11642 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Order, Facing Foster Care et al. v. HHS, No. 

21–cv–00308 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2021) (order 

postponing effective date), ECF No. 18. 

2021.1 The Department is issuing this 

notification to apprise the public of the 

court’s order. The portions of the rule 

not affected by the court’s order remain 

in effect. 

Norris Cochran, 

Acting Secretary, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03967 Filed 2–24–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–24–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 16–408; FCC 20–119; FR ID 

17497] 

Updates Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service 

Systems and Related Matters 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) eliminates the domestic 

coverage requirement for nongeostationary-satellite orbit, fixedsatellite service (NGSO FSS) systems. 

DATES: Effective February 26, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay 

DeCell, International Bureau, 

Clay.DeCell@fcc.gov, 202–418–0803. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order, FCC 20–119, adopted 

August 26, 2020, and released August 

28, 2020. The full text of the Second 

Report and Order is available at https:// 

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ 

FCC-20-199A1.pdf. To request materials 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities, send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in this proceeding. The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the Notice, including 

comment on the IRFA. No comments 

were received on the IRFA. This present 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document eliminates, and thus 

does not contain new or revised, 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified ‘‘information burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission has determined, and 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Second Report and 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

In this Second Report and Order, the 

Commission eliminates the domestic 

coverage requirement for NGSO FSS 

systems. This action will provide greater 

regulatory certainty and operational 

flexibility to innovative NGSO FSS 

systems, while meeting the 

Commission’s goal of promoting 

widespread NGSO service offerings. 

The Commission’s rules currently 

require NGSO FSS systems to be 

capable of providing continuous service 

within the fifty states, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. This domestic 

coverage requirement was originally 

adopted for mobile-satellite service 

(MSS) systems to promote efficient and 

ubiquitous service by satellite systems 

that are, as a general matter, unable to 

share spectrum. It was subsequently 

expanded to NGSO FSS systems to 

maximize use of a global spectrum 

resource allocated to this service, based 

on the assumption that NGSO FSS 

systems were inherently global in 

nature. 

Since the Commission adopted its 

NGSO FSS domestic coverage 

requirements in 1997 and 2002, a 

number of NGSO FSS systems have 

been proposed that were not inherently 

global in nature. These systems have 

been designed to meet the requirements 

of certain underserved areas, where 

satellite services in general are 

especially valuable, such as in Alaska or 

on islands and ships in the Pacific 

Ocean. In addition, not all NGSO FSS 

systems may provide general consumer 

or enterprise broadband services. 

Instead, they may focus on a narrower 

set of services for which there is no 

significant nationwide demand or 

rationale for imposing nationwide 

coverage for these services. 

Furthermore, in 47 CFR 25.261 the 

Commission has developed new, more 

efficient sharing criteria among NGSO 

FSS systems to encourage multiple 

systems to operate in different areas of 

the United States simultaneously. These 

spectrum sharing possibilities among 

NGSO FSS systems also allow both 

broad coverage and specialized coverage 

systems to coexist. Accordingly, one 

NGSO FSS system with only partial 

coverage of the United States does not 

preclude another NGSO FSS system 

from covering the remainder of the 

United States or from providing full 

U.S. coverage. Indeed, allowing targeted 

or regional coverage may promote more 

intense and efficient use of this 

spectrum by enabling geographic 

sharing in addition to other forms of 

sharing already in use. 

Retaining the domestic coverage rule 

requires design tradeoffs that may 

hamper or preclude innovative satellite 

system designs, which could otherwise 

better address market needs. 

Eliminating this rule serves the public 

interest by removing this unnecessary 

limit on design and operational 

flexibility, which imposes an artificial 

constraint on such technological 

evolution and innovation. 

Cumulatively, NGSO FSS systems 

that have already been approved by the 

Commission will provide complete 

coverage of the United States, and the 

long reach of satellite technology, with 

the particular advantages of lowerlatency associated with NGSO FSS 

systems, provide inherent incentives for 

future NGSO FSS systems to likewise 

provide coverage across the United 

States, especially the underserved areas. 

For example, the domestic coverage 

requirements were waived for the first, 

currently operating NGSO FSS system, 

but this system was later expanded to 

provide full coverage of the United 

States not because of a regulatory 

imposition but growing business 

rationales. We are therefore not 

persuaded by parties claiming that 

elimination of the domestic coverage 

requirement would weaken incentives 

for NGSO FSS operators to provide 

service in rural and remote areas, 

notably in Alaska. 

For similar reasons, we disagree with 

commenters who argue that, absent the 

domestic coverage requirement, NGSO 

FSS operators will concentrate on highpopulation areas to the exclusion of 

rural and remote areas. NGSO FSS 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11643 

satellite technology is relatively efficient 

at serving rural and remote areas when 

compared with alternative, terrestrial 

services. NGSO FSS operators have 

more of an incentive to serve areas 

which terrestrial providers find it more 

costly to serve, and less of an incentive 

to serve high-population areas which 

already have multiple terrestrial 

suppliers that would be more 

challenging to compete against. So 

while some NGSO FSS operators might 

not provide coverage throughout the 

United States, they have the incentive to 

concentrate their efforts in those areas 

where they have a cost advantage, 

typically in areas where there might be 

fewer terrestrial providers, and where 

those terrestrial providers might have 

higher costs per subscriber than in more 

highly populated areas. 

Given these incentives and the 

coverage provided by already-approved 

NGSO FSS systems, we also do not 

agree that, in eliminating this 

requirement, we should require NGSO 

FSS system applicants that will not 

serve the entire United States to 

demonstrate in their application that 

they will provide substantial service to 

the rural areas within their coverage 

area. Like with the domestic coverage 

requirement itself, without this 

requirement, we believe that systems 

already in operation or proposed will 

continue to provide coverage of all of 

the United States because of the 

technical and financial advantages that 

NGSO FSS satellite systems have in 

providing services to sparsely populated 

areas when compared with terrestrial 

alternatives that are relatively more 

costly to deploy in these areas. And 

providing greater flexibility to NGSO 

FSS system designers will allow greater 

deployment and more cost-effective 

solutions for consumers, including in 

rural areas. 

We also disagree with one comment 

that the domestic coverage requirement 

is mandated by section 1 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The Commission 

has authorized a large variety of GSO 

satellite networks and terrestrial 

wireless systems without ever 

interpreting the Act to require that a 

single wireless applicant cover the 

entire United States. Nor did the 

Commission so interpret the Act when 

adopting the particular NGSO FSS 

coverage requirements at issue here. 

Indeed, the deregulatory and 

procompetitive purposes of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 

suggest we should welcome competition 

in all its forms. The Commission fulfills 

its mission to ‘‘to make available, so far 

as possible, to all the people of the 

United States . . . a rapid, efficient, 

Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and 

radio communication service’’ by 

adopting rules and licensing policies 

that facilitate the authorization of 

multiple, innovative NGSO FSS systems 

capable of serving a variety of needs 

throughout the nation. 

We also reject the approach of 

considering waivers on a case-by-case 

basis, as suggested by some 

commenters, as this would create 

regulatory uncertainty for NGSO FSS 

system proponents while they design 

systems that will ultimately seek a 

waiver. Even greater regulatory 

uncertainty, and higher costs of 

deployment, would result from 

Commission efforts to force the reengineering of a satellite constellation 

until it complied with the domestic 

coverage requirement. 

Instead, in light of NGSO FSS systems 

which have been licensed or granted 

U.S. market access to address 

underserved communities, including in 

Alaska, we conclude that affording 

satellite operators regulatory certainty 

and design flexibility will best serve the 

interests of connectivity across 

American communities. We therefore 

eliminate the domestic coverage 

requirement for NGSO FSS systems. 

We will apply the rules and 

procedures we adopt in this Report and 

Order to pending space station 

applications and petitions for U.S. 

market access. In addition, we will 

allow current licensees and market 

access recipients to submit a simple 

letter request to modify particular 

conditions in their grants consistent 

with the rule changes adopted in this 

Order. The Commission may apply new 

procedures to pending applications if 

doing so does not impair the rights an 

applicant possessed when it filed its 

application, increase an applicant’s 

liability for past conduct, or impose new 

duties on applicants with respect to 

transactions already completed. 

Applicants do not gain any vested right 

merely by filing an application, and the 

simple act of filing an application is not 

considered a ‘‘transaction already 

completed’’ for purposes of this 

analysis. Accordingly, applying our new 

rules and procedures to pending space 

station applications will not impair the 

rights any applicant had at the time it 

filed its application. Nor will doing so 

increase an applicant’s liability for past 

conduct. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the RFA, an IRFA was 

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this proceeding. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the Notice, 

including comment on the IRFA. No 

comments were received on the IRFA. 

This present FRFA conforms to the 

RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 

The Order repeals a domestic 

coverage requirement for NGSO FSS 

satellite systems in order to provide 

additional regulatory certainty and 

flexibility, while encouraging the 

development of innovative satellite 

systems. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

There were no comments filed that 

specifically addressed the IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, 

the Commission is required to respond 

to any comments filed by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. The Chief 

Counsel did not file any comments in 

response to the proposed rules in this 

proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of, and, where feasible, an 

estimate of, the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the rules 

adopted herein. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. Below, we 

describe and estimate the number of 

small entity licensees that may be 

affected by adoption of the final rules. 

E. Satellite Telecommunications 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ The category has 

a small business size standard of $32.5 

million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. For this 

category, Census Bureau data for 2012 

show that there were a total of 333 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

The rule changes adopted in this 

Order will affect space station 

applicants and licensees. Generally, 

space stations cost hundreds of millions 

of dollars to construct, launch, and 

operate. Consequently, we do not 

anticipate that any space station 

operators are small entities that would 

be affected by our actions. 

F. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

The Order adopts rule changes that 

would affect compliance requirements 

for space station operators. As noted 

above, these parties rarely qualify as 

small entities. 

The Order eliminates a geographic 

service requirement that restricts the 

design possibilities of certain NGSO 

FSS satellite systems. This action is 

designed to achieve the Commission’s 

mandate to regulate in the public 

interest while minimizing burdens on 

all affected parties, including small 

entities. 

G. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

In this Order, the Commission 

removes the domestic coverage 

requirement for NGSO FSS satellite 

systems. This action will reduce 

burdens on the affected licensees, 

including any small entities. 

H. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Report to Congress: The Commission 

will send a copy of the Second Report 

and Order, including this FRFA, in a 

report to be sent to Congress pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Second Report and Order, 

including this FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A 

copy of the Second Report and Order 

and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will 

also be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Ordering Clauses 

It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 

7(a), 10, 303, 308(b), and 316 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 160, 

303, 308(b), 316, that this Second Report 

and Order is adopted and part 25 of the 

Commission’s rules are amended. 

It is further ordered that this Second 

Report and Order and the rules as 

amended herein will become effective as 

of the date of publication of a summary 

in the Federal Register. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as 

follows: 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless 

otherwise noted. 

§ 25.146 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 25.146, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b). 

■ 3. Revise § 25.217(b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.217 Default service rules. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite 

licenses, except as specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for 

which the application was filed 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

§ 25.157 after August 27, 2003, 

authorizing operations in a frequency 

band for which the Commission has not 

adopted frequency band-specific service 

rules at the time the license is granted, 

the licensee will be required to comply 

with the technical requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this 

section, notwithstanding the frequency 

bands specified in these sections: 

§§ 25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except NGSO FSS 

systems) and (iii) (except NGSO FSS 

systems), 25.204(e), and 25.210(f) and 

(i). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04028 Filed 2–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES