of authorized, but non-
operational, stations are less than those associated with operational
stations. After review of the record, the
[[Page 29764]]
Commission affirms the prior tentative conclusion that substantial FTE
burdens in the Space Bureau are dedicated to the review and action on
space and earth station applications, and that entities with
authorized, but not yet operational stations, still benefit from these
burdens, as well as from a wide-range of regulatory benefits, utilizing
both direct and indirect FTEs. In addition, the record did not provide
a sufficient basis for differentiating FTE burdens for authorized, but
not yet operational, stations, and the Commission agrees with comments
that adopting separate fees for such stations would complicate the
regulatory fee regime without clear benefit.
27. Post-operational and TT&C-only space stations. The Space and
Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment 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. Most of the parties who commented on the
proposal supported the concept of continuing to not assess fees, or to
assess a lower fee, for non-operational, ``TT&C-only'' space stations,
although some comments oppose any different treatment of authorized
space stations. No party provided any information as to the feasibility
of a separate fee or how such a fee should be calculated.
28. The Commission appreciates but remains unconvinced by arguments
to not assess regulatory fees on space stations solely for TT&C
operations or space stations solely conducting TT&C operations
necessary to complete end-of-life disposal plans. In both instances,
regulatory fees may be assessed when the space station is not intended
to generate revenue from its authorized communications, or is no longer
generating revenue from them. Indeed, the Commission has previously
held that a non-U.S. licensed space station that communicates with a
U.S.-licensed earth station solely for TT&C purposes does not fall
within the category of a non-U.S. licensed space station with access to
the U.S. market for regulatory fee purposes. It has also found that
regulatory fees are not assessed on space stations that have ceased
operations and are authorized solely for TT&C to conduct experimental
communications, or to conduct end-of-life disposal maneuvers.
29. The Commission's prior precedent, however, is inapplicable to a
fee structure that assesses fees on authorized stations, such as the
one adopted in the Order. The Commission previously declined to assess
fees for TT&C-only space stations during the time it limited regulatory
fees to operational stations. Applying that exclusion to a fee
structure that assesses fees on authorized stations is inconsistent
with the rationale for adopting the new methodology and will undermine
the purposes underlying it, including widening the base of regulatory
fee payors. The Commission has previously recognized that assessing
regulatory fees on non-operational stations has the potential to impose
costs and create financial risk. Nonetheless, the Commission
tentatively concluded that these concerns do not outweigh the need to
assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from
its FTE efforts, which the Commission affirms in the Order in adopting
the proposal to assess fees on authorized space and earth stations,
even before such stations become operational. As stated above, 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
because significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of
space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational,
and because Space Bureau staff expertise is utilized by the industry
before, during, and after an application (including modifications
thereof) is filed. These reasons also apply to space and earth stations
that are used solely for TT&C, or are being used for TT&C solely for
post-mission disposal purposes. These TT&C communications are still
radiocommunications authorized by the Commission and they continue to
be subject to regulatory oversight by the Commission. This is true even
in instances of TT&C solely for post-mission disposal, due to
Commission oversight of compliance with the terms of their orbital
debris mitigation plans. Accordingly, there is not a sufficient basis
to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C only space
stations, or stations that are no longer operational, under the amended
methodology adopted in the Order.
30. Furthermore, excluding TT&C-only space stations may be
inequitable for other reasons. As an example, the Commission is
considering how to modify its rules to better accommodate the licensing
and regulatory oversight of space stations that are used primarily in
support of in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM),
including how to assess regulatory fees for such stations. Because
these stations often are authorized to use radiocommunications solely
for TT&C, without any other revenue-producing radiocommunication
service being provided, categorically exempting TT&C-only space
stations from regulatory fees now could prematurely exclude such
stations wholly from regulatory fee assessments, even though such
stations benefit from Commission FTEs as part of their licensing and
regulatory oversight. In addition, exempting non-U.S. licensed space
stations from regulatory fee assessments when communications with U.S.-
licensed earth stations are solely for TT&C purposes would provide non-
U.S. licensed space stations with an unfair advantage, unless the
Commission were to do the same for all U.S.-licensed space stations,
which the Commission does not find best serves the objectives of
section 9 of the Act for the reasons stated above.
31. To facilitate the transition to the amended methodology,
however, the Commission will not assess regulatory fees on authorized
space stations that have already commenced post-mission disposal plans
as of the release date of the Order, provided that the authorized space
stations are conducting TT&C solely for the purpose of executing
approved post-mission disposal plans. Comments suggest that there is
merit to assessing regulatory fees for space stations that have reached
the end of life, but that such fees should apply prospectively. The
Commission agrees that prospective application is appropriate in this
limited instance, since it is highly unlikely that operators already
undertaking disposal plans are able to adjust their plans and such
operators are few in number.
32. The Commission also expects to examine again in a future
proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether FTE burdens
ascribed to the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations
authorized solely for TT&C communications are lower, such that a new,
separate fee category might be able to be created for such stations. At
this time, however, the Commission does not have sufficient record to
reach a determination on this issue.
33. Stations with multiple authorizations and RPO/OOS stations. The
Commission sought comment on a proposal to assess regulatory fees in
instances where there are separately identifiable space station
authorizations, but which the space stations have not been considered
to be separably operational and therefore have not been subject to
separate regulatory fees. For example, a GSO satellite may operate in
[[Page 29765]]
certain frequency bands under a license by the Commission and may
communicate with U.S.-licensed space stations in other frequency bands
pursuant to a grant of U.S. market access. Likewise, a NGSO space
station fee payor may operate some space stations in its system under a
U.S. license and may operate other space stations under a grant of U.S.
market access. In the past, the space station fee payor has been
assessed only a single regulatory fee, rather than one for each
authorization or grant of market access. The Commission also previously
tentatively concluded that a space station attached to a GSO space
station as part of RPO or 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 operational space station,
and therefore the regulatory fee burden for the RPO or OOS space
station would be included in the fee collected from the GSO space
station fee payor. Upon further consideration, the Commission reversed
its position and tentatively concluded that the requirements and
purpose of section 9 of the Act would be better met by separately
assessing regulatory fees on such attached RPO or OOS space stations.
34. Comments in this proceeding support continuing not assessing
separate regulatory fees for the same satellite, even in circumstances
where there are multiple space station authorizations and call signs.
No party commented on the Commission's tentative conclusion regarding
assessing regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations, regardless of
whether they are attached to another station or not.
35. The Commission disagrees with commenters' that argue that the
Commission should continue to assess only a single regulatory fee in
instances where there are separately identifiable space station
authorizations for the same satellite and where existing Commission
rules do not permit the consolidation of authorizations after grant.
The commenters' arguments for an exception are premised on the nature
of the operations of the space station authorizations, but the
Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the
appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. In
the case of a satellite that is in part U.S.-licensed, and is in part
non-U.S. licensed, there are separate and distinct licenses and grants,
each evidenced by a separate call sign, often to different licensees/
grantees, which cannot be consolidated under the Commission's existing
rules into a single call sign. This is also true of an RPO or OOS space
station, even if it is attached to another space station for servicing.
A single regulatory fee might make sense if the Commission's fees were
intended to recover solely the FTEs associated with regulatory
oversight of a satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act
requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and
regulatory functions--before, during, and after authorization. Where
there are separate station authorizations for a single satellite,
evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in
line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to
recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization.
This is also true for small satellites or spacecrafts, which the
Commission has similarly determined should be assessed regulatory fees
per license or call sign, rather than per system. Accordingly, the
Commission will assess regulatory fees based on separate license or
grant of market access in these cases, as evidenced by separate call
signs. To the extent that comments argue that Commission rules do not
allow them to combine authorizations or call signs for separate space
stations because these authorizations are not for a single NGSO system,
the Commission finds that it is more appropriate to address this
situation through the Space Bureau's attempts to modernize the
licensing and regulation of these new types of space services before
seeking changes to the regulatory fee methodology.
36. For NGSO space stations that are not within the category of
small satellites or spacecraft, the Commission has previously
determined that licensing and assessment of regulatory fees is
appropriate per system of NGSO space stations, rather than per call
sign. This in part is due to the nature of NGSO space stations
operating as constellations rather than individual satellites, and in
part due to the nature of how NGSO space stations are licensed, using
processing rounds, which may necessitate, or at least provide strong
incentives for, applicants filing for new frequency bands for the use
in the same constellation as new applications that are automatically
assigned new call signs by the Commission's electronic filing system,
International Communications Filing System (ICFS). Generally, NGSO
licenses are able to consolidate these separate call signs under a
single call sign post-authorization if they are part of a single
system. This consolidation of authorizations and call signs is not
possible, however, for a system that includes both U.S.-licensed space
stations and non-U.S. licensed space stations, since the system would
consist of two distinct forms of authorization: one is a license to a
Commission-licensed space station and the other is a grant of market
access for a communications between a non-U.S. licensed space station
and U.S.-licensed earth stations.
37. The Commission observes that, in instances where a NGSO system
has some space stations licensed by the U.S., and some space stations
licensed by another administration, there is reason to require separate
regulatory fees based on the reasoning above that there are separate
and distinct licenses and grants, each evidenced by a separate call
sign, often to different licensees/grantees. The Commission declines,
however, to change its existing policy at this time, since the record
to date does not provide sufficient information to assess fully the
possible impacts of a change from assessing fees on NGSO space stations
as ``systems,'' rather than by authorizations evidenced by separate
call signs, particularly when calculating whether a system would be
categorized as a small or large constellation under the amended fee
categories adopted in the Order.
38. Co-located stations and on-orbit spares. The Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether regulatory fees
should be assessed on GSO space stations that are co-located with other
GSO space stations or that serve as non-operational ``on-orbit spares''
for other operational GSO space stations. Such stations are not
currently considered to be separably operational and have not been
assessed regulatory fees for this reason. The Commission has observed,
however, that separable direct FTEs are utilized to license and
regulate these space stations. Comments largely support the
continuation of not assessing regulatory fees on on-orbit spares and
GSO space stations co-located with another GSO space station, although
support is not universal.
39. The Commission finds that the goals of section 9 are not served
by continuing to not assess regulatory fees on space stations simply
because they are co-located with other operational space stations or
serve as on-orbit spares to other operational space stations. The
premise that underlies both instances is that the space stations were
not
[[Page 29766]]
considered to be separately operational, but the Commission has
determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis
for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. As is the case for
stations with multiple authorizations, a single regulatory fee would
make sense if the Commission's fees were intended to recover solely the
regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, but section 9 of the
Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and
regulatory functions--before, during, and after authorization. In the
case of co-located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE
resources required to license these space stations does not appear to
be substantially different from that required to license other space
stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine
compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space
stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees.
Accordingly, where there are separate station authorizations for co-
located space stations or on-orbit spare space stations, evidenced by
separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with
Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the
separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization.
D. Amendment of Existing Methodology To Establish NGSO--Small
Constellations and NGSO--Large Constellations To Replace NGSO--Less
Complex and NGSO--Other
40. Under the current system, 80% of the share of NGSO space
station fees are allocated to the NGSO--Other fee category and 20% to
the NGSO--Less Complex fee category, after subtracting a pro rata
amount of the total fees assessed for NGSO--Small Satellites from each
category. These allocated fees are then divided equally among the
number of units in each category. For fiscal year 2024, fee payors in
the NGSO--Other fee category were assessed fees of $964,200 per unit,
regardless of the number of space stations authorized for each fee
payor. Payors in the NGSO--Less Complex fee category were assessed per
unit fees of $441,925, also regardless of the number of space stations
authorized for each fee payor. NGSO space station payors have
previously 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.
41. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM sought
comment on two proposals to address this shortcoming. First, it sought
comment on a proposal to create sub-categories within the existing
NGSO--Other fee category for small and large constellations of NGSO
space stations, based on the number of authorized space stations in a
system. Second, it sought comment on whether to eliminate the existing
NGSO--Less Complex fee category and assess fees on all NGSO space
stations (other than small satellites) as small or large constellations
or, alternatively, to create sub-categories of small and large
constellations within the NGSO--Less Complex category.
42. The Commission finds that the overarching goals of making its
regulatory fee structure fair, administrable, and sustainable would be
met by assessing regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than
those eligible for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites
category) within new fee categories of NGSO--Small Constellations
(fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and NGSO--Large
Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) and by
eliminating the NGSO--Less Complex category entirely. Furthermore, the
Commission will allocate fees between small and large constellations on
a 60/40 basis, that is, 60% of NGSO space station fees would be
allocated to small constellations and 40% to large constellations. As
with its existing approach, the Commission will subtract small
satellite fees on a pro rata basis between small and large
constellations.
43. First, the new methodology is fair because creation of separate
fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that NGSO
space station constellations with more authorized space stations are
likely to benefit more from the Commission's licensing and regulatory
efforts than constellations with substantially fewer authorized space
stations. NGSO systems with a larger number of authorized space
stations provide service in a larger geographic area (usually globally)
and provide more transmission capacity in order to provide higher-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. The
Commission finds it reasonable that such constellations benefit more
from FTE burdens than smaller constellations and should be assessed
greater regulatory fees, per unit.
44. The adoption of fee categories for small and large
constellations also ensures that the additional benefit received by
large NGSO constellations is not linearly related to the number of
authorized space stations. This new methodology will account for
diminishing amounts of FTE burdens required to license and regulate
these systems as the number of authorized space stations grows beyond a
certain size. In the Commission's experience, the Commission finds that
once an operator has 1000 or more authorized space stations, it is
reasonably distinguishable from smaller constellations in terms of the
FTE benefits received and can be separated into a category with similar
systems for regulatory fee purposes. Once it is in this separate
category, the regulatory fees will not increase further based on the
number of authorized space stations. Thus, the Commission will mitigate
the adoption of exceptionally high fees for any one particular fee
payor when such fees may not correlate reasonably to the FTE benefits
accrued. The majority of commenters also support the division between
small and large constellations at 1000 or more authorized space
stations.
45. Second, the Commission finds that this methodology is
administrable. Using the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO
system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of
using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens. The number of space
stations authorized for a NGSO system is an objective measure and is
readily available as part of the space station license or grant of
market access. The Commission finds this is a more administrable metric
than space station features such as mass that could rely on data that
may not be required by, or contained in, its licensing processes, or
that require a multi-element accounting system, without a clear
correlation between such feature and FTE burdens.
46. This new methodology will also lessen the probability of sudden
or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee category.
Using the number of authorized space stations will help avoid
unpredictable and rapid shifts in fee rates from one year to the next,
and is consistent with prior Commission use of this metric as the basis
for its regulatory fees. Also, by eliminating the separate fee category
for NGSO--Less Complex, all NGSO space stations (other than small
satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a
greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, this lessens the
[[Page 29767]]
potential for rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year
when a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. In contrast,
use of more than two fee tiers to account for more granular
distinctions in the size of NGSO space station systems would be
susceptible to rapid shifts in regulatory fees for all space station
payors if there is a significant reduction in the number of authorized
GSO space stations from one year to the next because the number of
authorized GSO space stations accounts for a large percentage of total
units. This would also require a comparison of the FTE burdens for each
tier with those required for a single GSO space station.
47. Third, the Commission finds that the amended methodology
adopted in the Order is sustainable because the fee system will have
flexibility to adapt to changes in technologies. Notably, the amended
methodology is not defined by technology or services provided, but
rather solely by the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO
system. If technologies and the space industry change, as the
Commission expects that they will, the number of authorized space
stations in an NGSO system is a broad metric for assessing FTE burdens
and is likely to remain relevant. In the event that further amendments
are needed to adjust the methodology to changes in technologies, the
methodology adopted in the Order preserves the ability to do so.
48. The Commission also finds that allocating a larger share to
small constellations on a 60/40 basis between small and large
constellations, respectively, is appropriate at this time and
particularly sustainable as it relates to smaller constellations.
Currently, there are substantially more small NGSO constellations than
large NGSO constellations--an estimated 24 NGSO small constellations as
compared to three NGSO large constellations. Going forward, the
Commission anticipates that there will be greater growth in the number
of authorized small constellations due to the considerable additional
resources needed to launch and operate NGSO systems with a thousand or
more space stations. Given this disparity in numbers, the Commission
finds that it is reasonable that more than half of the FTE benefits
realized by NGSO space station systems at this time are attributable to
small constellations, in aggregate. The 60/40 split should result in
much lower regulatory fees for small constellations on a per unit basis
compared with large constellations, while also recognizing that small
constellations currently take up more than 50% of the FTE burdens used
for the licensing and regulation of NGSO space stations.
49. The Commission makes one additional amendment to the
methodology used to assess space station regulatory fees necessitated
by the amendments adopted in the Order: instead of subtracting the
amount of regulatory fees anticipated to be collected from small
satellites on a pro rata basis between NGSO--Less Complex and NGSO--
Other, the Commission will instead subtract small satellite fees on a
pro rata basis between small and large constellations. This maintains
the existing approach, but makes changes to reflect the elimination of
the NGSO--Less Complex fee category and creation of the NGSO small and
large constellation fee categories.
50. The Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on
the total number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not
just the number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously
operating. Comments observe that the appendices in the Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM listed the number of authorized space
stations for some systems based on the total number of space stations
authorized over the license term, whereas for some systems the number
was based on the total number of simultaneously-operating space
stations that were authorized. Comments urge consistency in determining
which space stations are authorized for regulatory fee purposes and
advocate calculating fees based on the number of space stations
authorized to be operational simultaneously, rather than authorized
over the license term.
51. Although the Commission finds that this distinction is less
relevant under the methodology adopted in the Order than under the
alternative methodology that the Commission is not adopting, the
Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on the total
number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not just the
number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously operating. The
methodology adopted no longer relies on operational status of a space
station for assessing regulatory fees, so it would be inconsistent to
use operational status, rather than authorized status, as a basis for
assessing regulatory fees. Although comments stress that assessing fees
solely on space stations that are authorized to be simultaneously-
operating would be consistent with the Commission's decision not to
assess regulatory fees on on-orbit spares or co-located space stations
that were not considered to be separably operable, such space stations
are subject to regulatory fees under the amended methodology adopted.
Furthermore, the Commission does not find that the record supports
contentions that it is solely the operational status of the space
stations that goes into assessing the FTE burdens attributable to the
category of regulatory fees. As observed above, its regulatory fees are
intended to recover the costs of licensing and regulation before,
during, and after operations, so limiting regulatory fees to
operational stations does not best serve the purpose of section 9 of
the Act.
52. The Commission finds that alternative proposals for assessing
regulatory fees on NGSO space stations are more complicated to
administer than the methodology the Commission adopts in the Order. The
Commission declines to assess regulatory fees based on the number of
authorizations that a fee payor holds. Such a methodology would be more
complex to administer than the one the Commission adopts, and the
record lacks specifics as to how to implement such a system. The
Commission also declines to adopt a ``risk-informed'' methodology,
which would inject policy decisions regarding the regulation of space
stations that are not suitable for resolution in regulatory fee
proceedings to assess regulatory fees.
53. The Commission finds that the goals of this proceeding are best
served by adopting, at this time, two categories for NGSO space
stations, small and large constellations, based on a dividing line of
1000 authorized space stations, rather than multiple categories based
on different numbers of authorized space stations, as suggested by some
comments. Adopting more than two tiers or categories of NGSO space
station fees based on alternative number of authorized space stations
is less administrable than the amended methodology the Commission
adopts. Dividing NGSO space station systems into many tiers will result
in a smaller number of fee payors per tier, which in turn has the
potential to result in rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from
year to year, if a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed.
Simply put, having fee categories with larger number of units per
categories is more administrable, all things being equal, as a single
dividing line is less complex to administer and is likely to be more
stable over time. The majority of comments support this approach, at
least in the event that the alternative methodology is not adopted.
54. The Commission also declines at this time to adopt a fee
category for ``truly small'' NGSO systems with ``well under'' 100
authorized space stations. Although comments argue that their
[[Page 29768]]
systems are closer in kind to NGSO systems authorized under the
Commission's small satellite rules and should be assessed much lower
regulatory fee comparable to those assessed to those systems, the
Commission observes that the lower regulatory fees assessed for small
satellites is based on their ability to meet certain criteria for their
system, which permits streamlined processing of these applications and
requires fewer FTE burdens to license and regulate such systems. This
is not the case for all NGSO systems, however, even if the total number
of authorized space stations in their systems is close to the ten or
fewer space stations permitted to be authorized under a small satellite
authorization. Accordingly, the Commission does not find that the
record, at this time, supports a finding that creating new fee
categories for NGSO space stations achieves its goals better than the
small and large constellation categories that the Commission adopts. In
addition, the Commission dismisses calls to revisit and revise the
Commission's prior decision to allocate regulatory fees between GSO and
NGSO space stations on a 60/40 basis, rather than the prior 80/20
basis, because they are outside the scope of proposals for which
comment was sought in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM
and they raise no new arguments that have not already been fully
considered and rejected by the Commission.
E. Adoption for Fiscal Year 2025
55. The Commission adopts the amendments to its methodology for
assessing space and earth station regulatory fees in time for them to
be effective for fiscal year 2025. Comments widely support making the
changes effective immediately, given the notice of the intended changes
since early 2024 and the increased fairness and administrability of the
amended methodology. The Commission declines to postpone until fiscal
year 2026 the assessment of regulatory fees on GSO space stations that
were considered to be non-operational and not previously subject to
regulatory fees, as proposed by one commenter. Although it is argued
that additional time is needed for fee payors to plan for such fees and
to allow them to assess whether to deactivate non-operational space
stations at an earlier date than planned, the Commission finds that
there has been ample time for fee payors to plan for the possibility of
such fees and to take actions in anticipation of such fees.
Accordingly, the Commission will immediately provide notice to Congress
of these amendments pursuant to section 9 of the Act so that they can
become effective after 90 days.
F. Earth Station Regulatory Fees
56. The Commission declines to create additional subcategories of
earth station regulatory fees at this time. Both the notice of proposed
rulemaking and the further notice in this proceeding sought comment on
whether the creation of additional earth station fee categories was
feasible and whether additional fee categories would better
differentiate the amount of regulatory fee burdens with different types
of earth station licenses. The Commission determines that the record
does not support creation of additional categories of earth station
regulatory fees at this time.
57. 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 single category of
``Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only (per authorization or
registration).'' As examples, the Commission asked if the former
distinct fee categories for Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT),
Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations, and Fixed Earth Stations should be
reinstated. 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. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
FNPRM sought further comment on these issues, particularly whether
there are certain types of earth station licenses that require more FTE
burdens to license and regulate, for which a higher regulatory fee
should be assessed?
58. The record continues to be insufficient to determine that the
creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at
this time is either necessary or feasible. The majority of comments
continue to oppose the creation of additional earth station regulatory
fee categories as difficult to administer fairly or efficiently, and
having limited utility given the relatively small variation in fees any
changes would produce. Although some comments suggest the possibility
of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed earth
stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which earth
stations would be included in this category since there are many
different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket
licenses, such as earth stations in motion (ESIMS), mobile-satellite
service earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks.
Furthermore, at this time and based on the record before us, the
Commission is not able to attribute with any degree of reasonableness
the allocation of FTE burdens attributable to blanket earth stations,
either by individual service type or collectively, compared to non-
blanket licensed stations. It may be possible to do so with a more
complete record, but the Commission is not able to do so for fiscal
year 2025 and declines to do so now.
59. The Commission also declines to assess regulatory fees on
registered receive-only earth stations, which currently are not
assessed regulatory fees. The registration of receive-only earth
stations is not an authorization, but rather a database entry to record
the existence of an earth station that is entitled to protection from
interference under rules adopted for other services. The Commission's
experience is that such registrations typically require few, if any,
FTE burdens to process or regulate, and therefore it is unnecessary to
re-create a separate regulatory fee category for such stations.
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory
Fees FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the
IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
61. The Commission is required by Congress pursuant to section 9 of
the Act to assess and collect regulatory fees each year to recover the
regulatory costs associated with the Commission's oversight and
regulatory activities in an amount that can reasonably be expected to
equal the amount of its annual appropriation. As part of last year's
adoption of regulatory fees, the Commission noted that FY 2023 would be
the last year where the Commission will do so for the International
Bureau, given the creation of the Space Bureau, and Office of
International Affairs. The Commission also noted that an examination of
the regulatory fees, and categories for NGSO space stations
[[Page 29769]]
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. In FY 2024, 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 Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM continued 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 FY 2024 Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. The Commission examined and sought
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 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.
62. 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.
The Commission also sought to implement changes to make regulatory fees
more equitable, administratively manageable, sustainable, and to
provide the Commission flexibility to evolve and make adjustments as
the space industry continues to evolve.
63. In the Order, the Commission takes steps towards these goals by
adopting changes to assess regulatory fees on stations once they are
authorized, instead of the current process of assessing regulatory fees
when the stations are certified to be operational. The Commission also
splits existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations
(fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations
(1000 authorized space stations or more) to better distinguish between
space station regulatees and to more accurately apportion fee burdens
among them. This delineation should result in lower per unit regulatory
fees for the majority of small and other space station fee payors
compared to fiscal year 2024. Additionally, the Commission adopts a fee
assessment approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors to
better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less
subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the
estimated ``complexity'' of an NGSO system.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
64. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed
rules on small entities.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
65. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
66. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as under the Small
Business Act. 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.
67. 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 SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States,
which translates to 34.75 million businesses.
68. 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.
69. 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.''
70. 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 Voice over internet
[[Page 29770]]
Protocol (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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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 VSAT System licenses that would be classified
as a small business under the SBA size standard.
74. 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
in this industry can be considered small.
75. 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.
76. 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
[[Page 29771]]
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
77. 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.
78. 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 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.
E. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
79. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
80. The Order does not adopt any changes to the Commission's
current reporting or recordkeeping requirements for small entities. The
Order does however adopt changes to the regulatory fee payment
structure applicable to small and other stations that subjects a
licensee or grantee to fee payment obligations when the license or
grant of market access is received from the Commission. As a result, a
small licensee or grantee will be subject to regulatory fee payment
requirements sooner. In addition, the broadened base of regulatory fee
payors which recovers fees from all licensees who benefit from the
Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities should lower the per
unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which
fees are assessed and may result in reduced fees for some small
entities.
81. There could also be a positive economic impact for small
entities from Commission's eliminations of the existing regulatory fee
categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) and creation of
a distinct fee category for small constellations having less than 1000
authorized space stations which the Commission believes appropriately
apportion fees commensurate with Space Bureau resources attributable to
regulating these licensees and grantees, and will remove the ``one-fee
fits all'' assessment commenters considered unfair. Further, the
Commission finds it reasonable that larger constellations that benefit
more from the use of Commission resources than smaller constellations,
should be assessed greater regulatory fees, per unit. Lastly,
consistent with the Commission's objective of revising the current
regulatory fee structure to be more fair, administrable, and
sustainable, small entities will be impacted by its adoption of
regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than those eligible
for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites category) within
new fee categories of NGSO--Small Constellations (fewer than 1000
authorized space stations) and NGSO--Large Constellations (1000
authorized space stations or more) and by eliminating the NGSO--Less
Complex category entirely. Fees between small and large NGSO
constellations will be apportioned on a 60/40 basis, with 60% of NGSO
space station fees allocated to small constellations and 40% to large
constellations. Consistent with the Commission's existing approach
small satellite fees will be deducted on a pro rata basis between small
and large constellations.
82. The Commission considered a proposal from the Space and Earth
Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM to assess regulatory fees in instances
where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations,
but which the space stations have not been considered to be separably
operational and therefore have not been subject to separate regulatory
fees under Commission rules. While a single regulatory fee might make
sense if regulatory fees were intended to recover solely the FTE
burdens associated with regulatory oversight of satellite's operations,
section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of
its licensing and regulatory functions--before, during, and after
authorization. Thus, where there are separate station authorizations
for a single satellite, evidenced by separate call signs, the
Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess
separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated
with each authorization, which could impact small entities.
83. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM also sought
comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on small and
other GSO space stations that are co-located with other GSO space
stations or that serve as non-operational ``on-orbit spares'' for other
operational GSO space stations. Finding that the goals of section 9 of
the Communications Act are not served by continuing to exclude space
stations from regulatory fees simply because they are co-located with
other operational space stations or serve as on-orbit spares to other
operational space stations, the Commission will now assess regulatory
fees on small and other GSO space stations co-located with other GSO
space station. The premise that underlies exclusion in both instances
is that the space stations were not considered to be separately
operational, but the Commission has determined that operational status
is no
[[Page 29772]]
longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess
regulatory fees. As is the case for stations with multiple
authorizations, a single regulatory fee would make sense if regulatory
fees were intended to recover solely the regulatory oversight of
satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the
Commission to recover all aspects of licensing and regulatory
functions--before, during, and after authorization. In the case of co-
located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE burdens
required to license these space stations does not appear to be
substantially different from that required to license other space
stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine
compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space
stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees.
84. 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 based on the rules adopted in the
Order and should not require small entities to hire professionals to
comply.
85. The regulatory fees resulting from the Order will be payable in
FY 2025, and small entities that qualify can take advantage of the
exemption from payment of regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis
threshold. Under the Commission's rules, small and other entities may
request a waiver, reduction, and/or deferral of their regulatory fees.
The waiver process provides smaller entities that may not be familiar
with the Commission's procedural filing rules an easier filing process
than their larger counterparts.
F. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
86. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
87. In the Order, the Commission considered but declined to adopt
an alternative methodology with a tiered structure 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, in favor of the proposal in the
Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM to assess regulatory fees
on stations under the existing methodology once they are authorized,
versus when the stations are certified to be operational. While there
may have been some been some benefit to small entities with the tiered
approach alternative methodology, a fee structure that allocates
payment obligations in proportion to the use of Commission resources
associated with of oversight of licensees, and grantees, and broadening
the base of regulatory fee payors thereby spreading the recovery of
fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing
and regulatory activities, better achieves the Commission's compliance
with the objectives of section 9 of the Act. The impact for small
entities is potentially reduced since lowering the per unit regulatory
fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed
allows benefits to accrue to all space and earth station licensees.
Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees
FNPRM strongly support assessing regulatory fees when space and earth
stations are authorized, rather than when they are operational. In
addition, the record did not provide a sufficient basis for assessing a
separate, lower fee for stations that are authorized, but not yet
operational. The Commission also considered but declined to adopt an
approach that would exclude assessment of fees on small and other space
stations that are authorized solely for TT&C operations. While fee
assessment on such space stations has the potential to impose costs and
create financial risk for these space station fee payors, the
Commission determined that these concerns do not outweigh the need to
assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from
FTE burdens. TT&C communications are still radiocommunications
authorized by the Commission and they are subject to regulatory
oversight by the Commission. Significant FTE burdens are involved with
the licensing of stations, even before a station becomes operational,
and staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during, and
after an application (including modifications thereof) are filed. This
also applies to space and earth stations that are used solely for TT&C.
Thus, the Commission determined at this time that there is insufficient
basis to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C-only
space stations. The Commission expects, however, to reexamine in a
future proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether fewer FTE
burdens can be reasonably ascribed to the licensing and regulatory
oversight of space stations authorized solely for TT&C communications,
so that a new, separate fee category might be able to be created for
such stations.
88. As discussed in the section E above, the two new fee
categories, ``Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)--Small
Constellations (fewer than 1,000 authorized space stations)'' and
``Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)--Large Constellations (1,000
or more authorized space stations),'' will likely benefit small
entities. By eliminating the separate fee category for ``Less Complex''
space stations, all non-geostationary orbit space stations (other than
small satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a
greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, the probability of
sudden or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee
category will be decreased, as well as the potential for rapid and
unpredictable changes in fees from year to year when a single fee payor
in each tier is added or removed. These new space station
categorizations are reasonable and fair because creation of separate
fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that non-
geostationary orbit space station constellations with more authorized
space stations are likely to benefit more from the Commission's
licensing and regulatory efforts than constellations with substantially
fewer authorized space stations. Further, using the number of
authorized space stations in an non-geostationary orbit satellite
system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of
using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens.
89. Acutely aware of the financial impact of regulatory fees,
particularly on smaller and less capitalized space companies, the
Commission retained the existing regulatory fees methodology with
targeted modifications rather than adopting a completely different
alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.
90. The Commission is presently focused on reducing the total fee
burden to be divided among regulated entities by making the Space
Bureau's operations more efficient. It finds that continued use of the
existing methodology will maintain stability and prevent unnecessary
disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At the same time,
targeted changes to the existing methodology will substantially reduce
the fee burden for a large class
[[Page 29773]]
of payors. Accordingly, the Commission finds that now is not the time
to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees.
Rather, the overarching goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable
regulatory fees can equally be achieved by targeted changes to the
existing methodology. The Commission observes that the changes in the
space industry that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the
Commission's re-examination of space and earth station regulatory fees
are still ongoing. Any wholesale departure from the existing
methodology at this juncture runs significant the risk of adopting a
new fee methodology that still reflects past assumptions about
licensing and regulation of space and earth stations. Comments agree
that the Commission should not undertake a major overhaul of its space
and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of the ongoing
modernization efforts.
91. Finally, in light of an insufficient record to determine that
the creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees
at this time is either necessary or feasible, the Commission considered
but declined to adopt new categories of regulatory fees for earth
stations. The majority of comments continue to oppose the creation of
additional earth station regulatory fee categories as difficult to
administer fairly or efficiently, and having limited utility given the
relatively small variation in fees any changes would produce. On the
other hand although there are some comments that suggest the
possibility of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed
earth stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which
earth stations would be included in this category since there are many
different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket
licenses, such as earth stations in motion, mobile-satellite service
earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks. Furthermore,
at this time and based on the record, the Commission is not able to
attribute with any degree of reasonableness the allocation of FTE
burdens to blanket earth stations, either by individual service type or
collectively, compared to non-blanket licensed stations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-12579 Filed 7-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 7, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.