# Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-17331

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** July 19, 2010
- **Citation:** 75 FR 41932

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket No. 10-87; FCC 10-123]
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, we amend our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to collect $335,794,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). These fees are mandated by Congress and are collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.

DATES:

August 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: July 8, 2010.

Released: July 9, 2010.

By the Commission.

Table of Contents

Heading
Paragraph No.

I. Introduction
1

II. Report and Order
2

A. FY 2010 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology
3

1. AM and FM Radio Stations
5

2. Submarine Cable Methodology
11

B. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Full Service Television Broadcasters
16

C. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters
21

D. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service
22

E. Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider Fees
25

F. Administrative and Operational Issues
32

1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer
33

2. Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees
35

a. Pre-Bills
35

III. Procedural Matters
39

A. Public Notices and Fact Sheets
40

B. Assessment Notifications
41

1. Media Services Licensees
41

2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Services Assessments
44

C. Streamlined Regulatory Fee Payment Process
47

1. Cable Television Subscribers
47

2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Providers
48

3. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (“ITSP”)
49

D. Payment of Regulatory Fees
50

1. Lock Box Bank
50

2. Receiving Bank for Wire Payments
51

3. De Minimis Regulatory Fees
52

4. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates
53

E. Enforcement
54

F. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
56

G. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
57

H. Congressional Review Act Analysis
58

IV. Ordering Clauses
59

Appendix A—List of Commenters and Reply Commenters

Appendix B—Calculation of FY 2010 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees

Appendix C—FY 2010 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

Appendix D—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2010

Appendix E—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Go Into Determining Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages

Appendix F—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix G—Rule Changes

Appendix H—FY 2009 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

I. Introduction

1. In this
Report and Order,
we conclude the Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2010 proceeding to collect $335,794,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2010, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). Section 9 regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and are collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.
1

The annual regulatory fee amount to be collected is established each year in the Commission's Annual Appropriations Act which is adopted by Congress and signed by the President and which funds the Commission.
2

In this annual regulatory fee proceeding, we retain many of the established methods, policies, and procedures for collecting section 9 regulatory fees adopted by the Commission in prior years. Consistent with our established practice, we intend to collect these regulatory fees during an August 2010 filing window.

1
47 U.S.C. 159(a).

2

See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-117 for the FY 2010 appropriations act language for the Commission establishing the amount of $335,794,000 of offsetting collections to be assessed and collected by the Commission pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act.

II. Report and Order

2. On April 13, 2010, we released a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FY 2010 NPRM”)
(75 FR 21536, April 26, 2010) seeking comment on regulatory fee issues for FY

2010.
3

The section 9 regulatory fee proceeding is an annual rulemaking process to ensure the Commission collects the required fee amount each year. In the
FY 2010 NPRM,
we proposed to retain the section 9 regulatory fee methodology used in the prior fiscal year except as discussed below. We received nine comments and five reply comments.
4

We address the issues raised in our
FY 2010 NPRM
and these comments below.

3

See FY 2010 NPRM.

4

See
Appendix A for the list of commenters and abbreviated names.

A. FY 2010 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology

3. In our FY 2010 regulatory fee assessment, we will use the same section 9 regulatory fee assessment methodology adopted in FY 2009. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the total amount that must be collected via section 9 regulatory fees. The results of our FY 2010 regulatory fee assessment methodology (including a comparison to the prior year's results) are contained in Appendix B. To collect the $335,794,000 required by Congress, we adjust the FY 2009 amount downward by 1.8 percent and allocate this amount across the various fee categories. Consistent with past practice, we then divide the FY 2010 amount by the number of estimated payment units in each fee category to determine the unit fee.
5

As in prior years, for cases involving small fees,
e.g.,
licenses that are renewed over a multiyear term, we divide the resulting unit fee by the term of the license and then rounded these unit fees consistent with the requirements of section 9(b)(2) of the Act.

5
In many instances, the regulatory fee amount is a flat fee per licensee or regulatee. In some instances, the fee amount represents a per-unit fee (such as for International Bearer Circuits), a per-unit subscriber fee (such as for Cable, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (“CMRS”) Cellular/Mobile and CMRS Messaging), or a fee factor per revenue dollar (Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (“ITSP”) fee). The payment unit is the measure upon which the fee is based, such as a licensee, regulatee, or subscriber fee.

4. In calculating the FY 2010 regulatory fees listed in Appendix C, we further adjusted the FY 2009 list of payment units (see Appendix D) based upon licensee databases, industry and trade group projections, as well as prior year payment information. In some instances, Commission licensee databases were used; in other instances, actual prior year payment records and/or industry and trade association projections were used in determining the payment unit counts.
6

Where appropriate, we adjusted and rounded our final estimates to take into consideration events that may impact the number of units for which regulatees submit payment, such as waivers and exemptions that may be filed in FY 2010, and fluctuations in the number of licenses or station operators due to economic, technical, or other reasons. Our estimated FY 2010 payment units, therefore, are based on several variable factors that are relevant to each fee category. The fee rate also may be rounded or adjusted slightly to account for these variables.

6
The databases we consulted are the following: the Commission's Universal Licensing System (“ULS”), International Bureau Filing System (“IBFS”), Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”). We also consulted reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline Competition Bureau's
Trends in Telephone Service
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast and Annual CMRS Competition Report,
as well as industry sources including, but not limited to,
Television & Cable Factbook
by Warren Publishing, Inc. and the
Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook
by Reed Elsevier, Inc.

1. AM and FM Radio Stations

5. As in previous years, we consider the additional factors of facility attributes and the population served by each radio station in determining regulatory fees for AM and FM radio stations. The calculation of the population served is determined by coupling current U.S. Census Bureau data with technical and engineering data, as detailed in Appendix E. Consequently, the population served, as well as the class and type of service (AM or FM), will continue to determine the amount of regulatory fee to be paid.
7

7
In addition, beginning in FY 2005, we established a procedure by which we set regulatory fees for AM and FM radio and VHF and UHF television Construction Permits each year at an amount no higher than the lowest regulatory fee for a licensed station in that respective service category. For example, in FY 2009 the regulatory fee for an AM radio station Construction Permit was no higher than the regulatory fee for an AM Class C radio station serving a population of less than 25,000.

6. In response to our FY 2010
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
we received two comments and one reply comment regarding regulatory fees applicable to radio stations. In his comment, Robert Bittner states that the regulatory fee structure unfairly favors the largest AM, FM, and television stations, which have much higher revenues.
8

Mr. Bittner compares the greater revenues earned by large AM, FM, and TV stations and the proportion of regulatory fees that they pay with the revenues and regulatory fees of smaller markets.
9

Mr. Bittner proposes the Commission use a flat percentage of a station's income as a more equitable methodology for assessing regulatory fees.
10

As an alternative approach, Mr. Bittner suggests that the Commission assess regulatory fees on a per-person basis based on the station's city-grade contour, taking into consideration reductions for AM stations and those stations that have to reduce power at night.
11

Finally, Mr. Bittner argues that the population thresholds currently in use are too narrow, thereby favoring the larger stations, which are well beyond the 750,000 population threshold. In his reply comment, Mr. Alex Goldman agrees with Mr. Bittner's recommendations.
12

8

See
comments of Robert Bittner at page 1.

9

Id.
at page 1.

10

Id.

11

Id.

12

See
comments of Alex Goldman at page 1.

7. Mr. Edward A. Schober, representing Radiotechniques Engineering, also submitted a comment regarding radio station regulatory fees. Mr. Schober recommends that the Commission review the regulatory fee structure for AM radio stations in which fees, from highest to lowest, are currently assessed according to class: Class A, B, D, and C. Mr. Schober argues that Class D AM radio stations should be assessed the lowest AM regulatory fee as a class of service.
13

In addition, Mr. Schober also recommends that the AM and FM radio station regulatory fees be related to the amount of spectrum occupied by the stations, which is 100 kHz for FM stations and 10 kHz for AM stations; hence, he asserts that AM stations should be assessed 10 percent of the FM station fee covering the same population.
14

13

See
comments from Edward A. Schober, representing Radiotechniques Engineering, at page 2.

14

Id.
at pages 1-2.

8. Although Mr. Bittner and Mr. Schober provide interesting recommendations, the Commission is required to comply with the language and intent of 47 U.S.C. 159, which governs the assessment of regulatory fees. Any changes in fee methodology must be consistent with the governing statute, including the prior notification to Congress required therein. Mr. Bittner's recommendation to assess a fee based on revenue income is not without precedent; we currently consider revenues in assessing regulatory fees for the Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (ITSP) fee. However, there are two significant obstacles to the use of revenues in assessing radio and TV station fees: (1) In contrast to ITSPs, radio stations are not required to submit income or revenue information, which means that radio and television stations would be left to the honor system in determining their regulatory fee obligation (and since revenues on a per station basis can fluctuate from year to year, it would be difficult for the Commission to project the total revenue base upon which regulatory fees would be calculated for future collections), and (2) there are over 12,000 radio and television facilities for which income data would have to be gathered and maintained from year to year.

9. Mr. Bittner also recommends using a fee per person regulatory fee methodology for radio stations based on a station's city-grade contour, rather than the current flat fee per station.
15

According to Mr. Bittner, the advantage here would be for radio stations to account for every person within the station's contour. Implementing such a regulatory fee methodology would be very burdensome for both the Commission and the licensees, with more than 10,600 radio stations having to calculate the per person fee each year. Moreover, if the Commission were to change to a fee per person methodology, there would actually be double-counting of persons that are served by many radio stations in the same community. For example, in a city such as Los Angeles, there are many radio stations that serve the same listening public, and if we assessed a fee on a per person basis, many of these radio stations would be paying a regulatory fee for the same person many times over. Thus, this proposed “per person” fee would not improve upon the current

assessment methodology, under which regulatory fees are assessed on a per license per station basis based on the population reach of the signal. For all of these reasons, implementing a fee structure based on a per person basis would be impractical as well as unmanageable.

15
Comments by Robert Bittner, at page 1.

10. Finally, Mr. Schober recommends that the Commission use spectrum occupancy as the basis of assessing AM and FM regulatory fees. The Commission's current system uses population as the basis for differentiating between higher and lower regulatory fees. There is a dearth of data in the record to support a correlation between the amount of bandwidth occupied and the appropriate amount of regulatory fees to be assessed. Furthermore, the correlation between spectrum use and regulatory fees may not be consistent with the intent of the original Section 9 legislation. The original Section 9 legislation only differentiates radio station regulatory fees by class and by type of service (AM or FM).
16

We do not dismiss Mr. Schober's points about the need to review the current AM fee structure based on class, and find that this fee structure should be reviewed further for future funding years. Although the original AM and FM fee grid was submitted as a comment by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and supported by 19 State Broadcaster Associations, it should be noted that the Commission adopted this grid in its FY 1998
Report & Order,
17

(63 FR 35847, July 1, 1998) more than a decade ago.

16
47 U.S.C. 159(g).

17

See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1998,
Report and Order, FCC 98-115, 13 FCC Rcd 19820, para. 37 (adopted June 16, 1998).

2. Submarine Cable Methodology

11. In the NPRM, we proposed to continue to use an 87.6/12.4 percent revenue allocation between submarine cable and satellite/terrestrial for the bearer circuit regulatory fees for 2010.
18

This allocation was established by the Commission in the
FY 2009 Regulatory Fees Report and Order,
19

(74 FR 40089, August 11, 2009) and was based on a “Consensus Proposal” from a large group of submarine cable operators that was the basis for Commission revising the methodology for the bearer circuit regulatory fee in the
Submarine Cable Order.
20

In that Order, the Commission acted on the Consensus Proposal and adopted a new submarine cable bearer circuit methodology that assesses regulatory fees on a per cable landing license basis, with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller systems, without distinguishing between common carriers and non-common carrier cables.
21

In the NPRM we stated that since we do not have any additional information that would lead us to change the allocation, we would use the 87.6/12.4 percent allocation to calculate the FY 2010 bearer circuit regulatory fees.
22

18
NPRM at para. 6.

19

See

FY 2009 Report and Order
at

para 8.

20

See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009) (“
Submarine Cable Order”
).

21

Id.

22
NPRM at para. 6.

12. In response to the NPRM, Global Crossing North America, Inc. (“GCNA”) filed comments seeking changes to the regulatory fee methodology for bearer circuits adopted by the Commission in the
Submarine Cable Order.
23

GCNA urges the Commission to place a limit on the aggregate fee that a submarine cable operator (or group of affiliated operators) should be required to pay in any given fiscal year to prevent the total regulatory fee from reaching an inequitable level.
24

GSNC suggests several changes that the Commission could make to the regulatory fee methodology to address its concerns: (1) Imposing a fee on no more than two cable landing licenses held by a single licensee or group of affiliated licensees, (2) limiting the aggregate fee that any licensee or group of affiliated licensees must pay, (3) defining the “system” subject to a regulatory fee as an integrated network of cables, rather than presuming that each license represents a separate system, or (4) changing from the 87.6/12.4 percent allocation to a different one, such as a 50/50 percent allocation.
25

Verizon and Qwest Communications International, Inc (“Qwest”) filed reply comments opposing GCNA's proposals.
26

GCNA filed reply comments noting that the Office of the Managing Director (“OMD”) had denied its petition to have its 2009 regulatory fees reduced.
27

23
GCNA comments. GCNA was not part of the group of submarine cable operators that supported the Consensus Proposal, but GCNA also did not file comments opposing the Consensus Proposal.
See

Submarine Cable Order
at n. 3, para. 11.
See

also
GCNA comments at n. 22.

24
GCNA comments at 1.

25
GCNA comments at pages 6-7.

26
Qwest reply comments; Verizon reply comments.

27
GCNA reply comments.

13. We will not make any changes to the methodology for the bearer circuit regulatory fees and will use the 87.6/12.4 percent revenue allocation for 2010. The Commission adopted the current methodology in 2009 in the
Submarine Cable Order,
and it has only been in place since that time. In the
Submarine Cable Order
the Commission found that this methodology allocates bearer circuit regulatory fees in an equitable and competitively neutral manner.
28

As Qwest and Verizon point out, the proposals from GCNA would shift the payment of the regulatory fees to the benefit of a few payers, such as GCNA, and to the detriment of most. The Commission must collect a certain amount of revenue from the bearer circuit regulatory fee category each year. Reducing the regulatory fees that certain submarine cable operators pay by either limiting the number of cable landing licenses for which a fee must be paid, limiting the aggregate fee a submarine cable operator must pay or changing the basis for the fees to a “system” fee that may include multiple cable landing licenses, will mean that other submarine cable operators will have to pay higher regulatory fees. We agree with Qwest that these changes would disadvantage cable operators with only one or two cables by increasing the proportion of the bearer circuit fee that they must pay.
29

Thus, we find that these proposals would not be as equitable as the methodology adopted in the
Submarine Cable Order.

28

Submarine Cable Order
at paras. 1, 7, 9.

29
Qwest reply comments at 1-2.

14. We also decline to change the basis for the assessment of the regulatory fee on submarine cable operators. In the
Submarine Cable Order
the Commission adopted a methodology for submarine cables based on a per cable landing license fee consistent with the Consensus Proposal.
30

GCNA proposes that the Commission change the basis for the fee to be a “system,” which may include multiple cable landing licenses.
31

This proposal, in addition to shifting the regulatory fees from operators with multiple submarine cable licenses to other submarine cable operators, would add complexity to the administration of the regulatory fees. In addition to being equitable and competitively neutral, the current methodology is easy to administer.
32

As Qwest notes, using a “system” as the basis for the submarine cable fees will require the Commission to establish a new process to determine which submarine cable licenses comprise a “system” and to maintain an updated list of systems.
33

This would be complex and controversial because different submarine cable operators may have different criteria for what comprises a system and indeed may argue that all of their submarine cables comprise a “system” regardless of any difference in technology or geography between the submarine cables.
34

In addition, changing what is meant by a cable system will affect the Commission's submarine cable licensing procedures. As the Commission noted in the
Submarine Cable Order,
adoption of the new regulatory fee methodology did not amend the rules for licensing submarine cables,
35

and we should not interpret our licensing rules for the purpose of achieving a particular result in connection with the application of the regulatory fee methodology.

30

Submarine Cable Order
at para. 1.

31
GCNA comments at 7.

32

Submarine Cable Order
at paras. 7, 10.

33
Qwest reply comments at 2.

34
We note that most U.S. international service providers state that they provide seamless global services over their global networks which integrate subcable, terrestrial and satellite facilities.

35

Submarine Cable Order
at para. 12.

15. Finally, we will not change the revenue allocation between submarine cable operators and terrestrial/satellite operators for the 2010 regulatory fees. For the 2009 regulatory fees the Commission used the 87.4/12.6 percent allocation proposed in the Consensus Proposal.
36

The Commission noted in the
Submarine Cable Order
that this apportionment would be determined on an annual basis in the annual regulatory fee proceeding.
37

In the NPRM we proposed to continue to use the 87.4/12.6 percent revenue allocation because we did not have any information on which to base a change in that allocation.
38

We do not find that there is any basis in the record of this proceeding to alter that allocation. GCNA proposes that we change the allocation and suggests a 50/50 allocation.
39

We agree with Qwest and

Verizon that GCNA has not provided any basis for a change in the allocation.
40

GCNA questions the appropriateness of the current allocation, but provides no basis for a 50/50 allocation other than that it was included in a 2008 proposal by certain cable operators, including GCNA, as part of the process that lead to the Consensus Proposal.
41

We will continue to review this allocation as part of our annual regulatory fee proceeding, but do not find any basis to alter the 87.4/12.6 percent revenue allocation for the 2010 regulatory fees.

36

FY 2009 Report and Order
at para. 8.

37

Submarine Cable Order
at n. 35.

38
NPRM at 6.

39
GCNA comments at 7-8.

40
Qwest reply comments at 2; Verizon reply comments at 2-3.

41
GCNA comments at 7, n. 21.

B. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Full Service Television Broadcasters

16. The digital transition on June 12, 2009 eliminated the distinction between digital and analog full-service television stations. As a result, beginning in FY 2010, the Commission will collect annual regulatory fees from all digital full-service television stations, and the “digital-only” exemption will no longer be applicable. Also, it is possible that because this is the first year following the Commission's transition to digital full service television, some facilities may be operating under a Special Temporary Authority (STA) beginning on October 1, 2009 until the digital license is issued. For FY 2010 regulatory fee purposes, facilities operating under an STA will be considered to be fully operational licensed facilities and will be obligated to pay the same regulatory fee as a licensed full-service television station.

17. Although we did not seek comment on this issue, we received two comments regarding the assessment of regulatory fees for VHF television stations in the wake of the digital conversion. Fireweed Communications (“Fireweed”) states that VHF television station channels come in two ranges: Channels 2-6 (Low VHF and less desirable) and Channels 7-13 (High VHF and more desirable).
42

Fireweed states that historically VHF television stations have been considered to be “superior to UHF”, and as a result, VHF stations were assessed a much higher regulatory fee than UHF stations. Fireweed further asserts that, with the transition to digital TV, UHF channel assignments have become more advantageous, both in terms of lower interference and greater desirability.
43

Therefore, Fireweed contends, it should not be surprising to see VHF licensees transitioning not only to UHF channels, but also between VHF Channels 2-6 and VHF Channels 7-13.
44

Because of this transitioning within VHF and to UHF channels, Fireweed argues, the Commission should base its regulatory fee structure on three tiers of bands, VHF Channels 2-6, VHF Channels 7-13, and all UHF Channels (channels 14 and greater).
45

42

See
comments of Fireweed Communications, LLC at page 2.

43

Id.
at pages 1-2.

44

Id.
at page 2.

45

Id.
at page 3.

18. Sky Television LLC, Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., and Sarkes Tarzian, together known as VHF Digital Stations (“VHF Digital Stations”), also filed comments relating to VHF and UHF television stations. VHF Digital Stations urge the Commission to combine VHF and UHF television stations into one fee category by market size.
46

VHF Digital Stations recommend that, instead of having six separate VHF and six separate UHF regulatory fee categories, the Commission should combine VHF and UHF station fees into six categories according to market size and identify them simply as full service digital television stations.
47

By combining the VHF and UHF fee categories into one as VHF recommends, the resulting fee category would in effect eliminate the historical distinction between the higher VHF fees and the lower UHF fees. VHF Digital Stations also argue that the current regulatory fee methodology structure is inconsistent with the spirit of regulatory fees in which higher fees are assessed for more desirable spectrum; in the digital world, VHF argues, the UHF channels are the desirable spectrum.
48

46

See
comments of VHF Digital Stations at page 1.

47

Id.

48

Id.
at pages 3-4.

19. We acknowledge that in the digital transition some stations moved from VHF to UHF channels. In fact, over the past several months, the number of entities changing channels from VHF to UHF has totaled over 38 percent.
49

This will impact the regulatory fees paid by those VHF television stations still operating on VHF channels. In many of the Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMA), the number of VHF stations decreased almost 50 percent and this in turn will increase the regulatory fee for these categories twofold. While this potential fee escalation underscores the need for more fundamental, long term reform of our regulatory fee process, it is imperative that we take steps under our current fee structure to mitigate the impact of this shift on television stations still operating on VHF channels and, at the same time, take at least a partial step toward more fairly apportioning fees across all television markets.

49
Data from the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) shows that prior to the digital conversion, there were 600 full service analog VHF stations; after the digital conversion, there were 370 VHF digital television stations, a reduction of 230 VHF stations.

20. A number of commenters have urged us to either combine all VHF and UHF full-service television stations into one fee category, or else to establish a three-tiered regulatory fee system for full-service televisions.
50

Rather than “flash cut” to one fee category, which would result in a large fee increase to many UHF licensees for FY2010, today we use the shift in stations discussed to move toward a combined fee category by including in the UHF category the units and their corresponding dollar amounts of the VHF stations that changed channels during or after the digital conversion. Thus, we use the VHF fee amount in the proposed FY 2010
NPRM
as a starting point in calculating the final FY 2010 VHF regulatory fee rate. Then, in order to calculate the VHF and UHF FY 2010 regulatory fees, we move the number of “shifting” units (units of the stations that changed channels from VHF to UHF) and their corresponding dollar amounts from the VHF fee category by market size to the UHF fee category within the same market size. Thus, within each UHF fee category by market size, the projected revenue amount is increased along with the number of units in that fee category. The resulting larger projected revenue amount and the higher number of units is then used to calculate each UHF fee category by market size. It is important to note that, by moving only the dollar amounts and their corresponding units from the VHF to the UHF fee category by market size, the impact of the resulting fee increase on the UHF fee category is approximately 18%-20% less than the fee increase that would have resulted from combining all VHF and all UHF television stations into one digital category by market size. We find this to be in the public interest because it is a more equitable result for all entities involved.

50
For comments regarding a combined VHF/UHF television fee category, see comments of VHF Digital Stations at pages 1-2; for recommendations on a three-tiered regulatory fees system for television stations, see comments of Fireweed Communications at page 3.

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

21. Although the digital transition of full-service television stations was completed on June 12, 2009, the digital transition for Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters is still voluntary, and there is currently no set date for the completion of this transition. Historically, the discussion of the digital transition conversion with respect to regulatory fees has centered on full-service television stations, and therefore, the elimination of the “digital only” exemption described in paragraph 20 has no impact on this class of regulatees. Because the digital transition in the Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Booster facilities is voluntary and the transition will occur over a period of time, it is possible that some facilities will convert from analog to digital more quickly than others. During this interim transition period, licensees of Low Power, Class A, and TV Translator/Booster facilities could be operating in analog mode, in digital mode, or in an analog and digital simulcast mode. For regulatory fee purposes, a fee will be assessed for each facility operating either in an analog or digital mode. In instances in which a licensee is operating in both an analog and digital mode as a simulcast, a single regulatory fee will be assessed for this analog facility that has a digital companion channel. As greater numbers of facilities convert to digital mode, the Commission will provide revised instructions on how regulatory fees will be assessed.

D. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service

22. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (“CMRS”) Messaging Service, which replaced the CMRS One-Way Paging fee category in

1997, includes all narrowband services.
51

Since 1997, the number of subscribers has declined from 40.8 million to 6.5 million, and there does not appear to be any sign of recovery to the subscriber levels of 1997-1999. Because of this declining subscribership, since FY 2003 the Commission has maintained the CMRS Messaging fee rate at $0.08 per subscriber, the rate that was established in FY 2002.
52

We therefore sought comment in the FY 2010
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to continue maintaining the regulatory fee rate at $0.08 per subscriber due to the declining subscriber base in this industry.
53

51

See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1997,
MD Docket No. 96-186, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17161, 17184-85, para. 60 (1997) (“
FY 1997 Report and Order
”).

52

See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2003,
MD Docket No. 03-83, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15985, paras. 21-22 (2003) (“
FY 2003 Report and Order
”).

53
Between FY 1997 and FY 2009, the subscriber base in the paging industry declined 84 percent from 40.8 million to 6.5 million subscribers, according to FY 2009 collections data as of September 30, 2009.

23. We received one comment. The American Association of Paging Carriers (“AAPC”) filed a comment urging the Commission to either maintain the FY 2010 CMRS Messaging Service fee at $0.08 per unit or prescribe a lower fee.
54

AAPC asserts that the industry circumstances of 2003 of declining subscribership continue today.
55

AAPC also contends that a review of the regulatory fee methodology would reveal that further reduction in the paging regulatory fee is warranted.
56

54

See
comments of American Association of Paging Carriers, at page 1.

55

Id.
at page 3.

56

Id.
at page 2.

24. We agree with AAPC that the circumstances prevailing in 2003 still exist today, and conclude that the FY 2010 CMRS Messaging regulatory fee should remain at a rate of $0.08 per subscriber.

E. Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider Fees

25. As we noted in Fiscal Year 2009 Regulatory Fee
Report and Order,
57

the comprehensive regulatory fee revision issues raised in the FY 2008
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)

58

(73 FR 50201, August 26, 2008) remain outstanding. In part, we invited the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) to comment on several specific regulatory fee issues.
59

We note that in addition to our request for comment, we released specific data to assist commenters.
60

The responses were not as detailed as we had hoped. Indeed, we received two comments and one reply comment on the subject of regulatory fees applicable to ITSPs. STi Prepaid LLC (“STi Prepaid”) argues that since its inception in 1994, the Commission's regulatory fee methodology has not changed significantly,
61

and as a result, the regulatory fee structure may not accurately reflect significant changes that have occurred in the interstate and international telecommunications marketplace since that time.
62

Because the marketplace has changed while the regulatory fee structure has not, STi Prepaid asserts that ITSP providers bear by far the largest burden of total regulatory fees, and further increases in ITSP regulatory fees borne by interstate and international providers are no longer tenable.
63

STi Prepaid urges the Commission to re-evaluate the allocation and methodology that is used to calculate ITSP regulatory fees.
64

57
Assessment and Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal Year 2009, Assessment And Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal Year 2008,
Report and Order,
24 FCC Rcd. 10301 (2009).

58
Assessment and Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal Year 2008,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
24 FCC Rcd. 6388 (2008)
(2008 Regulatory Fee R&O and FNPRM).

59

Id.,
at 6402-05. We sought comments on ways to improve our regulatory fee process regarding any and all categories of service (see paras. 31-36), and we specifically invited ITSPs to respond to the following:

41. Relative to other services that pay regulatory fees, we recognize that the ITSP market has changed since the Commission calculated the cost of ITSP regulation in FY 1997. We agree that it is appropriate to review our methodology for assessing regulatory fees on ITSPs. We seek comment on whether ITSPs current share of regulatory fees, which has not been revised significantly since 1997, is appropriate. Commenters should discuss the ITSP market and how it has changed since 1997 relative to the other services that pay regulatory fees such as wireless and broadcast services. Commenters suggesting a change in the proportionate share for ITSPs should propose a methodology. For example, would it be more appropriate to return to the original Schedule of Regulatory Fees and assess fees per 1,000 access lines? We note that we have experienced significant success and accuracy with a number-based approach for CMRS. Would number of access lines be most appropriate?

60

The Office of Managing Director Releases Data to Assist Commenters on Issues Presented in Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Adopted on August 1, 2008,
Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd. 14581 (2008).

61
STi Prepaid's view of the antecedent regulatory fee events is a generalized overstatement. Indeed, the Commission has opened a number of proceedings to adjust the fee methodology,
see e.g.,
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004,
Report and Order,
19 FCC Rcd. 11662, 11667, para. 12 (2004).

62

See
comments of STi Prepaid LLC at page 1.

63

Id.

64

Id.

26. Unlike most other regulatory fees that are based on a flat fee per license, or on some multiplier based on the regulatee's market size, ITSP regulatory fees are based on revenues, with ITSP providers paying a regulatory fee on each dollar of revenue generated from both interstate and international revenues. STi contends that, since ITSPs compete with entities paying regulatory fees based on a flat fee, the current regulatory fee methodology applicable to ITSPs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
65

Further, STi Prepaid urges the Commission to consider the size and scope of the carrier's resources, as well as the type of customer base, as grounds for regulatory fee relief.
66

65

Id.
at page 4.

66

Id.
at page 8.

27. In its comments, The United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) argues that ITSP providers pay a disproportionate share of the regulatory fee burden based on a methodology that was established in 1994, and that this burden is passed on to consumers.
67

USTelecom also argues that the methodology currently used to calculate regulatory fees does not take into consideration the changes that have occurred in the communications marketplace since 1994 that directly impact the ITSP industry.
68

Updating FTEs and proportionally allocating the cost of support bureaus, USTA contends, would be the first step in rectifying an otherwise inequitable regulatory fee methodology that disproportionally burdens ITSP providers.
69

In its reply comments, STi Prepaid again stresses that there have been few reforms in the regulatory fee methodology since 1994,
70

and argues that, consistent with similar arguments for reforming the regulatory fee methodology made by paging, submarine cable, and VHF television service licensees during the past several years,
71

the Commission should “look for ways to ensure that [its] regulatory fee methodologies continue to reflect the industries [it] regulates.
72

67

See
comments of The United States Telecom Association, at page 1.

68

Id.
at pages 1-2.

69

Id.
at pages 1, 4-5.

70

See
STi Prepaid reply comments at page 1.

71

Id.
at pages 2-3.

72

Id.
at page 4.

28. Section 9 of the Act permits the Commission to “add, delete, or reclassify services in the [regulatory fee] Schedule to reflect * * * changes in the nature of * * * services as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law,”
73

and significant changes in telecommunications services and markets have unquestionably occurred as a result,
inter alia,
of the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Our current fee methodology is based in part on a macro-level FTE data model that we instituted in FY 1999 after we discontinued attempts to base our fee schedule on the available cost data first used in 1997.
74

Since the inception of that last change to our model, both the industry and the Commission have undergone significant change. Accordingly, we agree with the notion that the proportion of regulatory fees paid by ITSP providers as a whole should be re-examined. We further believe that we should consider whether and how our methodology for assessing regulatory fees should be changed to reflect other changes in the communications landscape.

73
47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).

74
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004,
Report and Order,
19 FCC Rcd. 11662, 11667, para. 12 (2004)

29. With respect to the specific issue of rebalancing the fees paid by ITSPs, we note that for a number of years, the regulatory fees collected from ITSP service providers have accounted for a significant percentage of all regulatory fees collected.
75

In recent years

the ITSP industry has experienced a decline in revenues but, because ITSPs do not pay a flat regulatory fee but instead pay fees based on a percentage of their revenues, the regulatory fees paid by ITSP service providers has risen substantially.
76

Because the comments to our question did not provide sufficient detail, we are unable to ascertain exactly how the collection of fees from end users has affected the operation of the ITSP service providers or to what extent a shift in the amount of the payment would be warranted to address the alleged competitive disadvantage or provide warranted relief to ITSP service providers.

75

See e.g.,
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1997, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17161, Attachment C (1997). The pro-rated revenue requirement was $64,960.438 of a total revenue requirement of $152,523,000.

76
Between FY 2007 and FY 2009, the ITSP fee rate increased from $0.00266 to $0.00342 per revenue dollar. Because of further declines in revenue, the FY 2010 ITSP fee rate is slated to increase further from $.00351 (the rate set forth in the FY 2010
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
to $0.00364 per revenue dollar based on more accurate revenue projections available at the time of this
Report and Order.

30. Moreover, we are aware that reducing the fees paid by ITSP providers will increase the fees paid by licensees in other service categories (some of which are not able to pass the cost of the fee to the end user), and this could potentially impact the regulatory fees paid by all other entities regulated by the Commission. Unless we revisit the fee schedule in light of all the shifts that have occurred in the market for telecommunications services, and consider carefully what further changes may occur in the foreseeable future, we may succeed in addressing one anomaly while unintentionally creating others.

31. In light of these considerations and consistent with the comments received in response to the FY 2008
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
we acknowledge that the revenue base upon which the ITSP fee is calculated has been decreasing for several years.
77

Therefore, we believe it would best serve the public interest for the Commission in FY 2010 to set the ITSP regulatory fee rate at $0.00349 per revenue dollar. In future years, we will further examine the nature and extent of all changes that need to be made to our regulatory fee schedule and calculations. In a separate and forthcoming action, we will call for comment on issues including, but not limited to, how changes in the telecommunications marketplace may warrant rebalancing of regulatory fees among existing service providers, and how further changes to the schedule of fees may be anticipated in light of new changes to the telecommunications landscape resulting from implementation of the National Broadband Plan and the introduction of other new wired and wireless services. This
FNPRM
will therefore serve two purposes: it will update, to the extent necessary, the record on regulatory fee rebalancing that we had already been contemplating for existing services,
78

and it will expand this inquiry to new issues and services not covered by the 2008
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

77
The projected FY 2010 ITSP fee factor in the FY 2010 NPRM of $.00351 was based on December 2009 ITSP revenue data. April 2010 ITSP revenue data, however, reflected revenues 3.4 percent lower than projections. This revenue decrease would have resulted in an increase in the resulting fee factor from the projected $.00351 to a fee factor of $.00364. Thus, based on the proposed methodology of the FY 2010 NPRM and the revised revenue numbers, the ITSP fee factor would have increased from $.00342 (FY 2009 ITSP fee rate) to $.00364. The concerns of these providers, which collectively represent 46.82 percent of all regulatory fees paid in any given year, resulted in the adoption, as an interim measure, an ITSP fee rate at $.00349, which is a 2.1% increase from FY 2009. We find this to be a reasonable interim measure pending our review of whether part of that 46.82 percent of the regulatory fee burden might be moved from ITSP in the context of fundamental reform.

78
The Commission has acted on several of the issues raised in the FY 2008
Report and Order
and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including implementation of (1) a change in the bearer circuit methodology for calculating regulatory fees, and (2) the elimination of two regulatory fee categories, the
International Public Fixed Radio
and
International High Frequency Broadcast Stations.

F. Administrative and Operational Issues

32. In FY 2009, the Commission implemented several changes in procedures which simplified the payment and reconciliation processes of FY 2009 regulatory fees. These changes proved to be very helpful to both licensees and to the Commission, and we propose in the following paragraphs to expand upon these improvements. In FY 2010, the Commission will promote greater use of technology (and less use of paper) to improve the regulatory fee notification and collection process.

1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer

33. In
FY 2009,
we required that all regulatees use the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (also known as “Fee Filer”).
79

Licensees filing their annual regulatory fee payments were required to begin the process by entering the Commission's Fee Filer system with a valid FRN and password. This change was beneficial to both licensees and to the Commission. For licensees, the mandatory use of Fee Filer eliminated the need to manually complete and submit a hardcopy Form 159, and for the Commission, having the data in electronic format made it much easier to process payments more efficiently and effectively. Because of the success of this process change, we proposed in the FY 2010
NPRM
to continue to make the use of Fee Filer mandatory as the starting point for filing annual regulatory fees. We sought comment on this proposal, but received no comments or reply comments on this specific issue.

79

FY 2009 Report and Order
at paras. 20 and 21.

34. The mandatory use of Fee Filer does not mean that licensees are expected to pay only through Fee Filer—it is only mandatory for licensees to begin the process of filing their annual regulatory fees using Fee Filer. This is one reason it is very important for licensees to have a current and valid FRN address on file in the Commission's Registration System (CORES). Going forward, only Form 159-E documents generated from Fee Filer will be permitted when sending in a regulatory fee payment to U.S. Bank. These Form 159-E's not only will reduce errors resulting from illegible handwriting on hardcopy Form 159's, but, because they are generated from Fee Filer, these forms also will create an electronic record of licensee payment attributes that are more easily tracked and searched than hardcopy Form 159's completed manually and mailed to the Commission. Hence, in FY 2010, we conclude that regulatees must start the FY 2010 regulatory fee payment process using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (“Fee Filer”).

2. Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees

a. Pre-Bills

35. In prior years, the Commission mailed pre-bills via surface mail to licensees in select regulatory fee categories: Interstate telecommunications service providers (“ITSPs”), Geostationary (“GSO”) and Non-Geostationary (“NGSO”) satellite space station licensees,
80

holders of Cable Television Relay Service (“CARS”) licenses, and Earth Station licensees.
81

The remaining regulatees did not receive pre-bills. In our
FY 2009 Report and Order,
the Commission decided to have the attributes of these pre-bills viewed in Fee Filer, rather than mailing pre-bills out to licensees via surface mail.
82

Overall, the response to this procedural change was positive. In our FY 2010
NPRM,
the Commission again proposed to continue the practice of not mailing out annual regulatory fee bills. We sought comment on this issue, and received one comment from the American Cable Association (ACA).

80
Geostationary orbit space station (“GSO”) licensees received regulatory fee pre-bills for satellites that (1) were licensed by the Commission and operational on or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year; and (2) were not co-located with and technically identical to another operational satellite on that date (
i.e.,
were not functioning as a spare satellite). Non-geostationary orbit space station (“NGSO”) licensees received regulatory fee pre-bills for systems that were licensed by the Commission and operational on or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year.

81
An assessment is a proposed statement of the amount of regulatory fees owed by an entity to the Commission (or proposed subscriber count to be ascribed for purposes of setting the entity's regulatory fee) but it is not entered into the Commission's accounting system as a current debt. A pre-bill is considered an account receivable in the Commission's accounting system. Pre-bills reflect the amount owed and have a payment due date of the last day of the regulatory fee payment window. Consequently, if a pre-bill is not paid by the due date, it becomes delinquent and is subject to our debt collection procedures.
See also
47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910.

82

See FY 2009 Report and Order
at paras. 24, 26.

36. ACA urges the Commission to send e-mails to CARS and Earth Station licensees to notify them when pre-bills are loaded into Fee Filer for viewing, and to mail a final hardcopy notice to these licensees on how to log-in to Fee Filer and access the pre-bill.
83

As an association of small and medium-sized cable companies, ACA believes that many of its member entities are not able to keep up with the Commission's rules and regulations, and therefore the Commission should make more of an effort to reach out to these entities regarding regulatory fees.
84

83

See
comments of the American Cable Association (ACA) at page 1.

84

Id.
at pages 2-3.

37. We agree with ACA that many small and medium-sized regulatees do not have the same resources as large regulatees to monitor Commission rulings on a regular basis. However, we are not imposing any significant burden on these small to medium-sized regulatees. Historically, regulatory fees have always been due in an August or September timeframe, and the due date is generally posted on the Commission-wide Web site weeks before the fee deadline. Hence, by checking the Commission's Web site periodically beginning in July, regulatees will be able to ascertain the fee due date, and receive instructions on how to access Fee Filer, view their bill, and make a fee payment.

38. With respect to ACA's recommendation to send e-mails to CARS and Earth Station licensees as a form of notification, the Commission does not maintain a systematic listing of e-mail addresses for individual CARS and Earth Station licensees, and sending out e-mails that are not necessarily current in the Commission's licensing systems may not result in adequate notification. However, once Fee Filer is open to licensees, a public notice will be placed on the Commission's Web site, which will provide the signal for licensees to begin viewing their pre-bill information online. Until the Commission is able to maintain a current, systematic listing of licensee e-mails, the use of Commission e-mails would provide less than adequate notification.

III. Procedural Matters

39. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods, which we have revised over the past several years to expedite the processing of regulatory fee payments. We include these payments and collection procedures here as a useful way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.

A. Public Notices and Fact Sheets

40. Each year we post public notices and fact sheets pertaining to regulatory fees on our Web site. These documents contain information about the payment due date and the regulatory fee payment procedures. We will continue to post this information on
http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html,
but as in previous years we will not send public notices and fact sheets to regulatees.

B. Assessment Notifications

1. Media Services Licensees

41. Beginning in FY 2003, we sent fee assessment notifications via surface mail to media services entities on a per-facility basis.
85

The notifications provided the assessed fee amount for the facility in question, as well as the data attributes that determined the fee amount. We have since refined this initiative with improved results.
86

Consistent with procedures used last year, we will mail media assessment notifications to licensees in FY 2010 at their primary record of contact in our Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”), and to a secondary record of contact, if available.
87

However, after FY 2010, as part of the Commission's initiative to emphasize electronic filing and reduce paper usage, the Commission will stop mailing out media notification assessments to media licensees. Instead the Commission will rely more on its various Web sites, including the Commission-authorized Web site at
www.fccfees.com,
to notify licensees of pending annual regulatory fees and to update or correct any information regarding their facilities and their fee-exempt status.
88

85
As stated previously at footnote 41, an assessment is a proposed statement of the amount of regulatory fees owed by an entity to the Commission (or proposed subscriber count to be ascribed for purposes of setting the entity's regulatory fee) but it is not entered into the Commission's accounting system as a current debt.

86
Some of those refinements have been to provide licensees with a Commission-authorized Web site to update or correct any information concerning their facilities, and to amend their fee-exempt status, if need be. Also, our notifications now provide licensees with a telephone number to call in the event that they need customer assistance. The notifications themselves have been refined so that licensees of fewer than four facilities receive individual fee assessment postcards for their facilities; whereas licensees of four or more facilities now receive a single assessment letter that lists all of their facilities and the associated regulatory fee obligation for each facility.

87
We will issue fee assessments for AM and FM Radio Stations, AM and FM Construction Permits, FM Translators/Boosters, VHF and UHF Television Stations, VHF and UHF Television Construction Permits, Satellite Television Stations, Low Power Television (“LPTV”) Stations and LPTV Translators/Boosters, to the extent that applicants, permittees and licensees of such facilities do not qualify as government entities or non-profit entities. As in prior years, fee assessments will not be issued for broadcast auxiliary stations.

88
If there is a change of address for the facility, it is the licensee's responsibility to make the address change in the Media Bureau's CDBS system, as well as in the Commission's Registration System (“CORES”). There is also a Commission-authorized Web site that media services licensees can use to view and update their exempt status (
http://www.fccfees.com
).

42. The decision to discontinue mailing media notifications beginning in FY 2011 is consistent with the Commission's effort to become more electronic and less paper-oriented. However, the Commission understands that not all media licensees are able to access the Commission's various electronic Web sites once the hardcopy notification letters are discontinued in FY 2011. Therefore, to be receptive to the needs of these licensees, the Commission will allow more time for comment by leaving the comment and reply comment period open until September 30, 2010 on the specific issue of whether the media notification letters should be discontinued in FY 2011. Because this decision does not impact FY 2010 regulatory fees, we will be addressing this issue in the Commission's FY 2011
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
after we have reviewed the various comments and reply comments submitted. The Commission will also remind media licensees of this proposed change in notification procedures for next year when it sends out letters to media licensees regarding their FY 2010 regulatory fee obligations. To ensure that the comments of all potentially affected persons are properly included in the record, media licensees should submit their comments and reply comments on this issue as follows:

•
Comments and Replies.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).

•
Electronic Filers:
Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.

•
Paper Filers:
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
before
entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

•
People with Disabilities.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

•
Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available free online, via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

•
Accessibility Information.
To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and braille), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (“PDF”) at:
http://www.fcc.gov.

43. Although the Commission will mail media assessment notifications to licensees in FY 2010, all licensees (including media services) will be required to use Fee Filer as the first step in paying their regulatory fee obligations. The notification assessments

provide licensees with the same media data attributes found in Fee Filer. However, we caution licensees not to send in these notification assessments as a substitute for using Fee Filer as the first step in filing and paying annual regulatory fees. As explained previously, licensees must first log onto the Commission's Fee Filer system to begin the process of filing and paying their regulatory fees, but once in Fee Filer, licensees may pay by check or money order, credit card, or wire transfer. A Form 159-E generated from Fee Filer is required when mailing in the annual regulatory fee payment.

2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Services Assessments

44. As we have done in prior years, we will mail an initial assessment letter to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers using data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (“NRUF”) report that is based on “assigned” number counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”).
89

The letter will include a listing of the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (“OCNs”) upon which the assessment is based.
90

The letters will not include OCNs with their respective assigned number counts, but rather, an aggregate total of assigned numbers for each carrier.

89

See

Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005
and
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004
,
MD Docket Nos. 05-59 and 04-73, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264, paras. 38-44 (2005).

90

Id.

45. If the carrier does not agree with the number of subscribers listed on the initial assessment letter, the carrier will have an opportunity within a specific timeframe to revise the subscriber count by submitting supporting documentation to substantiate the change. However, instead of mailing the revised figures, providers will be asked to access Fee Filer and follow the instructions provided in order to submit their revised subscriber count along with any supporting documentation.
91

The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. The provider will be able to review the decision online in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will attempt to contact the provider so that the provider will have an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response or correction to the initial assessment letter, or we do not reverse the disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, we will expect the fee payment to be based on the number of subscribers listed on the initial assessment. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the subscriber counts will be finalized. These subscriber counts will then be the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees will be assessed. Providers will be able to view their final subscriber counts online in Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will
not
be mailed out.

91
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 the change.

46. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not receive an initial letter of assessment. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology
92

that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (
e.g.,
compute their subscriber counts as of December 31, 2009), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier receives an assessment letter or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of subscribers for which regulatory fees are paid. If the Commission determines that the number of subscribers paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

92

See,

e.g.,
Federal Communications Commission,
Regulatory Fees Fact Sheet: What You Owe—Commercial Wireless Services for FY 2009
at 1 (released September 2009).

C. Streamlined Regulatory Fee Payment Process

1. Cable Television Subscribers

47. We will continue to permit cable television operators to base their regulatory fee payment on their company's aggregate year-end subscriber count, rather than requiring them to sub-report subscriber counts on a per community unit identifier (“CUID”) basis.

2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Providers

48. In FY 2006, we streamlined the CMRS payment process by eliminating the requirement for CMRS providers to identify their individual call signs when making their regulatory fee payment, instead allowing CMRS providers to pay their regulatory fees only at the aggregate subscriber level without having to identify their various call signs.
93

We will continue this practice in FY 2010. In FY 2007, we consolidated the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories into one fee category with a single fee code, thereby eliminating the requirement for CMRS providers to separate their subscriber counts into CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories during the regulatory fee payment process. This consolidation of fee categories enabled the Commission to process payments more quickly and accurately. For FY 2010, we will continue this practice of combining the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories into one regulatory fee category.

93

See

Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006,
MD Docket No. 06-68, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8092, 8105, para. 48 (2006).

3. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (“ITSP”)

49. In FY 2007, we adopted a proposal to round lines 14 (total subject revenues) and 16 (total regulatory fee owed) on FCC Form 159-W to the nearest dollar. This revision enabled the Commission to process the ITSP regulatory fee payments more quickly because rounding was performed in a consistent manner and eliminated processing issues that occurred in prior years. In FY 2010, we will continue rounding lines 14 and 16 when calculating the FY 2010 ITSP fee obligation. In addition, as in FY 2009, we will continue the practice of not mailing out Form 159-W via surface mail.

D. Payment of Regulatory Fees

1. Lock Box Bank

50. All lock box payments to the Commission for FY 2010 will be processed by U.S. Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, and payable to the FCC. During the regulatory fee season, for those licensees paying by check, money order, or by credit card using Form 159-E remittance advice, the fee payment and Form 159-E remittance advice should be mailed to the following address: Federal Communications Commission, Regulatory Fees, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Additional payment options and instructions are posted at
http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html.

2. Receiving Bank for Wire Payments

51. The receiving bank for all wire payments is the Federal Reserve Bank, New York, New York (TREAS NYC). When making a wire transfer, regulatees must fax a copy of their Fee Filer generated Form 159-E to U.S. Bank, St. Louis, Missouri at (314) 418-4232 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day), so as to not 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
http://www.fcc.gov/fees/wiretran.html.

3. De Minimis Regulatory Fees

52. Regulatees whose total FY 2010 regulatory fee liability, including all categories of fees for which payment is due, is less than $10 are exempted from payment of FY 2010 regulatory fees.

4. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates

53. 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 (including construction permits for digital television stations) that were granted on or before October 1, 2009 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and satellite television stations. Beginning in FY 2010, the digital-only exemption for full service VHF and UHF television stations is no longer applicable; with respect to other media services, such as Low Power Television, and TV Translators and Boosters, there is no exemption for having digital service. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2009. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, 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, 2009. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. We note that audio bridging service providers are included in this category.
94

94
Audio bridging services are toll teleconferencing services, and audio bridging service providers are required to contribute directly to the universal service fund based on revenues from these services. On June 30, 2008, the Commission released the
InterCall Order,
in which the Commission stated that InterCall, Inc. and all similarly situated audio bridging service providers are required to contribute directly to the universal service fund.
See Request for Review by InterCall, Inc. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator,
CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10731 (2008) (“
InterCall Order”
).

•
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, 2009. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2009 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, 2009, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• The first eleven regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees (
see
Appendix C) pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount of their five-year or ten-year term of initial license, and only pay regulatory fees again when the license is renewed or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2010.

•
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators and CARS licensees):
Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2009.
95

Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2009. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

95
Cable television system operators should compute their 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 2009, rather than on a count as of December 31, 2009.

•
International Services:
Regulatory fees must be paid for earth stations, geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2009. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, 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 submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2009. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date.

•
International Services: Terestrial and Satellite Services:
Finally, regulatory fees for International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers that have active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2009 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 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 these purposes include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2009. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for these purposes in determining that they are active circuits. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2009, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

E. Enforcement

54. To be considered timely, regulatory fee payments must be received and stamped at the lockbox bank by the last day of the regulatory fee filing window. Section 9(c) of the Act requires us to impose an additional charge as a penalty for late payment of any regulatory fee.
96

A late payment penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid amount of the required regulatory fee will be assessed on the first day following the deadline date for filing of these fees. Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including those set forth in section 1.1910 of the Commission's Rules
97

and in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”).
98

We also assess administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the related debt pursuant to the DCIA and section 1.1940(d) of the Commission's rules.
99

These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. In case of partial payments (underpayments) of regulatory fees, the licensee will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or not timely paid, then the 25 percent late charge penalty (and other charges and/or sanctions, as appropriate) will be assessed on the portion that is not paid in a timely manner.

96
47 U.S.C. 159(c).

97

See
47 CFR 1.1910.

98
Delinquent debt owed to the Commission triggers application of the “red light rule” which requires offsets or holds on pending disbursements. 47 CFR 1.1910. In 2004, the Commission adopted rules implementing the requirements of the DCIA.
See Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the Commission's Rules,
MD Docket No. 02-339, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6540 (2004); 47 CFR Part 1, Subpart O, Collection of Claims Owed the United States.

99
47 CFR 1.1940(d).

55. We will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made.
100

Failure to pay regulatory fees can also result in the initiation of a proceeding to revoke any and all authorizations held by the entity responsible for paying the delinquent fee(s).

100

See
47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910.

F. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

56. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”),
101

the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is set for in Appendix F.

101

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”).

G. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

57. This Report and Order does not contain proposed 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). Completion of the 159 family of forms required by the Commission's regulatory fee payment process is already approved by the Office of Management and Budget under information collections 3060-0589 and 3060-0949.

H. Congressional Review Act Analysis

58. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
102

102

See
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The Congressional Review Act is contained in Title II, 251, of the CWAAA;
see
Public Law 104-121, Title II, 251, 110 Stat. 868.

IV. Ordering Clauses

59. Accordingly,
it is ordered
that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, and 303(r), this Report and Order
is hereby adopted.

60.
It is further ordered
that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
shall send
a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Appendix F, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 Administrative Practice and Procedure

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

APPENDIX A

List of Commenters

Commenter
Abbreviated name

American Association of Paging Carriers
“AAPC.”

American Cable Association
“ACA.”

Robert Bittner
“Robert Bittner.”

Fireweed Communications, LLC
“Fireweed.”

Global Crossing North America, Inc
“GCNA.”

Edward A. Schober, Radiotechniques Engineering, LLC
“Radiotechniques Engineering.”

STi Prepaid, LLC
“STi Prepaid.”

The United States Telecom Association
“USTelecom.”

VHF Digital Stations
“VHF Digital Stations.”

List of Reply Commenters

Commenter
Abbreviated name

Global Crossing North America, Inc
“GCNA.”

Alex Goldman
“Alex Goldman.”

Qwest Communications International, Inc
“Qwest.”

STi Prepaid, LLC
“STi Prepaid.”

Verizon
“Verizon.”

APPENDIX B

Calculation of FY 2010 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees

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

Fee category
FY 2010 Payment units
Years

FY 2009
Revenue
estimate

Pro-Rated FY 2010 revenue requirement
Computed new FY 2010 regulatory fee

Rounded
new FY 2010
regulatory fee

Expected
FY 2010
revenue

PLMRS (Exclusive Use)
1,200
10
480,000
469,912
39
40
480,000

PLMRS (Shared use)
11,500
10
2,300,000
2,251,662
20
20
2,300,000

Microwave
9,500
10
2,250,000
2,202,713
23
25
2,375,000

218-219 MHz (Formerly IVDS)
3
10
1,950
1,909
64
65
1,950

Marine (Ship)
8,000
10
750,000
734,238
9
10
800,000

GMRS
9,700
5
275,000
269,220
6
5
242,500

Aviation (Aircraft)
4,600
10
350,000
342,644
7
5
230,000

Marine (Coast)
265
10
123,750
121,149
46
45
119,250

Aviation (Ground)
1,500
10
150,000
146,848
10
10
150,000

Amateur Vanity Call Signs
14,800
10
201,000
196,776
1.33
1.33
196,840

AM Class A
4a

68
1
248,625
253,752
3,732
3,725
253,300

AM Class B
4b

1,566
1
2,977,300
3,038,695
1,940
1,950
3,053,700

AM Class C
4c

918
1
1,055,250
1,077,010
1,173
1,175
1,078,650

AM Class D
4d

1,689
1
3,515,750
3,588,249
2,124
2,125
3,589,125

FM Classes A, B1 & C3
4e

3,104
1
7,384,125
7,374,954
2,376
2,375
7,372,000

FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2
4f

3,129
1
9,076,725
9,285,549
2,968
2,975
9,308,775

AM Construction Permits
112
1
42,800
43,683
390
390
43,680

FM Construction Permits
1

156
1
145,600
105,300
675
675
105,300

Satellite TV
126
1
161,925
165,264
1,312
1,300
163,800

Satellite TV Construction Permit
3
1
1,950
1,990
663
675
2,025

VHF Markets 1-10
20
1
3,258,150
1,631,100
81,555
81,550
1,631,000

VHF Markets 11-25
27
1
3,330,250
1,708,429
63,275
63,275
1,708,425

VHF Markets 26-50
33
1
2,818,125
1,404,112
42,549
42,550
1,404,150

VHF Markets 51-100
48
1
2,708,100
1,140,215
23,754
23,750
1,140,000

VHF Remaining Markets
122
1
1,190,000
747,235
6,125
6,125
747,250

VHF Construction Permits
1

3
1
17,850
18,375
6,125
6,125
18,375

UHF Markets 1-10
117
1
2,109,750
3,776,478
32,278
32,275
3,775,175

UHF Markets 11-25
113
1
1,743,525
3,399,110
30,081
30,075
3,398,475

UHF Markets 26-50
154
1
1,468,500
2,908,952
18,889
18,900
2,910,600

UHF Markets 51-100
245
1
1,246,400
2,828,382
11,544
11,550
2,829,750

UHF Remaining Markets
274
1
380,250
836,331
3,052
3,050
835,700

UHF Construction Permits
1

12
1
29,250
36,600
3,050
3,050
36,600

Broadcast Auxiliaries
27,500
1
275,000
280,671
10
10
275,000

LPTV/Translators/Boosters/Class A TV
3,400
1
1,380,000
1,408,457
414
415
1,411,000

CARS Stations
550
1
169,000
172,485
314
315
173,250

Cable TV Systems
64,500,000
1
56,760,000
57,545,458
0.89218
0.89
57,405,000

Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers
$43,300,000,000
1
160,056,000
151,290,200
0.00349400
0.00349
151,117,000

CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public Mobile)
283,000,000
1
49,680,000
50,796,008
0.1795
0.18
50,940,000

CMRS Messag. Services
6,000,000
1
560,000
480,000
0.0800
0.080
480,000

BRS
2
LMDS

1,660
510

1
1

552,000
107,200

514,600
158,100

310
310

310
310

514,600
158,100

Per 64 kbps Int'l Bearer Circuits Terrestrial (Common) & Satellite (Common & Non-Common)
2,898,033
1
1,111,779
1,130,306
.390
.39
1,130,233

Submarine Cable Providers (see chart in Appendix C)
3

34.13
1
7,818,040
7,983,656
233,919
233,925
7,983,860

Earth Stations
3,600
1
850,500
868,038
241
240
864,000

Space Stations (Geostationary)
87
1
11,064,225
11,130,522
127,937
127,925
11,129,475

Space Stations (Non-Geostationary)
6
1
823,350
828,283
138,047
138,050
828,300

Total Estimated Revenue to be Collected

342,998,994
336,693,623

336,712,213

Total Revenue Requirement

341,875,000
335,794,000

335,794,000

Difference

1,123,994
899,623

918,213

1
The FM Construction Permit revenues and the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues were adjusted to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. The reductions in the FM Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for FM radio stations. Similarly, reductions in the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for VHF and UHF television stations, respectively.

2
MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS).
See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,
Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, para. 6 (2004).

3
The chart at the end of Appendix B lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the following proceedings:
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Second Report and Order (MD Docket No. 08-65, RM-11312), released March 24, 2009; and
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009 and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (MD Docket No. 09-65, MD Docket No. 08-65), released on May 14, 2009.

4
The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2010 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted average media regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2010 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located in Appendix B.

APPENDIX C

FY 2010 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

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

Fee category

Annual regulatory fee
(U.S. $s)

PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90)
40

Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101)
25

218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR part 95)
65

Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)
10

Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)
45

General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95)
5

Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category)
20

PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90)
20

Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)
5

Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)
10

Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97)
1.33

CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90)
.18

CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90)
.08

Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 21)
310

Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR part 101)
310

AM Radio Construction Permits
390

FM Radio Construction Permits
675

TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial:

Markets 1-10
81,550

Markets 11-25
63,275

Markets 26-50
42,550

Markets 51-100
23,750

Remaining Markets
6,125

Construction Permits
6,125

TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial:

Markets 1-10
32,275

Markets 11-25
30,075

Markets 26-50
18,900

Markets 51-100
11,550

Remaining Markets
3,050

Construction Permits
3,050

Satellite Television Stations (All Markets)
1,300

Construction Permits—Satellite Television Stations
675

Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74)
415

Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)
10

CARS (47 CFR part 78)
315

Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76)
.89

Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00349

Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
240

Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
127,925

Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25)
138,050

International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64 KB circuit)
.39

International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable
See Table Below

FY 2010 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (continued)

FY 2010 Radio Station Regulatory Fees

Population served
AM Class A
AM Class B
AM Class C
AM Class D

FM Classes
A, B1 & C3

FM Classes
B, C, C0, C1 & C2

≤25,000
$675
$550
$500
$575
$650
$825

25,001-75,000
1,350
1,075
750
875
1,325
1,450

75,001-150,000
2,025
1,350
1,000
1,450
1,825
2,725

150,001-500,000
3,050
2,300
1,500
1,725
2,800
3,550

500,001-1,200,000
4,400
3,500
2,500
2,875
4,450
5,225

1,200,001-3,000,000
6,750
5,400
3,750
4,600
7,250
8,350

>3,000,000
8,100
6,475
4,750
5,750
9,250
10,850

FY 2010 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable

Submarine cable systems (capacity as of December 31, 2009)
Fee amount
Address

<2.5 Gbps
$14,625
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

2.5 Gbps or greater, but less than 5 Gbps
29,250
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

5 Gbps or greater, but less than 10 Gbps
58,500
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

10 Gbps or greater, but less than 20 Gbps
116,975
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

20 Gbps or greater
233,950
FCC, International, P.O. Box 979084, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

APPENDIX D

Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2010

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2010, we adjusted FY 2009 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2010 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (“ULS”), International Bureau Filing System (“IBFS”), Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline Competition Bureau's
Trends in Telephone Service
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast.

We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases; we compared FY 2010 estimates with actual FY 2009 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 2010 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 2010 payment units are based on FY 2009 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2010 projection is exactly the same number as FY 2009. We have either rounded the FY 2010 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

Fee category
Sources of payment unit estimates

Land Mobile (All), Microwave, 218-219 MHz, Marine (Ship & Coast), Aviation (Aircraft & Ground), GMRS, Amateur Vanity Call Signs, Domestic Public Fixed
Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) projections of new applications and renewals taking into consideration existing 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 09 payment data.

CMRS Messaging Services
Based on WTB reports, and FY 09 payment data.

AM/FM Radio Stations
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2009 payment units.

UHF/VHF Television Stations
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2009 payment units.

AM/FM/TV Construction Permits
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2009 payment units.

LPTV, Translators and Boosters, Class A Television
Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2009 payment units.

Broadcast Auxiliaries
Based on actual FY 2009 payment units.

BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS) LMDS
Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2009 payment units. Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2009 payment units.

Cable Television Relay Service (“CARS”) Stations
Based on data from Media Bureau's COALS database and actual FY 2009 payment units.

Cable Television System Subscribers
Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber counts and actual FY 2009 payment units.

Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers
Based on FCC Form 499-Q data for the four quarters of calendar year 2009, the Wireline Competition Bureau projected the amount of calendar year 2009 revenue that will be reported on 2010 FCC Form 499-A worksheets in April, 2010.

Earth Stations
Based on International Bureau (“IB”) licensing data and actual FY 2009 payment units.

Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs)
Based on IB data reports and actual FY 2009 payment units.

International Bearer Circuits
Based on IB reports and submissions by licensees.

Submarine Cable Licenses
Based on IB license information.

APPENDIX E

Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Go Into Determining 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, phasing, 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 modified standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules.
1

Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3.
2

Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2000 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.

1
47 CFR 73.150 and 73.152.

2

See
Map of Estimated Effective Ground Conductivity in the United States, 47 CFR 73.190 Figure R3.

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.
3

The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2000 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.

3
47 CFR 73.313.

APPENDIX F

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”),
1

the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Written public comments were sought on the FY 2010 fees proposal, including comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA.
2

1
5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (“CWAAA”). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”).

2
5 U.S.C. 604.

I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Notice

2. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated for the Commission to amend its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the amount of $335,794,000, which is the amount that Congress has required the Commission to recover. The Commission seeks to collect the necessary amount through its revised Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the most efficient manner possible and without undue public burden.

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

3. No parties have raised issues in response to the IRFA.

III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will Apply

4. 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.
3

The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
4

In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
5

A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
6

3
5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

4
5 U.S.C. 601(6).

5
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
.”

6
15 U.S.C. 632.

5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
7

7

See
SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,”
http://web.sba.gov/faqs
(accessed Jan. 2009).

6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, as of 2002, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations.
8

A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
9

8
Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002).

9
5 U.S.C. 601(4).

7. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
10

Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
11

We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.”
12

Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

10
5 U.S.C. 601(5).

11
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Section 8, p. 272, Table 415.

12
We assume that the villages, school districts, and special districts are small, and total 48,558.
See
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, p. 273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 35,819 were small.
Id.

8. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (
e.g.,
a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.”
13

The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope.
14

We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

13
15 U.S. C. 632.

14
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small-business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.”
See
15 U.S.C. 632(a) (“Small Business Act”); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (“RFA”). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.
See
13 CFR 121.102(b).

9. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
15

According to Commission data,
16

1,311 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 287 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action.

15
13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 517110.

16
FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “
Trends in Telephone Service
” at Table 5.3, Page 5-5 (Aug. 2008) (“
Trends in Telephone Service
”). This source uses data that are current as of November 1, 2006.

10. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLECs”), Competitive Access Providers (“CAPs”), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.” Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
17

According to Commission data,
18

1005 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 1005 carriers, an estimated 918 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 87 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 89 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 89, all have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action.

17
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

18
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

11. 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.
19

According to Commission data,
20

151 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 149 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of

local resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

19
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

20
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

12. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
21

According to Commission data,
22

815 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 787 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

21
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

22
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

13. Payphone Service Providers (“PSPs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
23

According to Commission data,
24

526 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 524 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

23
3 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

24
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

14. Interexchange Carriers (“IXCs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
25

According to Commission data,
26

300 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 32 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our action.

25
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

26
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

15. Operator Service Providers (“OSPs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
27

According to Commission data,
28

28 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 27 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our action.

27
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

28
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

16. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
29

According to Commission data,
30

88 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 85 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

29
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

30
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3.

17. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.
31

Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
32

The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission receives from Database Service Management on the 800, 866, 877, and 888 numbers in use.
33

According to our data, at the end of December 2007, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,210,184; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,388,682; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,029,116. We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are independently owned and operated or have 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,860,000 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,210,184 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,388,682 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers, and 7,029,116 or fewer entity 866 subscribers.

31
We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category.

32
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

33
“Trends in Telephone Service” at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, and 18.7.

18. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. These two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.
34

The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.
35

The most current Census Bureau data in this context, however, are from the (last) economic census of 2002, and we will use those figures to gauge the prevalence of small businesses in these categories.
36

34
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517410.

35
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919.

36
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910 (2002).

19. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”
37

For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year.
38

Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
39

Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

37
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517410.HTM
.

38
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

39

Id.
An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.

20. The second category of All Other Telecommunications comprises,
inter alia,
“establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.”
40

For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.
41

Of this total, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
42

Consequently, we estimate that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

40
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517919 All Other Telecommunications”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517919.HTM#N517919
.

41
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

42

Id.
An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.

21. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.
43

Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless

Telecommunications.”
44

Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
45

Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year.
46

Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
47

For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.
48

Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
49

Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.

43
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except Satellite)”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210
.

44
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”;
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM
.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212 Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”;
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM
.

45
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

46
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

47

Id.
The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”

48
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

49

Id.
The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”

22. Auctions. Initially, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

23. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) firms within the broad economic census categories of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.”
50

Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.
51

Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.”
52

Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
53

Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year.
54

Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
55

For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.
56

Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
57

Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.

50
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

51
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except Satellite)”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210
.

52
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”;
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM
.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212 Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”;
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM
.

53
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

54
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

55

Id.
The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-17331. Public record. Not legal advice.