Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52429 

11 DOE notes that it has adopted dual metrics 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), when the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

and set a dual metric and accompanying standard 

levels. See, e.g., 77 FR 28928 (May 16, 2012) (DOE 

adopted energy conservation standards for cooling 

and heating modes in terms of both Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER) and Coefficient of 

Performance (COP) for variable refrigerant flow 

(VRF) water-source heat pumps with cooling 

capacities at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less 

than 760,000 Btu/h (for which DOE did not 

previously have standards) in response to updated 

standards for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1.) DOE has also adopted a dual metric where 

a consensus agreement has been presented to DOE 

for adoption as a direct final rule (DFR) pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). See, e.g., 76 FR 37408 (June 

27, 2011) (For central air conditioners, DOE 

adopted dual metrics (i.e., the Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and EER) for the hot-dry 

region as recommended by a consensus agreement 

supported by a variety of interested stakeholders 

including manufacturers and environmental and 

efficiency advocates.) DOE has interpreted these 

specific statutory provisions as authorizing an 

exception to the general rule previously stated. 

Department continues to conclude that 

these standards should remain separate. 

As discussed previously, NEMA 

suggested that to prevent backsliding, in 

conjunction with a combined metric, 

DOE could create a separate 

requirement for the efficiency of the 

electrical component. (NEMA, No. 26 at 

pp. 6–8) For example, under such an 

approach, DOE would establish a 

combined metric (e.g., AFUE2) but 

would additionally require that the 

furnace fan maintain a level of 

efficiency (e.g., FER) no lower than the 

currently established FER standard. 

However, this approach was not 

suggested in the AHRI Petition, and 

DOE is not considering a modified 

combined metric, because with certain 

limited exceptions, DOE has interpreted 

the statutory definition of ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ at 42 U.S.C. 

6291(6) and 42 U.S.C. 6311(18) as 

permitting establishment of only a 

single performance standard.11

Furthermore, DOE notes that it is not 

clear that this suggested alternate 

approach would reduce the regulatory 

burden on manufacturers because a 

combined metric would have to include 

separate measurements and calculations 

for fuel consumption efficiency (to be 

compared to current AFUE standards), 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption (to be compared to current 

PW,SB and PW,OFF standards), and 

furnace fan efficiency (to be compared 

to current FER standards) in order to 

prevent backsliding vis-a-vis any of the 

current metrics. Therefore, such an 

approach would effectively add an extra 

metric (e.g., AFUE2) without replacing 

any of the current metrics in practical 

terms. 

Because DOE has determined that the 

proposed AFUE2 combined metric for 

furnaces and furnace fans would not be 

permitted under EPCA, DOE considers 

other comments received regarding the 

AHRI Petition, and in particular 

whether DOE should propose to adopt 

the AFUE2 metric, to be resolved. With 

regard to comments suggesting that DOE 

should align its future rulemakings for 

furnaces and furnace fans to minimize 

regulatory burden on manufacturers, 

DOE notes that it is bound by the 

statutory timeline provisions set out in 

EPCA. In particular, EPCA provides 

that, not later than 6 years after the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including furnaces and furnace 

fans, to determine whether amended 

test procedures would more accurately 

or fully comply with the requirements 

for the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) To the extent feasible, 

DOE will seek to align the statutory 

review schedules for furnaces and 

furnace fans consistent with the 

provisions EPCA. 

V. Denial of Petition 

Taking into account all of the factors 

discussed above and consistent with the 

requirements under EPCA, DOE is 

hereby denying AHRI’s petition for 

rulemaking. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final denial of 

petition for rulemaking. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 9, 

2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

and Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

9, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19813 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket 21–190; FCC 21–98; FRS 47254] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on two 

issues that impact regulatory fees. First, 

what methodology should we use to 

assess regulatory fees on unlicensed 

spectrum users, and second, how 

should we calculate the fee for small 

satellites that will become a feeable 

category in FY 2022. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 21, 2021 and reply comments 

on or before November 5, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments 

identified by MD Docket No. 21–190, by 

any of the following methods below. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 21– 

98, MD Docket No. 21–190, adopted on 

August 25, 2021 and released on August 

26, 2021. The full text of this document 

is available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554, and may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, BCPI, Inc., 45 L Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. via their website, 

http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1–800– 

378–3160. This document is available in 

alternative formats (computer diskette, 

large print, audio record, and braille). 

Persons with disabilities who need 

documents in these formats may contact 

the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. Effective March 19, 2020, and 

until further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. During 

the time the Commission’s building is 

closed to the general public and until 

further notice, if more than one docket 

or rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of a proceeding, paper filers 

need not submit two additional copies 

for each additional docket or 

rulemaking number; an original and one 

copy are sufficient. 

I. Procedural Matters 

1. Ex Parte Information. This 

proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with section 

1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) 

of the Commission’s rules or for which 

the Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) is contained in this 

summary. Comments to the IRFA must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and filed by the deadlines for comments 

on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

3. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis. This document does not 

contain new or modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. New Regulatory Fee Categories 

1. We seek comment on whether we 

should adopt new regulatory fee 

categories and on ways to improve our 

regulatory fee process regarding any and 

all categories of service. Some 

commenters suggest that we impose fees 

on particular industry participants, 

essentially asking that we consider new 

fee categories, such as unlicensed 

spectrum users, especially large 

technology companies, to pay regulatory 

fees. We seek comment on the legal 

basis for assessing regulatory fees on 

such users, consistent with the 

precedent interpreting our section 9 

authority. What would be the proposed 

methodology for assessing regulatory 

fees on unlicensed spectrum users? We 

note that unlicensed spectrum users 

include a significant number of 

equipment manufacturers, such as 

appliance and other home goods 

equipment, many of which neither 

apply for nor require authorization by 

the Commission. Commenters should 

also explain, to the extent they advocate 

imposition of regulatory fees on either a 

subset of users or certain entities 

benefitting from such use, how to define 

any new fee category and how to 

calculate and assess such fees on an 

annual basis. Alternatively, should the 

Commission assess regulatory fees on 

large technology companies based on a 

different basis, such as any advantages 

they receive because of the 

Commission’s universal service or other 

activities? Are there other categories 

that should be added, deleted, or 

reclassified? In recommending the 

addition, deletion, or reclassification of 

a fee category, commenters should also 

explain the impact of such addition, 

deletion or reclassification upon other 

regulatory fee categories and payors. We 

also seek comment on possible 

methodologies for re-calculating the 

regulatory fee allocation. 

2. Section 9 of the Communications 

Act requires the Commission’s 

methodology for assessing regulatory 

fees to ‘‘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.’’ Commenters 

should specifically discuss how a 

proposed new fee category is consistent 

with the section 9 requirement to base 

regulatory fees on the number of FTEs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52431 

devoted to the oversight and/or 

regulation of the industry. Further, 

commenters should indicate how the 

new fee category fits within the 

Commission’s current regulatory fee 

methodology. To the extent possible, 

commenters should support any 

proposed new fee category with data 

and/or examples necessitating a revision 

of the Commission’s current regulatory 

fees framework. 

B. Fees for Small Satellites 

3. In anticipation of listing small 

satellites for the first time on the FY 

2022 regulatory fee schedule, we seek 

comment on several proposals 

pertaining to this new category. In 2019, 

the Commission adopted a new, 

optional licensing process for small 

satellites and small spacecraft. The 

Commission also adopted a ‘‘small 

satellite’’ regulatory fee subcategory for 

licensed and operational satellite 

systems authorized under the new 

process adopted in that proceeding. As 

has been noted in prior year fee 

proceedings, small satellites typically 

have a number of characteristics that 

distinguish them from traditional NGSO 

satellite systems, such as having a lower 

mass, shorter duration missions, and 

more limited spectrum needs. 

4. Commenters suggest that under the 

streamlined process, less agency 

resources are necessary to process than 

other systems because they are exempt 

from processing rounds and must certify 

that their operations will not interfere 

with those of existing operators or 

materially constrain future operators 

from using the assigned frequency 

band(s). For example, once small 

satellites are added to the Commission’s 

regulatory fee schedule, the NGSO 

regulatory fee allocation be adjusted to 

a 5/5/90 split among small satellites, 

less complex systems, and other 

systems, respectively. Another 

suggestion is to assess a fee of 1/20th of 

the fee for NGSO systems, or a 

regulatory fee of not more than 1/10th 

of the previously proposed NGSO fee, 

which at the time was calculated to be 

$22,350.00 for small satellites. One 

commenter believed that such a fee 

reflected the Commission’s costs and 

was fair, but substantial in the amount. 

5. We expect the small satellite fees to 

be on the FY 2022 fee schedule because 

there are several systems authorized 

under the small satellite process that are 

beginning operations, and we expect 

these systems to be operating as of the 

date for assessment of FY 2022 fees. FY 

2022 will be the first year where 

regulatory fees are assessed on small 

satellites, and therefore we anticipate 

that we will continue to review 

regulatory fees for small satellites on an 

ongoing basis as we gain more 

experience with these licensees and 

market access grantees. 

6. There are a number of factors to 

consider in assessing the regulatory fee 

for such systems. There are a number of 

limitations on the benefits that small 

satellite licensees and market access 

grantees may receive from ongoing 

activities of the Commission. While 

small satellites may receive interference 

protection when operating as allocated, 

such satellites must be compatible with 

existing operations in the requested 

frequency bands and not materially 

constrain future operations of other 

satellites in those frequency bands. 

Moreover, small satellite licensees are 

limited to a license term not to exceed 

six years. As such, investments in any 

particular small satellite system are 

likely to be smaller compared with other 

types of NGSO systems, and therefore 

the overall benefits to a particular 

licensee from Commission rulemakings 

and other activities of an ongoing nature 

are also likely to be smaller. These 

systems are also less likely to be 

involved in ongoing adjudications 

because of the scope of such systems 

and the fact that they are not authorized 

under the Commission’s processing 

round procedures. Further, as a result of 

the structure of the small satellite 

process, a single system may have 

multiple licenses or market access 

grants. There will also only be a few 

small satellite licensees which would 

commence operations as of the relevant 

date for assessing FY 2022 fees. Given 

these limitations, and taking into 

consideration the FTE regulatory 

benefits that may be associated with a 

single license or grant of market access, 

we make several proposals that would 

result in a fee for small satellites that is 

low, compared to other types of 

satellites or systems, but will reasonably 

reflect our FTE burden and the benefits 

received by these fee payors. We start 

with considering the number of FTEs 

working on oversight for this category of 

operators. Thus, we must estimate the 

relative number of FTEs that are 

attributable to benefitting small satellite 

licensees or grantees, based on the 

factors above. We also observe that due 

to the small satellite licensing regulatory 

framework and the nascent nature of 

these systems, currently, much of the IB 

FTE time that can be associated with 

small satellites appear to cover small 

satellite application processing. 

7. Given the various considerations 

above, we seek comment on several 

proposals on the appropriate 

methodology to calculate the small 

satellite fees. First, we seek comment on 

setting a fee for each small satellite 

license or market access grant, in such 

a way that the amount would not be 

dependent on the number of small 

satellite systems operating in a given 

regulatory period. This type of fee, 

rather than a fee that varies depending 

on the number of licensees or grantees, 

may be appropriate, since the small 

satellite process is calibrated to shorter 

duration missions, and therefore the 

number of small satellite systems 

licensed and operational could fluctuate 

more significantly from year to year 

than other types of NGSO systems that 

typically have a 15-year license term, 

creating uncertainty. We seek comment 

on these conclusions. There are several 

options for setting this type of fee. In 

comparing the actual regulatory work 

involved, we estimate that for a given 

small satellite system, the FTE activities 

would be approximately 1/20th of the 

FTE activities for a typical system in the 

category of ‘‘other’’ NGSO systems, 

similar to the Commission’s findings in 

In the FY 2018 Report and Order. Thus, 

one option would be to tie the small 

satellite fee to the fee allocated for an 

individual ‘‘other’’ NGSO system in a 

given year, and charge any individual 

small satellite licensee or grantee 1/20th 

of that amount. Or, charge a small 

satellite system (even if authorized 

under multiple licenses), 1/20th of that 

amount. We recognize, however, that 

the fee for an individual ‘‘other’’ NGSO 

system may vary from year-to-year, and 

thus the fee for a small satellite licensee 

would be dependent on how many 

‘‘other’’ NGSO systems are authorized 

and operational in a given year. As an 

alternative, we could set a fee for 

individual small satellite licensees (or 

systems), based on approximately 

1/20th of FY 2021 NGSO ‘‘other’’ 

systems ($17,178)—and which we could 

reassess each year to ensure that there 

was some predictability. We seek 

comment on these proposals and other 

appropriate methodology. Commenters 

suggesting other fee calculation 

methodologies should discuss how such 

methodologies would reasonably reflect 

the FTE time spent on regulatory 

activities or an objective measure that 

corresponds to the benefits of FTE time 

devoted to oversight and regulation of 

such entities. 

8. Second, we seek comment on 

whether to allocate a percentage of the 

allocation for space station fees for 

small satellites. Under this proposal, a 

certain percentage of the space station 

fees would need to be recovered from 

small satellite regulatory fee payors, and 

therefore the amount would fluctuate 

depending on the number of payors in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the small satellite category. In 

estimating the percentage, we must 

consider that the number of systems in 

the small satellite category is likely to be 

small initially. This percentage could be 

reassessed depending on the number of 

small satellite systems in the category— 

as the benefits to the category as a whole 

as well as FTE activities would increase, 

as the number of systems increases. For 

example, if we estimate that roughly 

two to three percent of the total NGSO 

system regulatory FTE activities is 

comprised of activities for small 

satellites, and allocate two percent of 

the total NGSO fee to small satellites, 

based on the FY2021 regulatory fee 

amounts as an example, this would 

allocate approximately $85,888 to the 

small satellite category. Divided among 

three licenses, for example, this would 

result in regulatory fees of 

approximately $28,629 per license. We 

seek comment on this approach and 

generally on the best methods of fee 

calculation. Planet and AWS appear to 

propose an approach similar to this. 

AWS and Planet suggest an allocation 

that would be equivalent to the 

allocation for ‘‘less complex’’ NGSO 

systems, for example. We seek comment 

on these proposals as well. To the extent 

that commenters such as AWS propose 

that the Commission redistribute a 

percentage solely of the ‘‘less complex’’ 

NGSO system fee to systems authorized 

under the streamlined small satellite 

process, we note that while there may 

be overlap in the types of services being 

provided in some instances, there are 

also important differences between 

small satellites and ‘‘less complex’’ and 

‘‘other’’ NGSO space station systems 

that we believe are likely to necessitate 

different regulatory fees. For example, 

as noted above, the license or market 

access term for these small systems are 

designed to be significantly shorter than 

other systems, an individual satellite is 

limited to an orbital lifetime of six years 

or less, and there is also no 

replenishment expectancy under the 

small satellite process. Therefore, the 

scope of such systems is inherently 

limited, as the Commission recognized 

in the Small Satellite Report and Order, 

when it established a separate fee 

category for small satellites only. 

9. Both proposed fee approaches are 

estimates of the FTE burden and the 

benefits received by small satellite 

systems. As noted, we could revisit our 

adopted small satellite fee each year as 

the number of small satellite systems 

change and we become more familiar 

with the work involved in regulating 

such systems. We seek comment on how 

to determine that amount each fiscal 

year to reflect any needed adjustment in 

proportion to the changes to our budget 

and cost. Would such approaches 

accurately capture the benefits to small 

satellite fee payors? We believe that 

both proposals reflect a reasonable 

approximation of the International 

Bureau’s total FTE work relative to these 

space station categories and the benefits 

each system receives. We further seek 

comment, however, on the various 

factors, such as rulemakings, 

adjudications, and international 

coordination, that are relevant to 

systems authorized under the 

Commission’s small satellite process 

and the FTE time devoted to those 

systems. 

10. As indicated above in connection 

with the proposals, we also seek 

comment on whether we should assess 

regulatory fees per system or differently 

than other NGSO fee categories, given 

that a single entity may have multiple 

licenses for the same system, in 

accordance with the structure of the 

small satellite process. We do not want 

to discourage applicants from applying 

for multiple licenses, if such an 

approach is a good fit for their system 

plans, because of potential regulatory 

fees. Therefore, it is important that we 

account for the fact that one system may 

have multiple associated small satellite 

licenses or market access grants. 

11. Finally, we also seek comment on 

how we should integrate the small 

satellite fee category into the overall 

space stations category. The total 

amount to be paid by small satellite 

regulatory fee payors could be either 

subtracted from the total space station 

allocation, before calculating the GSO/ 

NGSO subcategories, or subtracted from 

the NGSO subcategory before 

calculating the fees for the subcategories 

among less complex and other NGSO 

systems. We seek comment on where we 

should place the small satellite category 

and whether it would be appropriate to 

include it as a third category under 

space stations, as GSO, NGSO, and 

Small Satellite, or place it as a 

subcategory under NGSO as NGSO Less 

Complex, NGSO Others, and Small 

Satellites. We seek comment on these 

and any other alternatives that would 

best reflect the statutory requirements of 

our regulatory fee authority under 

section 9 of the Communications Act 

and ensure that our actions in assessing 

regulatory fees on small satellite 

operators are fair, administrable, and 

sustainable. 

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission prepared this 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 

Written comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadline for comments on this 

NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. The NPRM seeks comment on a 

methodology for calculating regulatory 

fees, as required by section 9 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (Communications Act or Act), 

specifically for small satellites. The 

NPRM seeks comment on various 

factors, such as rulemakings, 

adjudications, and international 

coordination, that are relevant to 

systems authorized under the 

Commission’s small satellite process, 

and on the Commission’s earlier 

tentative conclusion that approximately 

1/20 of FTEs are engaged in ongoing 

regulatory work related to small satellite 

systems. Specifically, the Commission 

observes that in assessing the regulatory 

fee for such small satellite NGSO 

systems, there are a number of factors to 

consider, including the fact that a single 

system may have multiple licenses, and 

therefore multiple call signs. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether we should adopt new 

regulatory fee categories and on ways to 

improve our regulatory fee process 

regarding any and all categories of 

service. Additionally, the Commission 

notes that there are a number of 

limitations on small satellite licensees 

and market access grantees that limit the 

benefits such entities may receive from 

ongoing activities of the Commission. 

The Commission observes that such 

systems are by definition not authorized 

through processing rounds, and while 

small satellites may receive interference 

protection when operating in frequency 

bands allocated for the service they are 

providing, such satellites must be 

compatible with existing operations in 

the requested frequency bands and not 

materially constrain future operations of 

other satellites in those frequency 

bands. Moreover, small satellite 

licensees are limited to a license term 

not to exceed six years. Given these 

limitations, and taking into 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52433 

consideration the regulatory benefits 

that may be associated with a single 

license, the Commission proposes a flat 

regulatory fee for small satellite licenses 

and market access grants that would be 

not change based on the number of 

small satellite fee payors in a given 

fiscal year. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes a flat fee for small satellites 

that would be equal to 1/20th of the fee 

applicable to each NGSO systems in 

‘‘other’’ NGSO subcategory. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal in the NPRM. 

3. This regulatory fee NPRM is needed 

because the Commission is required by 

Congress to adopt regulatory fees each 

year ‘‘to recover the costs of carrying out 

the activities described in section 6(a) 

only to the extent, and in the total 

amounts, provided for in Appropriation 

Acts.’’ The objective of the NPRM is to 

determine a methodology for calculating 

small satellite regulatory fees. 

B. Legal Basis 

4. This action, including publication 

of proposed rules, is authorized under 

sections (4)(i) and (j), 159, and 303(r) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

5. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

6. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, at the outset, 

three broad groups of small entities that 

could be directly affected herein. First, 

while there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

Office of Advocacy, in general a small 

business is an independent business 

having fewer than 500 employees. These 

types of small businesses represent 

99.9% of all businesses in the United 

States, which translates to 30.7 million 

businesses. 

7. 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 2018, there were approximately 

571,709 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. 

8. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 5ll 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

9. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘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 communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a 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 

Protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable 

and IPTV) 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.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

10. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of local exchange carriers 

are small entities. 

11. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated the entire year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our actions. According to 

Commission data, one thousand three 

hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size 

standard the majority of incumbent 

LECs can be considered small entities. 

12. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers and under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated during that year. Of that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Based on these data, 

the Commission concludes that the 

majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. 

13. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS 

Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data, 359 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities. 

14. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for prepaid calling 

card providers. The appropriate NAICS 

code category for prepaid calling card 

providers is Telecommunications 

Resellers. This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms 

provided resale services during that 

year. Of that number, 1,341 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of these resellers can be 

considered small entities. According to 

Commission data, 193 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of prepaid calling cards. All 

193 carriers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of prepaid calling card providers are 

small. 

15. Local Resellers. The SBA has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

The SBA category of 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest NAICs code category for local 

resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA’s size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data from 2012 show 

that 1,341 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, all 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these resellers 

can be considered small entities. 

According to Commission data, 213 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 211 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities. 

16. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for Toll 

Resellers. The closest NAICS Code 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in 

this industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. 2012 Census Bureau 

data show that 1,341 firms provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

17. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable NAICS code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 6 of this IRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 3,117 firms 

that operated that year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

According to Commission data, 284 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage. Of 

these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most Other 

Toll Carriers are small entities. 

18. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52435 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 12 had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Thus under 

this category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

19. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ These establishments operate 

television broadcast studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public. 

These establishments also produce or 

transmit visual programming to 

affiliated broadcast television stations, 

which in turn broadcast the programs to 

the public on a predetermined schedule. 

Programming may originate in their own 

studio, from an affiliated network, or 

from external sources. The SBA has 

created the following small business 

size standard for such businesses: Those 

having $41.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The 2012 Economic Census 

reports that 751 firms in this category 

operated in that year. Of that number, 

656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 

or less. Based on this data we therefore 

estimate that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small entities 

under the applicable SBA size standard. 

20. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed commercial 

television stations to be 1,377. Of this 

total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 

percent) had revenues of $41.5 million 

or less, according to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 

Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 

November 16, 2017, and therefore these 

licensees qualify as small entities under 

the SBA definition. In addition, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed noncommercial educational 

television stations to be 384. 

Notwithstanding, the Commission does 

not compile and otherwise does not 

have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

There are also 2,300 low power 

television stations, including Class A 

stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator 

stations. Given the nature of these 

services, we will presume that all of 

these entities qualify as small entities 

under the above SBA small business 

size standard. 

21. In assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as ‘‘small’’ under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. Our 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by our action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, 

another element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ requires that an entity 

not be dominant in its field of operation. 

We are unable at this time to define or 

quantify the criteria that would 

establish whether a specific television 

broadcast station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, the estimate 

of small businesses to which rules may 

apply does not exclude any television 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and is therefore 

possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted 

above, an additional element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity must be independently owned 

and operated. The Commission notes 

that it is difficult at times to assess these 

criteria in the context of media entities 

and its estimates of small businesses to 

which they apply may be over-inclusive 

to this extent. 

22. Radio Stations. This Economic 

Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Programming may originate 

in their own studio, from an affiliated 

network, or from external sources.’’ The 

SBA has established a small business 

size standard for this category as firms 

having $41.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 

show that 2,849 radio station firms 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 2,806 firms operated with 

annual receipts of less than $25 million 

per year, 17 with annual receipts 

between $25 million and $49,999,999 

million and 26 with annual receipts of 

$50 million or more. Therefore, based 

on the SBA’s size standard the majority 

of such entities are small entities. 

23. According to Commission staff 

review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Media 

Access Pro Radio Database as of January 

2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.9 

percent) of 11,383 commercial radio 

stations had revenues of $41.5 million 

or less and thus qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. The 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial AM radio 

stations to be 4,633 stations and the 

number of commercial FM radio 

stations to be 6,738, for a total number 

of 11,371. We note the Commission has 

also estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations 

to be 4,128. Nevertheless, the 

Commission does not compile and 

otherwise does not have access to 

information on the revenue of NCE 

stations that would permit it to 

determine how many such stations 

would qualify as small entities. We also 

note, that in assessing whether a 

business entity qualifies as small under 

the above definition, business control 

affiliations must be included. The 

Commission’s estimate therefore likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by its action, 

because the revenue figure on which it 

is based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from affiliated companies. In 

addition, to be determined a ‘‘small 

business,’’ an entity may not be 

dominant in its field of operation. We 

further note, that it is difficult at times 

to assess these criteria in the context of 

media entities, and the estimate of small 

businesses to which these rules may 

apply does not exclude any radio station 

from the definition of a small business 

on these basis, thus our estimate of 

small businesses may therefore be overinclusive. Also, as noted above, an 

additional element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ is that the entity must 

be independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and the 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

24. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation). The Commission has 

also developed its own small business 

size standards, for the purpose of cable 

rate regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are 4,600 active cable systems in 

the United States. Of this total, all but 

five cable operators nationwide are 

small under the 400,000-subscriber size 

standard. In addition, under the 

Commission’s rate regulation rules, a 

‘‘small system’’ is a cable system serving 

15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Commission records show 4,600 cable 

systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 

cable systems have fewer than 15,000 

subscribers, and 700 systems have 

15,000 or more subscribers, based on the 

same records. Thus, under this standard 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

as well, we estimate that most cable 

systems are small entities. 

25. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ As of 2019, there were 

approximately 48,646,056 basic cable 

video subscribers in the United States. 

Accordingly, an operator serving fewer 

than 486,460 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, we 

find that all but five cable operators are 

small entities under this size standard. 

We note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Therefore, we are unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

26. 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 SBA’s economic 

census category ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution; and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry. 

The SBA determines that a wireline 

business is small if it has fewer than 

1,500 employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 

wireline companies were operational 

during that year. Of that number, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Based on that data, we 

conclude that the majority of wireline 

firms are small under the applicable 

SBA standard. Currently, however, only 

two entities provide DBS service, which 

requires a great deal of capital for 

operation: DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) 

and DISH Network. DIRECTV and DISH 

Network each report annual revenues 

that are in excess of the threshold for a 

small business. Accordingly, we must 

conclude that internally developed FCC 

data are persuasive that, in general, DBS 

service is provided only by large firms. 

27. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category 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. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for All 

Other Telecommunications, which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

28. RespOrgs. Responsible 

Organizations, or RespOrgs, are entities 

chosen by toll free subscribers to 

manage and administer the appropriate 

records in the toll free Service 

Management System for the toll free 

subscriber. Although RespOrgs are often 

wireline carriers, they can also include 

non-carrier entities. Therefore, in the 

definition herein of RespOrgs, two 

categories are presented, i.e., Carrier 

RespOrgs and Non-Carrier RespOrgs. 

29. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the 

Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the 

SBA have developed a definition for 

Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the 

Commission believes that the closest 

NAICS code-based definitional 

categories for Carrier RespOrgs are 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 

and Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite). 

30. The U.S. Census Bureau defines 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

‘‘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 communications 

networks. Transmission facilities may 

be based on a single technology or a 

combination of technologies. 

Establishments in this industry use the 

wired telecommunications network 

facilities that they operate to provide a 

variety of services, such as wired 

telephony services, including VoIP 

services, wired (cable) audio and video 

programming distribution, and wired 

broadband internet services. By 

exception, establishments providing 

satellite television distribution services 

using facilities and infrastructure that 

they operate are included in this 

industry.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Based on that 

data, we conclude that the majority of 

Carrier RespOrgs that operated with 

wireline-based technology are small. 

31. The U.S. Census Bureau defines 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except satellite) as establishments 

engaged in operating and maintaining 

switching and transmission facilities to 

provide communications via the 

airwaves, such as cellular services, 

paging services, wireless internet access, 

and wireless video services. The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 

data for 2012 show that 967 Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers operated 

in that year. Of that number, 955 

operated with less than 1,000 

employees. Based on that data, we 

conclude that the majority of Carrier 

RespOrgs that operated with wirelessbased technology are small. 

32. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the 

Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the 

SBA have developed a definition of 

Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52437 

Commission believes that the closest 

NAICS code-based definitional 

categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are 

‘‘Other Services Related to Advertising’’ 

and ‘‘Other Management Consulting 

Services.’’ 

33. The U.S. Census defines Other 

Services Related to Advertising as 

comprising establishments primarily 

engaged in providing advertising 

services (except advertising agency 

services, public relations agency 

services, media buying agency services, 

media representative services, display 

advertising services, direct mail 

advertising services, advertising 

material distribution services, and 

marketing consulting services). The SBA 

has established a size standard for this 

industry as annual receipts of $16.5 

million dollars or less. Census data for 

2012 show that 5,804 firms operated in 

this industry for the entire year. Of that 

number, 5,612 operated with annual 

receipts of less than $10 million. Based 

on that data we conclude that the 

majority of Non-Carrier RespOrgs who 

provide toll-free number (TFN)-related 

advertising services are small. 

34. The U.S. Census defines Other 

Management Consulting Services as 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing management consulting 

services (except administrative and 

general management consulting; human 

resources consulting; marketing 

consulting; or process, physical 

distribution, and logistics consulting). 

Establishments providing 

telecommunications or utilities 

management consulting services are 

included in this industry. The SBA has 

established a size standard for this 

industry of $16.5 million dollars or less. 

Census data for 2012 show that 3,683 

firms operated in this industry for that 

entire year. Of that number, 3,632 

operated with less than $10 million in 

annual receipts. Based on this data, we 

conclude that a majority of non-carrier 

RespOrgs who provide TFN-related 

management consulting services are 

small. 

35. In addition to the data contained 

in the four (see above) U.S. Census 

NAICS code categories that provide 

definitions of what services and 

functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier 

RespOrgs provide, Somos, the trade 

association that monitors RespOrg 

activities, compiled data showing that 

as of July 1, 2016 there were 23 

RespOrgs operational in Canada and 436 

RespOrgs operational in the United 

States, for a total of 459 RespOrgs 

currently registered with Somos. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

36. This NPRM does not propose any 

changes to the Commission’s current 

information collection, reporting, 

recordkeeping, or compliance 

requirements. Licensees, including 

small entities, will be required to pay 

application fees after such fees are 

adopted. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

37. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching 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 or reporting requirements 

under the rule for 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 small entities. 

38. The NPRM seeks comment on a 

methodology to calculate regulatory fees 

for small satellites. These small satellite 

systems are NGSOs; however, the 

Commission is proposing assessing a 

much smaller regulatory fee than the fee 

currently assessed on other NGSO 

systems. This new methodology would 

minimize the impact on small entities 

because the fee would be much lower 

than the existing NGSO fee. We also 

seek comment on whether we should 

adopt new regulatory fee categories and 

on ways to improve our regulatory fee 

process regarding any and all categories 

of service. We also seek comment on 

possible methodologies for recalculating the regulatory fee allocation. 

39. In addition, the Commission has 

taken steps to minimize the economic 

impact on small entities by adopting a 

de minimis threshold under the section 

9(e)(2) exemption in the Act. Under the 

section 9(e)(2) exemption, a regulatee is 

exempt from paying regulatory fees if 

the sum total of all of its annual 

regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less 

for the fiscal year. The threshold applies 

only to filers of annual regulatory fees, 

not regulatory fees paid through multiyear filings. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

40. None. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

41. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 4(i) and (j), 9, 9A, and 303(r) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, 

159A, and 303(r), this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 

adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20125 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1