[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50890-51003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20058]



[[Page 50889]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 187

September 26, 2019

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





47 CFR Part 1





 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2019; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2019 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 50890]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 19-105; FCC 19-83]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2019

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission revises its Schedule of 
Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of $339,000,000 that Congress has 
required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2019. Section 9 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual 
assessment and collection of regulatory fees under sections 9(b)(2) and 
9(b)(3), respectively, for annual ``Mandatory Adjustments'' and 
``Permitted Amendments'' to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.

DATES: Effective September 26, 2019. To avoid penalties and interest, 
regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 27, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 
Director at (202) 418-0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 19-83, MD Docket No. 19-105, adopted on August 15, 2019 
and released on August 27, 2019. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's 
website at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),\1\ 
the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is located towards 
the end of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 
The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America 
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    2. This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

C. Congressional Review Act

    3. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this 
Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

II. Introduction

    4. Each year, the Commission must adopt a new schedule of 
regulatory fees for regulatory payors, i.e., those entities required to 
fund the Commission's activities. In this Report and Order, we adopt a 
schedule to collect the $339,000,000 in congressionally required 
regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2019.\2\ The regulatory fees are 
due in September 2019. We also adopt several targeted amendments to our 
rules to conform with the text of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended by the RAY BAUM'S Act.\3\ And in the future we will seek 
comment on several proposals to amend our schedule of regulatory fees 
for FY 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law 116-6, 
Division D--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2019, Title V--Independent Agencies (2019) (FY 2019 
Appropriation).
    \3\ The Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of 
Modern Services Act of 2018, or the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, amended 
sections 8 and 9 and added section 9A to the Communications Act, 
effective October 1, 2018. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2018, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084, Division P--RAY BAUM'S Act 
of 2018, Title I, section 103 (2018); 47 U.S.C. 159, 159A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

    5. The Commission is required by Congress to assess regulatory fees 
each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the 
amount of its appropriation.\4\ Regulatory fees recover direct costs, 
such as salary and expenses; indirect costs, such as overhead 
functions; and support costs, such as rent, utilities, and 
equipment.\5\ Regulatory fees also cover the costs incurred in 
regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory 
fees (e.g., governmental and nonprofit entities, amateur radio 
operators, and noncommercial radio and television stations) \6\ and 
entities whose regulatory fees are waived.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
    \5\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 
2004, Report and Order, 69 FR 41028 (July 7, 2004), 19 FCC Rcd 
11662, 11666, para. 11 (2004) (FY 2004 Report and Order).
    \6\ 47 U.S.C. 159(e).
    \7\ 47 CFR 1.1166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees must 
``reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the 
bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account 
factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the 
payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.'' \8\ Since 2012, the 
Commission has assessed the allocation of full-time equivalents (FTE) 
\9\ by first determining the number of FTEs in each ``core'' bureau 
that carries out licensing activities (i.e., the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
and International Bureau) and then attributing all other FTEs to payor 
categories based on these core FTE allocations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 47 U.S.C. 159(d); see prior section 9(b) (fees ``derived by 
determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing 
the activities described in subsection (a) within the Private Radio 
Bureau, Mass Media Bureau, Common Carrier Bureau, and other offices 
of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are 
reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee 
by the Commission's activities. . .'')
    \9\ One FTE, a ``Full Time Equivalent'' or ``Full Time 
Employee,'' 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.
    \10\ Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 
Fees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR 29275 (May 17, 2012), 27 
FCC Rcd 8458, 8460, para. 5 & n.5 (2012) (FY 2012 NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. As part of its annual regulatory fee rulemaking process, the 
Commission seeks comment to improve the regulatory fee methodology and 
has adopted significant regulatory fee reforms. For example, in 2013, 
the Commission updated FTE allocations to more accurately reflect the 
number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of regulatees in the 
payor categories.\11\ In 2014, the Commission adopted a new regulatory 
fee subcategory for toll free numbers within

[[Page 50891]]

the Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (ITSP) category.\12\ 
In 2015, the Commission adopted a regulatory fee for Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS), as a subcategory of the cable television and IPTV fee 
category,\13\ and reallocated four additional International Bureau FTEs 
from direct to indirect.\14\ In 2016, the Commission adjusted 
regulatory fees for radio and television broadcasters, based on the 
type and class of service and on the population served.\15\ In 2017, 
the Commission reallocated as indirect 38 FTEs in the Wireline 
Competition Bureau assigned to work on non-high cost programs of the 
Universal Service Fund.\16\ The Commission also reallocated for 
regulatory fee purposes four FTEs assigned to work on numbering issues 
from the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau \17\ and added non-common carrier terrestrial international 
bearer circuits (IBCs) as payors.\18\ In 2018, the Commission adopted 
new tiers for submarine cable regulatory fees,\19\ a new methodology 
for calculating full power broadcast television regulatory fees,\20\ 
and amended the rules regarding the collection of delinquent debt.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2013, Report and Order, 78 FR 52433 (Aug. 23, 2013), 28 FCC Rcd 
12351, 12354-58, paras. 10-20 (2013) (FY 2013 Report and Order).
    \12\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2014, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 79 FR 54190 (Sept. 11, 2014) and 79 FR 63883 (Oct. 27, 
2014), 29 FCC Rcd 10767, 10774-77, paras. 18-21 (2014) (FY 2014 
Report and Order).
    \13\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2015, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 80 FR 43019 (July 21, 2015) and 80 FR 60825 (Oct. 8, 
2015), 30 FCC Rcd 10268, 10276-77, paras. 19-20 (2015) (FY 2015 
Report and Order).
    \14\ FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10278, para. 24.
    \15\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2016, Report and Order, 81 FR 65926 (Sept. 26, 2016), 31 FCC 
Rcd 10339, 10350-51, paras. 31-33 (2016) (FY 2016 Report and Order).
    \16\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2017, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 82 FR 44322 (Sept. 22, 2017) and 82 FR 50598 (Nov. 1, 
2017), 32 FCC Rcd 7057, 7061-7064, paras. 9-15 (2017) (FY 2017 
Report and Order).
    \17\ FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7064-65, paras. 16-
17.
    \18\ FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7071-72, paras. 34-
35.
    \19\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2018, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 
36460 (July 30, 2018), 33 FCC Rcd 5091, 5095, paras. 8-9 (2018) (FY 
2018 NPRM) (adopting new tiers for submarine cable so that, among 
other things, the highest tier would be 4,000 Gbps or greater; 
previously, the highest tier was 20 Gbps or greater).
    \20\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2018, Report and Order and Order, 83 FR 47079 (Sept. 18, 2018), 
33 FCC Rcd 8497, 8501-8502, paras. 13-15 (2018) (FY 2018 Report and 
Order).
    \21\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8502-8503, paras. 
16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In 2018, as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress revised the 
Commission's regulatory fee authority by modifying section 9 and adding 
section 9A to the Communications Act.\22\ In the FY 2019 NPRM, we 
sought comment on the RAY BAUM'S Act's modifications to the 
Commission's regulatory fee authority.\23\ We also sought comment on 
(1) proposals to allocate fees to payor categories and to allocate FTEs 
consistent with the same methodology used in FY 2018; \24\ (2) a 
proposal to continue phasing in the DBS regulatory fee; \25\ (3) 
proposed fees to implement the methodology adopted in FY 2018 for full 
service broadcast television regulatory fees; \26\ and (4) a proposal 
to continue to base terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees on a 
per Gbps methodology.\27\ Additionally, we sought comment on whether to 
adopt a section 9(e)(2) de minimis exemption of $1,000 for annual 
regulatory fee payors; \28\ and on other regulatory fee reforms more 
generally.\29\ We received 15 comments and eight reply comments on the 
FY 2019 NPRM.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division P--RAY 
BAUM'S Act of 2018, Title I, FCC Reauthorization, Public Law 115-
141, section 102, 132 Stat. 348, 1082-86 (2018) (codified at 47 
U.S.C. 159, 159A). Congress provided an effective date of October 1, 
2018 for such changes.
    \23\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2019, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 26234 (June 5, 
2019), 34 FCC Rcd 3272, 3275-77, paras. 6-10 (2019) (FY 2019 NPRM).
    \24\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3277-79, paras. 11-15.
    \25\ Id., 34 FCC Rcd at 3279-3280, paras. 16-19.
    \26\ Id., 34 FCC Rcd at 3280-81, paras. 20-21.
    \27\ Id., 34 FCC Rcd at 3281-82, paras. 22-25.
    \28\ Id., 34 FCC Rcd 3282-84, paras. 26-30.
    \29\ Id., 34 FCC Rcd 3284, para. 31.
    \30\ Commenters to the FY 2019 NPRM are listed in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Report and Order

    9. Pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act, in this FY 2019 
Report and Order, we adopt the regulatory fee schedule proposed in the 
FY 2019 NPRM for FY 2019, as modified herein, to collect $339,000,000 
in regulatory fees.\31\ We also adopt the regulatory fee categories 
proposed in the FY 2019 NPRM.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ FY 2019 regulatory fees are listed in Appendices C and J of 
the FY 2019 Report and Order. New small satellite regulatory fees 
are not adopted here because there are no fees that would be due for 
FY 2019. See Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, 
Report and Order, FCC 19-81, paras. 104-106 (released August 2, 
2019) (noting that the earliest such fees would be due would be for 
FY 2021).
    \32\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3279, para. 15 & Appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Assessing and Allocating Fees Under RAY BAUM'S Act

    10. In the FY 2019 NPRM, the Commission described in some detail 
the RAY BAUM'S Act modifications to section 9 and the new section 9A 
and sought comment on how those modifications should be incorporated 
into our regulatory fee process.\33\ Each year the Commission must 
collect regulatory fees sufficient to equal the amount appropriated by 
Congress for the Commission's use for such fiscal year (as before). 
Each year, the Commission must assess regulatory fees that ``reflect 
the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and 
offices of the Commission'' (as before).\34\ And each year the 
Commission's assessed regulatory fees must be ``adjusted to take into 
account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to 
the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities'' (as before).\35\ 
Accordingly, we find the fee assessment structure dictated by the 
statute fundamentally remains unchanged. Or in other words, because the 
new section 9 closely aligns to how the Commission assessed and 
collected fees under the prior section 9, we will hew closely to our 
prior methodology in assessing FY 2019 regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Specifically, (i) three bureaus listed in the prior version 
of section 9 that have since been renamed are not listed in the new 
section 9; (ii) the prior statute included examples of factors 
relevant to the Commission's inquiry into benefits provided the 
payor of the fee, to wit, ``service area coverage, shared use versus 
exclusive use, and other factors that the Commission determines are 
necessary in the public interest,'' that are not in the new section 
9, see prior section 9(b)(1)(A); (iii) the current version of 
section 9 requires the Commission to consider increases and 
decreases in the ``number of units'' subject to payment of 
regulatory fees, but does not state ``licensees,'' compare prior 
section 9(b)(2) with new section 9(c)(1)(A); (iv) the new section 9 
does not explicitly permit the Commission to consider ``additions, 
deletions, or changes in the nature of its services as a consequence 
of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law,'' see prior 
section 9(b)(3); and (v) the old version of the statute described 
the annual changes as either mandatory amendments, see prior section 
9(b)(2), or permitted amendments, see prior section 9(b)(3); under 
the RAY BAUM'S Act, such changes are described as adjustments, see 
new section 9(c), or amendments, see new section 9(d).
    \34\ 47 U.S.C. 159(d).
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We reject the arguments of the State Broadcasters that the RAY 
BAUM'S Act fundamentally changed how the Commission should calculate 
regulatory fees and that we are no longer required to base regulatory 
fees on the direct FTEs in core bureaus.\36\ Given the Act's 
requirement that fees must ``reflect'' FTEs before adjusting fees to 
take into account other factors, we find FTE counts by far the most

[[Page 50892]]

administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ State Broadcasters Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Specifically, we will continue to apportion regulatory fees 
across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core 
bureau and the proportionate number of indirect FTEs and to take into 
account factors that are reasonably related to the payor's benefits. 
The first step in the fee recovery structure we adopt in this Report 
and Order is to allocate appropriated amounts to be recovered 
proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each core 
bureau (with indirect FTEs allocated in proportion to the direct FTEs). 
Those proportions are then subdivided within each core bureau into fee 
categories among the regulatees served by the core bureau.\37\ Finally, 
within each fee category, the amount to be collected is divided by a 
unit that allocates the regulatee's proportionate share based on an 
objective measure.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, within the International Bureau, the FTEs that 
work on space stations and earth stations in the Satellite Division 
are separate from the FTEs that work on submarine cable systems and 
terrestrial and satellite IBCs in the Policy Division.
    \38\ For example, earth station fees are calculated per earth 
station and terrestrial and satellite IBCs fees are calculated per 
Gbps circuit, each such earth station and per Gbps circuit 
constituting a unit. See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8461-62, paras. 
8-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. To apply our methodology, the Commission in the FY 2019 NPRM 
proposed that non-auctions funded FTEs will be classified as ``direct'' 
only if in one of the four core bureaus--the Wireline Competition 
Bureau, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Bureau, and 
the International Bureau. The indirect FTEs are non-auctions funded 
employees from the following bureaus and offices: Enforcement Bureau, 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, Chairman and Commissioners' offices, Office of the 
Managing Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector 
General, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of 
Engineering and Technology, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of 
Workplace Diversity, Office of Media Relations, Office of Economics and 
Analytics, and Office of Administrative Law Judges, along with some 
FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau and the International Bureau 
that the Commission has previously classified as indirect.\39\ We 
maintain these classifications, consistent with prior practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In 2013, the Commission allocated all FTEs except for 28 in 
the International Bureau as indirect. FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 
FCC Rcd at 12355-356, para. 14. Subsequently, the Commission 
allocated an additional four FTEs, the number of FTEs working on 
market access requests for non-U.S.-licensed space stations, as 
indirect, leaving a total of 24 direct FTEs in that bureau. FY 2015 
Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10278, para. 24. In 2017, the 
Commission allocated 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau who 
work on non-high cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as 
indirect. FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7061-64, paras. 
10-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In recognition that the Commission took two actions during FY 
2019 that significantly impacted the numbers of FTEs in the core 
bureaus, the Commission next proposed to base the FY 2019 FTE 
allocations on the relative time that FTEs remained in core bureaus. 
Specifically, the Commission reassigned staff to the Office of 
Economics and Analytics, effective December 11, 2018, resulting in the 
reassignment of 95 FTEs (of which 64 were not auctions-funded) as 
indirect FTEs.\40\ This reassignment resulted in a reduction in direct 
FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, and Media Bureau. And the Commission reassigned Equal 
Employment Opportunity enforcement staff from the Media Bureau to the 
Enforcement Bureau, effective March 15, 2019, resulting in a reduction 
of 7 direct FTEs in the Media Bureau.\41\ On net, these changes 
resulted in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau going from 89 FTEs 
to 80.5 FTEs, the Wireline Competition Bureau going from 123 FTEs to 
100.8 FTEs, and the Media Bureau going from 131 FTEs to 115.1 FTEs. We 
adopt this method of addressing these reassignments as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Establishment of the Office of Economics and Analytics, 
Order, 33 FCC Rcd 1539 (2018); FCC Opens Office of Economics And 
Analytics, Federal Communications Commission News Release, December 
11, 2018, https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-office-economics-and-analytics.
    \41\ See Transfer of EEO Audit and Enforcement Responsibilities 
to Enforcement Bureau, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 1370 (EB 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In sum, there were 320.4 direct FTEs for FY 2019, distributed 
among the core bureaus as follows International Bureau (24), Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (80.5), Wireline Competition Bureau (100.8), 
and the Media Bureau (115.1). This results in 7.49% of the FTE 
allocation for International Bureau regulatees; 25.12% of the FTE 
allocation for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; 31.46% of 
the FTE allocation for Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; and 
35.93% of FTE allocation for Media Bureau regulatees. There were in 
turn 936 indirect FTEs spread across the Commission: Enforcement Bureau 
(190), Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (110), Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau (90), part of the International Bureau (60), 
part of the Wireline Competition Bureau (38), Chairman and 
Commissioners' offices (20), Office of the Managing Director (138), 
Office of General Counsel (71), Office of the Inspector General (45), 
Office of Communications Business Opportunities (10), Office of 
Engineering and Technology (72), Office of Legislative Affairs (8), 
Office of Workforce Diversity (4), Office of Media Relations (13), 
Office of Economics and Analytics (64), and Office of Administrative 
Law Judges (3).\42\ Allocating these indirect FTEs based on the direct 
FTE allocations yields an additional 70.1 FTEs attributable to 
International Bureau regulatees, 235.1 FTEs attributable to Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau regulatees, 294.5 FTEs attributable to 
Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees, and 336.3 FTEs attributable to 
Media Bureau regulatees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The FTE numbers allocated to the core bureaus for FY 2019 
are weighted for the changes throughout the year. For the sake of 
simplicity, these numbers are the final indirect FTE counts as they 
do not directly impact regulatory fee allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Based on these allocations and the requirement to collect 
$339,000,000 in regulatory fees this year, we project collecting 
approximately $25.39 million (7.49%) in fees from International Bureau 
regulatees; $85.15 million (25.12%) in fees from Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; $106.64 million (31.46%) from 
Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; and $121.82 million (35.93%) 
from Media Bureau regulatees. We set specific regulatory fees in Table 
3 so that regulatees within a fee category pay their proportionate 
share based on an objective measure (e.g., revenues or number of 
subscribers).
    17. We reject the arguments of the State Broadcasters and NAB who 
ask us to overturn this long-running framework for allocating 
regulatory fees--and specifically our allocation of indirect FTEs in 
proportion to direct FTEs.\43\ For one, we must allocate indirect FTEs 
among regulatees somehow (per Congress's direction), and relying on the 
allocation of direct FTEs gives us an objective, easily administrable 
measure to do just that. Neither NAB nor the State Broadcasters 
identify an objective, easily administrable alternative. For another, 
we have long relied on direct FTE allocations because the Commission 
has found those allocations best reflect the ``benefits provided to the 
payor of the fee by the Commission's

[[Page 50893]]

activities'' \44\--in the case of broadcast licensees, the work the 
Media Bureau does to grant licenses and oversee and regulate their 
operations. Again, neither NAB nor the State Broadcasters explain how 
to allocate indirect FTE in a way that better reflects the ``benefits 
provided to the payor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ State Broadcasters Comments at 8-9; NAB Reply Comments at 
4, 7.
    \44\ 47 U.S.C. 159(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We also reject the arguments of the Satellite Operators, who 
assert that the International Bureau's direct FTE count is unfairly 
high in proportion to the direct FTE count in the other core bureaus, 
owing to the staff reassignments from other bureaus to indirect FTE 
status.\45\ To the extent these commenters are arguing that we should 
not reallocate direct FTEs at all as a result of reassignment, we 
disagree--the Satellite Operators offer no reasons why we should treat 
these reassigned FTEs any differently from other direct FTE changes as 
a result of shifting Commission needs and priorities. Further, the 
Satellite Operators' complaints that FTEs within other core bureaus 
should not be treated as indirect \46\ ring hollow--with 60 indirect 
FTEs at stake (and a 20.2% FTE allocation were we to treat all core 
bureau FTEs as direct), International Bureau regulatees are by far the 
greatest beneficiaries of our past decisions to take a more granular 
look at direct FTEs within the core bureaus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Satellite Operators Comments at 1-4; SIA Reply Comments at 
1-2; Intelsat/SES Reply Comments at 1-2.
    \46\ FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12355-56, para. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We recognize that the increase in allocation for International 
Bureau regulatees--from 6.25% to 7.49%--is non-trivial, but we disagree 
with the Satellite Operators that we should arbitrarily shift these 
fees onto other regulatees and keep satellite regulatory fees 
proportional to changes in our appropriations.\47\ Regulatory fees are 
a zero-sum situation, so any decrease to the fees paid by one category 
of regulatees necessitates an increase in fees for others, which is 
precisely why the Commission hews so closely to the statutory command 
to start with FTE counts and then potentially adjust fees to reflect 
other factors related to the payor's benefits. Because the 
International Bureau has a relatively small number of direct FTEs, the 
increase in its percentage of the whole resulted in a non-trivial 
increase in fees for International Bureau regulatees. We recognize that 
this increase is significant; however, it is consistent with the 
results when FTE counts have previously shifted as a result of the 
regulatory fee structure.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Satellite Operators Comments at 2. See also Letter from 
Karis A. Hastings, Counsel, SatCom Law LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19-105, Attachment, at 2 (filed Aug. 
8, 2019) (SatCom August 8 Ex Parte Letter) (arguing that the 
``Commission should freeze GSO fees at FY2018 levels'' pending a 
review and ``necessary analysis to reset the allocations among 
satellite service categories for future years''); Letter from 
Jennifer A. Manner, Senior Vice President, EchoStar Satellite 
Operating Corporation and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19-105, Attachment, at 1 
(filed August 8, 2019) (EchoStar August 8 Ex Parte Letter) (arguing 
that ``the FCC should freeze GSO regulatory fees at the 2018 level, 
or phase in any GSO fee increase''). While we do not have sufficient 
record information in this proceeding to consider changes to the 
apportionment of regulatory fees among International Bureau 
regulatees, we will seek comment on this issue for future years in 
future rulemaking.
    \48\ For example, in the FY 2013 Report and Order, the 
Commission concluded that most of the FTEs in the International 
Bureau should be indirect, with the exception of 27 FTEs in the 
Policy and Satellite Divisions and one FTE from the Office of the 
Bureau Chief, a total of 28 direct FTEs. FY 2013 Report and Order, 
28 FCC Rcd at 12355-56, para. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. For similar reasons, we reject the claims of INCOMPAS and NASCA 
that the proposed increase in the regulatory fees for submarine cable 
in FY 2019 is unreasonable because the Commission failed to demonstrate 
an increase in ``the benefits provided'' to submarine cable licensees, 
as compared to other licensees.\49\ The Commission has never followed 
that standard nor could it since we do not control many of the factors 
we must account for in setting fees, such as the total annual amount to 
be collected or the number of payment units in a category. What is 
more, such a requirement would preclude the Commission from ever 
reassessing its allocation of direct FTEs (and honing our allocation 
processes), a stance that neither INCOMPAS nor NASCA attempt to square 
with the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ INCOMPAS Comments at 3; NASCA Reply Comments at 3; see also 
Letter from Yaron Dori, Counsel, INCOMPAS, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19-105, at 1 (filed July 24, 2019) 
(INCOMPAS July 24 Ex Parte Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. We understand the requests of several commenters that the 
Commission offer even more granular information about work assignments 
and FTE allocations within and among bureaus for analysis.\50\ But we 
do not base regulatory fees on a precise allocation of specific 
employees with certain work assignments each year and instead must take 
a higher-level approach for several reasons. First, the statute is 
driven by the number of FTEs, not by the workload of individual 
employees.\51\ Second, as the Commission explained in the FY 2015 
Report and Order when this issue was raised previously, FTEs work on a 
wide range of issues and it is difficult to attribute their work to a 
specific category.\52\ Moreover, the wide variety of issues handled in 
non-core bureaus may also include services that are not specifically 
correlated with one core bureau, let alone one category of 
regulatees.\53\ Third, most Commission attorneys, engineers, analysts, 
and other staff work on a variety of issues even during a single fiscal 
year. A snapshot of staff assignments in a single division in any 
bureau, for example, may misrepresent the work being done six months or 
even six weeks later. Thus, even if we could calculate staff 
assignments at this granular level with accuracy, such assignments 
would not be accurate for the entire fiscal year and would result in 
significant unplanned shifts in regulatory fees as assignments change 
over time. And fourth, much of the work that could be assigned to a 
single category of regulatees is likely to be interspersed with the 
work that our staff does on behalf of many entities that do not pay 
regulatory fees, e.g., governmental entities, non-profit organizations, 
and very small regulatees that have an exemption.\54\ That is why we 
take a higher-level approach and consider the work of a larger group 
such as a division or office or bureau, consistent with the high-level 
language of the Act that ``fees reflect the full-time equivalent number 
of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission . . . .'' 
\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ State Broadcasters Comments at 10; NAB Comments at 6.
    \51\ 47 U.S.C. 159(d).
    \52\ FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10275, para. 17.
    \53\ FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10275, para. 17.
    \54\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 159(e).
    \55\ 47 U.S.C. 159(d). For example, in FY 2019, Media Bureau 
FTEs constitute 35.93% of all direct Media Bureau FTEs, and 16.17% 
of the 35.93% represent FTEs associated with radio and television 
issues. The 16.17% of direct Media Bureau FTEs can be further broken 
down to 8.82% radio (of the 8.82%, 6.08% represent FM radio and 
2.74% represent AM radio) and 7.35% television. FTEs working on 
cable television and DBS issues comprise 19.76% of the 35.93% of 
direct FTEs working on Media Bureau issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Thus, we reject the proposal of the State Broadcasters to treat 
non-feeable Media Bureau regulatees differently from non-feeable 
regulatees in other bureaus, as an indirect cost.\56\ Media Bureau 
regulatory fee payers are not alone in having to pay for exempt 
licensees; there are exempt licensees in most of the fee categories. 
For example, over 150 ITSPs are cooperatives and government entities 
and do not pay regulatory fees. ITSP licensees who pay regulatory fees 
are responsible for the costs for these exempt licensees and all

[[Page 50894]]

ITSPs benefit from the regulation and oversight of the Wireline 
Competition Bureau. Similarly, many earth stations in the international 
services fee category are exempt and their costs are covered by non-
exempt earth station licensees. Further, it would be unduly complex to 
redirect the costs attributable to fee exempt entities as indirect for 
each fee category and recalculate the regulatory fees with a larger 
group of indirect FTEs. Accordingly, we find it is consistent with the 
Act to include those costs that are attributable to the fee paying and 
exempt regulatees in the revenue requirement because all of the 
regulatees in that fee category, whether they pay regulatory fees or 
not, benefit from the oversight and regulation of that bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ State Broadcasters Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We also reject the arguments of International Bureau regulatees 
to shift the allocation of fees (and FTEs) within the International 
Bureau. The International Bureau FTE calculation is unique in that it 
reflects decisions that the Commission has previously made to account 
for the fact that much of the work done in the bureau benefits fee 
payors across the core bureaus. Together, the International Bureau's 
Satellite Division, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, and 
Office of the Bureau Chief have more than 24 FTEs, but much of their 
staff has been determined to be indirect. Currently, we allocate 17.1 
direct FTEs to the satellite category and 6.9 direct FTEs to the 
international bearer circuit (IBC) category. And since 2009, we have 
allocated regulatory fees between submarine cable and satellite and 
terrestrial IBCs based on a plan developed by the IBC industry, with 
87.6% of IBC fees paid by submarine cable and 12.4% by satellite/
terrestrial facilities.\57\ We find that these allocations still 
represent a reasonable division that reflects the direct FTE work for 
the benefit of these fee payors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2009, Report and Order, 74 FR 40089 (Aug. 11, 2009), 24 FCC Rcd 
10301, 10304, para. 8 (2009) (FY 2009 Report and Order). Notably, we 
reduced the total regulatory fee apportionment for submarine cable/
terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits by 5% in FY 2014 and 7.5% 
in FY 2015 but did not do so in prior nor subsequent years. FY 2014 
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 10772, para. 11; FY 2015 Report and 
Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10273, para 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We reject the argument of CenturyLink that we should cut the 
fees paid by satellite and terrestrial IBCs by 86% to reflect 
CenturyLink's calculation of the relative capacity of IBCs vis-
[agrave]-vis submarine cable networks \58\ and that we should further 
allocate more fee recovery to satellite IBCs than terrestrial IBC 
providers, claiming without specifics that satellite providers of IBCs 
benefit more than terrestrial providers from the Commission's 
activities.\59\ We also reject NASCA's counter argument that we should 
allocate a smaller portion of fees to submarine cables because of the 
limited Commission activities--licensing and transaction reviews--that 
benefit the submarine cable payors and because other fee categories 
account for a much higher proportion of the FTE's activities in the 
International Bureau.\60\ Intelsat and SES assert that any revision of 
the International Bureau intra-bureau allocations should not be done 
piecemeal and instead requires a wholesale examination of all 
International Bureau FTE activities.\61\ As they and other 
International Bureau regulatees point out, any shifting of intra-bureau 
allocations necessarily means higher fees for other regulatees.\62\ And 
without significant study and analysis over time and a sufficient 
record that the benefits of doing such reallocations would yield 
measurably more accurate results (or a clear path to reallocation given 
the competing proposals in the record), we maintain the current 
allocation of regulatory fees between the submarine cable and satellite 
and terrestrial IBCs with 87.6% paid by submarine cable and 12.4% paid 
by satellite/terrestrial facilities and instead will seek comment on 
the issue in furture rulemaking.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ CenturyLink Comments at 3-6; CenturyLink Reply Comments at 
3-4.
    \59\ CenturyLink Comments at 5-6.
    \60\ NASCA Comments at 6, 12; NASCA Reply Comments at 4.
    \61\ Intelsat/SES Reply Comments at 3-4. We note that despite 
making this claim, Intelsat and SES also ask for potential revisions 
to the allocations within the space station and earth station 
categories. Id.
    \62\ CenturyLink Reply Comments at 2; SIA Reply Comments at 3; 
Intelsat/SES Reply Comments at 3.
    \63\ For these reasons, we reject CenturyLink's alternative 
proposal that the Commission ``take an interim, transitional step to 
reduce fees substantially but not as much as CenturyLink proposes.'' 
Letter from Joseph C. Cavender, Vice President and Assistant General 
Counsel, CenturyLink, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MD 
Docket No. 19-105, at 2 (filed August 7, 2019) (CenturyLink August 7 
Ex Parte Letter). See also Letter from James J.R. Talbot, Assistant 
Vice President-Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, at 3 (filed August 5, 2019) (AT&T August 5 Ex Parte 
Letter) (explaining that ``[d]ue to the zero-sum nature of the 
regulatory fee process, under which any changes in the fees for one 
Bureau automatically affect the fees to be recovered from other 
Bureau services, any consideration of proposals to reallocate the 
Bureau fees relating to submarine cables and international bearer 
circuits should require a comprehensive review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Video Distribution Provider Regulatory Fees

    25. Among other activities, the Media Bureau oversees the 
regulation of video distribution providers like multichannel video 
programming distributors (MVPDs), i.e., regulated companies that make 
available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels 
of video programming. The Media Bureau relies on a common pool of FTEs 
to carry out its oversight of MVPDs and other video distribution 
providers. These responsibilities include market modifications, local-
into-local, must-carry and retransmission consent disputes, program 
carriage and program access complaints, over-the-air reception device 
declaratory rulings and waivers, media rule modernization, media 
ownership, and proposed transactions.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8944-8500, para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. For these activities in FY 2019, the Commission must collect 
$67.02 million in regulatory fees from three categories of providers: 
Cable TV systems, IPTV providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) 
operators. Although the Commission decided to assess cable TV systems 
and IPTV providers the same for regulatory fee purposes--assessing each 
provider based on its subscribership--the Commission took a different 
approach when it began to assess Media Bureau-based regulatory fees on 
DBS operators. Specifically, the Commission decided to phase in the new 
Media Bureau-based regulatory fee for DBS, starting at 12 cents per 
subscriber per year.\65\ At the same time, the Commission committed to 
updating the regulatory fee rate in future years ``as necessary for 
ensuring an appropriate level of regulatory parity and considering the 
resources dedicated to this new regulatory fee subcategory.'' \66\ 
Accordingly, from FY 2016 to FY 2018, the Commission increased the 
regulatory fee for DBS operators to 24 cents (plus a three cent moving 
fee) and then 36 cents (plus a two cent moving fee) and then 48 cents 
per subscriber per year, respectively, with the regulatory fees paid by 
DBS operators reducing those paid by other MVPDs.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10277, para. 20.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8500, para. 10; FY 
2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7067, para. 20; FY 2016 Report 
and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10350, para. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. For FY 2019, the Commission proposed to continue this 
transition by increasing the DBS regulatory fee rate to

[[Page 50895]]

60 cents per subscriber per year, thereby leaving other MVPDs with a 
regulatory fee of 86 cents per subscriber per year.\68\ Although a 
common pool of FTEs work on MVPD and related issues for DBS operators, 
IPTV providers, and cable TV systems, which some commenters (again) 
argue justifies immediate parity in regulatory fees across these 
providers,\69\ we believe it more prudent to adopt our proposal to 
increase such rates by one cent per subscriber per month, or 12 cents 
per subscriber per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3280, para. 19.
    \69\ NCTA and ACA Reply Comments at 3 (``Because DBS providers, 
like other MVPDs, are subject to the Media Bureau's `oversight and 
regulation,' the Commission must require DBS operators to pay the 
fee it assesses other MVPDs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. AT&T and DISH--the two DBS operators--reiterate several 
arguments against any increase in DBS regulatory fees that they have 
raised, and the Commission has rejected, in previous years. For 
example, AT&T and DISH claim that there is ``no data or analysis that 
demonstrates DBS providers caused any increase in Media Bureau FTEs 
over the past year,'' \70\ even though last year (and the year before), 
the Commission held that the DBS regulatory fee is based on the 
significant number of Media Bureau FTEs that work on MVPD issues that 
include DBS, ``not a particular number of FTEs focused solely on DBS'' 
or ``specific recent proceedings.'' \71\ The phase in of the regulatory 
fee is not based on a change in FTEs working on issues that affect the 
DBS industry, but was the approach adopted to mitigate the impact of a 
fee increase should we move to immediate parity \72\ while continuing 
``to bring the DBS fee closer to the cable television/IPTV fee.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ DBS Providers Comments at 9.
    \71\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8501, para. 11; FY 
2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7067-68, paras. 22-23; see also 
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2015, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and Order, and Order, 80 FR 
37206 (June 30, 2015), 30 FCC Rcd 5354, 5369, para. 33 (2015) (FY 
2015 NPRM).
    \72\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8500, para. 10.
    \73\ FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7066-67, para. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. For the same reasons, we reject AT&T and DISH's claim that they 
should not see an increase because there are more broadcast and cable 
television proceedings and regulations than DBS proceedings and 
regulations (not to mention that broadcasters are not even in the same 
payor category as DBS operators).\74\ We also note our agreement with 
NCTA and ACA that Media Bureau employees dedicate substantially similar 
amounts of time and resources to the regulation of DBS as they do to 
cable television and IPTV,\75\ indeed that AT&T and DISH have 
apparently submitted 154 filings in 26 separate Media Bureau dockets 
during the fiscal year,\76\ that AT&T itself has ``argued for parity in 
the administration of media rules by requesting that the Commission 
`ensure that changes made to the cable rules also be made in the DBS 
rules, as they are identical,' '' \77\ and that in their accounting of 
Media Bureau activities, AT&T and DISH omitted transaction reviews, 
even though transactions raise significant regulatory issues for all 
MVPDs, including DBS.\78\ We reiterate again that even differently 
regulated services can warrant placement in the same payor category if 
they are overseen by a common pool of FTEs; for example, the ITSP 
category includes a range of carriers that are not regulated 
similarly.\79\ Cable television, IPTV, and DBS all receive oversight 
and regulation by Media Bureau FTEs working on MVPD issues.\80\ For 
these reasons, we reject these arguments and agree with commenters that 
the continued participation of DBS operators in Commission proceedings, 
along with the use of a common pool of FTEs to oversee MVPD matters 
(including matters related to DBS operators in particular), justifies 
an increase in the DBS regulatory fee rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ DBS Providers Comments at 1-4; see also AT&T August 5 Ex 
Parte Letter at 3-4.
    \75\ NCTA and ACA Comments at 3-4; NCTA and ACA Reply Comments 
at 4-5.
    \76\ NTCA and ACA Comments at 5. By way of comparison, Comcast 
and Charter Communications have made a total of 137 ECFS filings 
from October 1, 2018 to August 2, 2019 in Media Bureau and other 
Commission dockets.
    \77\ NTCA and ACA Comments at 5.
    \78\ NTCA and ACA Reply Comments at 4-5.
    \79\ ITSPs, regulated by the Wireline Competition Bureau, 
include interexchange carriers (IXCs), incumbent local exchange 
carriers (LECs), toll resellers, Voice over internet Providers 
(VoIP), and other service providers, all of which involve different 
degrees of regulatory oversight. FY 2018 Report and Order, 32 FCC 
Rcd at 7068, para. 24.
    \80\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8500, para. 10. The 
Commission has consistently observed that the Media Bureau FTEs work 
on the regulation and oversight of MVPDs, that includes DBS, cable 
television, and IPTV. See FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
7065, para 19; FY 2016 Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10350, para. 
30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. We also note that the amount to be recovered from all video 
distribution providers has increased as a result of both shifts in FTEs 
across bureaus and an increase in the Commission's appropriation; as a 
result, both DBS providers and cable and IPTV providers will see an 
increase in their fees this year. Thus, the increase to the DBS 
provider fee is both to account for increased amounts to be recovered 
through this fee category and to continue with the ongoing phase in.
    31. Finally, we reject the claim of AT&T and DISH that the 
Commission should take into account the fee they pay based on the 
International Bureau FTEs as a basis for reducing their contribution to 
payment for Media Bureau FTEs.\81\ The different bureaus provide 
different oversight and regulation; thus, we agree with NTCA and ACA 
that under the Act, the Commission assesses regulatory fees based on 
the FTEs in the bureau providing regulation and oversight--in this case 
both the International Bureau and the Media Bureau provide regulation 
and oversight--and there is no justification to offset the fee.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ DBS Providers Comments at 3; AT&T August 5 Ex Parte Letter 
at 4.
    \82\ NTCA and ACA Comments at 9 & Reply Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Broadcast Television Stations Regulatory Fees

    32. Historically, regulatory fees for full-power television 
stations were based on the Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA) 
groupings 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, and remaining markets (DMAs 101-
210).\83\ Broadcast television satellite stations \84\ historically 
have paid a much lower regulatory fee than standalone, full-service 
broadcast television stations. In the FY 2018 NPRM, we sought comment 
on whether using the population covered by the station's contours \85\ 
instead of using DMAs would more accurately reflect the actual market 
served by a full-power broadcast television station for purposes of 
assessing regulatory fees.\86\ In the FY 2018 Report and Order, we 
adopted the proposed methodology using actual population and stated 
that in order to facilitate the transition to this new fee structure, 
for FY 2019, we planned to average the historical and newly calculated 
fees.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 47 CFR 76.55(e)(2); Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 
Fees for Fiscal Year 2000, Report and Order, 65 FR 44575 (July 18, 
2000),15 FCC Rcd 14478, 14492, para. 34 (2000) (FY 2000 Report and 
Order).
    \84\ Designated as such pursuant to note 5 to Sec.  73.3555 of 
the Commission's rules.
    \85\ The population data for broadcasters' service areas is 
extracted from the TVStudy database, based on a station's projected 
noise-limited service contour. 47 CFR 73.622(e).
    \86\ FY 2018 NPRM, 33 FCC Rcd at 5102, para. 28.
    \87\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at para.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. In the FY 2019 NPRM, we proposed to adopt a fee based on an 
average of the historical DMA methodology and the population covered by 
a full-power broadcast station's contour for FY 2019, with a

[[Page 50896]]

factor of .72 of one cent ($.007224).\88\ However, several payors with 
broadcast television satellite stations note an error in the Appendix 
intended to implement this proposal, best illustrated by examining what 
happened to satellite station KOBF(TV), a station owned by Hubbard: 
Rather than averaging the historical fee paid by satellite stations 
($1,625 for FY 2019) with the contour-based fee ($1,459), the Appendix 
averaged the non-satellite fee ($27,150) with the contour-based fee 
($1,459).\89\ In other words, the Appendix suggested to such licensees 
that the Commission intended as part of its transition to a new fee 
structure to increase the fee paid by KOBF(TV) from $1,500 in FY 2018 
to $14,304 for one year before decreasing it down to $1,459. We agree 
with commenters that such an increase would have been unjustified and 
illogical \90\--and as commenters like Ramar argue, the Appendix did 
not reflect the Commission's intent as expressed in the text of the FY 
2019 NPRM.\91\ Instead, we adopt the proposal as proposed to transition 
broadcast stations from the historical DMA fee structure (including 
lower fees for satellite stations) to the contour-based methodology, 
using an average of the historical and contour-based fees in this 
transition year.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3281, para 21. The factor of 
.72 of one cent was derived by taking the revenue amount required 
from all television fee categories and dividing it by the total 
population count of all feeable call signs. Id. at n.64.
    \89\ Hubbard Reply Comments at 3. In its analysis, Hubbard used 
the FY 2018 historical fee for broadcast television satellite 
stations, which was $1,500. Id.
    \90\ Nexstar Comments at 2-8.
    \91\ Ramar Comments at 3.
    \92\ See Table 7. For each full-power broadcast television 
station, Table 7 lists (1) the historical fee (calculated using 
either the satellite station methodology for stations that have 
historically paid the satellite station fee or the DMA methodology 
for stations that have historically paid the DMA-based fee); (2) the 
contour-based fee (population multiplied by ($.007224); and (3) the 
resulting regulatory fee for FY 2019 (i.e., the average of the 
historical fee and contour-based fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. We reject PCPM's assertion that the population served by a 
broadcast station is unrelated to the benefits received by television 
stations because, according to PCPM, advertising revenues are based on 
the DMA where a station is located and not on the service contour.\93\ 
For decades, the Commission has assessed television broadcasters' 
regulatory fees based on population served,\94\ with the Commission 
shifting just last year from relying on DMAs to service contours for 
these purposes. To the extent that PCPM seeks reconsideration of that 
decision, its request is untimely.\95\ But more to the point, PCPM does 
recognize that a broadcast station's income does vary with market size 
and thus population served--and it seems readily apparent that two 
broadcasters within a DMA see vastly different benefits if one only 
covers a remote corner and the other covers the major metropolitan area 
(and similarly a broadcaster serving a much larger population is also 
more likely to be in a larger DMA and receive more advertising 
revenues). As the Commission decided last year, moving to contour-based 
assessment will allow us to more accurately assess regulatory fees and 
end the need (that still exists) to decide what stations should count 
as ``satellite'' stations for purposes of reducing their regulatory 
fees.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ PMCM Comments at 3, 5.
    \94\ FY 2000 Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 14492, para. 34.
    \95\ 47 CFR 1.429.
    \96\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3281, para. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. AM and FM Radio Broadcaster Regulatory Fees

    35. In the FY 2019 NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise the 
table for AM and FM broadcasters to reflect the increased amount to be 
collected for FY 2019.\97\ The proposed fees were an increase from FY 
2018 AM and FM broadcaster fees and the increase was a function of an 
increase to the Commission's appropriation, changes to the FTE 
allocations across bureaus and a reduction in the number of feeable FM 
and AM broadcasters (units) since FY 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ FY 2019 NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 3297, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Based on comments of the State Broadcasters that we 
underestimated the number of feeable licensees,\98\ we find that the 
Commission made a conservative estimate of the number of radio stations 
in the FY 2019 NPRM. We have updated our data by identifying licensed 
facilities as of October 1, 2018 from the Media Bureau's CDBS system 
\99\ and adjusted for stations that are exempt and de minimis, and the 
resulting number of stations increased by 553 to 10,011, thereby 
decreasing the fee rates from what was proposed in the FY 2019 
NPRM.\100\ This change should somewhat mitigate concerns of other 
commenters that the regulatory fees for radio stations are an 
unexpected increase for certain stations \101\--a result, among other 
things, of the increased amount of regulatory fees that the Commission 
must collect from all regulatees this fiscal year. We remind small 
stations of the Commission's existing processes to seek a waiver, 
reduction, or deferral of regulatory fees to mitigate the impact of 
regulatory fees on operators when paying such fees would cause a 
hardship.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ The State Broadcasters contend that the Commission 
underestimated the number of stations by 17% and that this drop 
resulted in a dramatic increase in regulatory fees for each station. 
State Broadcasters Comments at 4, 6. NAB Ex Parte at 2; NAB Comments 
at 2. NAB contends that the Commission did not explain the proposed 
fee increase. Id.
    \99\ The Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) is a 
database of all licensed audio and video facilities. This database 
only flags non-commercial educational facilities as exempt entities, 
and so the download from this database must be reviewed and the 
units adjusted downward every year to account for non-profit 
entities, entities that re-broadcast a signal from exempt entities, 
and stations that are de minimis, all of which do not pay annual 
regulatory fees.
    \100\ The unit data for assessing regulatory fees includes prior 
year payment data, data downloaded from CDBS as of October 1st of 
each year, and information that is gathered throughout the year 
identifying ownership changes and non-profit entities. In addition, 
the Commission analyzes this data to determine which entities are de 
minimis based on the owner's TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) 
number. Broadcast and video facilities that are non-commercial 
educational, non-profit, re-broadcast an exempt signal, or de 
minimis do not pay regulatory fees.
    \101\ Letter from Larry Walke, Associate General Counsel Legal 
and Regulatory Affairs, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
MD Docket No. 19-105, at 1 (filed May 17, 2019); Letter from Larry 
Walke, Associate General Counsel Legal and Regulatory Affairs, NAB, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19-105, at 1 
(filed July 30, 2019); NAB Reply Comments at 2-4; Mentor Comments at 
2; State Broadcasters Comments at 6-7.
    \102\ Section 9A(d) permits the Commission to waive, reduce, or 
defer payment of a regulatory fee and associated interest charges 
and penalties for good cause. 47 U.S.C. 159A(d); 47 CFR 1.1166. See 
infra paras. 49-53 for a discussion of our standard and the 
information that should be submitted with the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Below is the table we adopt, which has lower regulatory fees 
than proposed in the FY 2019 NPRM, due to the inclusion of updated 
data:

                                                          FY 2019 Radio Station Regulatory Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           FM Classes B,
                    Population served                       AM Class A      AM Class B      AM Class C      AM Class D     FM Classes A,   C, C0,  C1 &
                                                                                                                              B1 & C3           C2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=25,000................................................            $950            $685            $595            $655          $1,000          $1,200

[[Page 50897]]

 
25,001-75,000...........................................           1,425           1,000             895             985           1,575           1,800
75,001-150,000..........................................           2,150           1,550           1,350           1,475           2,375           2,700
150,001-500,000.........................................           3,200           2,325           2,000           2,225           3,550           4,050
500,001-1,200,000.......................................           4,800           3,475           3,000           3,325           5,325           6,075
1,200,001-3,000,000.....................................           7,225           5,200           4,525           4,975           7,975           9,125
3,000,001-6,000,000.....................................          10,825           7,800           6,775           7,450          11,950          13,675
>6,000,000..............................................          16,225          11,700          10,175          11,200          17,950          20,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. International Bearer Circuits

    38. The regulatory fees that are currently paid by the submarine 
cable operators and satellite and terrestrial IBCs cover the work 
performed by the International Bureau for all international 
communications services.\103\ More specifically, the International 
Bureau's activities concerning submarine cables and IBCs include 
maintaining the licensing database \104\ and other services such as 
benchmarks enforcement,\105\ coordination with other U.S. government 
agencies,\106\ protection from anticompetitive actions by foreign 
carriers, foreign ownership rulings (Petitions for Declaratory 
Rulings), international section 214 authorizations, and bilateral and 
multilateral negotiations and representation of U.S. interests at 
international organizations, that are all provided by the International 
Bureau.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7070-71, para. 31.
    \104\ The International Bureau reviews, processes, analyzes, and 
grants applications for submarine cable landing licenses, transfers, 
assignments, and modifications. The bureau also coordinates 
processing of submarine cable landing license applications with the 
relevant Executive Branch agencies.
    \105\ See, e.g., International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 
96-261, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19806 (1997) (Benchmarks 
Order); Report and Order on Reconsideration and Order Lifting Stay, 
14 FCC Rcd 9256 (1999) (Benchmarks Reconsideration Order); aff'd sub 
nom. Cable & Wireless, 166 F.3d 1224.
    \106\ For example, the International Bureau coordinates with the 
Executive Branch agencies regarding national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy and trade policy issues related to 
international services. See Rules and Policies on Foreign 
Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market; Market Entry 
and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, IB Docket Nos. 97-142 
and 95-22, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 
23891 (1997) (Foreign Participation Order), reconsideration denied, 
15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000).
    \107\ FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7070-71, para 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Terrestrial and Satellite International Bearer Circuit Regulatory 
Fees
    39. The Commission has historically assessed terrestrial and 
satellite IBC regulatory fees on a per-unit basis (in which the 
Commission assesses fees on payors based on the number of units each 
has directly), rather than on a tiered basis (in which the Commission 
first categorizes each payor into a ``tier'' based on the number of 
units it has and then assesses a single fee for each payor in the 
tier). In FY 2018, the Commission sought comment on adopting a tiered 
methodology for assessing terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees 
and stated that it expected to have sufficient information from payors 
in September 2018 to consider a tiered rate structure for FY 2019.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ FY 2018 NPRM, 33 FCC Rcd at 5100-5101, paras. 22-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. In the FY 2019 NPRM, we considered the FY 2018 circuit 
information for terrestrial and satellite IBCs and explained that using 
the existing per-Gbps methodology on the 13 payors currently in this 
fee category would result in fees ranging from approximately $121 to 
$355,000 per payor. We noted that, in contrast, using a two-tiered 
system would result in large increases in fees for smaller carriers, 
increases that do not appear to be ``reasonably related to the benefits 
provided to the payor of the fee[ ] by the Commission's activities,'' 
as required by the Act, and that a more reasonable tiering structure 
would instead require the adoption of at least seven tiers.\109\ For 
the reasons specified in the FY 2019 NPRM, we maintain the per Gbps fee 
for satellite and terrestrial IBCs, which is $121 per Gbps for FY 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ FY 2019 NPRM at paras 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. We reject a seven-tier system, which would not simplify 
calculations nor provide any benefits over our more direct assessment 
methodology. Nor do we accept CenturyLink's argument that a two-tiered 
system that could significantly increase fees for small payors and 
reduce fees for the largest payors is preferable to the direct 
assessment of fees based on relative capacity.\110\ Although we agree 
with CenturyLink that a structure where the largest payors pay most of 
the fees and the smallest payors pay a smaller fee is equitable,\111\ 
CenturyLink does not explain why a 12,900% increase in fees for the 
smallest payor in a two-tier system is ``equitable'' nor why the very 
largest payor should be able to redistribute its existing regulatory 
fees to its smaller competitors. Nor do we agree with CenturyLink's 
bare assertions that a two-tiered approach would improve incentives to 
deploy services or reduce the likelihood that the Commission would 
over-collect fees.\112\ Instead, we find that maintaining the 
predictability of our existing fee calculations is more likely to 
improve incentives for deployment and avoid the creation of a fee 
``cliff,'' which could encourage payors to reduce service levels to 
just below the delimiter in a two-tiered approach, deterring additional 
deployment by payors (and hence competition among payors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ CenturyLink Comments at 8. See also AT&T August 5 Ex Parte 
Letter at 2 (agreeing that a two-tier system would require a 
substantial fee increase for smaller providers of IBCs; that a 
seven-tier system that would be required to avoid large fee 
increases for smaller providers would be unduly complex; and that 
the per-Gbps fee for IBCs therefore should continue).
    \111\ CenturyLink Comments at 8.
    \112\ CenturyLink Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Submarine Cable System Regulatory Fees
    42. In the Submarine Cable Order, the Commission decided to assess 
regulatory fees on submarine cable systems based on a tiered framework: 
Operational submarine cable systems are first defined as ``large'' 
submarine cable systems and ``small'' submarine cable systems based on 
the capacity of each system and the ``small'' systems are further 
subdivided into additional subcategories.\113\ The Commission noted 
that the methodology would be easy to administer and for submarine 
cable

[[Page 50898]]

operators to comply with because submarine cable operators will no 
longer pay regulatory fees based on how many active circuits they had 
on the previous December 31; instead they will pay a capacity-based 
flat fee \114\ per cable landing license.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2008, 74 FR 22104 (May 12, 2009), 24 FCC Rcd 4208, 4214, para. 
15, (2009) (Submarine Cable Order). The Commission stated it would 
be based on the capacity of each system used for the Commission's 
annual Circuit Status report. Id. n. 38.
    \114\ The Commission explained: ``[b]y `flat' we mean that the 
regulatory fee is no longer based on the number of active circuits 
but is assessed on a per cable system basis. . . . [W]e are 
permitting carriers to pay a lower fee for smaller submarine cable 
systems.'' Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4210, para. 2 & 
n.12.
    \115\ Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4213, para. 10. The 
Commission noted at the time that the submarine cable operators 
would still need to advise the Commission of the number of circuits 
or certify to the category that they fit into, but this should be a 
relatively small burden, and is supported by the members of the 
consensus group who themselves would qualify as small system service 
providers. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. In the FY 2019 NPRM, we proposed to maintain this framework for 
submarine cable systems, as updated in FY 2018, which we have found to 
be administrable.\116\ That is, from FY 2009 to FY 2017, the lowest 
submarine cable tier was ``less than 2.5 Gbps,'' and the highest tier 
was ``20 Gbps or greater.'' In FY 2018, of the 42 submarine cable 
providers that the Commission identified, 40 cable systems were at or 
above 20 Gbps, and only two were less than 20 Gbps. A 20 Gbps capacity 
cable system would therefore pay the same regulatory fee as a cable 
system with over 78,000 Gbps capacity. Accordingly, in 2018 the 
Commission updated the five submarine cable tiers to less than 50 Gbps, 
from 50 to 250 Gbps, from 250 to 1,000 Gbps, from 1000 to 4000 Gbps, 
and 4,000 Gbps and above to accommodate the wide range of capacities, 
ranging from as little as 1.2 Gbps to over 78,000 Gbps capacity.\117\ 
The Commission adopted these updated submarine cable tiers to provide a 
more equitable distribution of fees so that a small submarine cable 
system does not pay the same regulatory fee as a very large submarine 
cable system that is capable of providing substantially more services. 
Accordingly, in the FY 2019 NPRM we proposed to use the updated tiers 
\118\ and adopt them here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ FY 2019 NPRM at Appendix B.
    \117\ FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8516, Appendix C.
    \118\ FY 2019 NPRM at Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. We also clarify at the request of several commenters that 
``capacity'' for regulatory fee purposes continues to be ``lit 
capacity.'' \119\ We base the regulatory fee recovery on lit capacity 
because that is the amount of capacity that submarine cable operators 
are able to provide services over and the regulatory fee is in part 
recovering the costs related to the regulation and oversight of such 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The Commission changed the reporting requirements for 
submarine cables in 2017 and now requires submarine cable operators 
to report design capacity, a combination of lit and unlit capacity. 
See Section 43.62 Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of 
International Services; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications 
Regulations, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8115 (2017); International 
Bureau Releases Revised Filing Manual for Section 43.82 Circuit 
Capacity Reports, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 12517, 12518 (IB 2018). 
Commenters expressed concern that changes to the International 
Bureau's section 43.82 filing manual changed the definition of 
capacity for regulatory fee purposes to design capacity, contrary to 
the historical use of available capacity. NASCA Comments at 15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. We reject several arguments designed to decrease the regulatory 
fees paid by the largest submarine cable operators. First, INCOMPAS 
argues that we should increase application fees for submarine cable 
license applications instead of increasing regulatory fees.\120\ But by 
law, application fees and regulatory fees are not interchangeable. 
Application fees do not offset the Commission's annual appropriations, 
and the Commission is required to collect the total appropriation for 
that fiscal year through regulatory fees regardless of the application 
fees collected.\121\ Second, INCOMPAS complains that our fee structure 
will lead to overcollection of $800,000 if just four of the pending 
applications for new submarine cable landing licenses are granted.\122\ 
But this argument ignores how fees are calculated annually--with fees 
decreasing in future years if more landing licenses are granted in 
future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ INCOMPAS Comments at 4. NASCA also argues that the 
Commission activities for the submarine cable industry should be 
covered by application fees. NASCA Comments at 7. Intelsat explains 
that the application fees do not reduce regulatory fees but go 
directly to the U.S. Treasury. Intelsat/SES Reply Comments at 3 & n. 
6.
    \121\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
    \122\ INCOMPAS Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Third, INCOMPAS asserts that the current regulatory fee 
methodology is ``inequitable and unreasonable'' because of the higher 
burden on larger capacity cable systems when there is ``little or no 
connection between the capacity'' and the costs to the Commission or 
benefits provided to the licensee,\123\ arguing instead for a flat-fee 
per landing license.\124\ NASCA in turn claims that the Commission's 
updated tiers for submarine cable ``backtrack from the purpose behind 
the 2009 methodology'' and give cable operators an incentive to under 
report capacity.\125\ But these arguments ignore a fundamental premise 
in how the Commission has long assessed regulatory fees--larger 
licensees receive greater benefits from the license and hence should 
(and are able to) pay a larger proportion of the costs. That is as true 
in the context of submarine cables as it is where wireless providers, 
ITSPs, and broadcasters are concerned. What is more, submarine cable 
systems currently vary in capacity from 1.2 Gbps to 78,000 Gbps, 
although systems that will be operational in the near future will have 
much larger capacity. While there may be situations in which it would 
be equitable to set aside differences in capacity for the sake of 
administrability, to say that a system with roughly 65,000 times the 
capacity of another system should pay not a penny more in regulatory 
fees hardly seems equitable or reflective of the benefits each system 
owner receives from its Commission license and Commission oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ INCOMPAS Comments at 5-6.
    \124\ INCOMPAS Comments at 9; NASCA Reply Comments at 5; 
INCOMPAS July 24 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
    \125\ NASCA Comments at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. We further disagree with commenters' assertions that in 
adopting the Consensus Proposal, the Commission adopted a system that 
was intended to move towards a flat fee based on the number of landing 
licenses.\126\ In the Submarine Cable Order, the Commission explained 
that under the Consensus Proposal the operational submarine cable 
systems will first be defined as ``large'' submarine cable systems and 
``small'' submarine cable systems based on the capacity of each system 
used for the Commission's annual Circuit Status report and the 
``small'' systems will be further subdivided into subcategories and may 
move into a different categories as they get larger.\127\ We find that 
adopting a single regulatory fee for all submarine cable systems 
regardless of capacity would be contrary to the Consensus Proposal (as 
it is documented and adopted in the Submarine Cable Order) and would 
result in an unreasonable fee increase for the smaller systems.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ NASCA Comments at 14-15; Letter from Susannah Larson, 
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Counsel for Southeast Asia-US, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19-105, at 3 (filed 
May 1, 2019) (SEA-US May 1 Ex Parte Letter).
    \127\ Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4214, para. 15. The 
Commission also noted that ``We anticipate that the subcategories of 
small systems and the definitions of large and small systems may 
change as the submarine cable industry changes.'' Id. at n.39.
    \128\ Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4215, para. 18 
(observing that a lower fee for smaller licensees would mitigate 
concerns that the tiered system would be a barrier to entry for new 
entrants). See also AT&T August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 (observing 
that a single flat fee would shift costs from large systems to 
smaller systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. Finally, we are not convinced that now--shortly before the 
introduction of

[[Page 50899]]

several very large submarine cable systems--is the appropriate time to 
revise our methodology in a manner that favors large systems and 
increases fees on the smaller systems.\129\ Once the newer systems are 
operational, the increase in units should reduce the regulatory fees 
for the fee category. Unit counts impact the fee rate calculations from 
one year to the next. The unit count between FY 2018 and FY 2019 in the 
submarine cable fee category increased only slightly and did not have a 
dramatic impact on the calculation of the submarine cable fee rate. In 
the near future, however, there will be several larger submarine cable 
systems which will be in operation. For example, the Havfrue cable 
system will connect New Jersey with Denmark, Ireland, and Norway and 
will have a design capacity of 108 Tbps,\130\ and the JGS North cable 
system will connect Guam with Japan and have a design capacity of 24 
Tbps.\131\ These new cable systems, and others, will make a significant 
change in the number of units, and an increase in units tends to reduce 
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ There are ten pending applications for new international 
submarine cable systems. See the International Bureau Filing System 
(IBFS), http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/.
    \130\ SCL-LIC-20180511-00010.
    \131\ SCL-LIC-20181106-00035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. De Minimis Regulatory Fees

    49. Section 9(e)(2) of the RAY BAUM'S Act permits the Commission to 
exempt a party from paying regulatory fees if ``in the judgment of the 
Commission, the cost of collecting a regulatory fee established under 
this section from a party would exceed the amount collected from such 
party. . . .'' \132\ In the FY 2019 NPRM, we sought comment on how to 
implement section 9(e)(2) and on a proposed section 9(e)(2) de minimis 
fee exemption of $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 47 U.S.C. 159(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Consistent with our tentative conclusion in the FY 2019 NPRM, 
we conclude that section 9(e)(2) codifies our authority to adopt a de 
minimis exemption. Section 9(e)(2) provides the Commission with 
discretion to exempt a ``party'' and to provide relief based on the 
cost of collection, both of which were factors considered in the 
existing de minimis exemption. The adoption of a monetary threshold 
applied against the sum of all annual regulatory fees due in a given 
fiscal year continues to be, in our estimation, an efficient mechanism 
for reducing the Commission's costs in assessing and collecting 
regulatory fees. As described in the FY 2019 NPRM, we have analyzed the 
average cost of collecting delinquent debt and estimate that the 
Commission's cost of collecting the debt would exceed $1,000.\133\ The 
Commission's administrative debt collection process involves many 
steps, including data compilation, preparation and validation; 
invoicing; debt transfer for third party collection; responding to 
debtor questions and disputes; and processing payments. We received no 
comments on our analysis. Accordingly, we adopt a $1,000 section 
9(e)(2) exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ The Commission increased the de minimis threshold to 
$1,000 in 2017, observing that the cost of collection had increased 
since FY 2014, when the Commission last visited the de minimis 
threshold, and that the prior estimate did not include the 
Commission's overhead costs. FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
7073, para. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. In the FY 2019 NPRM, we also proposed to exclude multi-year 
regulatory fees from the proposed section 9(e)(2) exemption. We 
received no comment on this proposal. Including multi-year fees in the 
threshold would significantly increase the Commission's administrative 
costs.\134\ Section 9(e)(2) provides the Commission with discretion as 
to whether and how to provide this exemption; specifically, it states 
that the Commission ``may exempt'' a party from paying regulatory fees. 
Because including multi-year fees in the threshold would significantly 
increase the Commission's administrative costs, we exclude these fees 
from the calculation of the section 9(e)(2) exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ For example, all annual regulatory fees are due and 
payable in September of each fiscal year allowing for tracking by 
fee category and FRN within a single database (Fee Filer). The 
multi-year regulatory fees due dates are spread throughout each year 
and these fee categories are not included in the annual regulatory 
fee database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Rules Pertaining to Waiver, Reduction, Deferral and Responsibility 
for Payment of Regulatory Fees

    52. As we did in the FY 2019 NPRM, we again take this opportunity 
to explain and reinforce the importance of certain provisions of the 
prior section 9 that remain substantively unchanged by the RAY BAUM'S 
Act, as well as to reiterate our long-standing rule regarding the party 
responsible for payment of regulatory fees when a transfer of control 
or an assignment of a license or authorization has occurred. These 
provisions, pertaining to waiver, enforcement, and collection of 
regulatory fees, are essential to the Commission's exercise of its 
statutory authority here and our application of these provisions 
remains unchanged.
    53. The new section 9A of the Communications Act permits the 
Commission to waive, reduce, or defer payment of a regulatory fee and 
associated interest charges and penalties for good cause if the waiver, 
reduction, or deferral (collectively, waiver) would serve the public 
interest.\135\ The Commission interprets this provision narrowly to 
permit only those waivers ``unambiguously articulating `extraordinary 
circumstances' outweighing the public interest in recouping the cost of 
the Commission's regulatory services for a particular regulatee.'' 
\136\ Within this standard, the Commission recognizes that in 
exceptional circumstances, financial hardship may justify waiving and/
or deferring a party's regulatory fees.\137\ Financial inability, 
however, must be conclusively proven and the burden of proof for doing 
so lies solely with the regulatee seeking relief. Mere allegations of 
financial loss will not support a waiver request. Rather, as the 
Commission has stated, ``it is incumbent upon each regulatee to fully 
document its financial position and show that it lacks sufficient funds 
to pay the regulatory fees and to maintain its service to the public.'' 
\138\ The Commission has suggested that documents that may be relevant 
to prove financial inability include balance sheets and profit and loss 
statements (audited if available), twelve month cash flow projections 
(with an explanation of how calculated), a list of officers and highest 
paid employees other than officers, and each individual's compensation, 
or similar information.\139\ We emphasize, however, that the foregoing 
list of documents is not exhaustive and it is up to each regulatee to 
determine the documentation required to prove financial hardship in its 
own case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 47 U.S.C. 159A(d).
    \136\ Implementation of Section 9 of the Communications Act, 
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for the 1994 Fiscal 
Year, Report and Order, 59 FR 30984 (June 16, 1994), 9 FCC Rcd 5333, 
5344, para. 29 (1994) (FY 1994 Report and Order).
    \137\ Implementation of Section 9 of the Communications Act, 
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for the 1994 Fiscal 
Year, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 62 FR 39450 (July 23, 1997),10 
FCC Rcd 12759, 12761-12762, paras 12-14 (1995) (FY 1994 MO&O).
    \138\ FY 1994 MO&O, 10 FCC Rcd at 12762, para. 13.
    \139\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. The Commission frequently receives requests to waive regulatory 
fees owed by regulatees in bankruptcy or receivership, who cite the 
fact of the bankruptcy or receivership as proof of the regulatee's 
financial hardship, and thus justifying waiver. Here, we wish to 
emphasize the standard to which the Commission hews in determining 
whether to grant relief in such cases.

[[Page 50900]]

While the Commission recognizes that a bankruptcy or receivership 
filing may be sufficient evidence of financial hardship, we consider 
such cases individually,\140\ taking into account a number of other 
factors that are relevant to the question of whether the regulatee 
lacks sufficient funds to pay the regulatory fees and to maintain its 
service to the public. Although the factors we consider are case-
specific, they might include, for example, whether the regulatee 
intends to reorganize or liquidate in bankruptcy, the reason for the 
bankruptcy or receivership filing, the regulatee's ability or plan to 
obtain post-petition financing, the number, type and amount of other 
claims asserted against the regulatee in the bankruptcy or receivership 
case, and the priority accorded under bankruptcy or receivership law to 
the Commission's regulatory fee claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2003, Report and Order, 69 FR 41028 (July 7, 2004), 18 FCC Rcd 
15985, 15990, para. 13 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. We also remind regulatees that requests to waive their 
regulatory fees must be properly filed by the date on which such fees 
are due.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ FY 1994 Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5345, para. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. The Commission has previously stated that with respect to 
waiver, reduction, and deferral requests based on financial hardship, 
the Commission will base its decision on the information submitted with 
the request as well as ``any additional information available in the 
Commission's records.'' \142\ In the FY 2019 NPRM, we proposed 
eliminating any obligation by the Commission to consult its records, 
and instead, requiring that any party seeking regulatory fee relief on 
any basis include with its request all documents and information the 
requestor believes to be relevant to prove its case, regardless of 
whether or not such documentation or information exists in Commission 
records. We received no comments on this proposal. Because we believe 
the burden to prove its case should rest entirely with the requesting 
party and not with the Commission, and that it is not an efficient use 
of the Commission's time to search our records for information or 
documents that might be relevant to a request for regulatory fee 
relief, we adopt the proposal set forth in the FY 2019 NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ FY 1994 Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. License assignments and transfers of control occur regularly 
throughout the fiscal year, many during the period when the Commission 
is establishing the regulatory fee schedule for the upcoming fiscal 
year. Consequently, we continuously update our records to reflect the 
identity of these new regulatees.\143\ We remind all regulatees of our 
long-standing rule that the entity holding the license or authorization 
as of the date the regulatory fee is due is responsible for payment of 
the regulatory fee. Similarly, we determine eligibility for a 
regulatory fee exemption by the status of the licensee as of the fee 
due date, regardless of the status of any previous licensee.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ For example, Table 7 of this Order lists two call signs 
that did not appear in the previous table of television listings 
(Appendix C) of the FY 2019 NPRM, reflecting a transfer of license 
in one case (WEVV-TV) and a change in exempt status (WSFJ-TV) in the 
other. FY 2019 NPRM, Appendix C. Table 7 in this Report and Order 
lists every call sign and its associated fee. Licensees that are 
exempt on the due date of the FY 2019 regulatory fee will not pay 
the listed fee.
    \144\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 70 FR 
41967 (July 21, 2005), 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12266, para. 22 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Effective Date

    58. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication 
before this Report and Order becomes effective as normally required by 
5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2019 
fees before FY 2019 ends on September 30, 2019. For this reason, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive 
the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order will 
become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Because 
payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late 
September, persons affected by this Report and Order will still have a 
reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply 
with the rules established herein.

I. Changes to Several Rules To Conform to the Act as Amended

    59. We amend Sec. Sec.  1.1151, 1.1163, 1.1164, and 1.1166 of our 
rules to conform these to sections 9 and 9A of the Act, as amended by 
RAY BAUM'S Act. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice 
and public comment procedures do not apply when ``impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' \145\ Notice is 
``unnecessary'' when rule amendments involve little or no exercise of 
agency discretion.\146\ The rule changes set forth herein are 
ministerial in nature and made to conform our regulations to the RAY 
BAUM'S Act, and we accordingly find good cause to adopt these changes 
without prior notice and comment. Similarly, under these circumstances, 
we find that these actions fall under the good cause exemption to the 
effective date requirements\147\ and these amendments to our rules will 
become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
    \146\ See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 73, and 74 of the 
Commission's Rules, Order, 76 FR 70904 (Nov. 16, 2011), 26 FCC Rcd 
13538, 13544, 13539-41, 13543, 13545, paras. 4-5, 10, 15 (OMD 2011) 
(deleting or amending obsolete rule provisions, including those 
superseded by an Act of Congress).
    \147\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Section 1.1151 of the Commission's rules describes the basis 
for the Commission's authority to prescribe and collect regulatory 
fees. We are updating this regulation to include a citation to the RAY 
BAUM'S Act and to conform to the changes made by the RAY BAUM'S Act.
    61. Section 1.1163 of the Commission's rules describes the 
requirement to adjust regulatory fees. This section contains outdated 
references and language that is not in the current version of section 
9. We are therefore deleting language, renumbering the paragraphs, and 
adding language.
    62. Section 9A(c)(4) of the RAY BAUM'S Act codifies the 
Commission's authority to revoke any instrument of authorization held 
by a regulatee for failure to timely pay its regulatory fees, or any 
associated interest or penalties. Section 1.1164(c) and (f) of the 
Commission's rules, governing revocation for failure to pay regulatory 
fees, will be amended to reflect the changes made to the Commission's 
authority under the RAY BAUM'S Act.
    63. Section 1.1166 of the Commission's rules describes how 
regulatees may seek waivers, reductions, and deferrals of regulatory 
fees. Section 9A of the Act now permits regulatees to seek waiver, 
reduction, or deferral of interest charges and penalties assessed 
against unpaid regulatory fees. We therefore add conforming language.

V. Procedural Matters

    64. Payment of Regulatory Fees.--All regulatory fee payments must 
be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit 
card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, 
cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by 
wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the 
Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory 
fee information.
    65. In accordance with U.S. Treasury Financial Manual, the maximum 
amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with 
federal

[[Page 50901]]

agencies is $24,999.99.\148\ Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will 
be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments 
of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one 
day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to 
the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than 
$24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as 
Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and 
wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing 
regulatory fee information in Fee Filer. Further details will be 
provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 
2019 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, available at https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ U.S. Treasury Financial Manual, Volume 1, Part 5, Chapter 
7000, Section 7045.10--Transaction Maximums. Customers who owe an 
amount on a bill, debt, or other obligation due to the federal 
government are prohibited from splitting the total amount due into 
multiple payments. Splitting an amount owed into several payment 
transactions violates the credit card network and Fiscal Service 
rules. An amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar 
amount, $24,999.99, may not be split into two or more payment 
transactions in the same day by using one or multiple cards. Also, 
an amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar amount 
may not be split into two or more transactions over multiple days by 
using one or more cards. U.S. Treasury Financial Manual, Volume 1, 
Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7045.20--Prohibitions on Splitting 
Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. Payment Methods.--During the fee season for collecting FY 2019 
regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through 
Pay.gov, ACH, debit card,\149\ or by wire transfer. Additional filing 
and payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at 
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/regulatory-fees. The 
receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, 
New York. When making a wire transfer, regulatees must fax a copy of 
their Fee Filer generated Form 159-E to the Federal Communications 
Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the 
wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay 
crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements 
(including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days 
before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for 
the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. 
Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Only Visa and MasterCard branded debit cards are accepted 
by Pay.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. De Minimis Regulatory Fees.--Under the Commission's de minimis 
rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying 
regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee 
liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis 
threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not 
regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a 
permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total 
annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet 
the de minimis exemption.
    68. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates.--The Commission 
will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment 
of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service 
category is as follows:
     Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial 
construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2018 for 
AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and 
satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all 
broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2018. In 
instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after 
October 1, 2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of 
the permit or license as of the fee due date.
     Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must 
be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 
2018. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned 
after October 1, 2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder 
of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service 
providers are included in this category.\150\ For Responsible 
Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), 
regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved 
toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as 
defined in Sec.  52.103 of the Commission's rules.\151\ The unit count 
should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about 
December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Audio bridging services are toll teleconferencing 
services.
    \151\ 47 CFR 52.103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging 
services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number 
count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were 
granted on or before October 1, 2018. The number of subscribers, units, 
or telephone numbers on December 31, 2018 will be used as the basis 
from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or 
license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2018, 
responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or 
license as of the fee due date.
     Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight 
regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay 
``small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.'' Entities pay these 
regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the 
five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses and pay 
regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed, or a new 
license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking 
to publicize our estimates of the number of ``small multi-year 
wireless'' licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2019.
     Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable 
television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees 
must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of 
December 31, 2018.\152\ Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS 
licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2018. In instances 
where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 
2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or 
license as of the fee due date. For providers of Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS) service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be 
paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2018. In 
instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after 
October 1, 2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of 
the permit or license as of the fee due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Cable television system operators should compute their 
number of basic subscribers as follows: Number of single-family 
dwellings + number of individual households in multiple dwelling 
unit (apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc.) paying at 
the basic subscriber rate + bulk rate customers + courtesy and free 
service. Note: Bulk-Rate Customers = Total annual bulk-rate charge 
divided by basic annual subscription rate for individual households. 
Operators may base their count on ``a typical day in the last full 
week'' of December 2018, rather than on a count as of December 31, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     International Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for 
(1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-
geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and 
operational on or before October 1, 2018. In instances where a permit 
or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2018, 
responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or 
license as of the fee due date.
     International Services (Submarine Cable Systems): 
Regulatory fees for

[[Page 50902]]

submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license 
basis for all systems that are licensed and operational as of October 
1, 2018. The fee is based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2018. 
In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 
1, 2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the 
license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the 
allocation in FY 2019 will remain at 87.6% for submarine cable and 
12.4% for satellite/terrestrial facilities.
     International Services (Terrestrial and Satellite 
Services): Regulatory fees for Terrestrial and Satellite IBCs are to be 
paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as 
of December 31, 2018 in any terrestrial or satellite transmission 
facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. 
When calculating the number of such active circuits, entities must 
include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. For these 
purposes, ``active circuits'' include backup and redundant circuits as 
of December 31, 2018 and include both common carrier and non-common 
carrier circuits for both terrestrial and satellite services. Whether 
circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for 
purposes of determining that they are active circuits.\153\ In 
instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after 
October 1, 2018, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of 
the permit or license as of the fee due date based on circuit counts as 
of December 31, 2018. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 
2019 will remain at 87.6% for submarine cable and 12.4% for satellite/
terrestrial facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ We encourage terrestrial and satellite service providers 
to seek guidance from the International Bureau's Telecommunications 
and Analysis Division to verify their particular IBC reporting 
processes to ensure that their calculation methods comply with our 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and Mobile Services 
Assessments.--The Commission will compile data from the Numbering 
Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on 
``assigned'' telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been 
adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (``in'' and ``out'').\154\ 
This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted 
on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer) 
along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for 
Fiscal Year 2005, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 70 
FR 41967 (July 21, 2005), 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264, paras. 38-44 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) 
count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise 
their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number 
counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting 
documentation.\155\ The Commission will then review the revised count 
and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the 
submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the 
Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an 
opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide 
additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the 
provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the 
provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on 
the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the 
timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are 
final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. 
Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee Filer. A 
final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ In the supporting documentation, the provider will need to 
state a reason for the change, such as a purchase or sale of a 
subsidiary, the date of the transaction, and any other pertinent 
information that will help to justify a reason for the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not 
see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the 
carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard 
methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services 
(i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2018), 
and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its 
telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves 
the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory 
fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the 
number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission 
will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what 
should have been paid.
    72. Enforcement.--Regulatory fee payments must be paid by their due 
date. Section 9A(c)(1) of the Act requires the Commission to impose a 
late payment penalty of 25% of unpaid regulatory fee debt, to be 
assessed on the first day following the deadline for payment of the 
fees. Section 9A(c)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to assess 
interest at the rate set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3717 on all unpaid 
regulatory fees, including the 25% penalty, until the debt is paid in 
full.\156\ The RAY BAUM'S Act, however, prohibits the Commission from 
assessing the administrative costs of collecting delinquent regulatory 
fee debt.\157\ Thus, while section 9A(c) of the Act leaves intact those 
parts of section 1.1940 of the Commission's rules pertaining to penalty 
and interest charges, the Commission will no longer assess 
administrative costs on delinquent regulatory fee debts.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 47 U.S.C. 159A(c)(1).
    \157\ Section 9A(c)(2) provides that ``section 3717 shall not 
otherwise apply to such a fee or penalty.''
    \158\ See FY 2018 Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8502-8503, 
paras. 16-17 (adopting this amendment to section 1.1940 of our rules 
to conform to the RAY BAUM'S Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. The Commission will pursue collection of all past due 
regulatory fees, including penalties and accrued interest, using 
collection remedies available to it under the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996, its implementing regulations and federal 
common law. These remedies include offsetting regulatory fee debt 
against monies owed to the debtor by the Commission, and referral of 
the debt to the United States Treasury for further collection efforts, 
including centralized offset against monies other federal agencies may 
owe the debtor.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 31 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 31 CFR parts 901 through 904; 47 
CFR 1.1901 through 1.1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. Failure to timely pay regulatory fees, penalties or accrued 
interest will also subject regulatees to the Commission's ``red light'' 
rule, which generally requires the Commission to withhold action on and 
subsequently dismiss applications and other requests for benefits by 
any entity owing debt, including regulatory fee debt, to the 
Commission.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See 47 CFR 1.1910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. In addition to financial penalties, section 9(c)(3) of the Act, 
and Sec.  1.1164(f) of the Commission's rules grant the Commission the 
authority to revoke authorizations for failure to pay regulatory fees 
in a timely fashion.\161\ Should a fee delinquency not be rectified in 
a timely manner the Commission may require the licensee to file with 
documented evidence within sixty (60) calendar days that full payment 
of all outstanding regulatory fees has been made, plus any associated 
penalties as calculated by the Secretary of Treasury in accordance with 
Sec.  1.1164(a) of the Commission's rules,\162\ or show cause why the 
payment is inapplicable or should be waived or

[[Page 50903]]

deferred. Failure to provide such evidence of payment or to show cause 
within the time specified may result in revocation of the station 
license.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 47 U.S.C. 159(c)(3); 47 CFR 1.1164(f).
    \162\ 47 CFR 1.1164(a).
    \163\ See, e.g., Cortaro Broadcasting Corp., Order to Pay or 
Show Cause, 32 FCC Rcd 9336 (MB 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. List of Tables

                       TABLE 1--List of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Commenter                         Abbreviated name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 State Broadcasters              State Broadcasters.
 Associations.
AT&T Services, Inc. and Dish       DBS Providers.
 Network, L.L.C.
CenturyLink, Inc.................  CenturyLink.
EchoStar Satellite Operating       Satellite Operators.
 Corporation, Hughes Network
 Systems, LLC, Intelsat License
 LLC, Inmarsat Inc., SES
 Americom, Inc., Space
 Exploration Technologies Corp.,
 and World Satellites, LTD.
INCOMPAS.........................  INCOMPAS.
Brian Lynott.....................  Lynott.
Mentor Partners, Inc.............  Mentor.
Multicultural Media, Telecom, and  MMTC.
 Internet Council and the
 National Association of Black
 Owned Broadcasters.
National Association of            NAB.
 Broadcasters.
NCTA--The Internet & Television    NCTA.
 Association and ACA Connects--
 America's Communications
 Association.
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. and     Nexstar.
 Gray Television, Inc.
North American Submarine Cable     NASCA.
 Association and the SEA-US
 Licensees.
PMCM TV, LLC.....................  PMCM.
Ramar Communications, Inc........  Ramar.
T.Z. Sawyer Technical Consultants  TZS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        List of Reply Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc.................  CenturyLink.
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc........  Hubbard.
Intelsat License LLC.............  Intelsat.
Intelsat License LLC and SES       Intelsat/SES.
 Americom, Inc.
National Association of            NAB.
 Broadcasters.
NCTA--The Internet & Television    NCTA.
 Association and ACA Connects--
 America's Communications
 Association.
North American Submarine Cable     NASCA.
 Association and Southeast Asia--
 US Licensees (GTI Corporation d/
 b/a GTI Telecom, Hawaiian
 Telecom Services Company, Inc.,
 RAM Telecom International, Inc.,
 TeleGuam Holdings, LLC d/b/a
 GTA, PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia
 International, and
 Telekomunikasi Indonesia
 International (USA)).
Satellite Industry Association...  SIA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 50904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.000


[[Page 50905]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.001


[[Page 50906]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.002


[[Page 50907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.003

Notes on Table 2

    \1\ The fee amounts listed in the column entitled ``Rounded New 
FY 2019 Regulatory Fee'' constitute a weighted average broadcast 
regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2019 regulatory 
fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located at the end 
of Table 3.
    \2\ The AM and FM Construction Permit revenues and the Digital 
(VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues were adjusted, respectively, 
to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest 
licensed fee for that class of service. Reductions in the Digital 
(VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues, and in the AM and FM 
Construction Permit revenues, were offset by increases in the 
revenue totals for Digital television stations by market size, and 
in the AM and FM radio stations by class size and population served, 
respectively.
    \3\ The 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, 69 FR 72020 (Dec. 10, 2004) and 69 FR 72048 
(Dec. 10, 2004), 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, para. 6 (2004).
    \4\ The chart at the end of Table 3 lists the submarine cable 
bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) 
that resulted from the adoption of the Assessment and Collection of 
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 50201 (Aug. 26, 2008) and 73 FR 
50285 (Aug. 26, 2008), 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008) and Assessment and 
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report 
and Order, 74 FR 22104 (May 12, 2009), 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009).
    \5\ The actual regulatory fees to be paid are identified in 
Table 7. The fee amounts listed in Rule Changes section are for the 
purpose of calculating the fees listed in Table 7.

[[Page 50908]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.004


[[Page 50909]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.005


[[Page 50910]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.006


[[Page 50911]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.007

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

TABLE 4--Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2019

    In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2019, we 
adjusted FY 2018 payment units for each service to more accurately 
reflect expected FY 2019 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 Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast.
    We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources 
and, in all cases, we compared FY 2019 estimates with actual FY 2018 
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 2019 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 2019 payment units are based on FY 2018 
actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2019 
projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2018. We have either 
rounded the FY 2019 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these 
variables.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fee category                                  Sources of payment unit estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Mobile (All), Microwave, Marine     Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) projections of new
 (Ship & Coast), Aviation (Aircraft &     applications and renewals taking into consideration existing
 Ground), Domestic Public Fixed.          Commission licensee data bases. Aviation (Aircraft) and Marine (Ship)
                                          estimates have been adjusted to take into consideration the licensing
                                          of portions of these services on a voluntary basis.
CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services..........  Based on WTB projection reports, and FY 2018 payment data.
CMRS Messaging Services................  Based on WTB reports, and FY 2018 payment data.
AM/FM Radio Stations...................  Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2018 payment
                                          units.
Digital TV Stations (Combined VHF/UHF    Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2018 payment
 units).                                  units.
AM/FM/TV Construction Permits..........  Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2018 payment
                                          units.
LPTV, Translators and Boosters, Class A  Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2018 payment
 Television.                              units.
BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS)LMDS............  Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2018 payment units. Based on WTB
                                          reports and actual FY 2018 payment units.
Cable Television Relay Service (CARS)    Based on data from Media Bureau's COALS database and actual FY 2018
 Stations.                                payment units.
Cable Television System Subscribers,     Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber
 Including IPTV Subscribers.              counts and actual FY 2018 payment units.
Interstate Telecommunication Service     Based on FCC Form 499-Q data for the four quarters of calendar year
 Providers.                               2018, the Wireline Competition Bureau projected the amount of calendar
                                          year 2018 revenue that will be reported on 2019 FCC Form 499-A
                                          worksheets due in April 2019.
Earth Stations.........................  Based on International Bureau licensing data and actual FY 2018 payment
                                          units.
Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs)..........  Based on International Bureau data reports and actual FY 2018 payment
                                          units.
International Bearer Circuits..........  Based on International Bureau reports and submissions by licensees,
                                          adjusted as necessary.
Submarine Cable Licenses...............  Based on International Bureau license information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50912]]


 Table 5--Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine 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 Sec.  Sec.
 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. 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. 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 CFR 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. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 50913]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.008


[[Page 50914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.009


[[Page 50915]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.010


[[Page 50916]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.011


[[Page 50917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.012


[[Page 50918]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.013


[[Page 50919]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.014


[[Page 50920]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.015


[[Page 50921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.016


[[Page 50922]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.017


[[Page 50923]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.018


[[Page 50924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.019


[[Page 50925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.020


[[Page 50926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.021


[[Page 50927]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.022


[[Page 50928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.023


[[Page 50929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.024


[[Page 50930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.025


[[Page 50931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.026


[[Page 50932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.027


[[Page 50933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.028


[[Page 50934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.029


[[Page 50935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.030


[[Page 50936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.031


[[Page 50937]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.032


[[Page 50938]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.033


[[Page 50939]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.034


[[Page 50940]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.035


[[Page 50941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.036


[[Page 50942]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.037


[[Page 50943]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.038


[[Page 50944]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.039


[[Page 50945]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.040


[[Page 50946]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.041


[[Page 50947]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.042


[[Page 50948]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.043


[[Page 50949]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.044


[[Page 50950]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.045


[[Page 50951]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.046


[[Page 50952]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.047


[[Page 50953]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.048


[[Page 50954]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.049


[[Page 50955]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.050


[[Page 50956]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.051


[[Page 50957]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.052


[[Page 50958]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.053


[[Page 50959]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.054


[[Page 50960]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.055


[[Page 50961]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.056


[[Page 50962]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.057


[[Page 50963]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.058


[[Page 50964]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.059


[[Page 50965]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.060


[[Page 50966]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.061


[[Page 50967]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.062


[[Page 50968]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.063


[[Page 50969]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.064


[[Page 50970]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.065


[[Page 50971]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.066


[[Page 50972]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.067


[[Page 50973]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.068


[[Page 50974]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.069


[[Page 50975]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.070


[[Page 50976]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.071


[[Page 50977]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.072


[[Page 50978]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.073


[[Page 50979]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.074


[[Page 50980]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.075


[[Page 50981]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.076


[[Page 50982]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.077


[[Page 50983]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.078


[[Page 50984]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.079


[[Page 50985]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.080


[[Page 50986]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.081


[[Page 50987]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.082


[[Page 50988]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.083


[[Page 50989]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.084


[[Page 50990]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.085


[[Page 50991]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.086


[[Page 50992]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.087


[[Page 50993]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE19.088

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

VII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\164\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
was included in the FY 2019 NPRM.\165\ The Commission sought written 
public comment on these proposals including comment on the IRFA. This 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the IRFA.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ 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), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).
    \165\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2019, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 3272 (2019).
    \166\ 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    77. In this Report and Order we adopt our proposal in the FY 2019 
NPRM on collecting $339,000,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2019, 
pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(Communications Act or Act).\167\ These regulatory fees will be due in 
September 2019. Under section 9 of the Communications Act, 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 in an amount 
that can be reasonably expected to equal the amount of the Commission's 
annual appropriation.\168\ This Report and Order adopts the regulatory 
fees proposed in the FY 2019 NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ 47 U.S.C. 159.
    \168\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA

    78. None.

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

    79. 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.\169\ The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \170\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\171\ 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.\172\ Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \170\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \171\ 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.''
    \172\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \173\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``Frequently Asked 
Questions,'' https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities

[[Page 50994]]

that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and 
video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. 
By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they 
operate are included in this industry.'' \174\ 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.\175\ Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms 
that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees.\176\ Thus, under this size standard, most firms in 
this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \175\ See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \176\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in 
paragraph 6 of this FRFA. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\177\ According 
to Commission data, census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 
firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees.\178\ The Commission therefore estimates that most 
providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities that may 
be affected by the rules adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \178\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this 
FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\179\ According to Commission data, 3,117 
firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees.\180\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses 
that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. Three hundred 
and seven (307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they 
were incumbent local exchange service providers.\181\ Of this total, an 
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \180\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \181\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (September 2010) (Trends in 
Telephone Service).
    \182\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees.\183\ U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 
firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees.\184\ Based on this data, the Commission 
concludes that most Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. 
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services 
or competitive access provider services.\185\ Of these 1,442 carriers, 
an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\186\ 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.\187\ Also, 
72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service 
Providers.\188\ Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\189\ 
Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \184\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \185\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \186\ Id.
    \187\ Id.
    \188\ Id.
    \189\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest 
NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in 
paragraph 6 of this FRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\190\ U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees.\191\ According to internally developed Commission 
data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of interexchange services.\192\ Of 
this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\193\ 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most interexchange service 
providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \191\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \192\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \193\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category 
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications 
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing 
access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.\194\ 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees.\195\ U.S. Census data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 
1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000

[[Page 50995]]

employees.\196\ 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.\197\ All 193 carriers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\198\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may 
be affected by the rules adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \195\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \196\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \197\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \198\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    86. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for 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.\199\ 
Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services 
during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees.\200\ 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.\201\ Of this total, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\202\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by 
the rules adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \200\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \201\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers, and the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers.\203\ Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\204\ Census data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 
1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\205\ 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.\206\ Of this total, an estimated 
857 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\207\ Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \204\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \205\ Id.
    \206\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \207\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS code category is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this 
FRFA. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\208\ Census data for 2012 shows 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\209\ Thus, under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, most Other 
Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to internally 
developed Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll 
carriage.\210\ Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\211\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other 
Toll Carriers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \209\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
    \210\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    89. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.\212\ 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, Census 
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to 
internally developed 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) services.\213\ Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 
or fewer employees.\214\ Thus, using available data, we estimate that 
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ NAICS code 517210. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/
naics/naiscsrch.
    \213\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound. These establishments operate television 
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public.'' \215\ These establishments 
also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA 
has created the following small business size standard for Television 
Broadcasting firms: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.\216\ The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 television 
broadcasting firms operated during that year. Of that number, 656 had 
annual receipts of less than $25 million per year. Based on that Census 
data we conclude that most firms that operate television stations are 
small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,387.\217\ In addition, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media 
Access Pro Television Database, on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an 
estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73%) 
had revenues of $14 million or

[[Page 50996]]

less.\218\ We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial 
television broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS code Economic Census 
Definitions, http://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \216\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120.
    \217\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of 
March 31, 2017,'' April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.
    \218\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the 
FCC total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small 
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations \219\ must 
be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of 
small entities that might be affected by our action, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate 
revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in 
its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or 
quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, 
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not 
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business 
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a 
third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.'' 
13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    92. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 396.\220\ 
These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small 
entities.\221\ There are also 2,528 low power television stations, 
including Class A stations (LPTV).\222\ Given the nature of these 
services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small 
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of 
March 31, 2017,'' April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.
    \221\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
    \222\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of 
March 31, 2017,'' April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' \223\ The SBA 
has established a small business size standard for this category, which 
is: Such firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.\224\ 
Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated 
during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million per year.\225\ According to Commission staff 
review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database, 
on March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97%) of 11,102 commercial radio 
stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, most such 
entities are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ https://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \224\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112.
    \225\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small 
under the above size standard, business affiliations must be 
included.\226\ In addition, to be determined to be a ``small 
business,'' the entity may not be dominant in its field of 
operation.\227\ We note that it is difficult at times to assess these 
criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small 
businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ ``Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when 
one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party 
or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not 
matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control 
exists.'' 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
    \227\ 13 CFR 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    95. Cable Television and Other Subscription Programming. This 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating 
studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a 
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically 
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, 
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming 
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. 
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers.\228\ The SBA has established a size standard for this industry 
of $38.5 million or less. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 
367 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 319 operated with 
annual receipts of less than $25 million.\229\ Thus under this size 
standard, most firms offering cable and other program distribution 
services can be considered small and may be affected by rules adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ https://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \229\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US-51SSSZ5&prodType=Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. 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.\230\ The 
Commission's industry data indicate that there are currently 4,160 
active cable systems in the United States.\231\ Of this total, all but 
ten cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber 
size standard.\232\ In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers.\233\ Current Commission records show 4,160 cable systems 
nationwide.\234\ Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that 
most cable systems are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ 47 CFR 76.901(e).
    \231\ As of July 5, 2018, there were 4,160 active cable systems 
in the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing Systems (COALS) 
database.
    \232\ See https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit#industry/topCableMSOs (last visited July 18, 2017).
    \233\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
    \234\ See footnote 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all subscribers in 
the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities 
whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' 
\235\ There are approximately 53 million cable video subscribers in the 
United States today.\236\ Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 
524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual 
revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its 
affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.\237\ Based on 
available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators are 
small entities under this size standard.\238\ We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million.\239\ Although it seems certain that some 
of these cable

[[Page 50997]]

system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate 
with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.
    \236\ See NCTA Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base, available 
at https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (last visited July 6, 2017).
    \237\ 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.
    \238\ See https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit#industry/topCableMSOs (last visited July 18, 2018).
    \239\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's 
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 
pursuant to section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 
76.901(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at 
the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census 
category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the 
wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.\240\ The SBA determines that a wireline business is 
small if it has fewer than 1,500 employees.\241\ Census data for 2012 
indicate that 3,117 wireline companies were operational during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees.\242\ Based on that data, we conclude that most wireline 
firms are small under the applicable standard. However, currently only 
two entities provide DBS service, AT&T and DISH Network. AT&T and DISH 
Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold 
for a small business. Accordingly, we conclude that DBS service is 
provided only by large firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \241\ NAICS code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201.
    \242\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of 
establishments that are 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.\243\ The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.\244\ For this category, 
census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual 
receipts of less than $25 million.\245\ Thus, most ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by the rules adopted 
can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \244\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517919.
    \245\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. RespOrgs. RespOrgs, i.e., Responsible Organizations, are 
entities chosen by toll-free subscribers to manage and administer the 
appropriate records in the toll-free Service Management System for the 
toll-free subscriber.\246\ Although RespOrgs are often wireline 
carriers, they can also include non-carrier entities. Therefore, in the 
definition herein of RespOrgs, two categories are presented, i.e., 
Carrier RespOrgs and Non-Carrier RespOrgs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See 47 CFR 52.101(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor 
the SBA have developed a definition for Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, 
the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional 
categories for Carrier RespOrgs are Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
\247\ and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110
    \248\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.\249\ 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.\250\ Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 Wired 
Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for that entire year. Of 
that number, 3,083 operated with less than 1,000 employees.\251\ Based 
on that data, we conclude that most Carrier RespOrgs that operated with 
wireline-based technology are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \250\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \251\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except satellite) as establishments engaged in operating and 
maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.\252\ 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\253\ Census data for 2012 
show that 967 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers operated in that 
year. Of that number, 955 operated with less than 1,000 employees.\254\ 
Based on that data, we conclude that most Carrier RespOrgs that 
operated with wireless-based technology are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \253\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517120.
    \254\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the Census, nor 
the SBA have developed a definition of Non-Carrier RespOrgs. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based 
definitional categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are

[[Page 50998]]

``Other Services Related To Advertising'' \255\ and ``Other Management 
Consulting Services.'' \256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.
    \256\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. The U.S. Census defines Other Services Related to Advertising 
as comprising establishments primarily engaged in providing advertising 
services (except advertising agency services, public relations agency 
services, media buying agency services, media representative services, 
display advertising services, direct mail advertising services, 
advertising material distribution services, and marketing consulting 
services.\257\ The SBA has established a size standard for this 
industry as annual receipts of $15 million dollars or less.\258\ Census 
data for 2012 show that 5,804 firms operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of that number, 5,249 operated with annual receipts of 
less than $10 million.\259\ Based on that data we conclude that most 
Non-Carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related advertising services are 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \258\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.
    \259\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. The U.S. Census defines Other Management Consulting Services 
as establishments primarily engaged in providing management consulting 
services (except administrative and general management consulting; 
human resources consulting; marketing consulting; or process, physical 
distribution, and logistics consulting). Establishments providing 
telecommunications or utilities management consulting services are 
included in this industry.\260\ The SBA has established a size standard 
for this industry of $15 million dollars or less.\261\ Census data for 
2012 show that 3,683 firms operated in this industry for that entire 
year. Of that number, 3,632 operated with less than $10 million in 
annual receipts.\262\ Based on this data, we conclude that most non-
carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related management consulting services 
are small.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \261\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 514618.
    \262\ http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
    \263\ The four NAICS code-based categories selected above to 
provide definitions for Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs were 
selected because as a group they refer generically and 
comprehensively to all RespOrgs. Therefore, all RespOrgs, including 
those not identified specifically or individually, must comply with 
the rules adopted in the Regulatory Fees Report and Order associated 
with this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    107. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. 
Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services 
and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the 
trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data 
showing that as of July 1, 2016, there were 23 RespOrgs operational in 
Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total 
of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ Email from Jennifer Blanchard, Somos, July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    108. This Report and Order does not adopt any new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    109. 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.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. This Report and Order adopts the proposals in the FY 2019 NPRM 
to collect $339,000,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2019, as detailed in 
the fee schedules in Table 3, including (1) an increase in the DBS fee 
rate to 60 cents per subscriber so that the DBS fee would approach the 
cable television/IPTV fee, based on the Media Bureau FTEs devoted to 
issues that include DBS; and (2) a new methodology for calculating the 
full power broadcast television regulatory fees that is based on an 
average of the actual population and the Designated Market Groupings, 
which the Commission adopted in FY 2018. For satellite TV, the fee is 
the average computed using the flat satellite fee and the actual 
population. The Commission adopted the new methodology for FY 2019 as a 
means of transitioning the affected regulatees, which may include small 
entities, from the previous methodology (based on Designated Market 
Groupings) to a population based methodology, to be utilized starting 
in FY 2020.
    111. 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. For example, 
the de minimis threshold is $1,000, which will impact many small 
entities that pay regulatory fees. This de minimis threshold will 
relieve regulatees both financially and administratively. Regulatees 
may also seek waivers or other relief on the basis of financial 
hardship. See 47 CFR 1.1166.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict

    112. None.

VIII. Ordering Clauses

    113. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Section 9(a), 
(b), (e), (f), and (g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 159(a), (b), (e), (f), and (g), this Report and Order is 
hereby adopted.
    114. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
    115. It is further ordered that the FY 2019 section 9 regulatory 
fees assessment requirements and the rules set forth in the Final Rules 
section of the document are adopted as specified herein.
    116. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis in this Report and Order, to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

[[Page 50999]]

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Revise Sec.  1.1151 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1151  Authority to prescribe and collect regulatory fees.

    Authority to impose and collect regulatory fees is contained in 
section 9 of the Communications Act, as amended by sections 101-103 of 
title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-
141, 132 Stat. 1084), 47 U.S.C. 159, which directs the Commission to 
prescribe and collect annual regulatory fees to recover the cost of 
carrying out the functions of the Commission.

0
3. Revise Sec.  1.1152 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1152  Schedule of annual regulatory fees for wireless radio 
services.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fee amount \1\
          Exclusive use services  (per license)                 ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Land Mobile (Above 470 MHz and 220 MHz Local, Base
 Station & SMRS) (47 CFR part 90):
    (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159)..................           25.00
    (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &              25.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           25.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)           25.00
220 MHz Nationwide:
    (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159)..................           25.00
    (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &              25.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           25.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)           25.00
2. Microwave (Private) (47 CFR part 101):
    (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159)..................           25.00
    (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &              25.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           25.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)           25.00
3. Shared Use Services:
Land Mobile (Frequencies Below 470 MHz--except 220 MHz):
    (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159)..................           10.00
    (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &              10.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           10.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)           10.00
Rural Radio (Part 22):
    (a) New, Additional Facility, Major Renew/Mod                  10.00
     (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)................
    (b) Renewal, Minor Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing)               10.00
     (FCC 601 & 159) Marine Coast.......................
Marine Coast:
    (a) New Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159).................           40.00
    (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &            40.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           40.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159)           40.00
Aviation Ground:
    (a) New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159)................           20.00
    (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 &            20.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159)....................           20.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Only) (FCC 601 & 159)..           20.00
Marine Ship:
    (a) New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 605 & 159)................           15.00
    (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 &            15.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159)....................           15.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159)           15.00
Aviation Aircraft:
    (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 605 & 159)..................           10.00
    (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 &              10.00
     159)...............................................
    (c) Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159)....................           10.00
    (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159)           10.00
4. CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services (per unit) (FCC 159)...        \2\ 0.19
5. CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (FCC 159).........        \3\ 0.08
6. Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS and MDS)......             690
7. Local Multipoint Distribution Service................             690
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Note that ``small fees'' are collected in advance for the entire
  license term. Therefore, the annual fee amount shown in this table
  that is a small fee (categories 1 through 5) must be multiplied by the
  5- or 10-year license term to arrive at the total amount of regulatory
  fees owed. Also, application fees may apply as detailed in Sec.
  1.1102.
\2\ These are standard fees that are to be paid in accordance with Sec.
   1.1157(b).
\3\ These are standard fees that are to be paid in accordance with Sec.
   1.1157(b).


0
4. Revise Sec.  1.1153 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1153  Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations 
for mass media services.

[[Page 51000]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fee amount  ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Radio (AM and FM) (47 CFR part 73)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AM Class A:
    <=25,000 population...............................               950
    25,001-75,000 population..........................             1,425
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             2,150
    150,001-500,000 population........................             3,200
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             4,800
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             7,225
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................            10,825
    >6,000,000 population.............................            16,225
2. AM Class B:
    <=25,000 population...............................               685
    25,001-75,000 population..........................             1,000
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             1,550
    150,001-500,000 population........................             2,325
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             3,475
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             5,200
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................             7,800
    >6,000,000 population.............................            11,700
3. AM Class C:
    <=25,000 population...............................               595
    25,001-75,000 population..........................               895
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             1,350
    150,001-500,000 population........................             2,000
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             3,000
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             4,525
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................             6,775
    >6,000,000 population.............................            10,175
4. AM Class D:
    <=25,000 population...............................               655
    25,001-75,000 population..........................               985
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             1,475
    150,001-500,000 population........................             2,225
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             3,325
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             4,975
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................             7,450
    >6,000,000 population.............................            11,200
5. AM Construction Permit.............................               595
6. FM Classes A, B1 and C3:
    <=25,000 population...............................             1,000
    25,001-75,000 population..........................             1,575
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             2,375
    150,001-500,000 population........................             3,550
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             5,325
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             7,975
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................            11,950
    >6,000,000 population.............................            17,950
7. FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 and C2:
    <=25,000 population...............................             1,200
    25,001-75,000 population..........................             1,800
    75,001-150,000 population.........................             2,700
    150,001-500,000 population........................             4,050
    500,001-1,200,000 population......................             6,075
    1,200,001-3,000,000 population....................             9,125
    3,000,001-6,000,000 population....................            13,675
    >6,000,000 population.............................            20,500
8. FM Construction Permits............................             1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TV (47 CFR part 73)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital TV (UHF and VHF Commercial Stations) The fees
 below are for calculation purposes only; they are not
 to be used for fee payment:
    1. Markets 1 thru 10..............................            54,000
    2. Markets 11 thru 25.............................            40,675
    3. Markets 26 thru 50.............................            27,150
    4. Markets 51 thru 100............................            13,550
    5. Remaining Markets..............................             4,450
    6. Construction Permits...........................             4,450
    Television Fee Factor.............................           .007224
Satellite UHF/VHF Commercial (The satellite fee below
 is for calculation purposes only; it is not to be
 used for the payment of fees.):
    1. All Markets....................................             1,625

[[Page 51001]]

 
    Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FMTranslator, & TV/FM               345
     Booster (47 CFR part 74).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
5. Revise Sec.  1.1154 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1154  Schedule of annual regulatory charges for common carrier 
services.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Radio facilities                                         Fee amount  ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Microwave (Domestic Public Fixed) (Electronic Filing)     25.00.
 (FCC Form 601 & 159).
Carriers:
    1. Interstate Telephone Service Providers (per           .00317.
     interstate and international end-user revenues) (see
     FCC Form 499-A).
    2. Toll Free Number Fee................................  0.12 per Toll Free Number.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Revise Sec.  1.1155 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1155   Schedule of regulatory fees for cable television 
services.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cable Television Relay Service..........................  1,225.
2. Cable TV System, Including IPTV (per subscriber)........  0.86.
3. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)........................  0.60 per subscriber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
7. Revise Sec.  1.1156 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1156   Schedule of regulatory fees for international services.

    (a) Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) 
Space Stations. The following schedule applies for the listed services:

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Fee category                        Fee amount  ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)..................           159,625
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)..............           154,875
Earth Stations (Transmit/Receive & Transmit only) (per               425
 authorization or registration).......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) International terrestrial and satellite. (1) Regulatory fees 
for International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based 
common carriers and non-common carrier basis that have active (used or 
leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31 of the prior 
year in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the 
provision of service to an end user or resale carrier, which includes 
active circuits to themselves or to their affiliates. In addition, non-
common carrier terrestrial and satellite operators must pay a fee for 
each circuit sold or leased to any customer, including themselves or 
their affiliates, other than an international common carrier authorized 
by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier 
services. ``Active circuits'' for the purposes of this paragraph (b) 
include backup and redundant circuits. In addition, whether circuits 
are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant in determining 
that they are active circuits.
    (2) The fee amount on a per active Gbps basis will be determined 
for each fiscal year.

                                           Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  International terrestrial and satellite  (capacity as of
                     December 31, 2018)                                           Fee amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial Common Carrier and Non-Common Carrier..........  121 per Gbps Circuit.
Satellite Common Carrier and Non-Common Carrier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Submarine cable. Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems 
will be paid annually, per cable landing license, for all submarine 
cable systems operating as of December 31 of the prior year. The fee 
amount will be determined by the Commission for each fiscal year.

[[Page 51002]]



                        Table 3 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Submarine cable systems  (capacity as of Dec. 31,
                         2018)                             Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50 Gbps..............................................            12,575
50 Gbps or greater, but less than 250 Gbps............            25,150
250 Gbps or greater, but less than 1,000 Gbps.........            50,300
1,000 Gbps or greater, but less than 4,000 Gbps.......           100,600
4,000 Gbps or greater.................................           201,225
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
8. Revise Sec.  1.1163 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1163  Adjustments to regulatory fees.

    (a) For Fiscal Year 2019 and thereafter, the Schedule of Regulatory 
Fees, contained in Sec. Sec.  1.1152 through 1.1156, may be adjusted 
annually by the Commission pursuant to section 9 of the Communications 
Act. 47 U.S.C. 159, as amended. Adjustments to the fees established for 
any category of regulatory fee payment shall include projected cost 
increases or decreases and an estimate of the volume of units upon 
which the regulatory fee is calculated.
    (b) The fees assessed shall:
    (1) Be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of 
employees, bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into 
account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to 
the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities; and
    (2) Be established at amounts that will result in collection, 
during each fiscal year, of an amount that can reasonably be expected 
to equal the amount appropriated for such fiscal year for the 
performance of the activities described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section.
    (c) The Commission shall by rule amend the Schedule of Regulatory 
Fees by increases or decreases that reflect, in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, changes in the amount appropriated 
for the performance of the activities described in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, for such fiscal year. Such increases or decreases shall 
be adjusted to reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the number 
of units subject to payment of such fees and result in collection of an 
aggregate amount of fees that will approximately equal the amount 
appropriated for the subject regulatory activities.
    (d) The Commission shall, by rule, amend the Schedule of Regulatory 
Fees if the Commission determines that the Schedule requires amendment 
to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (e) In adjusting regulatory fees, the Commission will round such 
fees to the nearest $5.00 in the case of fees under $1,000.00, or to 
the nearest $25.00 in the case of fees of $1,000.00 or more.

0
9. Revise Sec.  1.1164 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1164   Penalties for late or insufficient regulatory fee 
payments.

    Electronic payments are considered timely when a wire transfer was 
received by the Commission's bank no later than 6:00 p.m. on the due 
date; confirmation to pay.gov that a credit card payment was successful 
no later than 11:59 p.m. (EST) on the due date; or confirmation an ACH 
was credited no later than 11:59 p.m. (EST) on the due date. In 
instances where a non-annual regulatory payment (i.e., delinquent 
payment) is made by check, cashier's check, or money order, a timely 
fee payment or installment payment is one received at the Commission's 
lockbox bank by the due date specified by the Commission or by the 
Managing Director. Where a non-annual regulatory fee payment is made by 
check, cashier's check, or money order, a timely fee payment or 
installment payment is one received at the Commission's lockbox bank by 
the due date specified by the Commission or the Managing Director. Any 
late payment or insufficient payment of a regulatory fee, not excused 
by bank error, shall subject the regulatee to a 25 percent penalty of 
the amount of the fee or installment payment which was not paid in a 
timely manner.
    (a) The Commission may, in its discretion, following one or more 
late filed installment payments, require a regulatee to pay the entire 
balance of its regulatory fee by a date certain, in addition to 
assessing a 25 percent penalty.
    (b) In cases where a fee payment fails due to error by the payor's 
bank, as evidenced by an affidavit of an officer of the bank, the date 
of the original submission will be considered the date of filing.
    (c) If a regulatory fee is not paid in a timely manner, the 
regulatee will be notified of its deficiency. This notice will 
automatically assess a 25 percent penalty, subject the delinquent 
payor's pending applications to dismissal, and may require a delinquent 
payor to show cause why its existing instruments of authorization 
should not be subject to revocation.
    (d)(1) Where a regulatee's new, renewal or reinstatement 
application is required to be filed with a regulatory fee (as is the 
case with wireless radio services), the application will be dismissed 
if the regulatory fee is not included with the application package. In 
the case of a renewal or reinstatement application, the application may 
not be refiled unless the appropriate regulatory fee plus the 25 
percent penalty charge accompanies the refiled application.
    (2) If the application that must be accompanied by a regulatory fee 
is a mutually exclusive application with a filing deadline, or any 
other application that must be filed by a date certain, the application 
will be dismissed if not accompanied by the proper regulatory fee and 
will be treated as late filed if resubmitted after the original date 
for filing application.
    (e) Any pending or subsequently filed application submitted by a 
party will be dismissed if that party is determined to be delinquent in 
paying a standard regulatory fee or an installment payment. The 
application may be resubmitted only if accompanied by the required 
regulatory fee and by any assessed penalty payment.
    (f) In instances where the Commission may revoke an existing 
instrument of authorization for failure to timely pay a regulatory fee, 
or any associated interest or penalty, the Commission will provide 
prior notice of its intent to revoke the licensee's instruments of 
authorization by registered mail, return receipt requested to the 
licensee at its last known address. The notice shall provide the 
licensee no less than 60 days to either pay the fee, penalty and 
interest in full or show cause why the fee, interest or penalty is 
inapplicable or should otherwise be waived or deferred.
    (1) An adjudicatory hearing will not be designated unless the 
response by the regulatee to the Order to Show Cause presents a 
substantial and material question of fact.
    (2) Disposition of the proceeding shall be based upon written 
evidence only and the burden of proceeding with the introduction of the 
evidence and the burden of proof shall be on the respondent regulatee.

[[Page 51003]]

    (3) Unless the regulatee substantially prevails in the hearing, the 
Commission may assess costs for the conduct of the proceeding against 
the respondent regulatee. See 47 U.S.C. 402(b)(5).
    (4) Any Commission order adopted under the regulation in paragraph 
(f) of this section shall determine the amount due, if any, and provide 
the licensee with at least 60 days to pay that amount or have its 
authorization revoked.
    (5) No order of revocation under this section shall become final 
until the licensee has exhausted its right to judicial review of such 
order under 47 U.S.C. 402(b)(5).
    (6) Any regulatee failing to submit a regulatory fee, following 
notice to the regulatee of failure to submit the required fee, is 
subject to collection of the required fee, including interest thereon, 
any associated penalties, and the full cost of collection to the 
Federal Government pursuant to section 3702A of the Internal Revenue 
Code, 31 U.S.C. 3717, and the provisions of the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act. See Sec. Sec.  1.1901 through 1.1952. The debt 
collection processes described in paragraphs (a) through (f)(5) of this 
section may proceed concurrently with any other sanction in this 
paragraph (f)(6).
    (7) An application or filing by a regulatee that is delinquent in 
its debt to the Commission is also subject to dismissal under Sec.  
1.1910.

0
10. Revise Sec.  1.1166 to read as follow:


Sec.  1.1166  Waivers, reductions and deferrals of regulatory fees.

    The fees established by Sec. Sec.  1.1152 through 1.1156 and 
associated interest charges and penalties may be waived, reduced or 
deferred in specific instances, on a case-by-case basis, where good 
cause is shown and where waiver, reduction or deferral of such fees, 
interest charges and penalties would promote the public interest. 
Requests for waivers, reductions or deferrals of regulatory fees for 
entire categories of payors will not be considered.
    (a) Requests for waivers, reductions or deferrals should be filed 
with the Commission's Secretary and will be acted upon by the Managing 
Director with the concurrence of the General Counsel. All such filings 
within the scope of the fee rules shall be filed as a separate pleading 
and clearly marked to the attention of the Managing Director. Any such 
request that is not filed as a separate pleading will not be considered 
by the Commission.
    (b) Deferrals of fees, interest, or penalties if granted, will be 
for a designated period of time not to exceed six months.
    (c) Petitions for waiver of a regulatory fee, interest, or 
penalties must be accompanied by the required fee, interest, or 
penalties and FCC Form 159. Submitted fees, interest, or penalties will 
be returned if a waiver is granted. Waiver requests that do not include 
the required fees, interest, or penalties or forms will be dismissed 
unless accompanied by a petition to defer payment due to financial 
hardship, supported by documentation of the financial hardship.
    (d) Petitions for reduction of a fee, interest, or penalty must be 
accompanied by the full fee, interest, or penalty payment and Form 159. 
Petitions for reduction that do not include the required fees, 
interest, or penalties or forms will be dismissed unless accompanied by 
a petition to defer payment due to financial hardship, supported by 
documentation of the financial hardship.
    (e) Petitions for waiver of a fee, interest, or penalty based on 
financial hardship, including bankruptcy, will not be granted, even if 
otherwise consistent with Commission policy, to the extent that the 
total regulatory and application fees, interest, or penalties for which 
waiver is sought exceeds $500,000 in any fiscal year, including 
regulatory fees due in any fiscal year, but paid prior to the due date. 
In computing this amount, the amounts owed by an entity and its 
subsidiaries and other affiliated entities will be aggregated. In cases 
where the claim of financial hardship is not based on bankruptcy, 
waiver, partial waiver, or deferral of fees, interest, or penalties 
above the $500,000 cap may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[FR Doc. 2019-20058 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P