Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

FY 2013 Regulatory Fees NPRM, FNPRM

Download Options

Released: May 23, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Procedures for Assessment and Collection of
)
MD Docket No. 12-201
Regulatory Fees
)
)

Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees
)
MD Docket No. 13-58
for Fiscal Year 2013
)
)

Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for
)
MD Docket No. 08-65
Fiscal Year 2008
)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted: May 22, 2013

Released: May 23, 2013
By the Commission:

Comment Date:

June 19, 2013

Reply Comment Date:

June 26, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading

Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 6
III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING .......................................................................................... 7
A. Regulatory Fee Allocation Process and Need for Reform. .............................................................. 7
B. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 11
1. Changes to the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) Fee Category......... 11
2. Reallocation of FTEs............................................................................................................... 15
3. Limitation on Increases of Regulatory Fees............................................................................ 30
4. Interim Measures for FY 2013 ................................................................................................ 32
5. Revenue Based Regulatory Fee Assessments ......................................................................... 33

C. Other Telecommunications Regulatory Fee Issues........................................................................ 34
1. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Low Power, Class A, and TV
Translators/Boosters................................................................................................................ 34
2. Combining UHF/VHF Television Media Regulatory Fees..................................................... 35
3. Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) ................................................................................................... 37
4. Multi-Year Wireless Services.................................................................................................. 38
5. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging ........................................................ 39

1

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

D. Administrative Issues..................................................................................................................... 41
1. Electronic Filing and Payment System.................................................................................... 41
2. Discontinuation of Mail Outs of Initial CMRS Assessments.................................................. 43
3. Discontinuation of Paper and Check Transactions Beginning October 1, 2013 ..................... 44
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING..................................................................... 46
A. Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations Serving the United States ...................................................... 47
B. Video Services--Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) ........................................................................ 50
C. Other Services................................................................................................................................ 53
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 54
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................ 55
VII.ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 60
ATTACHMENT A1-Calculation of FY 2013 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees (unchanged
allocation)
ATTACHMENT B1-FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (unchanged allocation)
ATTACHMENT A2- Calculation of FY 2013 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees (revised
allocation)
ATTACHMENT B2-FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (revised allocation)
ATTACHMENT C-Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2013
ATTACHMENT D-Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverage
ATTACHMENT E-Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
ATTACHMENT F- FY 2012 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

I.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FY 2013 NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice), two interrelated proceedings, we seek comment on the collection
of regulatory fees in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and on proposals to more generally reform the Commission’s
policies and procedures for assessing and collecting regulatory fees. Specifically, in the FY 2013 NPRM,
we seek comment on our annual process of assessing regulatory fees to offset the Commission’s FY 2013
appropriation, as directed by Congress. We propose several reforms to the process for calculating and
collecting the FY 2013 fees. The regulatory fees calculated in response to the FY 2013 NPRM will be
collected later this year. We also seek comment on more long-range proposals to reform and revise our
regulatory fee schedule after FY 2013 (for FY 2014 and beyond) to take into account changes in the
communications industry and in the Commission’s regulatory processes and staffing in recent years.
2.
This FY 2013 NPRM seeks comment concerning adoption and implementation of
proposals to reallocate regulatory fees to more accurately reflect the subject areas worked on by current
Commission full time employees (FTEs)1 for FY 2013. We seek comment on, among other things,
reallocating for purposes of regulatory fee calculations: direct FTEs working on Interstate
Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) and other fee categories to reflect current workloads
devoted to these subject areas and FTEs in the International Bureau to more accurately reflect the
Commission’s regulation and oversight of the International Bureau regulatees. We also seek comment on
whether, if these proposals are adopted, we should limit any increase in regulatory fee assessments to
industry segments resulting from such reallocation. In addition, we seek comment generally on whether
direct and indirect FTEs should be allocated differently as described below. Further, we seek comment on

1 One FTE, typically called a “Full Time Equivalent,” is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by
a full time person (working a 40 hour workweek for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency
personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Any reference to FTE or
“Full Time Employee” used herein refers to such Full Time Equivalent.
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

whether to delay our proposal to reallocate FTEs for regulatory fee purposes and, in the interim, maintain
the same allocation percentages from last year for FY 2013.
3.
In addition, we seek comment concerning adoption and implementation of proposals for
FY 2014 and beyond, which include: (1) combining ITSPs with wireless telecommunications services into
one regulatory fee category and using revenues as the basis for calculating the resulting regulatory fees; (2)
using revenues to calculate regulatory fees for other industries that now use subscribers as the basis for
regulatory fee calculations, such as the cable industry; (3) consolidating UHF and VHF television stations
into one regulatory fee category; (4) proposing a regulatory fee for Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) at the rate
of cable fees; (5) alleviating large fluctuations in the fee rate of Multiyear Wireless Services; and (6)
determining whether the Commission should modify the methodology in collecting regulatory fees for
regulatees in declining industries (e.g., CMRS Messaging). We also clarify that licensees of Digital Low
Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters should pay only one regulatory fee on their analog or digital
station, but not on both. As required by Treasury and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
initiatives, we also announce and seek comment on our proposal to require that all regulatory fee payments
be made electronically beginning in FY 2014. Finally, we state that beginning in FY 2014 the
Commission will no longer mail out initial regulatory fee assessments to CMRS licensees, and we propose
to transfer unpaid regulatory fees for collection by the Department of the Treasury at the end of the
payment period (instead of waiting 180 days) beginning in FY 2014.
4.
The attached Further Notice seeks comment on the treatment of non-U.S.-Licensed Space
Stations; Direct Broadcast Satellites; and other services, such as broadband, in our regulatory fee process.
We invite comment on these topics to better inform the Commission on whether and/or how these services
should be assessed under our regulatory fee methodology in future years.
5.
We propose to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, pursuant
to Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or Communications Act) and the
FY 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution. Section 9 regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and
collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission’s enforcement, policy and
rulemaking, user information, and international activities.2 Further, as provided by section 9(a)(2), the
amount of regulatory fees to be collected is established each year by Congress,3 which directs the
Commission to use the fees to offset its entire appropriation. For FY 2013, the sequester effectuated by the
Budget Control Act of 20114 reduces the agency’s permitted FY 2013 salary and expenses expenditures by
$17M to $322,844,000. However, that Act does not alter the congressional directive set out in the FY
2012 appropriation5 (and continued in effect in FY 2013 by virtue of the Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013) to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees.6

II.

BACKGROUND

6.
We began this regulatory fee reform analysis in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Further Notice

2 47 U.S.C. § 159(a).
3 In FY 2013, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 113-6 (2013) at Division F
authorizes the Commission to collect offsetting regulatory fees at the level provided to the Commission’s FY 2012
appropriation of $339,844.00. See Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Division
C of Pub. Law 112-74, 125 Stat. 108-9 (2011).
4 Budget Control Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-15, §101, 125 Stat. 241 (2011) (amending § 251 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037 (2005).
5 See Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Division C of Pub. Law 112-74, 125
Stat. 108-9 (2011);
6 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. 113-6, xxx Stat. xxx (2013) at Division F, § 1101(c).
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

of Proposed Rulemaking.7 In 2012, a report on the Commission’s regulatory fee program issued by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO Report) provided further support for a more fundamental
reevaluation of how to align regulatory fees more closely with regulatory costs.8 In our FY 2012 NPRM
proposing basic changes to the current fee assessment process, we incorporated the GAO Report into the
record and sought comment on it.9 To encourage a more robust discussion of the record in this docket, the
Commission invited all the parties who filed comments to the FY 2012 NPRM to further discuss their
comments and any other regulatory fee reform issues they wished to raise with Commission staff. Staff
has met with commenters representing the wireline, wireless, broadcast, cable, satellite, and submarine
cable industries. Their additional comments have been summarized in ex parte filings and placed in the
record of the proceeding in compliance with the Commission’s rules.10 To facilitate a more robust record
to better inform the Commission as it contemplates further reform of our regulatory fee policies and
procedures for FY 2013 and beyond, we seek comment not only on the issues raised herein, but also on the
concerns and comments raised by the GAO Report, the issues presented and comments filed in response to
the FY 2012 NPRM and any issues raised in ex parte filings by industry representatives. We anticipate that
in the Report and Order we will adopt certain proposals discussed herein for FY 2013 and other proposals
for implementation in FY 2014 and beyond.

III.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

A.

Regulatory Fee Allocation Process and Need for Reform.

7.
Each year the Commission derives the fees that Congress requires it to collect “by
determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities “adjusted to take
into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the
Commission’s activities….”11 To calculate regulatory fees, the Commission allocates the total amount to
be collected, among the various regulatory fee categories. Each regulatee within a fee category must pay
its proportionate share based on an objective measure, e.g., revenues, subscribers, or licenses. The first
step, allocating fees to fee categories, is based on the Commission’s calculation of the number of FTEs
devoted to each regulatory fee category. FTEs are categorized as either “direct” or “indirect.” An FTE is
considered “direct” if the employee is in one of the core bureaus, i.e., the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, or International Bureau.12 If an employee is not
assigned to one of those four bureaus, that employee is considered an “indirect” FTE.13 Thus, the total

7 See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008) (FY 2008 FNPRM).
8 See GAO, “Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Fee Process Needs to be Updated,” Aug. 2012,
GAO-12-686.
9 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 8458 (2012) (FY
2012 NPRM
). We cite some of the comments filed in response to the FY 2012 NPRM in the discussion herein.
10 See, e.g., American Cable Association, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 22, 2013); North American
Submarine Cable Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 15, 2013);
Enterprise Wireless Alliance, MD 12-201 Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 15, 2013); North American Submarine Cable
Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Mar. 27, 2013).
11 47 U.S.C. § 159(b)(1)(A).
12 The current numbers of direct FTEs are as follows: International Bureau, [119]; Media Bureau, [171]; Wireline
Competition Bureau, [160]; and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, [98]. FTEs involved in Section 309
auctions, [194 FTEs], are not included in this analysis because auctions activities are funded separately.
13 The “indirect” FTEs are the employees from the following bureaus and offices: Enforcement Bureau, Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Chairman and Commissioners’
offices, Office of Managing Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of
(continued....)
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

FTEs for each fee category includes the direct FTEs associated with that category (i.e., the FTEs in the
bureau associated with that category), plus a proportional allocation of the indirect FTEs. This preliminary
allocation has been based on the concept that the FTEs in each of those four bureaus perform activities
related to the service providers regulated by those bureaus.
8.
The current allocations of direct and indirect FTEs are taken from FTE data compiled in
FY 1998.14 A comparison of current FTE numbers in the various bureaus to their respective share of the
overall regulatory fee burden illustrates the need to reexamine the FTE data used. For example, the
International Bureau currently employs 22 percent of the Commission’s direct FTEs, yet International
Bureau regulatees contribute 6.3 percent of the total regulatory fee collection. 15 On the other hand, ITSPs,
regulated by the Wireline Competition Bureau, pay 47 percent of the total annual regulatory fee collection,
while the Wireline Competition Bureau employs only 29.2 percent of the Commission’s direct FTEs. The
proposals herein seek not only to address this issue, but also to make the allocation of regulatory fee burden
more transparent.16 Although we seek to better align regulatory fees with the level of current regulation, it
is important to note that there is no statutory requirement that regulatory fees offset only the actual costs of
regulating each service. In fact, the FY 2013 Further Continuing Resolution requires that the Commission
collect an amount of regulatory fees sufficient to offset its entire appropriation. Thus the total benefit
received by any particular regulatee from Commission actions will not necessarily correlate directly with
the quantity of Commission resources used for that regulatee’s benefit.17 For example, regulatory fees also
cover the costs the Commission incurs in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying
regulatory fees,18 entities whose regulatory fees are waived,19 and entities that provide nonregulated
services, as well other Commission activities, such as consumer-related services.
9.
As discussed in the FY 2012 NPRM, the FY 1998 FTE data may no longer fairly and
accurately reflect the time that Commission employees devote to these activities.20 Using updated21 FTE
data (without other significant changes in our methodology) would reduce the percentage of regulatory
fees allocated to Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees from 47 percent to 29.2 percent and increase the
percentage of fees allocated to International Bureau regulatees from 6.3 percent to 22 percent.22 Therefore,
substituting current FTE data for FY 1998 FTE data would subject some international service providers to
significant fee increases.23 In determining how to update the FTE data to more accurately reflect the

(...continued from previous page)
Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Engineering and Technology, Office of Legislative Affairs,
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Workplace Diversity, Office of Media Relations, and
Office of Administrative Law Judges, totaling [967] FTEs.
14 FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8461, para. 8.
15 See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
16 The GAO noted the lack of transparency of the regulatory fee process, and was particularly concerned with the
regulatory fee allocations for the International Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau, see GAO Report at p.
23.
17 FY 2004 Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 11667, para. 11.
18 Id. For example, governmental and nonprofit entities are exempt from regulatory fees under section 9(h) of the
Act. 47 U.S.C. § 159(h); 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.
19 47 C.F.R. § 1.1166.
20 FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8464, para. 12.
21 The FTEs used herein are determined as of Sept. 30, 2012.
22 FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, para. 25.
23 Id.
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

current composition of the Commission, we recognize that not only can the regulatory fees not be
calculated to reflect the exact costs of each regulated industry, but such direct relationship of costs to each
industry is not consistent with the statutory mandate to allocate based on the FTEs performing the
enumerated functions in each named bureau. Nevertheless, we find that it is consistent with section 9 of
the Act to better align, to the extent feasible, these regulatory fees with the current costs of Commission
oversight and regulation of each industry group. Specifically, a more accurate alignment of FTE work to
subject matter promotes the requirement in section 9 to ensure the benefits provided to the payor of the fee
are consistent with the Commission’s activities.24
10.
The GAO Report concluded that, due to changes in the communications industry and in
the Commission during the past 15 years, the Commission should perform an updated FTE analysis,
determine whether the fee categories should be revised, and increase the transparency of the regulatory fee
process.25 For this purpose, we examine whether these functions and activities performed by FTEs in the
International Bureau, often to the benefit of multiple categories of regulatees, warrant considering only a
portion of the International Bureau as a “core bureau.” We also examine whether wireline and wireless
telecommunications services should be combined into a single new category.

B.

Discussion

1.

Changes to the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) Fee
Category

11.
One of the primary issues discussed in the FY 2012 NPRM is how to fairly allocate the FTEs
for ITSPs, which are the Wireline Competition Bureau fee payors.26 ITSPs—interexchange carriers (IXCs),
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), toll resellers, and other IXC service providers—use end-user
revenues to calculate regulatory fee assessments based on the reported revenue in the FCC Form 499-A,
filed April 1 of each year with the prior year’s interstate and international revenue.27 As stated previously,
in FY 2012, ITSPs paid 47 percent of the total regulatory fees collection, even though the Wireline
Competition Bureau employees comprised 29.2 percent of the Commission’s direct FTEs. In addition, since
ITSPs pay regulatory fees based on revenues, the regulatory fee assessment rates for ITSPs generally have
increased over time due to a declining revenue base in that industry segment.28 At the same time, wireless
revenues have increased significantly, in part due to substitution of wireless services for wireline services.
Nevertheless, as wireless revenues have increased, the proportion of all regulatory fees paid by wireless
providers has not significantly increased. Thus, our regulatory fee methodology has not kept pace with the
changes in both the communications industry and within the Commission. We seek comment on
reallocating the direct FTEs for ITSP for FY 2013, based on current FTEs in the core bureaus, which
would significantly decrease the regulatory fee allocation for ITSPs. We propose this reallocation in
conjunction with a reallocation of International Bureau FTEs, as explained in more detail below. We also

24 47 U.S.C. § 159.
25 GAO Report at 36.
26 See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, para. 25.
27 The Commission has separated revenues listed on Form 499-A into two fee categories: ITSP providers and non-
ITSP providers. Providers that derive a predominant amount of their revenues from Lines 412 (e), 420 (d), and 420
(e) on FCC Form 499-A are ITSP providers and subject to ITSP regulatory fees. Those providers that do not derive
their revenues predominantly from Lines 412 (e), 420 (d), and 420 (e) on FCC Form 499-A, non-ITSP providers,
paid a regulatory fee calculated differently, such as by number of subscribers.
28 Wireline revenues have not decreased for all carriers. Verizon, for example, reported for 2012 that “Consumer
wireline revenues grew by 3.2 percent for the year—the best in a decade—fueled by double-digit growth in FiOS.”
Verizon 2012 Annual Report at p. 3.
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

seek comment on revising our methodology to account for changes in the wireless and wireline industries
by making additional changes to the ITSP fee category for FY 2014, such as combining wireless and
wireline into a new ITSP category, as discussed below.
12.
Currently wireless and wireline telecommunications services are in separate regulatory fee
categories. The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) proposes that the
Commission assess all voice service providers on the basis of revenues to ensure that like services are
treated in a similar manner.29 We agree with ITTA that wireless services are comparable to wireline
services in many ways and therefore both encompass similar regulatory policies and programs, such as
universal service and number portability.30 As wireless services are increasingly displacing wireline
services, we seek comment on whether it would be fair to combine both services into one category by
including all wireless and wireline FTEs in the same allocation to arrive at one uniform regulatory fee rate
for ITSP and wireless providers, assessed based on revenues.
13.
Under section 9 of the Communications Act, the Commission must make certain changes
to the regulatory fee schedule if it “determines that the Schedule requires amendment to comply with the
requirements” of section 9(b)(1)(A).31 The Commission must add, delete, or reclassify services in the fee
schedule to reflect additions, deletions, or changes in the nature of its services “as a consequence of
Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law.”32 These “permitted amendments” require
Congressional notification33 and resulting changes in fees are not subject to judicial review.34 Combining
wireless and wireline FTEs in the same allocation, for a new ITSP category, would be such a “permitted
amendment” requiring Congressional notification. Therefore, if adopted, this allocation change would not
take effect until FY 2014.
14.
We recognize, however, that carriers whose regulatory fees are calculated on the basis of
revenues, instead of subscribers, may have an incentive to allocate more of their revenues to data services
in order to reduce their regulatory fees.35 Therefore, we invite commenters to also discuss whether there
are alternate ways to assess regulatory fees for wireless and wireline telecommunications services to
achieve fair, sustainable, and predictable results, such as moving both industry groups to another common
objective measure as the basis for calculating regulatory fees, and what such common measure should be.
2.

Reallocation of FTEs

15.
The GAO Report recommended that the Commission reexamine the activities performed
by FTEs in the various bureaus.36 This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is responsive to the GAO’s
recommendation. Adjusting the allocation fee category percentages and rates to reflect current FTEs,
without further examining precisely what regulatory functions these FTEs are performing would result in
an incomplete reexamination of the issues involved in updating our FTE allocations. Moreover, using
updated FTE calculations without other significant changes in our methodology would subject some
classes of regulatees to significant fee increases.

29 ITTA Comments at 3.
30 The GAO Report discussed using revenues for assessing wireless providers’ regulatory fees, as proposed by
ITTA. See GAO Report at 19-20.
31 47 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3).
32 47 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3).
33 47 U.S.C. § 159(b)(4)(B).
34 47 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3).
35 We do not currently assess regulatory fees on broadband revenues.
36 GAO Report at 36.
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

16.
While we are required by section 9 of the Act to calculate regulatory fees based on an
allocation of FTEs, we are not required to use the same methodology year after year. We tentatively
conclude that our methodology of using the direct and indirect FTEs based on the four core bureaus and
supporting bureaus and offices should be revised to more accurately reflect the direct and indirect costs for
those regulatees. Such revisions should take into account the impact on all regulatees, because any change
in the allocation of the total regulatory fee amount for one category of fee payors necessarily affects the
fees paid by payors in all the other fee categories. The GAO Report noted the disparity in the allocation
for the International Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau, and the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau.37 The current FTE allocations, as of September 30, 2012, and the FTE allocations what would
result from our reallocation proposals are shown in the table below.

37 See GAO Report at 14-15.
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Direct and Indirect FTE Allocation/Current and Proposed

Bureau

Current Allocation

Effective FY 2013

(all FTE amounts

Based on 1998 Direct

Allocation Resulting from

shown exclude

FTE analysis

the Reallocation Proposal in
Auctions-funded
this NPRM, Applying
employees)

Proposed Cap of 7.5 % on

Fee Rate Increases 38

International Bureau
6.3%
5.99%
Media Bureau
30.2%
33.33%
Wireline Competition
46.7%
41.26%39
Bureau
Wireless
16.8%
19.42%
Telecommunications
Bureau
17.
We propose to update our FTE analysis using data from September 30, 2012. The
International Bureau, which employs 22 percent of the Commission’s direct FTEs, currently pays, as
illustrated in the table above, 6.3 percent of the total regulatory fees. 40 Conversely, ITSPs, based on the
current allocation, would pay almost 47 percent of the total regulatory fees while the Wireline Competition
Bureau employs roughly 30 percent of the Commission’s direct FTEs. We seek comment on how to revise
the apportionment of direct and indirect FTEs to reach a fair and equitable regulatory fee allocation, under
proposals including, but not limited to, those described herein. Our proposed reallocation, without further
reforms or adjustments (such as the caps discussed herein at paragraphs 30 and 31) would result in
allocation of 5.92 percent to the International Bureau, 37.50 percent to the Media Bureau, 35.09 percent to
the Wireline Competition Bureau, and 21.49 percent to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. When
these figures are adjusted to reflect the proposed 7.5 percent cap on rate increases for FY 2013, the
resulting effective allocations for FY 2013 are as set forth in the far right column in the table above.
18.
We had previously sought comment on revising the regulatory fee schedule, which would
thereby increase the amount paid by the International Bureau’s regulatees to 22 percent of the total.41
Although our proposals in this proceeding are based, in part, on such a reallocation, we believe that, as
discussed below, fairness warrants an allocation that more closely reflects the appropriate proportion of
direct costs required for regulation and oversight of International Bureau regulatees. Under such an
analysis, the regulatory fee allocation of these regulatees, should be decreased, rather than significantly

38 The percentages shown are the estimated allocations for FY 2013 when the fee rate increases are capped at 7.5%.
The actual fees to be paid for FY 2013 may be affected by additional factors, such as number of subscribers,
revenues, or other units to which the capped fee rate will be applied.
39 This result reflects an approximately ten percent (10%) reduction in the ITSP fee rate from what it would have
been in FY 2012 but for the off-setting rate freeze for ITSP’s applied in our FY 2012 Order.
40 See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
41 FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

increased, for the reasons stated herein. When section 9 was adopted, the total FTEs were to be calculated
based on the number of FTEs in the Private Radio Bureau,42 Mass Media Bureau,43 and Common Carrier
Bureau.44 Satellites and submarine cable were regulated through the Common Carrier Bureau before the
International Bureau was created. As discussed below, the services offered by regulatees in the Wireline
Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Media Bureau have evolved and
converged over time and, therefore their regulation involves many similar issues and generates common
Commission costs. To cite but one example, wireline, wireless, and cable companies compete with each
other for customers.45
19.
During this technological convergence among wireline, wireless, and cable services, the
International Bureau’s work has expanded beyond its regulation of international licensees. It also has
unique duties to assist bureaus and their regulatees throughout the Commission, and represent the
Commission on a variety of international issues affecting those regulatees. In discharging these duties, the
International Bureau works on matters including but not limited to spectrum use, cross-border
coordination, broadband deployment, and foreign ownership. At the same time, International Bureau
licensees have required less Commission oversight and regulation. Thus, the International Bureau now
serves the entire Commission’s international needs, not just the specific requirements of the International
Bureau regulatees. For these reasons, we propose that the International Bureau should no longer be
entirely classified as a “core bureau” in the way that the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, and Media Bureau are classified today. Below, we seek comment on
proposals to reallocate the International Bureau FTEs for regulatory fee purposes.
a.

Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division, International Bureau

20.
Consistent with section 9(b) of the Act, any reallocation methodology we adopt must be
reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission’s activities. A
reallocation that reflects benefits provided to the fee payor will also meet our objectives of being fair and
sustainable. Revising the percentage of the total regulatory fees paid by international service providers to
reflect the full percentage of direct FTEs in the International Bureau would promote fairness if we
determined that the increase in International Bureau FTEs is due to a corresponding increase in FTEs
working on regulation and oversight of international service providers. If, instead, the increase is
attributable to the increasing number of International Bureau FTEs performing duties that are related to the
Commission as a whole or benefit service providers regulated by other Bureaus, the fee increase should
not be imposed solely on international service providers. Rather, it should also be allocated to the other
regulatory fee categories whose fee payors benefit from that work.
21.
For example, the largest division in the International Bureau is the Strategic Analysis and
Negotiations Division (SAND), which is not significantly involved in regulation or oversight of
International Bureau regulatees. Instead, SAND is responsible for intergovernmental and regional
leadership, negotiating, and planning—processes that benefit offices and bureaus throughout the
Commission. SAND oversees the Commission’s global participation in international forums such as the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), including World Radio-communication Conferences;
various regional organizations, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Inter-American
Telecommunications Conference, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and

42 The predecessor to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
43 Now the Media Bureau.
44 The predecessor to the Wireline Competition Bureau.
45 Apart from DBS video services, for the most part the International Bureau regulatees do not offer the same
services as the wireline, wireless, and cable companies, although wireline and wireless companies use the services,
e.g. submarine cables that International Bureau regulatees provide.
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

cross-border negotiations with Canada and Mexico. These activities cover telecommunications services
outside of the bureau’s direct oversight and regulatory activities, e.g., coordination of wireless services
with Canada and Mexico.46 SAND also performs oversight to enable the International Bureau to integrate
international and bilateral meetings with visits to the Commission by foreign regulators and other
government officials. SAND is responsible for performing economic and policy analyses for the
International Bureau concerning trends in the international communications markets and services. Finally,
SAND conducts research and studies concerning international regulatory trends, as well as their
implications on U.S. policy. For these reasons we propose excluding the SAND FTEs from the
International Bureau for regulatory fee purposes and instead allocating them as indirect FTEs.47 We seek
comment on this proposal.
b.

Satellite Division, International Bureau

22.
In contrast to SAND, the International Bureau’s Satellite Division is responsible for the
regulation and oversight of satellite system licensees, specifically operators of space stations and earth
stations, by authorizing satellite systems to facilitate deployment of satellite services and fostering efficient
use of the radio frequency spectrum and orbital resources. In addition to the application and licensing
process, the Satellite Division provides expertise about the commercial satellite industry in the domestic
spectrum management process and advocates U.S. satellite radiocommunication interests in international
coordinations and negotiations. The Satellite Division is also responsible for the process of placing non-
U.S.-licensed space stations on a “Permitted List,”48 a process that is similar to the application process and
allows access to the U.S. market for certain non-U.S. licensed satellites.49 The Satellite Division also
reviews market access requests that are not eligible for inclusion on a Permitted List.
23.
We propose that of all the International Bureau’s Satellite Division employees whose
work involves regulation of International Bureau regulatees, we use 25 direct FTEs50 to determine the
regulatory fees for both satellite space stations and earth stations.51 We seek comment on this proposal.
c.

Policy Division, International Bureau

24.
The work of the third division in the International Bureau, the Policy Division, is
multifaceted. The Policy Division work involves development of polices in connection with regulation
and licensing of international facilities and services (including submarine cable systems, which provide
bearer circuits). The Policy Division conducts international spectrum rulemakings, handles applications
for transfer and assignment of international service providers and implements Commission policies

46 See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467-68, para. 26.
47 See id., 27 FCC Rcd at 8467-68, paras. 26-27; North American Submarine Cable Association Comments at 28.
48 See Amendment 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
, IB Docket No. 96-111, First Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 7207 (1999) (DISCO II First Reconsideration Order) (adopting the original procedure
for making changes to the Permitted List). See also 2006 Biennial Regulatory Review—Revision of Part 25,
Establishment of a Permitted List Procedure for Ka-band Space Stations
, IB Docket No. 06-154, Declaratory Order,
25 FCC Rcd 1542 (2010).
49 This is the process used by certain non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators to serve customers in the United States.
These satellite operators may file a petition for a Declaratory Ruling seeking approval to provide service in the
United States. These operators do not pay application fees or regulatory fees to the Commission, yet their petitions,
together with the information required by an application, are analyzed by Satellite Division staff and these operators
benefit from International Bureau regulatory activities.
50 Indirect FTEs would be allocated to these entities as they are for all regulatory fee payors.
51 See Satellite Industry Association Comments at 13.
11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

designed to protect competition in international telecommunications, and promotes lower international
calling rates for U.S. consumers. It coordinates and provides guidance to and shares its expertise with the
Commission and other agencies. For example, the Policy Division oversees Commission policies
involving foreign ownership of U.S. telecommunications providers, and in this connection, coordinates
major mergers and other license applications with U.S. agencies on matters relating to national security,
law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy. Many of these functions involve wireless and wireline
issues and therefore benefit regulatees in other Bureaus.52 Commenters to the FY 2012 NPRM argued that
the Policy Division’s limited regulation and oversight of submarine cable systems does not support the
current allocation of 36.08 percent of all the International Bureau regulatory fees or 2.28 percent of all
regulatory fees to the submarine cable industry.53
25.
Sixty submarine cable systems are licensed by the Commission, including 43 international
submarine cable systems.54 Submarine cable systems transport most of the U.S. international traffic,55
including Internet broadband, video, other high bandwidth applications, voice services (public switched
and interconnected VoIP), and non-public, private traffic for various international carriers, content and
Internet providers, corporations, wholesale operators, and governments. Large corporate customers
include financial and news companies and other content providers. Cable capacity is generally sold on an
indefeasible right of use (IRU) basis for 10-15 year terms and also on a long-term lease basis;56 therefore, a
large increase in regulatory fees is likely difficult to recover from customers as a “pass-through” charge.57
Commenters responding to the FY 2012 NPRM noted that regulatory fee charges in the U.S. are much
higher than those charged by other countries.58 Therefore, substantially increasing the regulatory fees paid
by submarine cable service providers would serve as a disincentive for carriers to land new cables in the
U.S. and an incentive to land new cables in Mexico and Canada instead. Over time, this would result in
increased costs to American consumers as well as potential national security issues.59 These commenters
contend that if the newer submarine cable systems choose to land in Canada or Mexico to avoid our high

52 See Satellite Industry Association Comments at 14.
53 See Joint Reply Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 3. See also Telstra Incorporated and Australia-
Japan Cable (Guam) Limited Comments at 3 (“the Commission’s primary regulatory activity is the granting of the
cable landing license.”).
54 There are 42 international submarine cable systems in operation subject to regulatory fees and one more licensed
system that will become subject to regulatory fees when it becomes operational.
55 Submarine cables transport approximately 95 percent of U.S. international traffic. See North American
Submarine Cable Association Comments at 15.
56 See North American Submarine Cable Association Comments at 4.
57 See id. at 18-19; Telstra Incorporated and Australia-Japan Cable (Guam) Limited Comments at 4.
58 The annual regulatory fees charged to submarine cable systems are much higher in the U.S. than in other
countries. See Joint Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 13. Canada charges $100 (Canadian) per year.
Id. at 14. Several other countries charge fees on telecommunications companies that would include submarine cable
operators, although there is no special category or assessment for submarine cable systems; e.g., the United
Kingdom (.0609% of UK revenues); Spain (less than .2% of revenues in Spain); the Netherlands (.077% of revenues
in the Netherlands), Argentina (.5% of revenues in Argentina); and Australia ($1,000 (Australian) plus .00118%
Australian revenues. Id. Many other countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Mexico, do not charge regulatory fees
at all. Id. See also North American Submarine Cable Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of
Ex Parte Presentation (Mar. 27, 2013) at 3 (“Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia compete fiercely for
submarine cable landings to maintain and improve their connectivity and support their services industries.”).
59 See, e.g., Joint Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 17 (additionally, “[l]andings outside of the US are
also outside the reach of US law enforcement authorities and cannot be monitored for evidence of criminal or
terrorist activity.”).
12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

regulatory fees, eventually almost all international traffic will leave from (or arrive into) Canada or Mexico
instead of the U.S.60
26.
We recognize that submarine cable systems have been subject to significant regulatory fee
reform recently.61 In the Submarine Cable Order, the Commission adopted a new submarine cable bearer
circuit methodology to assess regulatory fees on a cable landing license basis, based on the proposal (the
“Consensus Proposal”) of a large group of submarine cable operators representing both common carriers
and non-common carriers with both large and small submarine cable systems.62 This methodology
allocates international bearer circuit (IBC) costs among service providers without distinguishing between
common carriers and non-common carriers, by assessing a flat per cable landing license fee for all
submarine cable systems, with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller
systems. The Submarine Cable Order did not assess a particular regulatory fee for the submarine cable
systems but instead it adopted a new methodology that was considered fairer and easier to administer than
the previous method of assessing regulatory fees. This recent in-depth review and revision of the
regulatory fee methodology for submarine cable serves as another important factor to consider in
determining the appropriate allocation of regulatory fees in this proceeding.
27.
The 2.28 percent of all regulatory fees submarine cable service providers now pay is the
sixth highest regulatory fee percentage among all fee categories,63 notwithstanding the fact that the
provision of international submarine cable service involves little regulation and oversight from the
Commission after the initial licensing process. Under Part 43 of the Commission’s rules, common carriers
must file Traffic and Revenue Reports regarding international services and, for U.S. facilities-based
international common carriers, Circuit Status Reports for information concerning leased or owned
circuits.64 Within the Policy Division, submarine cable licensing, regulation, and oversight is handled by a
small number of FTEs during each fiscal year.65 The Policy Division employees whose work involves the
regulation of submarine cable systems and bearer circuits, equates to only two FTEs. The remaining
Policy Division FTEs handle other matters involving international issues and, like the SAND FTEs, should
more accurately be considered indirect FTEs, together with the remaining bureau level employees.
28.
To summarize, we propose to reclassify SAND’s FTEs as indirect FTEs and reallocate
them among the remaining core bureaus. In light of the number of employees in the Satellite Division who
work on satellite and earth station issues, the number of employees in the Policy Division who work on
bearer circuits and submarine cable issues, and the amount of time Satellite Division and Policy Division
employees spend on other issues that are not specific to the International Bureau regulatees, we estimate
that the appropriate number of FTEs to allocate as direct for regulatory fee purposes is 27. This
calculation factors in 25 FTEs from the Satellite Division and 2 from the Policy Division. We recognize in

60 Id.
61 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208
(2009) (Submarine Cable Order).
62 The 15 parties to the Consensus Proposal represented 35 of the 42 international submarine cable systems in
operation as well as three planned systems. Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4213, para. 11.
63 Geostationary Space Stations are higher, at 3.23%, as are ITSP (46.66%), CMRS Mobile (14.33%), Cable TV
(16.55%), and FM Classes B, C, C0, C1, & C2 (2.62%). Of all the International Bureau regulatees, (presently, 6.32
% of all regulatory fees) the Submarine Cable systems pay 36.08%.
64 The Commission recently made changes to the international reporting requirements, which have yet to go into
effect. See Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services, IB Docket
No. 04-112, Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 575 (2013).
65 The Commission, through the International Bureau Policy Division, seeks to ensure that the applicant controls one
of the necessary inputs of the submarine cable system (the wet link, cable landing station, or back haul facilities).
13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

reaching this estimate that most of the International Bureau FTEs should be considered indirect because
their activities benefit the Commission as a whole and are not specifically focused on International Bureau
regulatees. Therefore, we also propose that only a total of 27 of the FTEs in the Satellite Division and the
Policy Division involved in regulation and oversight of International Bureau regulatees, i.e., satellites,
earth stations, submarine cable, and bearer circuits, be considered in the direct International Bureau FTE
allocation for regulatory fee purposes. All remaining International Bureau FTEs would be indirect because
their activities benefit the Commission as a whole and are not focused on International Bureau regulatees.
This proposal, if adopted, would be implemented in FY 2013. We ask commenters to address the
substance and timing of this proposal.
d.

Reallocation of Other FTEs

29.
Many Commission functions are not directly attributable to only one specific regulated
industry; the regulatory fee allocation, therefore, has a large number of FTEs that we currently consider
indirect. As explained in the FY 2012 NPRM, our current approach is to distribute these indirect FTEs
proportionally across the core bureaus according to these bureaus’ respective percentages of the
Commission’s total direct FTE costs. As we also noted, this approach is based on the view that “the work
of the FTEs in the support bureaus and offices is not primarily focused on any one bureau or regulatory fee
category, but instead services the needs of all four core bureaus.” Further analysis indicates, however, that
work of the FTEs in a support bureau may tend to focus disproportionately more on some of the core
bureaus than others and that this focus may shift over time. It might be difficult to allocate these indirect
FTEs on a task-by-task basis. We seek comment on whether the work of indirect FTEs is focused
disproportionately on one or more core bureaus and if we should allocate indirect FTEs among the core
bureaus on this basis. For example, if a particular support bureau or office routinely does a
disproportionate amount of work on matters affecting the regulatees of a particular core bureau or bureaus,
should the allocation of its indirect FTEs be adjusted to reflect such focus in its work? We seek comment
on whether there are any divisions in non-core bureaus that should be assigned as indirect FTEs in a
different manner or assigned as direct FTEs for a particular group of regulatees. We also seek comment on
whether there are other divisions within the core bureaus that should be treated as indirect FTEs instead of
as direct FTEs and reassigned proportionally among the bureaus.
3.

Limitation on Increases of Regulatory Fees

30.
The proposals set forth above will likely reduce the regulatory fee assessment for some
regulatory fee categories, such as ITSPs and regulatees of the International Bureau, significantly, while
increasing the assessment for many other fee categories. In order to provide a reasonable transition to our
new allocations and because there are unresolved regulatory fee reform issues that may be adopted in FY
2014 that could further impact these allocations, we propose limiting any rate increases resulting from our
reallocations for this fiscal year. Such a limitation of, for example, 7.5 percent, would prevent “unexpected,
substantial increases which could severely impact the economic wellbeing of these licensees [regulatees].”66
We propose implementing such a limitation on the increase in regulatory fee rates, before any rounding to the
nearest applicable dollar unit as set forth in our rules, above FY 2012 fee rates.67 This limitation, if adopted,
would be effective in FY 2013. Attachment A2 is a table illustrating the impact of limiting the increase to
7.5 percent on regulatory fee collection and its associated Schedule of Fees is located in Attachment B2.
This will allow us to begin the transition toward better alignment of regulatory fees with Commission work
performed, permitting necessary downward adjustment of regulatory fees in some sectors without imposing
undue economic hardship on regulates in other sectors. Limiting increases will, necessarily, limit the

66 See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1997, Report and Order, 12 FCC 17161,
17176, para. 37 (1997).
67 The cap would not limit changes in regulatory fees paid by a particular payor resulting from other factors, such as
increased or decreased revenues, changes in subscriber numbers, number of licenses, etc.
14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

decrease in fees for other regulatory fee categories, since the overall fee collection amount does not change.
31.
We seek comment on the reasonableness of this proposed limitation for FY 2013. We also
invite comment on higher or lower percentages, and whether, rather than a uniform limitation for increases to
all regulatory fee categories resulting solely from the reallocations proposed herein, we should consider
different limitations for certain industry groups in light of other reform proposals and the likely impact on the
regulatory fees of such groups. For example, as we seek to combine regulatory fees for ITSP and wireless
services into one category, should we consider a limitation that brings the allocation of FTEs for these two
groups closer to equal in this fiscal year? Without such limitation, would increases for certain regulatory fee
categories still be fair, taking into account the work of the Commission benefiting such payors? Commenters
suggesting a different percentage for regulatory fee increases applicable to any or all fee categories should
explain how their proposals would prevent a severe impact on the economic wellbeing of regulatees, be
consistent with the goals of more accurately aligning FTEs with their areas of work, promoting fairness, and
allowing the Commission to recover its regulatory costs as Congress has directed. As we continue with
regulatory fee reform in the future, we will consider the need for similar limits if significant increases in
regulatory fee rates occur in any one year as a result of our adoption of further reform measures. We,
therefore, seek comment on the appropriate timeline for fully implementing the reallocation proposed herein
and whether similar limits to increases in regulatory fee rates resulting from such reallocation should be used
in FY 2014 and beyond.
4.

Interim Measures for FY 2013

32.
We seek comment on whether, in lieu of using updated FTE data and implementing the
FTE reallocations proposed above in FY 2013, we should maintain the allocation percentages we now use
for all fee categories in FY 2013 and maintain the ITSP fee rate for FY 2013 at .00375 per revenue dollar
for the third consecutive year. The table in Attachment A1 illustrates the impact of this proposal on
regulatory fee collection, and its associated Schedule of Fees is located in Attachment B1. If we
maintained the allocation percentages we now use, but did not maintain the ITSP fee rate for FY 2013 at
.00375, the FY 2013 ITSP fee rate would increase to .00409.68
5.

Revenue Based Regulatory Fee Assessments

33.
In addition to using revenues to calculate regulatory fees for the wireless industry,
discussed above, we invite comment on whether revenues would be a more appropriate measure for other
industries in FY 2014 or future years. For example, should the Commission use revenues instead of
number of subscribers in determining the regulatory fee for the cable industry? Would revenues be a more
appropriate measure for calculating regulatory fees for the satellite industry? If so, how should the
Commission account for satellite revenue from foreign sources? Commenters should address whether
foreign revenues would be relevant if we assessed fees in that manner. Commenters also should discuss
how we would determine the revenues for companies that do not file a FCC Form 499-A, what information
should be provided to the Commission, and whether such information would require confidential
treatment. Conversely, we seek comment on whether it would be fairer and more sustainable to assess
more fee categories on some other basis, such as subscribers.

C.

Other Telecommunications Regulatory Fee Issues

1.

Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Low Power, Class A, and TV
Translators/Boosters

34.
The digital transition to full-service television stations was completed on June 12, 2009,
but the digital transition for Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters still remains voluntary with

68 The fee rate of .00409 is based on the current allocation percent of 46.67 of our target goal of $339,844,000 with a
projected ITSP revenue base (calendar year 2012) of $39 billion.
15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

a transition date of September 1, 2015. Historically, we have considered the digital transition only in the
context of regulatory fees applicable to full-service television stations, and not to Low Power, Class A, and
TV Translators/Boosters. Because the digital transition in the Low Power, Class A, and TV
Translator/Booster facilities is still voluntary, some of these facilities may transition from analog to digital
service more rapidly than others. During this period of transition, licensees of Low Power, Class A, and
TV Translator/Booster facilities may be operating in analog mode, in digital mode, or in an analog and
digital simulcast mode. Therefore, for regulatory fee purposes, we clarify that we are assessing a fee for
each facility operating either in an analog or digital mode. In instances in which a licensee is simulcasting
in both analog and digital modes, a single regulatory fee will be assessed for the analog facility and its
corresponding digital component. As greater numbers of facilities convert to digital mode, the
Commission will provide revised instructions on how regulatory fees will be assessed.
2.

Combining UHF/VHF Television Media Regulatory Fees

35.
Regulatory fees for full-service television stations are calculated based on two, five-tiered
market segments for Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) television stations,
respectively. There is also a construction permit fee category for UHF and VHF. After the transition to
digital television on June 12, 2009, we received comment on this issue, suggesting that the Commission
combine the UHF and VHF regulatory fee categories.69 Combining UHF and VHF full-service television
stations into a single five-tiered fee category (by market size) would in effect eliminate any distinctions
between UHF and VHF services.
36.
Historically, analog VHF channels (channels 1-13) have been coveted for their greater
prestige and larger audience, and thus the regulatory fees assessed on VHF stations have been higher than
the regulatory fees assessed for UHF (channels 14 and above) stations in the same market area.
Conversely, digital VHF channels are less desirable than digital UHF channels, and thus there may no
longer be a basis on which to assess higher regulatory fees for VHF channels. Combining VHF and UHF
into one fee category would eliminate the current fee disparity between UHF and VHF television stations.
We propose that the UHF and VHF full service television station categories be combined into one fee
category, divided into tiers based on market size, with one resulting rate. This proposal, if adopted, will be
implemented in FY 2014. We seek comment on this proposal.

69 See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 9278,
9285-86, at paras. 18 - 20 (2010) (FY 2010 Report and Order) (Fireweed Communications argued that we should
base the regulatory fee structure on three tiers; Sky Television, LLC, Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., and Sarkes
Tarzian argued that instead of six separate categories for both VHF and UHF we should combine them into six
categories based on market size and thus eliminate any distinction between VHF and UHF.). See also Notice of Ex
Parte Presentation, filed by Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. and Sky Television, LLC (Feb. 15, 2013) (arguing that VHF stations
are less desirable than UHF stations and it was unfair to have higher fees for such stations; instead the fee category
should be combined.).
16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Proposed Combined UHF/VHF Digital Television Fee

(Based on Figures from Attachment A1, Allocation % Same as in Prior Years)
Pro-Rated
Rounded
Expected
Combined Fee Category
Units Rev. Req.
FY12 Fee
Revenue
Digital Television Markets 1-10
131
$5,685,446
$43,400
$5,685,400
Digital Television Markets 11-25
129
$5,359,471
$41,550
$5,359,950
Digital Television Markets 26-50
174
$4,526,425
$26,025
$4,528,350
Digital Television Markets 51-100
286
$4,174,475
$14,600
$4,175,600
Digital Television Remaining Markets
387
$1,666,092
$4,300
$1,664,100
Digital Television Construction Permits
8
$34,400
$4,300
$34,400
3.

Internet Protocol TV (IPTV)

37.
IPTV is digital television delivered through a high speed Internet connection, instead of
through traditional formats such as cable or terrestrial broadcast. IPTV service generally is offered
bundled with the customer’s Internet and telephone or VoIP services. In the FY 2008 Report and Order
we sought comment on whether this video service should be subject to regulatory fees, and if so, should
the IPTV provider count this service for regulatory fee purposes in the same manner as cable services,
which is on a per subscriber basis.70 By assessing regulatory fees on cable services but not on IPTV, we
may place cable providers at a competitive disadvantage. Commenters should discuss whether IPTV is
sufficiently similar to cable services to be included in the same regulatory fee category and to be assessed
regulatory fees in the same manner. This proposal, if adopted, would be implemented in FY 2014.
4.

Multi-Year Wireless Services

38.
Multi-year wireless services is a fee category that encompasses various different wireless
services (e.g., microwave, land mobile) whose regulatory fees are paid up front only at the time that the
five-year or 10-year license is renewed. Most of these multi-year wireless licenses are 10-year licenses.
The number of licensees seeking renewal or filing new applications for licenses (the unit count) could
fluctuate dramatically from one year to the next as companies go out of business, directly impacting the fee
rate for that year. Further, because the time between license renewals is 10 years, the regulatory fee
amount paid can also increase or decrease substantially from one renewal to the next because of unit
fluctuations and changes in the annual appropriation from one year to the next. We seek comment on
appropriate steps to take, if any, when the fee rate in this fee category fluctuates dramatically from one
year to the next because of changes in the unit count. These proposals, if adopted, would be implemented
in FY 2014.
5.

Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging

39.
CMRS Messaging Service, which replaced the CMRS One-Way Paging fee category in
1997, includes all narrowband services.71 Initially, as a measure to provide relief to the paging industry,
the Commission froze the regulatory fee for this fee category at the FY 2002 level, setting an applicable

70 FY 2008 FNPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 6406-07, paras. 48-49.
71 See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1997, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17161,
17184-85, para. 60 (1997) (FY 1997 Report and Order).
17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

rate at $0.08 per subscriber beginning in FY 2003.72 At that time we noted that CMRS Messaging units
had significantly declined from 40.8 million in FY 1997 to 19.7 million in FY 2003—a decline of 51.7
percent.73 Commenters argued this decline in subscribership was not just a temporary phenomenon, but a
lasting one. Commenters further argued that, because the messaging industry is spectrum-limited,
geographically localized, and very cost sensitive, it is difficult for this industry to pass on increases in costs
to its subscribers.74
40.
The decline in subscribership for this industry raises a more fundamental issue: whether
the Commission should modify the methodology in collecting regulatory fees from entities in declining
industries. For industries such as paging, our methodology may be burdensome on the industry and of
negligible value to the Commission, due to the administrative burden of assessing the fee on many very
small companies. We seek comment on whether to modify the way in which we assess fees from
providers in declining industries and how to define a declining industry. Commenters should discuss
whether there are other similarly situated categories that need regulatory fee relief. Proposals, if adopted,
would be implemented in FY 2014.

D.

Administrative Issues

1.

Electronic Filing and Payment System

41.
In FY 2009, the Commission implemented several procedural changes that simplified the
payment and reconciliation processes for FY 2009 regulatory fees. The Commission’s current regulatory
fee collection procedures can be found in the Report and Order on Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for FY 2012
.75
42.
In FY 2013, the Commission will continue to promote greater use of technology (and less
use of paper) in improving our regulatory fee notification and collection process. These changes, and the
dates on which they will take place, are discussed in more detail below. Specifically, as of October 1,
2013, we will no longer accept paper and transfer electronic invoicing and receivables collection to the
Treasury in FY 2014. Finally, in FY 2014, we will no longer mail out initial CMRS assessments, and will
instead require licensees to log into the Commission’s website to view and revise their subscriber counts.
2.

Discontinuation of Mail Outs of Initial CMRS Assessments

43.
In FY 2014, as part of the Commission’s effort to become more “paperless,” the
Commission will no longer mail out its initial CMRS assessments, but will require licensees to log into the
Commission’s website to view and revise their subscriber counts. A system currently exists for providers
to revise their CMRS subscriber counts electronically, and it is possible that this system can be expanded
to include letters that can be downloaded to serve as the initial CMRS assessment letter. The Commission
will provide more details in future announcements as this system is developed.

72 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2003, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15985,
15992, para. 22 (2003) (FY 2003 Report and Order).
73 FY 2003 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15992, para. 21. The subscriber base in the paging industry declined 92
percent from 40.8 million to 3.2 million between FY 1997 and FY 2012, according to FY 2012 collection data, as of
Sept. 30, 2012. See FY 2010 Report and Order at note 8.
74 FY 2003 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15992, para. 22.
75 See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2012, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 8390,
8395-97, paras. 17-20, 24-26 (2012) (FY 2012 Report and Order).
18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

3.

Discontinuation of Paper and Check Transactions Beginning October 1,
2013

44.
Together with the U.S. Department of Treasury, the Commission is taking further steps to
meet the OMB Open Government Directive.76 A component part of the Treasury’s current flagship
initiative pursuant to this Directive is moving to a paperless Treasury, which includes related activities in
both disbursing and collecting select federal government payments and receipts.77 Going paperless is
expected to produce cost savings, reduce errors, and improve efficiencies across government.
Accordingly, beginning on October 1, 2013, the Commission will no longer accept checks (including
cashier’s checks) and the accompanying hardcopy forms (e.g., Form 159’s, Form 159-B’s, Form 159-E’s,
Form 159-W’s) for the payment of regulatory fees. This new paperless procedure will require that all
payments be made by credit card, wire transfer, or ACH payment. Any other form of payment (e.g.,
checks) will be rejected and sent back to the payor. This change will affect all payments for regulatory
fees made on or after that October 1, 2013.78
45.
Currently, the Commission is working with Treasury to implement procedures that will
reduce manual and subscale accounts receivables, reduce hidden costs associated with collections, and
increase recoveries. We anticipate measurable enhancements in our program achieved by reducing our
delinquency rate, increasing collections, and reducing costs. Under section 9 of the Act, Commission
rules, and the debt collection laws, a licensee’s regulatory fee is due on the first day of the fiscal year and
payable at a date established by our annual regulatory fee Report and Order. The Commission will work
with Treasury to facilitate end-to-end billing and collections capabilities for our receivables in the pre-
delinquency stage and seeks to implement these changes in FY 2014. Under these revised procedures, the
Commission will begin transferring appropriate receivables (unpaid regulatory fees) to Treasury at the end
of the payment period instead of waiting for a period of 180 days from the date of delinquency to transfer a
delinquent debt to Treasury for further collection action.79 Accordingly, we anticipate that transfer to
Treasury will occur much earlier than it now does. Regulatees, however, likely will not see substantial
change in the current procedures of how they are required to pay the fee for FY 2013 and FY 2014. After
the date on which the FY 2014 payment fee window closes; however, if a FY 2013 receivable is past due,
we expect some changes in notification procedures and in the process by which to submit payments to
Treasury or its designated financial agent. Consistent with those anticipated modifications and any future
Treasury procedure, the Commission expects it will modify its informative guidance and amend its rules.
We invite comments on this proposed change

IV.

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

46.
Above we seek comment concerning regulatory reforms we believe may potentially be
adopted in FY 2013 or FY 2014.80 The Further Notice below invites comment on proposals and issues
that require additional time for consideration and implementation. Accordingly, we seek comment on the
viability of these proposals and whether they should be implemented in future years.

76 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-10-06, Open Government Directive, Dec. 8, 2009;
see also http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/13/executive-order-13576-delivering-efficient-
effective-and-accountable-gov.
77 See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Open Government Plan 2.1, Sep. 2012.
78 Payors should note that this change will mean that, to the extent certain entities have, to date, paid both regulatory
fees and application fees at the same time via paper check, they will no longer be able to do so, as the regulatory fees
payment via paper check will no longer be accepted.
79 See 31 U.S.C. § 3711(g); 31 C.F.R. § 285.12; 47 C.F.R. § 1.1917.
80 As noted above, some of these proposals, if adopted, would be effective in FY 2013 and others in FY 2014.
19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

A.

Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations Serving the United States

47.
The Commission’s goal in assessing satellite regulatory fees is to recover all of the costs
associated with satellite regulatory activities and to distribute these costs fairly among fee payers. To
recover the costs associated with policy and rulemaking activities associated with space stations, section
1.1156 of the Commission’s rules includes “Space Station (Geostationary Orbit)” and “Space Stations
(Non-Geostationary Orbit)” in the regulatory fee schedule.81 These fees are assessed only for U.S.-
licensed space stations. Regulatory fees are not assessed for non-U.S.-licensed space stations that provide
service to customers in the United States.82
48.
The Commission’s policies, regulations, international, user information, and enforcement
activities all benefit non-U.S. licensed satellite operators that access the U.S. market. Rulemaking
proceedings establishing authorization procedures or service rules for satellite services apply both to U.S.
licensed satellites and non-U.S. licensed satellites providing service in the United States.83 A non-U.S.
licensed satellite operator may file a petition for a declaratory ruling seeking Commission approval to
provide service in the United States. The International Bureau evaluates this petition for consistency with
the Commission’s legal and technical requirements in the same manner as the Bureau evaluates the
application for an FCC space station license and, on the basis of this review, imposes any appropriate
conditions for the grant of market access. Once the non-U.S. licensed space stations are granted access to
earth stations in the United States, the grant is recorded together with any conditions of access, in the
International Bureau Filing System. After a grant of market access, the operations of non-U.S. space
stations with U.S. licensed earth stations are also monitored to ensure that their operators satisfy all
conditions placed on their grant of U.S. market access, including space station implementation milestones
and operational requirements, and are subject to enforcement action if the conditions are not met. Despite
the regulatory benefits provided by the Commission to non-U.S. licensed satellite systems serving the
United States they do not incur the regulatory fees (or application fees) paid by U.S.-licensed satellite
systems. As a result, U.S.-licensed space station operators, which are assessed these fees by the
Commission and compete with the non-U.S. licensed operators, may be at a competitive disadvantage.
49.
We therefore seek comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on non-U.S.
licensed space station operators providing service in the United States. Commenters should discuss
whether the Commission should revisit the Commission’s 1999 conclusion that the regulatory fee category
for Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit) and Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) in section
1.1156(a) of the Commission’s rules covers only Title III license holders.84 Commenters that advocate
assessing regulatory fees on non-U.S. licensed space stations providing service in the United States should
propose how the fees should be calculated and applied, particularly in instances where the non-U.S.
licensed space station operator accesses the U.S. market solely through an application by a U.S.-licensed
earth station operator to list the non-U.S. licensed space station as a point of communication. Commenters
should also provide specific information as to whether other countries already assess regulatory fees in one

81 47 C.F.R. §1.1156.
82 This issue was raised in the FY 1999 Report and Order where the Commission observed that that the legislative
history provides that only space stations licensed under Title III—which does not include non-U.S.-licensed satellite
operators—may be subject to regulatory fees. Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1999,
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 9896, 9882, para. 39 (1999) (FY 1999 Report and Order).
83 See, e.g., Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.8 GHz
Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency
Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service for the Satellite
Services Operating Bi-Directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band
, IB 06-123, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8842 (2007).
84 FY 1999 Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 9882, para. 39.
20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

form or another on U.S. licensed satellite systems accessing their markets. Would assessing regulatory
fees on non-U.S. licensed space stations encourage foreign countries to assess such fees on U.S. licensed
space stations? If so, would that place U.S. licensed space stations at a competitive disadvantage in the
marketplace?

B.

Video Services--Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)

50.
DBS programming is similar to cable services; it differs in that the programming is not
transmitted terrestrially by cable but instead by satellites stationed in geosynchronous orbit. DBS
operators are considered multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), pursuant to section
522(13) of the Act.85 DBS operators are licensed as geostationary satellite operators and currently pay a
per-geostationary orbit (GSO) satellite regulatory fee but do not pay a per-subscriber regulatory fee.86 We
seek comment on whether regulatory fees paid by DBS providers should be calculated on the same basis
as cable television system operators and cable antenna relay system licensees, based on Media Bureau
FTEs. In this regard, we note that there are regulatory similarities between these providers; for example,
DBS providers may file program access complaints87 and complaints seeking relief under the
retransmission consent good faith rules;88 and they must comply with the Commercial Advertisement
Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM Act),89 the Twenty-First Century Video Accessibility Act (CVAA),90
and the closed captioning and video description rules.
51.
There are also regulatory differences between cable operators and DBS operators,
however. There are only two DBS operators in the Nation, while there are 1,141 cable operators and 6,635
cable systems. Each cable operator must keep certain records for each of its cable systems; e.g., Political,91
Equal Employment Opportunity,92 Commercial Records on Children’s Programs,93 Proof-of-Performance
Test Data,94 Signal Leakage Logs and Repair Records,95 Aeronautical Notifications,96 Leased Access,97
Principal Headend Location,98 Availability of Signals,99 Operator Interests in Video Programming,100

85 47 U.S.C. § 522 (13). An MVPD is a service provider delivering video programming services, such as cable
television operators, DBS providers, and wireline video providers.
86 Previously, the Commission declined to adopt the same per-subscriber fee for DBS. See FY 2005 Report and
Order
, 20 FCC Rcd at 12264, paras. 10-11.
87 47 U.S.C. § 548; 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000-1004.
88 47 U.S.C. §§ 325(b)(1), (3)(C)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 76.65(b).
89 See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement, Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, Report and Order, 26
FCC Rcd 17222 (2011).
90 47 U.S.C. § 618(b).
91 47 C.F.R. § 76.1701.
92 47 C.F.R. § 76.1702.
93 47 C.F.R. § 76.1703.
94 47 C.F.R. § 76.1704.
95 47 C.F.R. §76.1706.
96 47 C.F.R. § 76.1804.
97 47 C.F.R. § 76.1707.
98 47 C.F.R. § 76.1708.
99 47 C.F.R. § 76.1709.
21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Emergency Alert System Tests and Activation,101 Complaint Resolution,102 Regulatory,103 and the
Sponsorship Identification.104 (DBS operators also are required to keep Political, Equal Employment
Opportunity, Commercial Records on Children’s Programs files, and Emergency Alert System Tests and
Activation files.)
52.
For FY 2012, cable service providers paid approximately $0.95 per subscriber in
regulatory fees.105 The two DBS providers, DirectTV and DISH Network, paid much lower regulatory
fees on a per subscriber basis, and their regulatory fees were based on International Bureau FTEs, not
Media Bureau FTEs. We seek comment on whether the DBS providers should instead pay regulatory fees
that are comparable to the regulatory fees paid by cable service providers; i.e., based on the Media Bureau
FTEs. To that end, because DBS providers benefit directly from the work not only of the International
Bureau, but also the Media Bureau, should a portion of Media Bureau FTEs be allocated to DBS
providers? Or is there some alternative way to more fairly assess regulatory fees to DBS and cable
providers? Commenters should also discuss whether we should require both DBS and cable operators to
pay regulatory fees based on revenues, and, if so, how we would collect revenue information from these
entities.

C.

Other Services

53.
Should additional regulatory fee categories be added to the regulatory fee schedule set
forth in section 9? If so, what categories should be added, and why?106 To the extent that licensees offer
services that are regulated by more than one core bureau, how would the addition of new fee categories
affect the allocation of FTEs by core bureau?

V.

CONCLUSION

54.
We are confident the FY 2013 NPRM and FNPRM propose a portfolio of options to
achieve our goal for revising the regulatory fee schedule in order to fairly address the changing and
converging communications industry, changes in the Commission’s regulatory processes since established
in 1994, and the recommendations in the GAO Report. We invite and encourage interested parties to
submit comments in response to numerous proposals discussed above so that a robust record is created to
better inform the Commission as it examines reforming the regulatory fee structure.

VI.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A

.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

55.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is contained in Attachment E. Comments
to the IRFA must be identified as responses to the IRFA and filed by the deadlines for comments on the

(...continued from previous page)
100 47 C.F.R. § 76.1710.
101 47 C.F.R. § 76.1711.
102 47 C.F.R. § 76.1713.
103 47 C.F.R. § 76.1714.
104 47 C.F.R. § 76.1715.
105 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2012, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at
Attachment C (2012) (FY 2012 Order).
106 In our FY2012 NPRM, for example, we sought comment on whether the Commission has authority, under
section 9, to include broadband as a fee category, and asked how the costs of any such additional fee categories
should be assessed. We continue to seek comment on this issue, specifically, and more generally: are there other
fee categories that should be added?
22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

NPRM and Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM and the Further Notice,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

B.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

56.
This document solicits possible proposed information collection requirements. 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 possible proposed information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

C.

Other Procedural Matters

1.

Filing Instructions

57.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/">the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
 Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of
each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
o Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 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.
o All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s
Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD
20743.
o U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to
445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
58.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to file://C:\Users\Thomas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\Users\Mika.Savir\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\Users\Roland.Helvajian\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Users\Mika.Savir\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Users\Mika.Savir\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\Users\Mika.Savir\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\204T2IWP\fcc504@fcc.gov">fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
2.

Ex Parte Information

59.
The proceeding this FY 2013 NPRM and Further Notice initiates shall be treated as a
“permit-but-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
23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

summarizing the presentation must list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and 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
rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) 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.

VII.

ORDERING CLAUSES

60.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 159, and 303(r), this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ARE HEREBY ADOPTED

.
61.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,

SHALL SEND

a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis in Attachment E, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT A1

Maintain the Same Percentage Allocations as in Prior Years

Calculation of FY 2013 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the
term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Computed Rounded Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

New FY

New

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue

2013

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Regulatory Regula-

ment

Fee

tory Fee
PLMRS (Exclusive
1,400
10
490,000
507,072
36
35
490,000
Use)
PLMRS (Shared
15,000
10
2,250,000
2,426,700
16
15
2,250,000
use)
Microwave
13,200
10
2,640,000
2,390,480
18
20
2,640,000
218-219 MHz
5
10
3,500
3,622
72
70
3,500
(Formerly IVDS)
Marine (Ship)
6,550 10
655,000
796,827
12
10
655,000
GMRS
7,900
5
192,500
289,755
7
5
197,500
Aviation (Aircraft)
2,900 10
290,000
362,194
12
10
290,000
Marine (Coast)
285 10
142,500
144,878
51
50
142,500
Aviation (Ground)
900 10
135,000
144,878
16
15
135,000
Amateur Vanity
14,300
10
214,500
217,316
1.52
1.52
217,360
Call Signs
AM Class A4a
68
1
250,100
253,978
3,735
3,725
253,300
AM Class B4b
1,454
1
3,125,875
3,161,850
2,175
2,175
3,162,450
AM Class C4c
837
1
1,107,975
1,129,223
1,349
1,350
1,129,950
AM Class D4d
1,406
1
3,698,400
3,742,299
2,662
2,650
3,725,900
FM Classes A, B1
2,935
1
7,764,750
7,836,522
2,670
2,675
7,851,125
& C34e
FM Classes B, C,
3,110
1
9,513,000
9,611,273
3,090
3,100
9,641,000
C0, C1 & C24f
AM Construction
51
1
35,750
28,658
562
560
28,560
Permits
FM Construction
170
1
84,000
118,614
698
700
119,000
Permits1
Satellite TV
129
1
178,125
181,097
1,404
1,400
180,600
Satellite TV
3
1
3,580
3,622
1,207
1,200
3,600
Construction Permit
VHF Markets 1-10
22
1
1,761,650
1,804,524
82,024
82,025
1,804,550
VHF Markets 11-25
23
1
1,836,875
1,880,596
81,765
81,775
1,880,825
VHF Markets 26-50
39
1
1,512,400
1,549,293
39,725
39,725
1,549,275
VHF Markets 51-
61
1
1,255,500
1,290,409
21,154
21,150
1,290,150
100
25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Computed Rounded Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

New FY

New

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue

2013

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Regulatory Regula-

ment

Fee

tory Fee
VHF Remaining
140
1
798,025
814,033
5,815
5,825
815,500
Markets
VHF Remaining
140
1
798,025
814,033
5,815
5,825
815,500
Markets
VHF Construction
1
1
11,650
5,825
5,825
5,825
5,825
Permits1
UHF Markets 1-10
109
1
3,853,150
3,880,922
35,605
35,600
3,880,400
UHF Markets 11-25
106
1
3,458,250
3,478,876
32,820
32,825
3,479,450
UHF Markets 26-50
135
1
2,959,875
2,977,132
22,053
22,050
2,976,750
UHF Markets 51-
225
1
2,868,750
2,884,066
12,818
12,825
2,885,625
100
UHF Remaining
247
1
845,975
852,059
3,450
3,450
852,150
Markets
UHF Construction
7
1
23,975
24,150
3,450
3,450
24,150
Permits1
Broadcast
25,400
1
248,000
254,000
10
10
254,000
Auxiliaries
LPTV/Translators/
3,725
1
1,436,820
1,448,776
389
390
1,452,750
Boosters/Class A
TV
CARS Stations
325
1
178,125
181,097
557
555
180,375
Cable TV Systems
60,000,000
1
59,090,000 59,943,108
.99905
1.00
60,000,000
Interstate
$39,000,000,000
1
148,875,000 146,250,000
0.003750
0.00375 146,250,000
Telecommunication
Service Providers
CMRS Mobile
321,000,000
1
53,210,000 52,821,422
0.1646
0.17
54,570,000
Services
(Cellular/Public
Mobile)
CMRS Messag.
3,000,000
1
272,000
240,000
0.0800
0.080
240,000
Services
BRS2
920
1
451,250
588,800
640
640
588,800
LMDS
170
1
225,625
108,800
640
640
108,800
Per 64 kbps Int’l
4,220,000
1
1,157,602
1,167,825
.277
.28
1,181,600
Bearer Circuits
Terrestrial (Common)
& Satellite (Common
& Non-Common)
Submarine Cable
38.313
1
8,150,984
8,249,219
215,314
215,325
8,249,639
Providers (see chart
in Appendix C)3
Earth Stations
3,400
1
893,750
905,485
266
265
901,000
26

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Computed Rounded Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

New FY

New

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue

2013

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Regulatory Regula-

ment

Fee

tory Fee
Space Stations
87
1
11,560,125 11,698,866
134,470
134,475
11,699,325
(Geostationary)
Space Stations
6
1
858,900
869,266
144,878
144,875
869,250
(Non-Geostationary
****** Total
340,568,811 339,521,495
341,106,534
Estimated Revenue
to be Collected
****** Total
339,844,000 339,844,000
339,844,000
Revenue
Requirement

724,811
-322,505
1,262,534
Difference
1 The FM Construction Permit revenues and the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues were adjusted to set
the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. The reductions in the
FM Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for FM radio stations. Similarly,
reductions in the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for VHF
and UHF television stations, respectively.
2 MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and
101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and
Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands
, Report & Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, ¶ 6 (2004).
3 The chart at the end of Appendix B lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-
common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the following proceedings: Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008
, Second Report and Order (MD Docket No. 08-65, RM-11312), released
March 24, 2009; and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009 and Assessment and
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (MD Docket No.
09-65, MD Docket No. 08-65), released on May 14, 2009.
4 The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2013 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted
average media regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2013 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are
listed on a grid located at the end of Attachment B.
27

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT B1

Maintain the Same Percentage Allocations as in Prior Years

FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the
term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory Fee

(U.S. $'s)
PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90)
35
Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101)
20
218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR
70
part 95)
Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)
10
Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)
50
General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95)
5
Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category)
15
PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90)
15
Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)
10
Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)
15
Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97)
1.52
CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and
.17
90)
CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90)
.08
Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/ MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part
640
27)
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101)
640
AM Radio Construction Permits
560
FM Radio Construction Permits
700
TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
82,025
Markets 11-25
81,775
Markets 26-50
39,725
Markets 51-100
21,150
Remaining Markets
5,825
28

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory Fee

(U.S. $'s)
Construction Permits
5,825
TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
35,600
Markets 11-25
32,825
Markets 26-50
22,050
Markets 51-100
12,825
Remaining Markets
3,450
Construction Permits
3,450
Satellite Television Stations (All Markets)
1,400
Construction Permits – Satellite Television Stations
1,200
Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74)
390
Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)
10
CARS (47 CFR part 78)
555
Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76)
1.00
Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00375
Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
265
Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25)
also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
134,475
Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part
144,875
25)
International Bearer Circuits - Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit)
.28
International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable
See Table Below
29

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

FY 2013 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES: Maintain Allocation (continued)

FY 2013 RADIO STATION REGULATORY FEES

Population

AM Class AM Class

AM

AM

FM Classes

FM Classes

Served

A

B

Class C

Class D

A, B1 & C3

B, C, C0, C1

& C2
<=25,000
$750
$625
$575
$650
$700
$875
25,001 – 75,000
$1,500
$1,250
$875
$975
$1,400
$1,525
75,001 – 150,000
$2,250
$1,575
$1,150
$1,625
$1,925
$2,850
150,001 – 500,000
$3,375
$2,650
$1,725
$1,950
$2,975
$3,725
500,001 – 1,200,000
$4,875
$4,075
$2,875
$3,250
$4,725
$5,475
1,200,001 – 3,000,00
$7,500
$6,250
$4,325
$5,200
$7,700
$8,750
>3,000,000
$9,000
$7,500
$5,475
$6,500
$9,800
$11,375

FY 2013 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES

International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable

Submarine Cable Systems
Fee amount
Address
(capacity as of December 31, 2012)
< 2.5 Gbps
FCC, International, P.O. Box
$13,450
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
2.5 Gbps or greater, but less
than 5 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$26,925
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
5 Gbps or greater, but less than
10 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$53,825
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
10 Gbps or greater, but less
than 20 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$107,675
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
FCC, International, P.O. Box
20 Gbps or greater
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
$215,325
9000
30

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT A2

Revised FTE (as of 9/30/12) Allocations,5

Fee Rate Increases Capped at 7.5%, Prior to Rounding6

Calculation of FY 2013 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the
term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Uncapped Rounded & Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

FY 2013

Capped

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue Regulatory

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Fee

Regulatory

ment

Fee

PLMRS (Exclusive
1,400
10
490,000
606,762
43
40
560,000
Use)
PLMRS (Shared
15,000
10
2,250,000
2,903,790
19
15
2,250,000
use)
Microwave
13,200
10
2,640,000
2,860,449
22
20
2,640,000
218-219 MHz
5
10
3,500
4,334
87
75
3,750
(Formerly IVDS)
Marine (Ship)
6,550 10
655,000
953,483
15
10
655,000
GMRS
7,700
5
192,500
346,721
4
5
395,000
Aviation (Aircraft)
2,900 10
290,000
433,401
15
10
290,000
Marine (Coast)
285 10
142,500
173,361
61
55
156,750
Aviation (Ground)
900 10
135,000
173,361
19
15
135,000
Amateur Vanity
14,300
10
214,500
260,041
1.82
1.61
230,230
Call Signs
AM Class A4a
68
1
250,100
295,438
4,345
4,350
295,800
AM Class B4b
1,454
1
3,125,875
3,671,874
2,525
2,275
3,307,850
AM Class C4c
837
1
1,107,975
1,308,369
1,563
1,375
1,150,875
AM Class D4d
1,406
1
3,698,400
4,347,161
3,092
2,575
3,620,450
FM Classes A, B1
2,935
1
7,764,750
8,989,760
3,063
2,750
8,071,250
& C34e
FM Classes B, C,
3,110
1
9,513,000 11,057,826
3,556
3,375 10,496,250
C0, C1 & C24f
AM Construction
51
1
35,750
42,205
828
590
30,090
Permits
FM Construction
170
1
84,000
422,054
2,483
750
127,500
Permits1
Satellite TV
129
1
178,125
211,027
1,636
1,525
196,725
Satellite TV
3
1
3,580
4,221
1,407
960
2,880
Construction Permit
VHF Markets 1-10
22
1
1,761,650
2,364,840
107,493
86,075
1,893,650
VHF Markets 11-25
23
1
1,836,875
2,452,884
106,647
78,975
1,816,425
VHF Markets 26-50
39
1
1,512,400
2,031,796
52,097
42,775
1,668,225
VHF Markets 51-
61
1
1,255,500
1,757,986
28,819
22,500
1,372,500
31

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Uncapped Rounded & Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

FY 2013

Capped

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue Regulatory

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Fee

Regulatory

ment

Fee

100
VHF Remaining
140
1
798,025
1,023,545
7,311
6,250
875,000
Markets
VHF Construction
1
1
11,650
42,205
42,205
6,250
6,250
Permits1
UHF Markets 1-10
109
1
3,853,150
4,177,004
38,321
38,000
4,142,000
UHF Markets 11-25
106
1
3,458,250
3,709,111
34,992
35,000
3,710,000
UHF Markets 26-50
135
1
2,959,875
3,159,479
23,404
23,400
3,159,000
UHF Markets 51-
225
1
2,868,750
3,053,435
13,571
13,575
3,054,375
100
UHF Remaining
247
1
845,975
917,906
3,716
3,675
907,725
Markets
UHF Construction
7
1
23,975
295,438
42,205
3,675
25,725
Permits1
Broadcast
25,400
1
248,000
337,644
13
10
254,000
Auxiliaries
LPTV/Translators/
3,725
1
1,436,820
1,688,218
453
415
1,545,875
Boosters/Class A
TV
CARS Stations
325
1
178,125
211,085
649
510
165,750
Cable TV Systems
60,000,000
1
59,090,000 69,868,996
1.164
1.02 61,200,000
Interstate
$39,000,000,000
1
148,875,000 119,251,260
0.0030577
0.00359 140,010,000
Telecommunication
Service Providers
CMRS Mobile
321,000,000
1
53,210,000 63,253,310
0.1899
0.18 57,780,000
Services
(Cellular/Public
Mobile)
CMRS Messag.
3,000,000
1
272,000
240,000
0.0800
0.080
240,000
Services
BRS2
920
1
451,250
693,442
754
510
469,200
LMDS
170
1
225,625
130,020
765
510
86,700
Per 64 kbps Int’l
4,220,000
1
1,157,602
1,030,004
.244
.23
970,600
Bearer Circuits
Terrestrial (Common)
& Satellite (Common
& Non-Common)
Submarine Cable
38.313
1
8,150,984
7,246,703
189,145
191,475
7,335,886
Providers (see chart
in Appendix C)3
Earth Stations
3,400
1
893,750
795,837
234
250
850,000
Space Stations
87
1
11,560,125 10,282,217
118,186
119,600 10,405,200
(Geostationary)
32

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Fee Category

FY 2013

FY 2012

Pro-Rated Uncapped Rounded & Expected

Payment Units Years

Revenue

FY 2013

FY 2013

Capped

FY 2013

Estimate

Revenue Regulatory

FY 2013

Revenue

Require-

Fee

Regulatory

ment

Fee

Space Stations
6
1
858,900
764,004
127,334
128,825
772,950
(Non-Geostationary
****** Total
340,568,811 339,844,006
339,332,436
Estimated Revenue
to be Collected
****** Total
339,844,000 339,844,000
339,844,000
Revenue
Requirement

724,811
6
(511,564)
Difference
1 The FM Construction Permit revenues and the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues were adjusted to set
the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. The reductions in the
FM Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for FM radio stations. Similarly,
reductions in the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for VHF
and UHF television stations, respectively.
2 MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and
101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and
Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands
, Report & Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, ¶ 6 (2004).
3 The chart at the end of Appendix B lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-
common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the following proceedings: Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008
, Second Report and Order (MD Docket No. 08-65, RM-11312), released
March 24, 2009; and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009 and Assessment and
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (MD Docket No.
09-65, MD Docket No. 08-65), released on May 14, 2009.
4 The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2012 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted
average media regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2013 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are
listed on a grid located at the end of Attachment B.
5 The allocation percentages represent FTE data as of September 30, 2012, and include the proposal to use 27 Direct
FTEs (rather than 119 FTEs) for the International Bureau.
6 The ITSP and international services fee categories received a fee rate reduction.
33

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT B2

Revised FTE (as of 9/30/12) Allocations,5

Fee Rate Increases Capped at 7.5%, Prior to Rounding6

FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the
term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory

Fee

(U.S. $'s)
PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90)
40
Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101)
20
218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR part
75
95)
Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)
10
Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)
55
General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95)
5
Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category)
15
PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90)
15
Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)
10
Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)
15
Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97)
1.61
CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90)
.18
CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90)
.08
Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/ MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27)
510
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101)
510
AM Radio Construction Permits
590
FM Radio Construction Permits
750
TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
86,075
Markets 11-25
78,975
Markets 26-50
42,775
Markets 51-100
22,500
Remaining Markets
6,250
34

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory

Fee

(U.S. $'s)
Construction Permits
6,250
TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
38,000
Markets 11-25
35,000
Markets 26-50
23,400
Markets 51-100
13,575
Remaining Markets
3,675
Construction Permits
3,675
Satellite Television Stations (All Markets)
1,525
Construction Permits – Satellite Television Stations
960
Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74)
415
Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)
10
CARS (47 CFR part 78)
510
Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76)
1.02
Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00359
Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
250
Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also
includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
119,600
Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25)
128,825
International Bearer Circuits - Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit)
.23
International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable
See Table
Below
35

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

FY 2013 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES: Fee Rate Increases Capped at 7.5%,

Prior to Rounding6 (continued)

FY 2013 RADIO STATION REGULATORY FEES

Population

AM Class AM Class

AM

AM

FM Classes

FM Classes

Served

A

B

Class C

Class D

A, B1 & C3

B, C, C0, C1

& C2
<=25,000
$775
$650
$600
$675
$750
$950
25,001 – 75,000
$1,575
$1,325
$925
$1,025
$1,525
$1,675
75,001 – 150,000
$2,375
$1,650
$1,200
$1,725
$2,100
$3,100
150,001 – 500,000
$3,550
$2,800
$1,800
$2,050
$3,250
$4,025
500,001 – 1,200,000
$5,125
$4,275
$3,000
$3,425
$5,150
$5,950
1,200,001 – 3,000,00
$7,900
$6,550
$4,525
$5,450
$8,375
$9,525
>3,000,000
$9,475
$7,875
$5,725
$6,825
$10,700
$12,375

FY 2013 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES: Fee Rate Increases

Capped at 7.5%, Prior to Rounding6

International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable

Submarine Cable Systems
Fee amount
Address
(capacity as of December 31, 2012)
< 2.5 Gbps
FCC, International, P.O. Box
$11,975
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
2.5 Gbps or greater, but less
than 5 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$23,925
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
5 Gbps or greater, but less than
10 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$47,875
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
10 Gbps or greater, but less
than 20 Gbps

FCC, International, P.O. Box
$95,750
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000
FCC, International, P.O. Box
20 Gbps or greater
979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-
$191,475
9000
36

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT C

Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2013

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2013, we adjusted FY 2012 payment units for each
service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2013 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated
estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior
year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we
consulted include our Universal Licensing System (“ULS”), International Bureau Filing System (“IBFS”),
Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”), as
well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline Competition Bureau’s Trends in
Telephone Service
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Numbering Resource Utilization
Forecast
.
We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases; we compared FY 2013
estimates with actual FY 2012 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where
appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain
variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy.
These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2013 and the fact
that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to
economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2013 payment
units are based on FY 2012 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2013 projection
is exactly the same number as in FY 2012. We have either rounded the FY 2013 number or adjusted it
slightly to account for these variables.

FEE CATEGORY

SOURCES OF PAYMENT UNIT ESTIMATES

Land Mobile (All), Microwave,
Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”)
218-219 MHz, Marine (Ship &
projections of new applications and renewals taking into
Coast), Aviation (Aircraft &
consideration existing Commission licensee data bases. Aviation
Ground), GMRS, Amateur
(Aircraft) and Marine (Ship) estimates have been adjusted to take
Vanity Call Signs, Domestic
into consideration the licensing of portions of these services on a
Public Fixed
voluntary basis.
CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services
Based on WTB projection reports, and FY 12 payment data.
CMRS Messaging Services
Based on WTB reports, and FY 12 payment data.
AM/FM Radio Stations
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2012
payment units.
UHF/VHF Television Stations
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2012
payment units.
AM/FM/TV Construction Permits
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2012
payment units.
LPTV, Translators and Boosters,
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2012
Class A Television
payment units.
Broadcast Auxiliaries
Based on actual FY 2012 payment units.
BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS)
Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2012 payment units.
LMDS
Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2012 payment units.
37

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Cable Television Relay Service
Based on data from Media Bureau’s COALS database and actual
(“CARS”) Stations
FY 2012 payment units.
Cable Television System
Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber
Subscribers
counts and actual FY 2011 payment units.
Interstate Telecommunication
Based on FCC Form 499-Q data for the four quarters of calendar
Service Providers
year 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau projected the amount
of calendar year 2012 revenue that will be reported on 2013 FCC
Form 499-A worksheets in April, 2013.
Earth Stations
Based on International Bureau (“IB”) licensing data and actual FY
2012 payment units.
Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs)
Based on IB data reports and actual FY 2012 payment units.
International Bearer Circuits
Based on IB reports and submissions by licensees.
Submarine Cable Licenses
Based on IB license information.
38

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT D

Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determines Station

Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages

AM Stations

For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all
azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower,
including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical
pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (“RMS”) figure
(milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @ 1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented
standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and
methods specified in §§73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules.1 Radiation values were
calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity
data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3.2 Using the
calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the
principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting
distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population
counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the
polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed
by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents
the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.

FM Stations

The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (“ERP”) (kW) and respective
height above average terrain (“HAAT”) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height
above mean sea level (“HAMSL”) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure
to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional
pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and
ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves
specified in 47 C.F.R. §73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal
community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the
360 radials.3 The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a
geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block
centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed
blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
39

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT E

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
1 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 this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FY 2013 NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) (collectively,
“Notice”). 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 Notice. The Commission will send a copy of
the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).2 In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Notice

2.
In the FY 2013 NPRM we seek comment on our annual process of assessing regulatory
fees to cover the Commission’s costs to offset the Commission’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 appropriation, as
directed by Congress. The regulatory fees calculated in response to the FY 2013 NPRM will be collected
later this year. We also seek comment in the FY 2013 NPRM on reforming and revising our regulatory
fee schedule for FY 2013 and beyond to take into account changes in the communications industry and
changes in the Commission’s regulatory processes and staffing in recent years.
3.
The FY 2013 NPRM seeks comment concerning adoption and implementation of
proposals to reallocate regulatory fees to more accurately reflect the subject areas worked on by current
Commission FTEs for FY 2013. As such, we seek comment on, among other things, reallocating: (1)
direct FTEs currently allocated to the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) fee
category and other fee categories to reflect current workloads devoted to these subject areas; and (2) FTEs
in the International Bureau to more accurately reflect the Commission’s regulation and oversight of the
International Bureau regulatees. If these proposals are adopted, we also seek comment on limiting any
increase in assessments to 10 percent or some other amount to avoid fee shock to industry segments
paying higher regulatory fees as a result of reallocation. We ask whether direct FTEs in other Bureaus
should be reclassified as indirect and reallocated or, conversely, whether FTEs currently allocated as
indirect should be reallocated differently or reclassified as direct and reallocated accordingly. Finally, we
seek comment on whether to delay our proposal to reallocate FTEs and, in the interim, maintain the same
allocation percentages from last year for FY 2013, including the current.00375 rate for ITSP regulatees.
4.
The FNPRM seeks comment concerning adoption and implementation of proposals for
FY 2014 and beyond, which include: (1) combining Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers
(ITSPs) with wireless telecommunications services, using revenues as the basis for calculating regulatory
fees; (2) using revenues to calculate regulatory fees for industries that now use subscribers, such as the
wireless and cable industries; (3) eliminating the regulatory fee component pertaining to General Mobile
Radio Service; (4) clarifying that licensees of Digital Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters
should pay only one regulatory fee on their analog or digital station, but not both; (5) consolidating the
UHF and VHF Television stations into one fee category; (6) proposing a fee for Internet Protocol TV
(IPTV) at the rate of cable fees; (7) alleviating large fluctuations in the fee rate of Multiyear Wireless

1 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).
2 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.
40

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Services; and (8) providing fee relief for declining industries (e.g., CMRS Messaging). Finally, the
FNPRM seeks comment on the treatment of non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations; Direct Broadcast
Satellites; and other services, such as broadband in our regulatory fee process. We invite comment on
these topics to better inform the Commission concerning whether and/or how these services should be
assessed under our regulatory fee methodology in future years. The Notice also makes two administrative
changes to the regulatory fee collection process and propose a third. Specifically, as required by Treasury
and OMB initiatives, we announce that effective in FY 2013 all regulatory fee payments must be made
electronically. We also state that beginning in FY 2014 the Commission will no longer mail out initial
regulatory fee assessments to CMRS licensees. Finally, we propose to refer to the Department of the
Treasury end-to-end billing and collection beginning in FY 2014.

II.

Legal Basis:

5.
This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under Sections (4)(i) and
(j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.4

III.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will

Apply:

6.
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.5 The RFA
generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same
meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 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.8
7.

Small Businesses.

Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small
businesses, according to the SBA.9
8.

Wired Telecommunications Carriers

. 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. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year.
Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100
employees.10 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

4 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and (j), 159, and 303(r).
5 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
6 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,”
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf.
10 See id.
41

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

9.

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
size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.11 According to Commission data, census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with
more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100 employees.12 The Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules
and policies proposed in the Further Notice.
10.

Incumbent LECs.

Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business
size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.13 According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.14 Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated
1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.15 Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that
may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the Further Notice.
11.

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 size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.16 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.17 Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated
1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees.18 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.19 In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.20 Of the
72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.21 Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access
providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that may
be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the proposals in this Further Notice.

11 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
12 See id.
13 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
14 See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry
Analysis and Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service).
15 Id.
16 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
17 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
42

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

12.

Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)

. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically applicable to interexchange services. The applicable size standard
under SBA rules is for the Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.22 According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that
their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services.23 Of these
359 companies, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees.24
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small
entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
13.

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 size standard
under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.25 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided
resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one
operated with more than 1,000.26 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to
Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling
cards.27 Of these, all 193 have 1,500 or fewer employees and none have more than 1,500 employees.28
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small
entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
14.

Local Resellers

. 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.29 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that
number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000.30 Under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local 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.31 Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
two have more than 1,500 employees.32 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the proposals in this Further
Notice.

22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
23 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
24 Id.
25 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
26 Id.
27 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
28 Id.
29 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
30 Id.
31 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
32 Id.
43

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

15.

Toll Resellers

. 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.33 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that
number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000.34 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.35 Of these, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24
have more than 1,500 employees.36 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll
resellers are small entities that may be affected by our proposals in the Further Notice.
16.

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 size standard under SBA rules is
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees.37 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that
year. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than
100 employees.38 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of
Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that
their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.39 Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.40 Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the rules
and policies adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
17.

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).

Since 2007, the SBA has
recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.41 Prior to that time, such firms
were within the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.42 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.43 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were

33 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
34 Id.
35 Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
36 Id.
37 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
38 Id.
39 Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
40 Id.
41 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
42 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging,” available at http://www.census.gov/cgibin/
sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517211&search=2002%20NAICS%20Search; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS
Definitions, “517212 Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517212&search=2002%20NAICS%20Search.
43 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. §
121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
44

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year.44 Of this total, 10,791 establishments had
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 1000 employees or more.45 Thus,
under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by
our proposed action.
18.
Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in
the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS),
and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.46 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.47 Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate
that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
19.

Cable Television and other Program Distribution

. Since 2007, these services have
been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that
category is defined as follows: “This 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 a combination of technologies.”48 The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.49
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of those 31,996,
1,818 had more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100 employees. Thus under this
size standard, the majority of firms offering cable and other program distribution services can be considered
small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
20.

Cable Companies and Systems

. The Commission has 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.50 Industry data indicate that, of 1,076
cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.51 In addition, under the

44 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).
45 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
46 Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
47 Id.
48 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” (partial definition),
available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
49 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
50 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act: Rate Regulation
, MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, Sixth Report and
Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408, para. 28 (1995).
51 These data are derived from R.R. BOWKER, BROADCASTING & CABLE YEARBOOK 2006, “Top 25
Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); WARREN COMMUNICATIONS
NEWS, TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages
D-1805 to D-1857.
45

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.52 Industry
data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an
additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.53 Thus, under this second size standard, most
cable systems are small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
21.

All Other Telecommunications

. The Census Bureau defines this industry as including
“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 client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in
this industry.”54 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard
is $30.0 million or less in average annual receipts.55 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
2,623 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.56 Of these, 2478 establishments had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 145 establishments had annual receipts of $10 million or more.57
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our
action. In addition, some small businesses whose primary line of business does not involve provision of
communications services hold FCC licenses or other authorizations for purposes incidental to their primary
business. We estimate that there are __ entities that hold private wireless licenses, but we do not have a
reliable estimate of how many of these entities are small businesses.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

22.
This Notice seeks comment on changes to the Commission’s current regulatory fee
methodology and schedule which may result in additional information collection, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, the Notice seeks comment on using revenues instead of
subscribers in our regulatory fee procedures. If adopted, this would require entities that do not currently file
a Form 499-A to provide the Commission with revenue information. The Notice also seeks comment on
adding categories to our regulatory fee schedule by changing the treatment of non-U.S.-Licensed Space
Stations; Direct Broadcast Satellites; IPTV; and other services, such as broadband in our regulatory fee
process. If adopted, those entities that currently do not pay regulatory fees—non-U.S.-Licensed Space
Stations, IPTV, and other service providers —would be required to pay regulatory fees to the Commission
and DBS providers would pay regulatory fees in a different category.

52 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).
53 WARREN COMMUNICATIONS NEWS, TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, “U.S. Cable Systems
by Subscriber Size,” page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for which
classifying data were not available.
54 U.S. Census Bureau, “2007 NAICS Definitions: 517919 All Other Telecommunications,” available at
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
55 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
56 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, “Establishment and Firm Size:
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517919” (issued Nov. 2010).
57 Id.
46

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant

Alternatives Considered

23.
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.58
24.
With respect to reporting requirements, the Commission is aware that some of the
proposals under consideration will impact small entities by imposing costs and administrative burdens if
these entities will be required to calculate regulatory fees under a different methodology. For example, if
the Commission were to adopt a revenue-based approach for calculating regulatory fees, certain entities that
currently do not report revenues to the Commission—or that only report some revenues and not others—
would have to report such information.
25.
This Notice seeks to reform the regulatory fee methodology. We do not propose
increasing or imposing a regulatory fee burden on small entities, unless it would be specifically in
furtherance of the reform measures proposed. If our proposals in this Notice result in fee increases to small
entities, above the annual fee increases that generally occur each year, we intend to mitigate any inequities
that might result from such increases, by, for example, limiting the annual increase in regulatory fees. In
keeping with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered certain alternative
means of mitigating the effects of fee increases to a particular industry segment. One option is to avoid
significant fee increases, which is also proposed in the Notice. Another option is to provide interim
adjustments, by phasing in the new fees over a period of time. The Commission seeks comment on the
abovementioned, and any other, means and methods that would minimize any significant economic impact
of our proposed rules on small entities. In addition, the Commission’s rules provide a process by which
regulatory fee payors may seek waivers or other relief on the basis of financial hardship. 47 C.F.R. §1.1166

VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

26.
None.
.
.

58 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)–(c)(4).
47

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

ATTACHMENT F

FY 2012 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the
term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory Fee

(U.S. $'s)
PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90)
35
Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101)
20
218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR
70
part 95)
Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)
10
Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)
50
General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95)
5
Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category)
15
PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90)
15
Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)
10
Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)
15
Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97)
1.50
CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and
.17
90)
CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90)
.08
Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/ MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part
475
27)
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101)
475
AM Radio Construction Permits
550
FM Radio Construction Permits
700
TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
80,075
Markets 11-25
73,475
Markets 26-50
39,800
Markets 51-100
20,925
Remaining Markets
5,825
Construction Permits
5,825
48

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

Annual

Fee Category

Regulatory Fee

(U.S. $'s)
TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
35,350
Markets 11-25
32,625
Markets 26-50
21,925
Markets 51-100
12,750
Remaining Markets
3,425
Construction Permits
3,425
Satellite Television Stations (All Markets)
1,425
Construction Permits – Satellite Television Stations
895
Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74)
385
Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)
10
CARS (47 CFR part 78)
475
Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76)
.95
Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00375
Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
275
Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25)
also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
132,875
Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part
143,150
25)
International Bearer Circuits - Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit)
.26
International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable
See Table Below
49

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-74

FY 2012 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES (continued)

FY 2012 RADIO STATION REGULATORY FEES

Population

AM Class AM Class

AM

AM

FM Classes

FM Classes

Served

A

B

Class C

Class D

A, B1 & C3

B, C, C0, C1

& C2
<=25,000
$725
$600
$550
$625
$700
$875
25,001 – 75,000
$1,475
$1,225
$850
$950
$1,425
$1,550
75,001 – 150,000
$2,200
$1,525
$1,125
$1,600
$1,950
$2,875
150,001 – 500,000
$3,300
$2,600
$1,675
$1,900
$3,025
$3,750
500,001 – 1,200,000
$4,775
$3,975
$2,800
$3,175
$4,800
$5,525
1,200,001 – 3,000,00
$7,350
$6,100
$4,200
$5,075
$7,800
$8,850
>3,000,000
$8,825
$7,325
$5,325
$6,350
$9,950
$11,500

FY 2012 SCHEDULE OF REGULATORY FEES

International Bearer Circuits - Submarine Cable

Submarine Cable Systems
Fee amount
Address
(capacity as of December 31, 2011)
< 2.5 Gbps
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084,
$13,300
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
2.5 Gbps or greater, but less
than 5 Gbps

$26,600
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
5 Gbps or greater, but less than
10 Gbps

$53,200
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
10 Gbps or greater, but less
than 20 Gbps

$106,375
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
20 Gbps or greater
$212,750
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
50

Document Outline


Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.