Schedule of Application Fees of the Commission's Rules

Federal RegisterMar 19, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 20-270; FCC 20-184; FRS 17412]

Schedule of Application Fees of the Commission's Rules

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission adopts a new application fee schedule that significantly updates the Commission's previous fee schedule in both the type of applications and the processes involved under section 158 (c)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).

DATES:

Effective April 19, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's

Report and Order,

FCC 20-184, MD Docket No. 20-270, adopted on December 23, 2020 and released on December 29, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-184A1.pdf.

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this

Report and Order.

The FRFA is located at the end of this document.

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

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

see

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

C. Congressional Review Act

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

1. Prior to adoption of the RAY BAUM'S Act, the Commission's authority to make changes to application fees was limited to biannual adjustments based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI); the Commission was precluded from adding or deleting application fee categories.

A filing not listed on the section 8 application fee schedule did not have a fee unless such a fee was added by Congress. Congress also provided that certain categories of applicants should receive exemptions in section 8(d) of the Act. Such statutory exempt entities included nonprofit entities licensed in certain radio services, as well as all governmental entities.

The Commission was required to adjust the fees every two years to reflect changes in the CPI. Under the new section 8(b)(1) of the Act, the Commission is similarly required to review application fees in every even-numbered year, adjust the fees to reflect increases or decreases in the CPI, and round to the nearest $5 increment. 47 U.S.C. 158(b)(1).

2. In 2018, as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, Congress specifically required that the Commission (i) adopt a schedule of application fees to recover the costs to process applications and (ii) amend the schedule, as needed, to reflect increases or decreases in the costs of processing applications or to reflect the consolidation or addition of new categories. The RAY BAUM'S Act requires the Commission to base application fees on the “costs of the Commission to process applications.”

Section 8(a) provides: “The Commission shall assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish in a schedule of application fees to recover the costs of the Commission to process applications.” 47 U.S.C. 158(a). The prior version of section 8(a) did not mention costs, it provided: “The Commission shall assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as it shall establish pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section.”

3. The Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 26, 2020, seeking comment on proposed new, cost-based, application fees. The Commission proposed a new streamlined schedule of application fees to align with the types of applications the Commission now receives and to correlate the fees charged to the direct costs of processing the associated applications. In making the proposals under the revised statutory framework, the Commission proposed to adopt as overarching goals that the framework for assessing application fees would be fair, administrable, and sustainable.

4. The Commission sought comment on consolidating the application fees assessed on licenses for wireless services so that instead of separate application fees for each application in each wireless service, the fees would be consolidated into site-based licenses, personal licenses, and geographic-based licenses. The Commission also sought comment on consolidating some of the application fees for licenses from the Media Bureau and removing some broadcast applications from the fee schedule. In addition, the Commission sought comment on new application fees for certain applications in the Wireline Competition Bureau that currently do not have fees. For applications for international services, the Commission proposed to consolidate some of the application fees for space stations and earth stations, and add new application fees for some international services, such as petitions for United States market access for foreign space stations.

5. The Commission included estimates of the direct costs of processing the applications in support of the proposed fees. The Commission sought comment on the cost estimates and whether the appropriate steps in processing the application in estimating the costs were included.

6. The RAY BAUM'S Act fundamentally changed the structure of the Commission's application fees by moving from a schedule established by statute and updated to keep pace with the CPI to one where the Commission has discretion to amend the schedule of application fees itself and set them based on the costs of the Commission to process applications. To implement the RAY BAUM'S Act, we adopt a new streamlined schedule of application fees that aligns with the types of applications the Commission now receives and correlates the fees charged to the costs of processing the associated applications. In adopting rules under the revised statutory framework, our overarching goals in assessing application fees are that they are fair, administrable, and sustainable.

Methodology for Calculating Application Fees:

The RAY BAUM'S Act directed the Commission to adopt a schedule of fees based on the cost of processing applications. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to base the application fees on an estimate of direct labor costs where possible. Where that

was not possible, the Commission proposed to base fees for applications that are largely automated using a calculation that accounts for the direct labor costs needed to process the small percentage of applications in these categories that require occasional staff involvement in processing. We adopt our proposals as modified herein. As we explain here generally, and in the discussion of individual fee categories more specifically, our methodology for calculating direct costs of application processing by design limits the set of activities that are included in our estimates.

85 FR 65566 (October 15, 2020).

8. We adopt the proposal in the

NPRM

to use time and staff compensation (salaries and the cost of employer-paid personnel benefits) estimates to establish the direct labor costs of application fees. Specifically, the estimates we developed are based on applications processed by Commission staff found to be typical in terms of the amount of time spent on processing each type of application. We estimated the direct labor costs to process a particular application by multiplying an estimate of the number of hours needed for each task, up through first-level supervisory tasks required to process the application, by an estimate of the labor cost per hour for the employee performing the task and by an estimate of the probability that the task needed to be performed. We estimated labor cost per hour for the various general schedule pay grades of the employees that process applications based on the 2020 federal government pay table for Washington DC, at the step 5 level, as we currently do under our Freedom of Information Act rules. We estimated the cost of personnel benefits at 20% of the salary level also per that rule, and we assumed that each employee works 2,087 hours in one year. We also rounded each fee to the nearest $5 increment, as required by section 8. After careful analysis, we find these cost estimates are a reasonable cost basis for the application fees we adopt in this Report and Order.

9. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) disagrees with our methodology and argues that application fees for broadcasters should not include supervisory tasks.

We included the first-level supervisory costs because first-level supervisory labor is essential to the application process. An application decision typically cannot be finalized until it has been reviewed at least once and approved by a supervisor. Moreover, the first-level supervisory labor reflected in our estimates is an identifiable work activity that is a routine part of the application process and for which time estimates can be reliably developed relative to a specific type of application. Accordingly, we find it is appropriate to include supervisory tasks in our calculation of application fees.

NAB Comments at 7.

10. Some commenters argue that processes for some applications are so automated that there should be no application fee. We find there are some direct labor costs incurred for a portion of these applications and we therefore conclude that adoption of a fee to account for those costs is appropriate. We do, upon further consideration, lower the application fee from the amount proposed in the

NPRM.

We reviewed the significant automation involved in these applications and the minimal staff input normally incurred in processing the applications and determined that this lowered direct costs for the average application than we had initially estimated. The $35 cost-based fee we adopt for mostly automated applications assumes that a relatively small number of these applications require staff direct labor. For administrative purposes (including that neither we nor applicants can reliably anticipate which applications will require such intervention), we assess this $35 fee on each applicant for mostly automated applications as identified throughout this order.

11.

A Streamlined Application Fee Schedule:

We adopt a streamlined schedule of application fees, consolidating the eight separate categories of fees currently in our rules down to five functional categories: Wireless Licensing Fees, Media Licensing Fees, Equipment Approval Fees, Domestic Service Fees, and International Service Fees. In conjunction with this streamlining, we consolidate our approach to listing application fees, reducing the total number of application fees from 450 to 173, while still including new fees for services that were not listed previously in section 8 of the Act. This consolidation will provide a more straightforward roadmap for filers to determine what fees they owe with any given application filed with the Commission.

12.

Wireless Licensing Fees: The

Commission proposed in the

NPRM

to consolidate the wireless license application fees into four categories, instead of adopting separate fees for each service, and we implement those changes in this Report and Order.

The fees we adopt are in the four categories consisting of site-based, personal,

geographic-based, and experimental.

The Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Commission's online software platform for licensing wireless services, provides for the filing, review, and disposition of all types of applications in the Wireless Radio Services, including auctioned geographic licenses, site-based licenses, and personal licenses.

Because ULS allows for the automated processing of many types of applications, the fees we adopt today are in many cases lower than the prior fees (which were set by statute and not necessarily reflective of current agency costs). We direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director to issue and maintain on an ongoing basis on the Commission's website a list of the fee categories and the wireless radio services within each.

85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8.

The terms personal licenses and personal license services were used in the

NPRM

and are used here to refer to a grouping of radio services with similar characteristics and do not refer only to Personal Radio Services under part 95 of the Commission's rules, which does not include the Amateur Radio Service. Our intent here was to group radio services together that had similar types of data and levels of processing effort. As stated in the

NPRM

and in this Report and Order, with personal licenses, an applicant's initial application for authorization for a personal license seeks shared use of certain spectrum bands or a permit required for operation of certain radio equipment, but in either case, these applications focus only on eligibility and do not require technical review. The personal license fee category includes a mixture of radio services, including services covered by parts 13 (commercial operator), 80 (ship), 87 (aircraft), 95 (GMRS), and 97 (Amateur) of the Commission's rules.

See

85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8.

See id.

ULS does not include licenses in the Experimental Radio Service. Applicants for conventional experimental licenses are required to file administrative and technical characteristics of their proposed experimental operation online in the Experimental Licensing System.

13.

Site-Based Licenses:

We adopt the site-based license application fees proposed in the

NPRM.

Site-based licensed services include land mobile systems (one or more base stations communicating with mobile devices, or mobile-only systems), point-to-point systems (two stations using a spectrum band to form a data communications path), point-to-multipoint systems (one or more base stations that communicate with fixed remote units), as well as radiolocation and radionavigation systems. Applications to authorize these types of radio systems contain similar types of data (location, antenna, frequency, path, mobile devices) and the applications for some of these services often require technical analysis and review by Commission staff.

Specifically, an applicant's initial application for authorization generally provides the exact technical parameters of its planned operations (such as transmitter location, area of operation, desired frequency(s)/band(s), and power levels).

Deviation from the specific authorized parameters requires the licensee to file an application to modify the station which, depending on the nature of the modifications, may require prior approval (major modifications) or may simply require notification after the fact (minor modifications).

The construction notification (where required) confirms construction based on authorized parameters, and the licensee's renewal request confirms continued operation at those parameters.

Depending on the particular service, the application may be significantly automated or may require detailed, often technical, review prior to initial authorization or major modification, and administrative review of minor modifications and of construction and renewal deadlines.

85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11.

See id., e.g.,

sections 1.923, 101.21.

See id., e.g.,

section 101.21(e).

See id., e.g.,

sections 1.929, 1.947.

See id., e.g.,

section 1.949.

14. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to consolidate application fees for these site-based licenses.

We recognize that this consolidation includes both site-based licenses that require more staff input and site-based licenses that are largely automated and require less staff input. As one commenter, EWA, observed, part 90 licenses range from multi-frequency, multi-site systems seeking exclusivity and governed by complicated licensing requirements such as the eligibility criteria for particular 800 MHz frequencies to mobile-only systems requesting shared VHF/UHF itinerant frequencies throughout areas of operation such as counties, states, or even the entire nation, and currently they all have a $70 filing fee.

EWA objected to the proposed fee increase from $70 to $190 for all part 90 applications because it included licenses for mobile-only systems that required almost no review by Commission staff.

Another commenter, Moncure, also opposed the proposal to treat all site-based wireline services equally, asserting that for the part 90 site-based applications requiring frequency coordination, much of the processing needed by the Commission is automated, and the proposed fees are not justified.

85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11.

EWA Comments at 3-4.

EWA Comments at 3-4. Forest Industries Telecommunications (FIT) and Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) also disagree with the proposal to adopt a more than 171% increase. FIT Reply at 1; WIA Reply at 4.

Moncure Comments at 1.

15. In the

NPRM,

the Commission estimated that its resources in processing an application for a new site-based license or modification of an existing site-based license consisted of program analyst review and engineer technical review and involved, on average, $190 in costs. EWA asserted this was unreasonable because virtually all new and modified applications go through prior coordination by an FCC-certified Frequency Advisory Committee to verify that the technical parameters of the proposed system meet FCC requirements, and renewal showings now are based on check-the-box certifications on the Form 601.

We disagree that applications involving a frequency coordinator involve no review; however, we agree with EWA that a large number of site-based licenses have lower processing costs, and consequently the proposed fee of $190 may be in some cases higher than the direct costs for certain types of part 90 applications. Streamlining the fee schedule is beneficial to licensees and the Commission, but such streamlining involves a certain amount of cost averaging. That said, on further review, and keeping in mind that such streamlining should not result in statistically inaccurate fees, we find that the number of more highly automated licenses in the fee category warrants a downward adjustment of the fee for this category. Accordingly, we increased the weighting for applications with lower processing costs in our calculation. Therefore, we adopt a fee of $95, a lower fee than proposed in the

NPRM,

for the applications in the site-specific services.

EWA Reply at 2.

16. The Commission estimated in the

NPRM

that its resources in processing an application for special temporary authority (STA) consisted of program analyst review and processing, engineer technical review, and supervisor coordination with management. Its estimate was that this process involved $135 in costs. We adopt the proposed fee of $135.

17. The Commission estimated in the

NPRM

that its resources in processing an application for an assignment or transfer of control consisted of program analyst review and processing, and it estimated that this process involved $50 in costs.

In proposing and seeking comment on the adoption of a cost-based fee of $50 for an assignment or transfer of control application, the Commission indicated that this fee would be assessed on a per call sign basis.

However, the Commission also noted that, under the current rule, it sometimes assesses an application fee for additional call signs that is significantly lower than the fee for the initial call sign.

EWA asserts that applying this same fees for every call sign in a transaction involving multiple call signs is unreasonable because less individual call sign review is needed for assignment or transfer applications since each license has been approved already by the FCC and the focus is on whether the assignee/transferee is qualified.

EWA explains that for site-based Part 90 land mobile radio services, an entity must identify each transmitter site at which it operates, and ULS allows only six fixed transmitter sites per call sign.

A large business enterprise with many hundreds of sites could be required to hold a hundred or more individual call signs to cover its operating area.

EWA contends that virtually all site-based applications for assignments and transfers are processed under the overnight immediate approval procedures and no oversight is involved, whether the application involves a single license or two hundred licenses.

Therefore, according to EWA, assessing fees based on the number of call signs in the filing does not in any way reasonably represent the FCC resources associated with processing the application.

Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the cost of processing additional call signs is less than the initial call sign and therefore, weighting the costs for this reduced burden, adopt a fee of $35 for each additional call sign for assignments and transfers of control. Further, an analysis of assignment and transfer of control applications over the past five years shows that more than 90% of these applications involved 10 or fewer call signs. Recognizing the diminishing identifiable direct costs associated with processing additional call signs in the same transaction, we find that reducing fees for additional call signs and capping the number of call signs feeable per application better reflects the predictable, identifiable,

direct costs of processing most applications in this fee category. Accordingly, we adopt a cap on application fees for assignments and transfers of control, under which only the first 10 call signs are feeable (

e.g.,

an assignment application with 15 call signs would be charged $365; $50 for first call sign, $35 each for nine additional call signs, and $0 for the five remaining call signs).

85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 12.

Id.

at 8, para. 18. (cite)

Id.

(noting that the current fee for applications to assign or transfer control of common carrier microwave licenses is $110 for the first call sign and $70 for each additional call sign);

see also Application Fee NPRM

at 13, para. 41, 85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para 34.

100

85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para 34.

101

Cubesats are small satellites that use a standard size and form factor; generally, “one unit” or “1U” which measures 10x10x10 centimeters.

See What are SmallSats and CubeSats?

(Feb. 26, 2015),

https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-are-smallsats-and-cubesats.

102

85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para 34.

103

47 CFR 5.53(c)-(d), 5.61. In certain circumstances, an applicant may request an STA by telephone or electronic media for operation of a conventional experimental radio service station, provided a properly signed application is filed within 10 days of such request.

Id.

5.61(a)(3).

59. The Commission also offers additional types of licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—collectively referred to herein as program licenses, as well as broadcast experimental licenses and spectrum horizon experimental licenses. The program license, medical testing license and compliance testing license offer an alternative streamlined process to the conventional experimental license procedures for entities that meet certain eligibility criteria. Rather than applying for a specific course of experimentation, qualified entities apply for and are approved to conduct a broad range of experiments within an area under their direct control, such as a university campus or manufacturing plant.

104

Because licensees are not approved for specific experiments, they are required to post a description of each experiment along with the technical data to the Commission's Experimental Notification System web page.

105

Once posted, licensees must wait ten days when using non-federally allocated spectrum to allow any potentially affected user to comment and raise any concerns. If there are no objections, the licensee may proceed with its experiment.

104

See id.

5.304, 5.404. In addition, compliance testing licensees are authorized to conduct activities related to equipment authorization which generally occurs at their laboratory facilities.

See

47 CFR 5.502.

105

See id.

5.309(a), 5.406(b); FCC Experiments Notification System,

https://apps2.fcc.gov/ELSExperiments/pages/login.htm.

60. Regardless of the complexity of any application, each must undergo a similar review process to determine if all required information is provided, to review the experimental description and analyze the technical data to ensure it is consistent with that description and to determine what coordination, if any, is required. The same process must also be followed for program experimental licenses. Although this process is similar across all application types, the amount of time needed to complete the application review differs based on complexity.

61. We adopt the cost-based fee for these applications that we proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed in the above paragraphs and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules. All fees are per call sign unless otherwise noted.

62.

Media Licensing Fees:

The Commission processes media applications for licensing broadcast television and radio spectrum for commercial and noncommercial users, and those related to the provision of cable service.

106

Certain media license construction permits are assigned through competitive bidding and we will assess a single post-auction consolidated long-form and short-form fee for auctioned construction permits. Application fees for services are currently organized according to whether they are for TV service or AM and FM radio service. We proposed in the

NPRM

to retain this organization for these services, remove those fees associated with requirements that the Commission has previously eliminated, and add fees for services, as now required, that are not covered by the current fee schedule. We adopt the media licensing application fees proposed in the

NPRM.

106

For a comprehensive description of Media Bureau activities,

see https://www.fcc.gov/media.

63.

Auctioned Broadcast Services:

Some broadcast licenses are obtained through a process including an auction for construction permits. For auctioned construction permits the Commission sought comment in the

NPRM

on imposing only a single application fee so that only a winning bidder would be required to pay an application fee to the costs of short-form and long-form processing. Under such a consolidation there will be no separate short-form fee; the only fee would be due when the application is submitted at the long-form stage. In the

NPRM,

the Commission asked for comment on whether consolidation would alleviate the possibility that establishing a fee for filing an auction application might discourage auction participation, particularly by small or minority-owned businesses.

107

The Commission recognized that fewer applications could result in reduced competition in an auction, undermining its ability to promote the various objectives of spectrum auctions enumerated in section 309(j).

108

For the same reasons we adopt single application fees for auctioned wireless licenses, we decide to charge only a single fee for auctioned broadcast construction permits, consistent with section 8 and in the interest of minimizing our costs of processing auctions and maximizing competition in the auction process.

109

107

85 FR 65576 (October 15, 2020) at para. 83.

108

47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that may be affected by reduced competition is the “recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for commercial use.”

Id.

309(j)(3)(C).

109

47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that may be affected by reduced competition resulting from a short form fee assessed on all auction participants is the “recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for commercial use.”

Id.

309(j)(3)(C).

64. We adopt the proposed estimate of $575 in costs for broadcast auctions short-form processing. In the

NPRM,

we estimated that the Commission's costs in processing the short-form stage consists primarily of attorney review and attorney supervisor legal review, involving $575 in costs. Accordingly, when a broadcast construction permits is won at auction the application fee for that construction permit will be $575 higher than the otherwise applicable application fee.

65. NYX Communications and REC Networks support the proposed fee of $575 for the broadcast auctions short-form application, for all short-form filers and thus oppose a consolidated auction fee that is only assessed on winning bidders.

110

These commenters contend that imposing a fee prior to auction could discourage speculators from selecting new facilities that they do not actually construct and other types of gamesmanship.

111

We find that concerns about gamesmanship are outweighed by the likelihood of increased competition and better addressed through other available means to prevent speculation such as capping the number of applications each applicant may file.

110

NYX Communications Comments at 1-2; REC Networks Comments at 13.

111

NYX Communications Comments at 1-2; REC Networks Comments at 13.

66.

Commercial Full Power TV Services and Class A TV Stations:

We adopt the Commercial Full Power TV Services and Class A TV Stations application fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

Full Power TV stations include all stations in the television broadcast band transmitting a vestigial sideband signal intended to be received by the general public, except for low power TV and TV translator stations. Class A TV stations are low power television stations that meet the programming and operational standards set forth in the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 and are broadcasting a minimum of 18 hours per week and an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter.

67. The staff tasks involved in processing Full Power TV applications and Class A TV Station applications are the same. A party must apply for a construction permit before building a new TV station. The applicant must demonstrate that it is legally, technically, and financially qualified to construct and operate the station and that its proposed facility will not cause objectionable interference to any other station. Once its application has been granted, the applicant is issued a construction permit authorizing it to build the station within a specified period, usually three years. After the applicant, or permittee, builds the station, it must file a license application, in which it certifies that it has constructed the station consistent with the technical and other terms specified in its construction permit. Upon grant of that license application, the Commission issues the new license to operate to the permittee, now considered a licensee, which authorizes the new licensee to operate for a stated period, up to eight years. At the close of this period, the licensee must seek renewal of its station license. A licensee must file an application to the Commission for approval of an assignment, transfer, or technical modification of an existing license.

68. The Commission proposed to adopt identical cost-based fees for Full Power TV and Class A TV applications because the processing of Full Power TV applications and Class A TV Station applications are the same.

69. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing applications for new and major change construction permits consist of significant engineering and legal analysis, as the applications tend to be highly complex. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing applications for permits, encompassing engineer technical review, engineer supervisory review, attorney legal review, attorney pleadings review, and attorney written disposition review, is $4,260. When a construction permit is auctioned, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, for a total of $4,835 for Full Power TV and Class A TV applications.

70. Applications for new licenses, long-form license assignments, long-form transfers of control, and Full Power TV minor modifications are complex matters that require significant engineering review and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing an application for a new license, which consists of engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, is $380. Applications for long-form license assignment and long-form transfers of control often involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing long-form license assignment and transfers of control, including attorney application review, attorney supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, is $1,245. Commission review of minor modification construction permit applications for Full Power TV involves engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, at an estimated cost of $1,335.

71. Other applications are of lesser complexity and therefore impose fewer costs on the Commission staff, including license renewals, short-form license assignments, short-form transfers of control and STA. The processing of these applications may involve petitions or objections after the application is filed and typically involve attorney application review, attorney supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing an application for license renewal is $330. For short-form license assignments and transfers of control, we estimate that the cost of processing is $405. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing an STA application is $270.

72. For applications for call signs, which involves some legal analysis, we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV call sign consist of analyst application review at the cost of $170. For ownership report applications, which involve minimal review by Commission staff, we estimate that the Commission's resources in processing a TV Ownership Report consist of analyst application review and that the cost of this process is $85.

73. A petition for a rulemaking to amend the DTV Table of Allotments for a new community of license has a high level of complexity and involves significant legal analysis and engineering review. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a Full Power TV petition for rulemaking consist of engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney legal review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, and that the cost of this process is $3,395.

74. We are deleting the Main Studio Request application fee from the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.

112

Elimination of Main Studio Rule,

Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017).

75. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed per application, as proposed in the

NPRM

for these applications, and discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

76.

TV Translators and LPTV Stations:

We adopt the TV Translators and LPTV Stations application fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

A TV translator is a transmitter device which repeats, or transponds, the signal of the television station. The translator retransmits the primary signal to areas it may not reach due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. An LPTV station may retransmit the programs and signals of a TV broadcast station and may

originate programming. The Commission proposed cost-based application fees for TV translators and LPTV stations in the

NPRM.

77. TV translator and LPTV applications for new and major change construction permits have the highest level of complexity, and significant engineering and legal analysis is needed in processing these applications. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing these applications consist of engineer technical review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleadings review, and attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $775. (When a construction permit is auctioned, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, for a total of $1,350 for TV translator and LPTV applications.) We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV Translator or an LPTV application for a new license, which involves some legal analysis and significant engineering review, consist of engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, and that the cost of this process is $215. License assignments, which require significant legal analysis, may involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV translator or LPTV license assignment application consist of attorney application review, attorney supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, and that the cost of this process is $335.

78. Other applications require only some legal or engineering analysis. License renewals and transfers of control each involve attorney application review, application supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. Some applications for transfer of control subsequently involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. For license renewals, our estimate is that the cost of this process is $145. For transfers of control, our estimate is that the cost of this process is $335.

79. Applications for STA are less complex and involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV translator and LPTV STA consist of engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $270. Call sign applications have a low level of complexity and involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV translator and LPTV call sign consist of analyst application review. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $170.

80. We adopt the cost-based fees as proposed in the

NPRM,

as described in the above paragraphs and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

81.

TV Booster Stations:

We adopt the proposal in the

NPRM

to remove TV Booster Stations from the application fee schedule because we no longer have applications for this analog service as a result of the digital television transition.

82.

Cable Television Services:

We adopt the Cable Television Services application fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

Cable television service involves the delivery of video programming or other programming service to subscribers via radio frequency signals transmitted through coaxial or fiber-optic cables. The Commission's associated costs for cable service include cable system registration, cable television relay service (CARS) applications, special relief and show cause petitions involving technical matters, requests for rulings on technical matters, and requests for waivers of the rules as well as signal leakage performance reports filed by cable system operators, analysis of aeronautical frequency usage data, and ensuring compliance with Commission requirements.

113

The Commission proposed cost-based application fees for this service in the

NPRM.

113

See

generally Part 76 of the Commission's Rules (“Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service”).

83. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a new CARS license consist of analyst application review, engineer application evaluation, and engineer application approval and that the cost of this process is $450. For major license modifications, we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application consist of analyst application review, engineer application evaluation, and engineer application approval and that the cost of this process is $345. We estimated that the Commission's processing of an application for a CARS license minor modification consists of analyst application review, analyst application evaluation, and engineer application approval and that the cost of this process is $50.

84. The Commission's processing of an application for a CARS license renewal consists of analyst application review, engineer application evaluation, and engineer application approval. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $260. The processing of license assignments involves an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer evaluating the application, and an attorney approving the application and our estimate is that the cost of this process is $365. The Commission's processing of an application for a CARS transfer of control application consists of an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer evaluating the application, and an attorney approving the application. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $465. The Commission processes applications for STA by having an analyst review the application and an engineer evaluate and approve it. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $225. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a special relief petition consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer evaluating it, a supervisory engineer evaluating it, and an attorney approving the application. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $1,615. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a registration statement consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an analyst evaluating the application, and an engineer approving the application. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $105. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an MVPD aeronautical frequency usage notification consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an analyst evaluating the application, and an engineer approving the application and that the cost of this process is $90.

85. We adopt the cost-based fees as proposed in the

NPRM,

as described in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

86.

Commercial AM and FM Radio Stations:

We adopt the Commercial AM and FM Radio Station application fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

The radio broadcast service includes the commercial and noncommercial educational AM and FM radio services, and also the noncommercial educational low power FM radio service.

114

A party must apply for a construction permit before building a new AM or FM radio

station. The applicant must demonstrate that it is legally, technically, and financially qualified to construct and operate the station as specified in its application and that the proposed facility will not cause objectionable interference to any other station. Once its application has been granted, the applicant is issued a construction permit, which authorizes the applicant to build the station within a specified period of time, usually three years. After the applicant, now a permittee, builds the station, it must file a license application, in which it certifies that it has constructed the station consistent with the technical and other terms specified in its construction permit. Upon grant of that license application, the Commission issues the new license to operate to the permittee, now a licensee, which authorizes the new licensee to operate for a stated period of time, up to eight years. At the close of this period, the licensee must seek renewal of its license.

114

Noncommercial stations are exempt from application fees. Specifically, under the RAY BAUM'S Act, the exemptions are to “(A) a governmental entity; (B) a nonprofit entity licensed in the Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation, Public Safety, or Special Emergency Radio radio services; or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial television station.”

87.

Commercial AM Stations.

Applications for new construction permits have the highest level of complexity and significant engineering and legal analysis is needed in processing these applications. Many of these applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a new AM construction permit consist of engineering technical review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $3,980. Likewise, AM major change applications, which must be filed in windows along with new AM construction permits and have the exact same level of technical and legal review, have a process cost of $3,980.

115

(When a new or major change construction permit is awarded as a result of a winning auction bid, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, resulting in a total of $4,555 for auctioned commercial AM construction permit applications.) We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an AM minor change construction permit consist of engineer technical review, engineer supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,625.

115

The Commission's rules treat applications for new broadcast stations and applications for major changes as falling into the same group. For AM broadcast facilities,

see

47 CFR 73.3571(a)(1) (“Applications for AM broadcast facilities are divided into three groups. (1) In the first group are applications for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations. . . .”):

88. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an AM license consist of a legal analyst reviewing application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition. Some of the applications involve petitions or objections. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $645. An AM directional antenna application involves some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an AM directional antenna consist of engineer technical review, engineer supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,260. AM license renewal applications have a medium level of complexity and involve some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing an application for renewal consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $325.

89. Long-form applications for AM license assignments involve significant legal analysis, with some assignments involving petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for an AM license assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form license applications have a lower level of complexity and require some, though less, legal analysis than long form applications. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing a short-form application for an AM license assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing the pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $425. Long-form applications for AM transfers of control involve significant legal analysis. Some applications for transfer of control involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for AM transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form applications for transfer of control involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a short-form application for transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing the pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $410.

90. AM radio call sign applications involve some legal analysis, and we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an AM call sign application consist of analyst application review. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $170. Applications for STA involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an AM STA application consist of engineer technical review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $290. AM ownership report applications involve minimal review by Media Bureau staff. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an AM ownership report consist of analyst application review and that the cost of this process is $85.

91. We are deleting the AM Main Studio Request application fee from the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.

116

We are also deleting the AM Remote Control fee from the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing AM Remote Control from the application fee schedule as a category because AM Remote Control licensees are not required to file this form in order to engage in remote control operations.

116

Elimination of Main Studio Rule,

Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017).

92. We adopt cost-based application fees as the Commission proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed in the above paragraphs and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

93.

Commercial FM Stations.

Applications for new construction permits have the highest level of

complexity and significant engineering and legal analysis is needed in processing these applications. Many of these applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a new FM construction permit consist of engineering technical review, supervisory engineer review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $3,295. Likewise, FM major change applications, which must be filed in windows along with new FM construction permits and have the exact same level of technical and legal review, have a process cost of $3,295.

117

(When a new or major change construction permit is awarded as a result of a winning auction bid, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, resulting a total of $3,870 for auctioned commercial FM construction permit applications.) We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM minor modification construction permit consist of engineer review, engineer supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,265.

117

See

47 CFR 73.3572(a)(1) (“Applications for FM broadcast stations are divided into two groups: (1) In the first group are applications for new stations or for major changes of authorized stations . . . .”).

94. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM license consist of an analyst reviewing the application, engineering review, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition. Some of the applications involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the cost of this process is $235. An application for an FM directional antenna involves some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM directional antenna consist of engineer review, engineer supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $630.

95. An application for an FM license involves some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for FM license renewal consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $325. Long-form applications for FM license assignment involve significant legal analysis. Some of these applications involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for an FM assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form applications for FM license assignment involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a short-form application for an FM license assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $425. Long-form applications for FM transfers of control involve significant legal analysis. Some applications for transfer of control involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for FM transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing application, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form applications for FM transfers involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a short form application for FM transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $425.

96. Applications for FM call signs involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM call sign consist of analyst application review and that the cost of this process is $170. Applications for STA involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM STA application consist of engineer technical review, supervisory engineer review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $210. Applications for FM ownership report involve minimal review by Media Bureau staff. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for FM ownership report consist of analyst application review and that the cost of this process is $85.

97. A petition for rulemaking to amend the FM Table of Allotments for a new community of license has a high level of complexity and involves significant legal analysis and engineering review. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM petition for rulemaking consist of engineering technical review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $3,180.

98. We are deleting the FM Main Studio Request application fee from the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.

118

Elimination of Main Studio Rule,

Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017).

99. We adopt the cost-based application fees for commercial FM stations as the Commission proposed in the

NPRM

as described above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

100.

FM Translators and Boosters.

FM translators and FM boosters retransmit the signal of another radio broadcast station without significantly altering the characteristics of the incoming signal other than its frequency and amplitude. This service was first created in 1970 to allow FM stations to provide supplementary service to areas in which direct reception of radio service is unsatisfactory due to distance or terrain barriers. Translator stations simultaneously re-broadcast the signal of a primary station on a different frequency. Those translator stations that provide service within the primary station's protected service area are classified as fill-in stations. Fill-in translators can be owned by the main station or by an independent entity. FM booster stations must operate on the same frequency as the main station. Booster stations must be owned by the licensee of the primary FM station. Booster stations are also restricted in that the service contour of the booster

may not exceed the protected service contour of the primary station.

119

We proposed cost-based fees in the

NPRM.

One commenter, REC Networks, agrees with our proposal to impose a $210 filing fee on FM translator minor modifications, and states that it will discourage warehousing of spectrum.

120

119

Id.

120

REC Networks Comments at 12.

101. An application for either a new FM translator or an FM booster construction permit involves legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some applications may involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing either an application for a new FM translator or an FM booster construction permit consist of engineering technical review, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $705 for either a new FM translator or an FM booster construction permit. Likewise, FM translator major change applications, which must be filed in windows along with new FM translator construction permits and have the exact same level of technical and legal review, have a process cost of $705.

121

(When a new or major change construction permit for an FM translator application is awarded as a result of a winning auction bid, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, for a total of $1,280 for FM translator applications.

122

121

47 CFR 74.1233(a)(1) (“Applications for FM translator and booster stations are divided into two groups: (1)(i) In the first group are applications for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations.”).

122

FM booster construction permits are not auctioned.

102. There is no current fee for an application for a minor change FM translator construction permit. Over the past 20 years, the definition of a minor change for FM translators has changed significantly. At the time this category of application was originally created, the definition of minor change was so narrow that very few such applications could be submitted. Furthermore, because of the limited circumstances under which they could be filed, the engineering analysis required to review them was minimal. The rule has been revised since that time to significantly increase the situations that can be filed as minor. These FM translator minor change applications involve some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some applications will involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM translator minor modification application consist of engineer technical review, supervisory engineer review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $210.

103. Applications for either new FM translator or FM booster licenses involve some engineering analysis. Some applications may involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for either a new FM translator license or a new FM booster license consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $180 for either a new FM translator or a new FM booster license. Applications for renewal of existing FM translator or FM booster licenses have a low level of complexity. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing either type of application consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process for renewal of either an FM translator or an FM booster is $175.

104. Applications for either an FM translator or FM booster STA involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing either type of STA application consist of engineering technical review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $170 for either an FM translator STA or an FM booster STA.

105. Applications for FM translator license assignments involve some legal analysis. Some assignments involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM translator assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $290. Applications for FM translator transfers of control involve some legal analysis. Some assignments involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM translator transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this process is $290.

106. We adopt the cost-based application fees as proposed by the Commission in the

NPRM

and as described above and reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

107.

Media Services Foreign Ownership Petitions:

We adopt the Foreign Ownership Petitions application fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed adding a new category for foreign ownership petitions for declaratory ruling filed pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Act.

123

This fee is a separate fee in addition to the fee required for the underlying application, if any.

124

Since 2016, the Media Bureau has processed petitions for declaratory rulings to exceed the section 310(b)(4) foreign ownership benchmark under the streamlined foreign ownership rules and procedures.

125

123

Section 310(b)(4) establishes a 25% benchmark for investment by foreign individuals, governments, and corporations in U.S.-organized entities that directly or indirectly control a broadcast, common carrier or aeronautical radio station licensee if the Commission finds that the public interest would be served by rejecting foreign ownership above that benchmark. 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4).

124

This fee for the initial filing of the petition for declaratory ruling. Amendments and supplements thereto occur with great frequency and will not require an additional fee.

125

Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier, and Aeronautical Radio Licensees Under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended,

GN Docket 15-236, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 11272 (2016). The procedures are set out in rule §§ 1.5000 to 1.5004, 47 CFR 1.5000-1.5004.

108. Currently, there is no fee for a section 310(b)(4) petition for declaratory ruling. Typically, the petition includes complex ownership structures and requires substantial review by staff. We estimated the Commission's resources in processing a section 310(b) petition for declaratory ruling consist of attorney legal review, attorney coordination with other agencies, attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $2,485. After analysis and review of the record, we adopt the proposed cost-based fee of $2,485.

109.

Equipment Approval Fees:

We adopt the Equipment Approval application fee category proposed in the

NPRM,

but at a fee of $35, rather than $50 as proposed in the

NPRM.

The Office of Engineering and Technology administers the Equipment Authorization program, in addition to the Experimental Radio Service. The

equipment authorization program is one of the principal ways the Commission ensures that RF devices operate effectively without causing harmful interference and otherwise comply with the Commission's rules. All RF devices subject to equipment authorization must comply with the Commission's technical requirements prior to importation or marketing. Equipment that contains an RF device must be authorized in accordance with the appropriate procedures specified in part 2, subpart J of the Commission's rules. These requirements not only minimize the potential for harmful interference, but also ensure that the equipment complies with the rules that address other policy objectives—such as human RF exposure limits and hearing aid compatibility with wireless handsets.

110. The equipment approval services for certification were shifted from the Commission to Telecommunications Certification Bodies. Since 1999, those services have been provided by accredited Telecommunications Certification Bodies which are approved by the Commission and the Commission retains oversight of the program through routine guidance to the Telecommunications Certification Bodies and test labs as well as participating in regular teleconferences as well as Telecommunications Certification Bodies workshops. Additionally, the Commission no longer performs advance approval of subscription TV systems. As these services are no longer performed by the Office of Engineering and Technology, we proposed to remove these categories from the application fee schedule.

111. The fee for an assignment of grantee code is assessed automatically after an applicant (or its authorized agent) files for a grantee code on the FCC Equipment Authorization Electronic Filing System website. Approximately 4,000 new grantee codes are assigned each year. This process generally does not require intervention by Commission staff. However, staff must intervene if an applicant encounters a payment issue or if special action is necessary after a grantee code is assigned, such as a grantee name change or a transfer of control transaction. Such issues arise approximately 500 to 700 times per year and staff time to address these issues, when required, is nominal. For this largely automated process, we proposed an application fee of $50 to cover staff costs associated with name change requests, transfers of control issues, and payment problems that arise. Similar to our treatment of highly automated processes for wireless fees, we have reviewed the record and determined that a lower fee is appropriate and adopt an application fee of $35 for this process.

112.

Domestic Service Fees:

The Commission processes a wide range of applications not directly related to the issuance of licenses. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to update the application fees for domestic matters. We adopt new fees for domestic section 214 applications, VoIP numbering applications, tariff filings, applications for special permission for waiver of tariff rules, long-form applications for Universal Service Fund (USF) auction winners, and accounting applications. We also consolidate the fees for Formal Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints into a single new application fee; and we adopt a new fee for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) petitions.

113.

Transfers of Control and STA.

We adopt the transfer of control fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

126

Under §§ s 63.03-63.04 of the Commission's rules, a carrier seeking domestic section 214 authorization for a transfer of control must file an application providing certain information about the parties and the transaction. The Commission proposed to rename this application as “Domestic 214 Applications-Part 63 Transfers of Control” to more clearly specify the applications subject to the fee.

127

We adopt the name change and the cost-based fees as proposed in the

NPRM

for these applications.

128

We also adopt the cost-based fee of $675 for STA requests filed by domestic wireline carriers that are associated with section 214 transfer of control applications. As noted in the

NPRM,

this fee is consistent with the fee for similar 214 STA requests processed by the International Bureau.

129

126

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93-94.

127

See

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93. Domestic common carriers under section 214 of the Act are authorized to undertake pro forma transactions, with only a notice filing required in certain very limited circumstances. 47 CFR 63.03(d). The Commission's fees for domestic section 214 transfer of control applications therefore cover only substantive transactions for which approval is required.

128

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93-94.

129

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 95.

114.

Discontinuance of Service.

We adopt the discontinuance of service fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

130

Under § 63.71 of the Commission's rules, any domestic carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service must provide notice, as specified in § 63.71(a), and file an application with the Commission. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to add “Domestic 214 Applications-Part 63 Discontinuances” as a service requiring an application fee in § 1.1105 of its rules and to set that application fee based on its cost estimates.

131

USTelecom suggests that we clarify the types of section 214 discontinuance filings subject to the new discontinuance fee and we expand our description from the

NPRM

to address this request.

132

130

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97-98.

131

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97.

132

USTelecom Comments at 4.

115. Similar to the processing of the other domestic section 214 applications required by Part 63 of our rules, processing section 214 discontinuance applications includes industry analyst processing and review, staff attorney review, and supervisory review. The Commission estimated that this process involves $1,230 in costs for review and coordination on section 214 discontinuance filings that will typically require more time and resources (Non-Standard Review), such as those that address technology transitions subject to the adequate replacement test under § 63.71(f)(2)(i), those that address technology transitions that are not subject to any streamlined processing, and those filed by dominant carriers that are subject to a 60-day auto grant period under the Commission's rules. The Commission estimated that this process involves $335 in costs for review and coordination on all other domestic 214 discontinuance filings that will typically require less time and fewer resources (Standard Streamlined Review), including streamlined filings from non-dominant carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers, filings by both dominant and non-dominant carriers for the emergency discontinuance of service under § 63.63, filings that meet the alternative options test for streamlined processing under § 63.71(f)(2)(ii), filings subject to copper retirement auto grant under § 63.71(i), and filings by both dominant and non-dominant carriers for the discontinuance or grandfathering of voice or data services under § 63.71(k) or § 63.71(l). We adopt the application fees proposed in the

NPRM

133

and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

133

85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 98.

116.

Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) Numbering.

We adopt the VoIP Numbering fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

134

Interconnected VoIP providers seeking to obtain numbering resources directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (or the Pooling Administrator) must first receive authorization from the Commission. This nationwide authorization is designed to assess the eligibility of an interconnected VoIP provider to obtain numbers directly and will fulfill the requirement under the Commission's rules to provide evidence of authorization to provide service. Under § 52.15(g)(2) and (3), a VoIP provider must file an application for numbering resources.

135

In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to add “Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization Applications-Part 51” as a service requiring an application fee in § 1.1105 of its rules and set that application fee based on its cost estimates. We adopt the proposed fee of $1,330.

136

134

85 FR 65577-65578 (October 15, 2020) at paras. 99-100.

135

Id.

52.15(g)(2) and (3). Section 52.15(g)(3) provides: “Commission authorization process. A provider of interconnected VoIP service may show a Commission authorization obtained pursuant to this paragraph as evidence that it is authorized to provide service under paragraph (g)(2) of this section.”

136

85 FR 65577-65578 (October 15, 2020) at para. 100.

117.

Tariffs.

We adopt the tariff fees as proposed in the

NPRM

along with clarifications to address commenter concerns. Tariffs contain the rates, terms, and conditions of certain services provided by telecommunications carriers. Tariffs for interstate local access service are filed by local exchange carriers (LECs). The access services include end user access, switched access, and special access. Tariffs are typically filed under a process that gives the public 15 days' notice on proposed price increases and changes in terms and conditions; and seven days' notice on proposed price reductions. Carriers file tariffs using the Commission's Electronic Tariff Filing System. Tariff filings are reviewed by staff and by industry. If staff takes no action, filings become effective and may be deemed lawful.

137

Staff may approve, suspend or reject tariffs.

137

See

47 U.S.C. 204(a)(3).

118. USTelecom seeks clarification of several of the proposals relating to tariffing. First, it requests additional explanation of what constitutes an “annual filing.”

138

We clarify that the annual access charge tariff that is filed to become effective on July 1 each year is the “annual filing” that is subject to the fee.

139

Second, USTelecom seeks further clarification as to what constitutes a “restructured rate plan.”

140

A restructured filing is a price cap tariff filing that meets the definition of restructured service as defined in section 61.3(mm). Finally, USTelecom seeks clarification of whether the establishment of two categories of complex tariff filers, price cap LECs and entities involving more than 100 LECs (Complex Large) and a second category for other entities filing a complex tariff (Complex Small), means that all filings by price cap LECs are complex large filings.

141

We clarify that the fee for filings designated as complex large are applicable to all price cap carriers. We adopt the cost-based fees as proposed in the

NPRM

for these applications and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

138

USTelecom Comments at 2-3.

139

Id.

140

Id.

at 3.

141

USTelecom Comments at 3.

119.

Waivers.

We eliminate the fees for part 61 and part 69 waivers as proposed in the

NPRM.

Parties may file petitions seeking waivers of the Commission's rules in parts 61 and 69. As a general matter, the Commission may waive its rules for good cause shown.

142

A waiver may be granted if (1) the waiver would better serve the public interest than would application of the rule; and (2) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule.

143

Generally, the Commission, or the Bureau through delegated authority, may waive Commission rules if the relief requested would not undermine the rule's policy objectives and would otherwise serve the public interest.

144

Because parties may generally seek waiver of many of our rules under § 1.3 of the Commission's rules without paying a fee, we proposed to eliminate the fees associated with the general part 61 and part 69 waiver requests. We adopt that proposal.

142

47 CFR 1.3;

WAIT Radio

FCC,

418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), appeal after remand, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972);

Northeast Cellular Tel. Co.

FCC,

897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

143

Northeast Cellular,

897 F.2d at 1166.

144

WAIT Radio,

418 F.2d at 1157.

120.

Universal Service Fund Auctions.

We adopt a single fee for the universal service fund auction applications as proposed in the

NPRM.

The Commission does not currently apply a fee to USF applications. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to adopt a single cost-based application fee that only the winning bidders would pay,

i.e.,

only once all filings associated with an application including at the short-form stage, during bidding, and through the long-form stage, are complete. For the same reasons we adopt a single fee for spectrum auctions and broadcast service auctions, we adopt the proposed combined cost-based fee of $2,965.

121.

Accounting—depreciation.

We have not had an application for a depreciation update study in many years and we adopt our proposal to eliminate these application fees from the fee schedule.

122.

Waiver of accounting rules.

We adopt the waiver of accounting rule fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

The Commission has a complex set of accounting requirements. Parties may petition for a waiver of part 69 accounting rules, part 32 accounting rules, part 43 reporting requirements, part 64 allocation of costs rules, part 65 rate of return rules, or part 36 of the separation rules. The Commission has a complex set of accounting requirements and proposes assessment of a fee for requests for deviation from such requirements. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed cost-based fees, explaining that petitions for waiver of these requirements are reviewed by staff who draft a bureau or Commission level order addressing the petition.

145

We adopt the proposed cost-based fee of $4,415 for a waiver of our accounting rules.

145

85 FR 65579 (October 15, 2020) at para. 115.

123.

Informal Consumer Complaints.

We adopt the proposal from the

NPRM

to assess no application fee for informal complaints. We did not receive any comments on this proposal. The Commission processes informal consumer complaints through the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau's Consumer Complaint Center.

146

The informal consumer complaint process provides consumers with an effective and free way to raise issues with their providers. Informal consumer complaints involving billing and service issues are served on the consumer's provider. The provider is required to respond to the consumer with a copy to the Commission within 30 days. Certain informal consumer complaints that are not filed against a provider, including unwanted call complaints, are shared among Commission bureaus and offices to inform policy and potential enforcement actions. The collective data we receive from informal consumer complaints helps the Commission keep a pulse on what consumers are experiencing, may lead to enforcement investigations, and serves as a deterrent to the companies

we regulate. Informal complaint data, including unwanted call data, is available to the public through the Consumer Complaint Data Center and is a useful source of information for the public and industry. For example, voice service providers and third-party analytics companies use this information in their call blocking and labeling services provided to consumers. As the Commission discussed in the

NPRM,

informal complaints are not applications and we are not adopting an informal complaint filing fee.

146

See

FCC Consumer Complaint Center,

https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us.

124.

Formal Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints.

We adopt the formal complaint and pole attachment complaint fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

Section 208 of the Act provides for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 224 of the Act states that the Commission has a duty to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments are just and reasonable, and that cable television systems and telecommunications carriers have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way. Sections 1.720-1.740 and 1.1401-1.1414 of the Commission's rules govern formal section 208 and section 224 complaints. The rules require the filing of a complaint, an answer, a reply, and often discovery, motions, and briefs. A formal complaint must contain as much factual support as possible at the filing stage, including specific facts and proof regarding all claims in the complaint.

125. Filing of the application for a formal section 208 complaint or a section 224 pole attachment complaint is automated using the Commission's ECFS's Non-Docketed Filing portal. In nearly all instances, the FCC Fee Filer system is used separately to collect the fee. Staff retrieves each filed formal complaint and pole attachment complaint from the ECFS Non-Docketed Filing portal and confirms payment. Staff then reviews the complaint for general conformance with the Commission's complaint rules to determine if it is accepted for adjudication. If the formal complaint or pole attachment complaint is accepted, staff arranges for its placement in a case-specific ECFS docket. Staff drafts a letter to the parties indicating that the filing has been accepted or rejected and posts that letter in ECFS.

126. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed to consolidate the section 208 formal complaints and section 224 pole attachment complaints in the new section 8 application fee schedule, and proposed a cost-based fee of $540. One commenter, Ormos, contends that the fee for formal complaints should be lower but does not dispute the costs of adjudicating such complaints nor explain how we could lower the fee below costs under the statutory standard.

147

We are required by the RAY BAUM'S Act to adopt a cost-based fee and the fee we are adopting is based on the significant work performed by staff in handling formal complaints. We therefore adopt the proposed fee of $540 for formal complaints and pole attachment complaints based on the Commission's estimated costs as described in the

NPRM.

148

147

Ormas Comments at 7.

148

85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 121.

127.

Accounting and Audits and Agreed upon Procedures Engagement.

We are adopting our proposal to eliminate field audits and agreed upon procedures engagements from the application fee schedule because no applications have been filed in many years.

128.

Petitions regarding Law Enforcement Assistance Capability.

We adopt the cost-based fee of $6,945 proposed in the

NPRM

for petitions regarding law enforcement assistance capability.

149

CALEA preserves the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct lawfully authorized electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of the authorization. CALEA imposes law enforcement assistance capability requirements on common carriers as the Commission has interpreted that term under CALEA.

150

Any person may petition the Commission to issue technical standards for capability assistance that the person believes are deficient

151

and telecommunications carriers and other interested persons may petition for a determination of whether an assistance capability is “reasonably achievable,” and the Commission must reach a determination on such petitions within one year.

152

In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed a cost-based fee of $6,945.

153

We adopt the proposed cost-based fee of $6,945 for this application.

149

85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 124.

150

See

47 U.S.C. 1001(8)(B)(ii);

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement and Broadband Access and Services,

Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5360 (2006).

151

Id.

Section 1006(b).

152

Id.

Section 1008(b)(1).

153

85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 124. (estimating the tasks that are involved in reviewing a typical CALEA petition).

129.

International Service Fee.

The Commission sought comment in the

NPRM

on cost-based application fees for international services, including fees for earth station and space station applications and proposals to create a separate fee category for applications related to cable landing licenses, a new category for section 310(b) foreign ownership review, and fees for international services that do not currently have an application fee, such as foreign carrier affiliation notifications, and requests to become a recognized operating agency. The Commission also proposed to eliminate some fees and consolidate fees for earth stations and space stations. We address these issues in turn.

130.

International Cable Landing License.

We adopt the proposed cost-based cable landing license fees in the

NPRM

with one change to reduce the cost of a pro forma assignment or transfer of control. To land or operate a submarine cable in the United States, submarine cable operators must obtain a cable landing license from the Commission pursuant to the Cable Landing Licensing Act of 1921 and Executive Order No. 10530.

154

The Commission also authorizes assignments or transfers of existing cable landing licenses and modifications of licenses. The Commission coordinates the applications with the Department of State and any other federal agencies, as necessary. The requirements for filing applications for new cable landing licenses and assignments, transfers of control and modification of existing cable landing licenses are set out in § 1.767 of the Commission's rules. Currently, there are different application fees for new licenses based on whether the license is for a common carrier or for a non-common carrier license.

155

There are also fees for substantive assignments or transfers of control of a license and requests for STA.

156

154

Executive Order No. 10530 delegates to the Commission the President's authority under the Cable Landing License Act of 1921 adding that “no such license shall be granted or revoked by the Commission except after obtaining approval of the Secretary of State and such advice from any executive branch department or establishment of the Government as the Commission may deem necessary.” Exec. Ord. No. 10530 5(a), reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301.

155

There is one fee for an application for a non-common carrier system ($19,855). There are two application fees for a common carrier cable system, one for the cable application ($2,005) and another for the overseas cable construction ($17,850), which add up to the same amount as the fee for a non-common carrier application.

156

Currently, there is no application fee for pro forma assignments and transfers of a license, foreign carrier affiliation notifications, amendments, modifications, or Landing Point Notifications (LPNs). We did not propose fees for amendments or LPNs since these filings are made as part of a pending application.

131. In the

NPRM,

we proposed to create a new cable landing license

category. Although historically the application fees for cable landing licenses have been included as part of the fee category for section 214 applications,

157

the processing of those applications differs significantly from the processing of international section 214 applications and warrants a separate filing fee category; for example, we are required to coordinate cable landing license applications with the State Department and new cable landing license applications typically have multiple applicants seeking to become licensees, which require more extensive staff review than those for international section 214 applications.

157

See

47 U.S.C. 158(g) (Schedule of Application Fees) (2017) (setting forth under the category of section 214 applications separate application fees for common carrier and non-common carrier submarine cable landing licenses).

132. We adopt the proposal in the

NPRM

and make one change to the proposed cost-based fees. We reduce the fee for a pro forma assignment or transfer of control of a cable landing license to $400 from $675 based on our re-evaluation of the cost of processing such an application. In the

NPRM,

we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a pro forma application to assign or transfer control of a cable landing license consist of the following: Industry analyst processing and review, staff attorney review, and supervisory review, with an estimate of $675 in costs.

158

After carefully re-examining our estimate for processing pro forma applications in general,

159

we believe that a $400 fee more accurately reflects the cost of processing a pro forma assignment or transfer of control of a cable landing license. The review of substantive assignment or transfer of control applications typically takes staff significantly more time and effort compared to pro forma assignments. Accordingly, we find that our initial estimate of the cost for substantive transactions remains valid and reflects accurately our average cost of reviewing substantive assignments and transfer of control applications. This reduction also brings this fee to a level consistent with other similar cost-based fees adopted herein, including the pro forma assignment or transfer of control application fees applicable to international section 214 authorizations, earth stations and space stations.

160

Finally, any concerns regarding disproportionate fees for these pro forma assignment or transfer of control transactions are sufficiently mitigated. Accordingly, we adopt these new cost-based fees for cable landing license applications as proposed in the

NPRM

and modified in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules. These fees are all assessed on a per application basis.

158

85 FR 65581 (October 15, 2020) at para. 131.

159

85 FR 65580-65581 (October 15, 2020) at paras. 126-127.

160

See infra

paras. 138, 156, 172.

133.

International Section 214 Applications.

We adopt the proposed cost-based international section 214 fees in the

NPRM

for new authorizations, substantive assignments and transfers of control, pro forma assignments and transfers of control, foreign carrier affiliation notifications, modifications, STAs, waivers, and discontinuances of service. We adopt, however, one change from the fees proposed and reduce the cost of an international section 214 pro forma assignment or transfer of control.

134. Any entity that seeks to provide U.S.-international common carrier service must obtain prior Commission approval pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act by filing an international section 214 application. The application must contain the information required by part 63 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for filing an application for an international section 214 authorization are set out in § 63.18 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for an assignment or transfer of control of such an authorization, in turn, are set out in § 63.24. Currently, there is a fee for new international section 214 authorizations, for substantive assignments and transfers of control of authorizations, and requests for STA. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed new cost-based fees, including new fee categories for section 214 applications.

135. USTelecom argues that the Commission should revise the fees for international section 214 pro forma transfer of control notifications and instead of creating a new fee, consider a nominal fee that better aligns with the actual operational costs.

161

According to USTelecom, the pro forma transfer of control notifications clarify current license holder information and should not require substantive review by Commission staff.

162

Further, USTelecom suggests, the Commission should also require limiting the expense for multiple pro forma transfer notifications filed for the same pro forma transaction—arguing that there is no cost-based justification as to why the multipliers to review 10 essentially identical applications based on a separate license are 10 times the cost.

163

161

USTelecom Comments at 6-7.

162

Id.

at 7.

163

Id.

136. After careful consideration of the resources expended in processing pro forma applications for assignment or transfer of control of an international 214 authorizations related to the same pro forma transaction, we are not convinced by USTelecom's arguments that a nominal fee would be appropriate and cost based. We review and process each application separately while ensuring each application's accuracy involving the associated licenses as well as its compliance with our rules. Accordingly, we reject USTelecom's argument that multiple applications (including similar information) should not be subject to multiple fees. After further evaluation, we conclude, however, that in the context of pro forma applications, and after staff assessment, a lower fee of $400 would reflect more accurately our average processing cost than the proposed $675. The review of substantive assignment or transfer of control applications typically take staff significantly more time and effort compared to pro forma assignments; accordingly, we find that our initial estimates of cost for substantive transactions remain valid and reflect accurately our average cost of reviewing substantive assignments and transfer of control applications. The lower amount continues, however, to take into account industry analyst processing and review, staff attorney review, supervisory review and the need to coordinate the application with other bureaus or offices within the Commission or federal agencies, as necessary.

164

Such a fee also would be consistent with the fee for a pro forma assignment or transfer of control that we are adopting for cable landing licenses, earth stations and space stations.

165

164

85 FR 65582 (October 15, 2020) at para. 139.

165

See infra

at paras. 155, 171. As noted above, we are also changing the fee for a pro forma assignment or transfer of control of a cable landing license to $400 to be consistent with the fee for a pro forma application for an international section 214 authorization.

See supra

at para. 132.

137. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed per application, for section 214 applications proposed in the

NPRM

as modified in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

138.

Foreign Ownership Petitions for Declaratory Ruling.

We adopt the cost-based fees proposed in the

NPRM

for section 310(b) petitions for declaratory ruling and waivers. Section 310(b) of the Communications Act contains specific restrictions on who can hold a broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station license. Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign individuals, governments and

corporations from owning more than 20% of the capital stock of a broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station licensee. Section 310(b)(4) establishes a 25% benchmark for investment by foreign individuals, governments and corporations in U.S.-organized entities that directly or indirectly control a broadcast, common carrier or aeronautical radio station licensee, unless the Commission finds that foreign ownership above that benchmark would serve the public interest. The Commission's rules set out procedures for seeking prior Commission approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in the statute. The International Bureau processes petitions for declaratory ruling seeking approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in sections 310(b)(3) and 310(b)(4) for common carrier wireless or aeronautical licenses.

166

Historically, there was no fee for a 310(b) petition for declaratory ruling. In the

NPRM,

we proposed new cost-based fees. We received no objections in the record to these proposals and we conclude that the fees proposed in the

NPRM

are reasonable and cost-based. We adopt these new cost-based fees, assessed per application, as proposed in the

NPRM

discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

166

The Media Bureau processes petitions for declaratory ruling seeking approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in section 310(b) for broadcast licenses.

139.

Recognized Operating Agency.

We adopt the cost-based recognized operating agency fees as proposed in the

NPRM.

Any individual or corporation, other than a government establishment, that seeks recognition to operate an international public correspondence or radio service capable of causing harmful interference and upon which are imposed obligations provided for in Article 44 of the International Telecommunication Convention, must file an recognized operating agency application via the Commission's International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The purpose of the recognized operating agency is to assure members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that private communications entities that are not themselves parties to the Convention will nonetheless be required to observe the rights of other member states under the treaty. If the application is approved, a recommendation letter is sent to the State Department.

167

Currently, there is a fee for a recognized operating agency application but no fees for any associated requests, such as waivers. In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed new cost-based fees for ROA applications and waiver requests. We received no objections in the record on these proposals and fees. We conclude that the fees proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed above are reasonable and cost-based. We adopt these fees that are assessed on a per application basis as proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

167

The State Department would then submit an application on behalf of the applicant to the ITU.

140.

Data Network Identification Code.

We adopt the cost-based data network identification code fees proposed in the

NPRM

for the data network identification code application and a waiver of our rules. The data network identification code (DNIC) is a four-digit number used to identify data networks and is the central device of the international data numbering plan developed by the ITU and set forth in Recommendation X.121.

168

The primary function of the DNIC is to identify and to facilitate routing of traffic to a particular data-network subscriber. Any public network provider seeking to obtain a DNIC must file an application through IBFS for a request for assignment of a DNIC. Currently, there is no fee for a DNIC. In the

NPRM,

we proposed new cost-based fees of $785 and a fee for Waivers of $335. We received no objections in the record on these proposals. We conclude that the fees proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed above are reasonable and cost-based. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed on a per application basis, as proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

168

International Communications Policies Governing Designation of Recognized Private Operating Agencies, Grants of IRUs in International Facilities and Assignment of Data Network Identification Codes,

CC Docket No. 83-1230, Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 208, 262-7, paras. 70-77 (1986),

recon. granted in part,

2 FCC Rcd 7375, 7378-80, paras. 26-34 (1987). The International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT), now known as ITU-T, developed Recommendation X.121.

See

X.121: International numbering plan for public data networks,

https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.121/en

(visited Aug. 14, 2019).

141.

International Signaling Point Code.

We adopt the cost-based fees proposed in the

NPRM

for international signaling point code (ISPC) applications as well as transfers of control and modifications. The ITU defines a signaling point code as a “part of the label in a signalling [sic] message that uniquely identifies each signalling point which belongs to the international signalling network” and is used for signaling message routing and identification of signaling points at the international level.

169

Such signaling points are within a Signaling System 7 (SS7) switch. For this reason, only carriers that operate their own switch would need a signaling point code. Carriers that need an ISPC must file an application through IBFS for a Request for Assignment of International Signaling Point Codes (ISPC) for SS7. The ISPC application must include information demonstrating compliance with the standards set forth in ITU-T Recommendation Q.708. Currently, there is no fee for an ISPC application or associated request, such as an amendment or transfers.

170

In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed cost-based fees for these applications at $785, Transfers of Control $675, Modifications $675, and Waivers $335. We received no objections on these proposals. We adopt the fees as proposed in the

NPRM

and discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.

169

Standardization (ITU-T), Definition,

https://www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/asp/terminology-definition.asp?lang=en&rlink={EAA8C660-C702-4B47-A23E-20812661AC3A};

Q.708: Assignment procedures for international signaling point codes,

https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.708/en

(last visited Dec. 17, 2020) (ITU-T Rec. Q.708).

170

According to ITU-T Rec. Q.708, an ISPC may not be sold, licensed or traded by signaling point operators. Transfers of ISPCs are permitted in the case of a merger, acquisition, divestiture, or formation of a joint venture.

Id.

at para. 7.10. An ISPC “Transfer of Control” application is intended to address ISPC transfers occurring as a result of a merger, acquisition, divestiture, or formation of a joint venture.

142.

Earth Stations.

In the

NPRM,

the Commission proposed cost-based fees for earth station applications and the elimination and consolidation of some fees. We consolidate the filing fee categories for fixed or temporary fixed transmit/receive earth station applications, adopt a fee for pro forma assignments or transfers of control applications for earth stations, including receive-only stations, replace the filing fee category for Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) systems with blanket-licensed earth stations, adopt the proposed fee for amendments and modifications, adopt a modification of the proposed fees for assignments and transfers of control on a per call sign basis, and adopt a cost-based application fee for processing and reviewing requests for U.S. market access from non-U.S. licensed space stations.

143.

Fixed satellite service.

We adopt our proposal to eliminate the Fixed Satellite transmit/receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less operating in the

4/6

GHz band) category and replace it with the fee categories for Fixed or Temporary

Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Earth stations transmitting, or transmitting and receiving signals, either at a fixed location or temporarily at a fixed location,

171

include entities that operate earth stations to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS)

172

as well as other services.

173

The Commission proposed to eliminate the Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less operating in the

4/6

GHz band) category and replace it with the fee categories for Fixed or Temporary Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive Earth Stations because there is no substantive difference in the review process for fixed or temporary fixed earth station applications in the

4/6

GHz band compared with such applications in other frequency bands. Consolidating the filing fee categories for fixed or temporary fixed transmit/receive earth station applications will streamline the fee filing process by eliminating potent

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.