Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64167

he or she may be entitled to administrative

relief from recovery under § 255.16 of this

part.

§ 255.18 Compromise of overpayments.

(a) This section sets forth the

principal standards which the Board

applies in exercising its authority under

31 U.S.C. 3711 to compromise an

overpayment. In addition, the Board

may compromise an overpayment under

the Federal Claims Collection Standards

set forth in 4 CFR part 103.

(b) An overpayment may be

compromised only if it is in the best

interest of the agency. Circumstances

and factors to be considered are:

(1) The overpayment cannot be

collected because of the overpaid

individual’s inability to pay the full

amount of the overpayment within a

reasonable time;

(2) The overpaid individual refuses to

pay the overpayment in full and it

appears that enforced collection

procedures will take an inordinate

amount of time or that the cost of

collecting does not justify the enforced

collection of the full amount; or

(3) There is doubt that the Board

could prove its case in court for the full

amount claimed because of a bona fide

dispute as to the facts or because of the

legal issues involved.

§ 255.19 Suspension or termination of the

collection of overpayments.

This section sets forth the principal

standards which the Board applies in

approving the suspension or

termination of the collection of an

overpayment. In addition the Board may

suspend or terminate collection under

the Federal Claims Collection Standards

set forth in 4 CFR part 104.

(a) Collection action on a Board claim

may be suspended temporarily when

the debtor cannot be located and there

is reason to believe future collection

action may be productive or collection

may be effected by offset in the near

future.

(b) Collection action may be

terminated when:

(1) The debtor is unable to make any

substantial payment;

(2) The debtor cannot be located and

offset is too remote to justify retention

of the claim;

(3) The cost of collection action will

exceed the amount recoverable; or

(4) The claim is legally without merit

or cannot be substantiated by the

evidence.

Dated: November 21, 1997.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–31726 Filed 12–03–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 96–111; CC Docket No. 93–

23; FCC 97–399]

Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellites Providing

Domestic and International Service in

the United States

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Federal

Communications Commission

(Commission) adopts a new standard for

foreign participation in the U.S. satellite

services market consistent with the

United States’ obligations under the

WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. The

common sense rules and procedures we

establish will provide opportunities for

foreign entities to deliver satellite

services in this country. The liberalized

market conditions that will result from

the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement will

allow U.S. companies to enter

previously closed foreign markets.

These joint initiatives will benefit U.S.

consumers by increasing the availability

of various satellite services, providing

more alternatives, reducing prices, and

facilitating technological innovation.

This new environment will encourage a

more competitive satellite market in the

United States, as well as spur

development of broader, more global

satellite systems. It will also foster

greater opportunity for communications

across national boundaries by making it

easier for consumers worldwide to gain

access to people, places, information,

and ideas.

DATES: These amendments contain

information collection requirements

which are not effective until approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget, subject to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).

FCC will publish a document in the

Federal Register announcing the

effective date. Public and agency

comments on the modifications to the

information collections are due on or

before February 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Haller at (202) 418–0760, Tania

Hanna at (202) 418–0762, or Laurie

Sherman at (202) 418–0429 of the

International Bureau. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this Report and

Order, contact Judy Boley at (202) 418–

0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order in IB Docket No. 96–111; CC

Docket No. 93–23; FCC 97–399, adopted

November 25, 1997 and released

November 26, 1997. The complete text

of this Report and Order is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C., and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036,

telephone: 202–857–3800; facsimile:

202–857–3805.

This Report and Order contains a

modified information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information collections

contained in this Report and Order, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due on or

before February 2, 1998; OMB

notification of action is due February 2,

1998. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

This Report and Order contains

modifications to approved collections

and has been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review

under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). For

copies of the submissions contact Judy

Boley at (202) 418–0214. A copy of any

comments filed with the Office of

Management and Budget should also be

sent to the following address at the

Commission: Federal Communications

Commission, Performance Evaluation

and Records Management Branch, Room

234, Paperwork Reduction Project, OMB

No. 3060–0678, Washington, D.C.

20554. For further information contact

Judy Boley, (202) 418–0214.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0678.
64168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The results of the WTO basic

telecommunications services negotiations are

incorporated into the General Agreement on Trade

in Services (GATS) by the Fourth Protocol to the

GATS (April 30, 1996), 36 I.L.M. 336 (1997) (the

‘‘Fourth Protocol to the GATS’’). These results, as

well as the basic obligations contained in the GATS,

are referred to in this summary as the ‘‘WTO Basic

Telecom Agreement.’’

2See ¶3 of the Fourth Protocol to the GATS.

3Foreign Participation in the U.S.

Telecommunications Market Report and Order, FCC

97–398 (released November 26, 1997) (Foreign

Participation Order).

4 In the Matter of Amendment of the

Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow NonU.S. licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic

and International Satellite Service in the United

States, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd

18178 (1996), 61 FR 32398 (June 24, 1996) (NPRM).

Title: Commission’s Rules and

Regulations for Satellite Applications

and Licensing Procedures.

Form Number: 312.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collections.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit organizations, including small

businesses, governments.

Number of Respondents: 1,310.

Estimated Time Per Response: The

Commission estimates that all

respondents will hire an attorney or

legal assistant to complete the form. The

time to retain these services is 2 hours

per respondent.

Total Annual Burden: 2,620 hours.

Estimated Costs Per Respondent: This

includes the charges for hiring an

attorney, legal assistant, or engineer at

$150 an hour to complete the

submissions. The estimated average

time to complete the Form 312 is 11

hours per response. The estimated

average time to complete space station

submissions is 20 hours per response.

The estimated average time to prepare

submissions using non-U.S. licensed

satellites is 22 hours per response. The

estimated average time to complete the

ASIA submission is 24 hours per

response. Fee amounts vary by type of

service and application. Total fee

estimates for industry are approximately

$5,800,000.00.

Needs and Uses: In accordance with

the Communications Act, the

information collected will be used by

the Commission in evaluating

applications requesting authority to

operate pursuant to part 25 of the

Commission’s rules. The information

will be used to determine the legal,

technical, and financial ability of the

applicants and will assist the

Commission in determining whether

grant of such authorizations are in the

public interest.

Summary of Report and Order

1. In this Report and Order, the

Commission takes an historic step by

implementing the market opening

commitments made by the United States

in the World Trade Organization (WTO)

Agreement on Basic

Telecommunications Services (WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement).1 The WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement, which will

take effect on January 1, 1998,2 is the

culmination of the efforts of the United

States and 68 other WTO Members to

bring competition to global markets for

telecommunications services, including

satellite services. The WTO Basic

Telecom Agreement is centered on the

principles of open markets, private

investment, and competition. It covers

nations that account for 90 percent of

worldwide telecommunications services

revenues. By opening markets

worldwide, the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement will allow new entrants to

deploy innovative, cost-effective

technologies, and thereby advance the

growth of satellite services around the

globe.

2. The Commission is optimistic that

global implementation of the WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement will result in

significant worldwide benefits to

consumers and providers. At the same

time, it recognizes that much work

needs to be done to ensure that the

promise of the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement is fulfilled. With this Report

and Order and the companion Foreign

Participation in the U.S.

Telecommunications Market Report and

Order,3 the Commission has

implemented the letter and the spirit of

the market opening commitments made

by the United States. The Commission

expects that foreign entities will begin

to enter and compete in the U.S. market

soon after January 1, 1998. The

Commission also expects that U.S.

providers will likewise be able to enter

and compete in previously-closed

foreign markets.

3. Under the terms of the WTO Basic

Telecom Agreement, the United States

has committed to allow foreign

suppliers to provide a broad range of

basic telecommunications services,

including satellite services, in the

United States. In return, most of the

world’s major trading nations have

made binding commitments to move

from monopoly provision of basic

telecommunications services to open

entry and procompetitive regulation of

these services. In this Report and Order,

the Commission implements the United

States’ commitments to provide access

to the U.S. market for satellite services

by establishing a framework for

assessing applications by non-U.S.

licensed satellite systems to serve the

United States.

4. The common sense policies and

rules the Commission adopts will

produce substantial public interest

benefits for U.S. consumers. First, they

will facilitate greater competition in the

U.S. satellite services market. Enhanced

competition in the U.S. market, in turn,

will provide users more alternatives in

choosing communications providers

and services, as well as reduce prices

and facilitate technological innovation.

In addition to encouraging a more

competitive satellite market in the

United States, this new environment

will spur development of broader, more

global satellite systems. These

advancements will foster greater global

community benefits by providing users,

ranging from individual consumers and

businesses to schools and hospitals,

increased access to people, places,

information, and ideas worldwide.

5. In the companion Foreign

Participation Order, the Commission

takes parallel steps to carry out the

market opening commitments made by

the United States in the WTO Basic

Telecom Agreement. That order

establishes a framework for facilitating

entry into the U.S. market by foreign

entities for provision of

telecommunications services (other than

satellite services). As in the companion

order, in this Report and Order the

Commission adopts for satellite services

an approach that encourages foreign

entry. Both decisions are guided by the

common objective of promoting

competition in the U.S. market, and

achieving a more competitive global

market for all basic telecommunications

services.

6. While the United States was

negotiating the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement, the Commission was

exploring measures to increase

opportunities for foreign entry in the

United States satellite services market.

The Commission began this proceeding

in May 1996 by issuing a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking.4 The NPRM

proposed a uniform framework for

permitting foreign-licensed satellite

systems to serve the United States.

Adopted when only a few of the world’s

satellite markets were open to

competition by U.S. providers, the

NPRM proposed to evaluate the

effective competitive opportunities

(ECO) in the country in which the

foreign satellite was licensed (the ECOSat test) prior to granting an application

to serve the United States. After the

conclusion of the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement, the Commission issued a

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

revising its proposals based on the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64169

5Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory

Policies to Allow Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations

to Provide Domestic and International Satellite

Service in the United States, Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97–252 (released July

18, 1997), 62 FR 40494 (July 29, 1997) (FNPRM).

6The phrase ‘‘non-U.S.’’ licensed satellite system

or operator means one that does not hold a

commercial space station license from the

Commission. By contrast, a ‘‘U.S.’’ satellite system

or operator means one whose space station is

licensed by the Commission.

7 47 U.S.C. 301, et. seq.

market-opening changes that should

result from the Agreement.5 Both the

NPRM and the FNPRM reflect the

Commission’s continuing objective to

foster development of innovative

satellite communications services for

U.S. consumers through fair and

vigorous competition among multiple

service providers, including foreignlicensed satellites.

7. Specifically, in this Report and

Order, the Commission adopts a

framework under which it will consider

requests for access by non-U.S. licensed

satellites 6 into the United States. As

required by Title III of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (Communications Act), we

will examine all requests to determine

whether grant of authority is consistent

with the public interest, convenience

and necessity.7 In making this

determination, we will consider public

interest factors such as the effect on

competition in the United States,

spectrum availability, eligibility and

operating requirements, as well as

national security, law enforcement, and

trade and foreign policy concerns raised

by the Executive Branch. The

Commission adopts a presumption that

entry by WTO Member satellite systems

will promote competition in the U.S.

satellite services market. Opposing

parties may rebut the presumption by

showing that granting the application

would cause competitive harm in the

U.S. satellite services market. Although

we find that license conditions will

generally provide sufficient protection

against anticompetitive conduct, we

recognize the possibility that

circumstances might arise in which

conditions might not adequately

constrain the potential for

anticompetitive harm in the U.S.

market. In such cases, the Commission

reserves the right to attach additional

conditions to a license grant, or in the

exceptional case in which grant would

lose a very high risk to competition,

deny an application.

8. The Commission will apply the

presumption that entry will promote

competition to affiliates of

intergovernmental satellite

organizations (IGO) licensed by WTO

Members. For applications from

COMSAT to provide U.S. domestic

service via INTELSAT or Inmarsat, the

Commission will require COMSAT to

waive its immunity from suit and

demonstrate that the service will

enhance competition in the U.S. market.

For satellites licensed by non-WTO

Members and for all satellites providing

Direct-to-Home (DTH), Direct

Broadcasting Satellite (DBS), and Digital

Audio Radio Services (DARS), we will

examine whether U.S. satellites have

effective competitive opportunities in

the relevant foreign markets to

determine whether allowing the foreignlicensed satellite to serve the United

States would satisfy the competition

component of the public interest

analysis.

9. This new framework is based on

consideration of over 100 comments

submitted from parties around the

world over the course of more than a

year, is grounded in the public interest

requirements of the Communications

Act and the procompetitive principles

of the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement,

sets forth clear criteria for entry into the

United States by various types of nonU.S. satellites, delineates the applicable

Commission rules and describes in

detail the procedures for applications to

provide service in the United States

using a non-U.S. licensed satellite. This

framework will largely replace the

Commission’s current approach of

reviewing applications involving nonU.S. licensed satellites based on the

individual circumstances before it. The

Commission expects that our new

framework will encourage and ease

entry by non-U.S. satellites into the U.S.

market and that the occasional request

the Commission receives today

involving a non-U.S. licensed satellite

will become more common. At the same

time, the Commission plans to continue

to look carefully at market opening

measures enacted by the rest of the

world.

10. Policy Objectives. The purpose of

this Report and Order is to establish a

new framework to facilitate competitive

entry in the U.S. satellite services

market by non-U.S. licensed satellites,

consistent with the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement. Providing opportunities for

non-U.S. licensed satellites to deliver

services in this country should bring

U.S. consumers the benefits of enhanced

competition and afford greater

opportunities for U.S. companies to

enter previously closed foreign markets,

thereby stimulating a more competitive

global satellite services market.

11. WTO Members. The Commission

adopts an open entry standard for

applicants seeking to access satellite

systems licensed by WTO Members to

provide satellite services covered under

the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. An

open entry policy will enable U.S.

consumers to enjoy the benefits of

increased competition in U.S. markets.

The Commission presumes that entry

will enhance competition in light of the

fact that so many WTO Members have

committed to lifting entry restrictions

and adopting competitive safeguards.

Where necessary to constrain the

potential for anticompetitive harm in

the U.S. market for satellite services, the

Commission reserves the right to attach

conditions to a grant of authority, and

in the exceptional case in which an

application poses a very high risk to

competition, to deny an application.

12. Non-WTO Members. The

Commission continues to be concerned

about effective competitive

opportunities for U.S. satellite systems

in non-WTO Member markets. It finds

that the market conditions that existed

when the Commission proposed to

adopt an ECO-Sat test, which

determines whether there are effective

competitive opportunities for U.S.

satellites in the foreign market, have not

changed sufficiently with respect to

countries that are not members of the

WTO. The Commission therefore finds

that it will serve the goals of our

international satellite policy to apply

the ECO-Sat test in the context of

applications from non-WTO Member

entities and encourage such countries to

open their markets to competition.

13. Services Not Covered by the WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement. The

Commission finds that circumstances

that existed when it proposed to adopt

an ECO-Sat test have not changed

sufficiently with respect to DTH

services, DBS services, and DARS.

Commitments made as part of the WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement were not

sufficient to enable it to adopt a

presumption of entry for these services.

The Commission will apply the ECO-Sat

test to applications to provide these

services through all satellite systems,

whether or not they are systems of WTO

Members.

14. Intergovernmental Satellite

Organizations (IGOs) and IGO Affiliates.

Prior to acting on any application from

COMSAT to provide domestic service

via INTELSAT or Inmarsat, the

Commission will require COMSAT to

make an appropriate waiver of its

immunity from suit, including suit

under the U.S. antitrust laws. The

Commission will then look to COMSAT

to show that entry into the domestic

market would promote competition and

would otherwise be in the public

interest. The Commission will treat IGO
64170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

8See supra n.4.

9See supra n.5.

10See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601

et. seq., has been amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act (CWAAA) of 1996,

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Title II

of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

11Non-covered services are those not contained in

the U.S. Schedule of Commitments in the WTO

Basic Telecom Agreement—Direct to Home (DTH),

Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) or Digital Audio

Service (DARS).

affiliates that are licensed by WTO

Members as it would similar systems

licensed by WTO Members. In

evaluating the competition component

of an application involving an IGO

affiliate, the Commission will consider

any potential anticompetitive or market

distorting consequences of a continued

relationship or connection between an

IGO and its affiliate.

15. Additional Public Interest Factors

and Operating Requirements. In

evaluating requests to serve the United

States using a non-U.S. satellite, the

Commission also will consider

additional public interest factors,

including spectrum availability,

eligibility requirements such as legal,

technical and financial qualifications,

operating requirements, and national

security, law enforcement, foreign

policy and trade policy concerns. In

applying these factors, the Commission

will treat non-U.S. satellites as it would

U.S. licensed satellites at the request

stage, as well as after a system is

operational. Thus, non-U.S. systems

will be required to comply with the

same financial, technical and legal

qualifications, observe the prohibition

against exclusive service arrangements

and comply with other generallyapplicable service rules.

16. Access Procedures. In

implementing this framework, the

Commission will not require space

stations licensed by another country or

administration to obtain separate and

duplicative U.S. space station licenses.

Rather, the Commission will license

earth stations in the United States to

operate with these satellites. Further,

the Commission will permit operators of

existing or planned non-U.S. space

stations to participate in U.S. space

station processing rounds, where the

Commission considers competing

applications to operate space stations

that will offer a specific satellite service

in particular frequency bands. In

addition, earth station entities may file

an earth station application either in a

processing round or separately where

the non-U.S. satellite is already in orbit.

17. This Report and Order contains a

modified information collection. As part

of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, the Commission

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information collections

contained in this Report and Order, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due on or

before February 2, 1998. OMB

comments are due on or before February

2, 1998. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

18. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due to

Commission on or before February 2,

1998. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission,

Performance Evaluation and Records

Management Branch, Room 234, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov. NOTE:

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the modified collection of

information contained in this Report

and Order between 30 and 60 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

19. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 603 (RFA), the Commission prepared

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) in the NPRM in IB

Docket No. 96–111.8 After the

conclusion of the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement, the Commission released

the FNPRM requesting comment on the

proposals in the FNPRM, including the

IRFA.9 The Commission’s Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

in this Report and Order conforms to the

RFA, as amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996

(CWAAA), Public Law 104–121, 110

Stat. 847 (1996).10

I. Need for, and Objectives of, the

International Satellite Services Report

and Order

20. In this Report and Order, the

Commission promulgates rules for nonU.S. licensed satellites to provide

satellite services in the United States.

This action will advance the growth of

global satellite services and create

greater competition in the U.S. satellite

market. Enhanced competition in the

U.S. market will benefit U.S. consumers,

including small businesses, by

increasing the availability of various

satellite services, providing more

alternatives in the selection of

communications services, reducing

prices, and facilitating technological

innovation. The Commission adopts

these rules in part to reflect the

liberalized market environment that will

result from the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement. Specifically, the

Commission adopts an open entry

standard for applicants seeking to access

satellite systems from WTO Members

providing satellite services covered by

the U.S. Schedule of Commitments

under the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement (Fixed Satellite Services and

Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)).11 The

Commission presumes that entry will be

competitive in these cases. The

Commission reserves the right, however,

to attach conditions to a grant of

authority or, in exceptional

circumstances, where conditions may

not adequately constrain the potential

for anticompetitive harm in the U.S.

market, to deny an application. In

deciding whether to grant non-WTO

country satellites access to the U.S.

market or whether to allow any nonU.S. satellite to provide non-covered

services in the United States, the

Commission adopts the ‘‘ECO-Sat test.’’

This test requires that U.S. satellite

operators have ‘‘effective competitive

opportunities’’ in the foreign market

before allowing a satellite licensed by

that country access into the United

States.

II. Summary of Significant Issues

Raised by Public Comments in

Response to the IRFA

21. No comments were filed in direct

response to the questions posed in the

IRFA in either the NPRM or the FNPRM.

In reply comments to the NPRM,

however, NATSAT argues that the

Commission should not apply the ECOSat test to applications filed on or before
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64171

12NATSAT NPRM Reply Comments at 11–15

citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

13 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual;

13 CFR part 121.

14Report and Order at Section III.B.3.b.

15 Id. 16 Id. 17See OMB No. 3060–0678.

July 15, 1996 by ‘‘designated entities’’ to

resell MSS service in the United

States.12 It claims that such an

exemption would be consistent with the

directive Section 309(j) to ensure that

small businesses and minority

entrepreneurs have the chance to

participate in the provision of spectrumbased services. In the Report and Order,

the Commission does not adopt an ECOSat test with respect to WTO-Member

satellites providing WTO-covered

services. Thus, small entities may access

a large percentage of non-U.S. satellites

without conducting an ECO-Sat

analysis. Moreover, an ECO-Sat analysis

is a minimal burden when compared to

the possibility that unrestricted entry by

foreign-licensed satellite systems would

distort competition in the United States

market.

III. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities Subject to the

Rules

22. The Commission has not

developed its own definition of ‘‘small

entity’’ for purposes of licensing

satellite-delivered services.

Accordingly, we rely on the definition

of ‘‘small entity’’ provided under the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

rules applicable to Communications

Services, Not Elsewhere Classified.13 A

‘‘small entity’’ under these SBA rules is

defined as an entity with $11.0 million

or less in annual receipts.

IV. Summary of Projected Reporting,

Record Keeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

23. This Report and Order requires

foreign-licensed systems serving the

United States to comply with the same

public interest standards that the

Commission applies to U.S. satellites.

First, foreign-licensed satellite systems

must comply with the same technical

requirements as a U.S.-licensed satellite

system. Without examining its technical

compatibility with U.S.-licensed

satellites, a foreign-licensed satellite

system may cause unacceptable

interference with U.S. systems and

possible service disruptions to

customers.14 Second, the Commssion

requires foreign-satellite system

applicants to comply with our financial

rules, established under Section 308(b)

of the Communications Act.15 Reserving

orbit locations or spectrum for future

satellites without examining whether

the operator is financially qualified to

build a system, which often costs

hundreds of millions of dollars, could

block entry by other United States or

foreign companies that have the

financial capability to proceed,

ultimately delaying service to the

public. Third, foreign-licensed satellite

systems must comply with the

Commissions legal qualifications

consistent with Sections 308 and 309 of

the Communications Act.16 The purpose

of requiring compliance with legal

requirements is to ensure that entities

providing satellite services in the

United States will abide by Commission

rules. For example, certain information

may provide relevant indicia of

compliance. Violations of law by an

applicant, particularly those relating to

credibility, may be evidence that it will

not comply with Commission rules.

Thus, it is vital that the Commission

obtain assurance that an applicant will

follow the rules that the Commission

has established over the years to

maximize the development of efficient,

compatible, and innovative satellite

systems.

V. Significant Alternatives and Steps

Taken By Agency to Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on a

Substantial Number of Small Entities

Consistent with Stated Objectives

24. The Commission will apply the

same rules to foreign-licensed systems

as have been applied to U.S. licensed

systems. This approach will not impose

any additional burdens on foreignlicensed satellite systems, small or large.

Earth station operators seeking to access

a non-U.S. satellite will be required to

provide the same information regarding

the satellite that U.S. satellite applicants

must provide. This information is

needed to ensure that transmissions

from the space station into the United

States do not cause technical

interference into existing U.S.

operations and that other Commission

public interest objectives are met. The

Commission expects, however, that the

satellite information will be provided by

the satellite operator to the earth station

applicant because of their mutual

business objectives. Thus, there will be

no economic impact on small

businesses because there are no

additional burdens being imposed.

Certain information will not be

required. First, where the international

technical coordination process has been

completed between the United States

and the foreign satellite, additional

technical information about that foreign

satellite is not necessary. This is

because the United States and the

relevant foreign administration

exchange extensive technical data about

their respective systems during the

course of the bilateral negotiations that

lead up to a coordination agreement.

This technical information is sufficient

for us to determine whether the foreign

satellite complies with Commission

technical rules. The Commission finds

that this new framework will benefit

small businesses because earth station

entities will have greater choice of space

stations to access and opportunity to

benefit from the other advantages of a

more competitive market, such as

reduced prices. In addition, small, local

programmers will have access to a more

competitive selection of satellite service

providers. In this regard, our measures

will advance the small business goals of

Section 257 of the 1996 Act.

25. Report to Congress: The

Commission will send a copy of the

Report and Order including this FRFA,

in a report to be sent to Congress

pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A

summary of the Report and Order and

this FRFA will also be published in the

Federal Register, see 5 U.S.C. 604(b),

and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

Paperwork Reduction Act

26. This Report and Order contains

new or modified information

collections. A request for clearance of

the information collections proposed in

the FNPRM was submitted to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

approved on October 13, 1997.17 The

changes to the approved information

collection adopted in this Report and

Order will be submitted to OMB and

will become effective upon approval by

OMB.

Conclusion

27. In this Report and Order, the

Commission adopts a new framework

for foreign participation in the U.S.

satellite services market, consistent with

the United States’ obligations under the

WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. The

common sense rules and procedures the

Commission establishes will provide

opportunities for non-U.S. entities to

deliver satellite services in this country.

The liberalized market conditions that

should result from the WTO Basic

Telecom Agreement will allow U.S.

companies to enter previously closed

foreign markets. These joint initiatives

will benefit U.S. consumers by

increasing the availability of various
64172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

satellite services, providing more

alternatives, reducing prices, and

facilitating technological innovation.

This new environment will encourage a

more competitive satellite market in the

United States, as well as spur

development of broader, more global

satellite systems. It will also foster

greater opportunity for communications

across national boundaries by making it

easier for consumers worldwide to gain

access to people, places, information,

and ideas.

Ordering Clauses

28. Accordingly, it is Ordered that,

pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303(r),

308, 309, and 310 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i),

303(r), 308, 309, and 310, the policies,

rules and requirements discussed herein

are adopted and part 25 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 25, is

amended as set forth below.

29. It is further ordered that authority

is delegated to the Chief, International

Bureau as specified herein, to effect the

decisions as set forth above.

30. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Managing

Director shall send a copy of this Report

and Order, including the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

31. It is further ordered that the

amendments to part 25 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 25,

FCC Form 312 and the Commission’s

policies, rules and requirements

established in this Report and Order

shall take effect January 5, 1998, or in

accordance with the requirements of 5

U.S.C. § 801(a)(3) and 44 U.S.C. § 3507,

whichever is later. The Commission will

publish a notice, following publication

of this Report and Order in the Federal

Register, announcing the effective date.

The Commission reserves the right to

reconsider the effective date of this

decision if the WTO Basic Telecom

Agreement does not take effect on

January 1, 1998.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 25 of Chapter I of title 47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 25—SATELLITE

COMMUNICATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 25

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 25.101 to 25.601 issued

under Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47

U.S.C. 154. Interpret or apply secs. 101–104,

76 Stat. 419–427; 47 U.S.C. 701–744; 47

U.S.C. 554.

2. Section 25.113 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§ 25.113 Construction permits, station

licenses, launch authority.

* * * * *

(b) Construction permits are not

required for satellite earth stations that

operate with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.

licensed space stations. * * *

* * * * *

3. Section 25.115 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 25.115 Application for earth station

authorizations.

* * * * *

(c) Large Networks of Small Antennas

operating in the 12/14 GHz frequency

bands with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.

licensed satellites for domestic services.

* * *

* * * * *

4. Section 25.130 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(d) to read as follows:

§ 25.130 Filing requirements for

transmitting earth stations.

* * * * *

(d) Transmissions of signals or

programming to non-U.S. licensed

satellites, and to and/or from foreign

points by means of U.S.-licensed fixed

satellites may be subject to restrictions

as a result of international agreements or

treaties. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 25.131 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (j) to read as

follows:

§ 25.131 Filing requirements for receiveonly earth stations.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (j)

of this section, receive-only earth

stations in the fixed-satellite service that

operate with U.S.-licensed satellites

may be registered with the Commission

in order to protect them from

interference from terrestrial microwave

stations in bands shared co-equally with

the fixed service in accordance with the

procedures of §§ 25.203 and 25.251

through 25.256 of this part.

* * * * *

(j) Receive-only earth stations

operating with non-U.S. licensed space

stations shall file an FCC Form 312

requesting a license or modification to

operate such station. Receive-only earth

stations used to receive INTELNET I

service from INTELSAT space stations

need not file for licenses. See

Deregulation of Receive-Only Satellite

Earth Stations Operating with the

INTELSAT Global Communications

Satellite System, Declaratory Ruling,

RM No. 4845, FCC 86–214 (released

May 19, 1986) available through the

International Reference Center, FCC,

2000 M St. NW., Washington, DC 20554.

6. A new § 25.137 is added to read as

follows:

§ 25.137 Application requirements for

earth stations operating with non-U.S.

licensed space stations.

(a) Earth station applicants or entities

filing a ‘‘letter of intent’’ requesting

authority to operate with a non-U.S.

licensed space station to serve the

United States must attach an exhibit

with their FCC Form 312 application

with information demonstrating that

U.S.-licensed satellite systems have

effective competitive opportunities to

provide analogous services in:

(1) The country in which the non-U.S.

licensed space station is licensed; and

(2) All countries in which

communications with the U.S. earth

station will originate or terminate. The

applicant bears the burden of showing

that there are no practical or legal

constraints that limit or prevent access

of the U.S. satellite system in the

relevant foreign markets. The exhibit

required by this paragraph must also

include a statement of why grant of the

application is in the public interest.

This paragraph shall not apply with

respect to requests for authority to

operate using a non-U.S. licensed

satellite that is licensed by or seeking a

license from a country that is a member

of the World Trade Organization for

services covered under the World Trade

Organization Basic Telecommunications

Agreement.

(b) Earth station applicants, or entities

filing a ‘‘letter of intent,’’ requesting

authority to operate with a non-U.S.

licensed space station must attach to

their FCC Form 312 an exhibit

providing legal, financial, and technical

information for the non-U.S. licensed

space station in accordance with part 25

and part 100 of this Chapter. If the nonU.S. licensed space station is in orbit

and operating, the applicant need not

include the financial information

specified in §§ 25.114 (c)(17) and (c)(18)

of this part. If the international

coordination process for the non-U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64173

licensed space station has been

completed, the applicant need not

include the technical information

specified in §§ 25.114 (c) (5 through 11)

and (c)(14) of this part, unless the

technical characteristics differ from the

characteristics established in that

process.

(c) A non-U.S. licensed satellite

system seeking to serve the United

States can be considered

contemporaneously with other U.S.

satellite systems if it is:

(1) In orbit and operating;

(2) Has a license from another

administration; or

(3) Has been submitted for

coordination to the International

Telecommunication Union.

[FR Doc. 97–31800 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P