# Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2023

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-11109

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** June 1, 2023
- **Citation:** 88 FR 36154

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket No. 22-301; MD Docket No. 23-159; FCC 23-34; FRS ID 142215]
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2023

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on revising the fee schedule of FY 2023 regulatory fees and on several additional regulatory fee issues, as described in the text below.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before June 14, 2023; and reply comments on or before June 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments identified by MD Docket No. 23-159, by any of the following methods below. Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).

1.
Comment Filing Procedures.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).

2. Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
Until further notice, the filing window is not open at the Commission's office located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 20701.

3. Pursuant to section 1.49 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.49, parties to this proceeding must file any documents in this proceeding using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS):
https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

4.
Materials in Accessible Formats.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

5.
Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte
submissions will be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, these documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
see
the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444 or
Roland.Helvajian@FCC.Gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), FCC 23-34, MD Docket No. 22-301, and MD Docket No. 23-159, adopted on May 5, 2023 and released on May 8, 2023. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte
submissions will be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, these documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

I. Administrative Matters

6.
Ex Parte Information.
The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in which we seek comment on proposals as described above, shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte
rules. Persons making
ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral
ex parte
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the
ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during
ex parte
meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte
presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written
ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral
ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (
e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's
ex parte
rules.

7.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy change proposals on small entities accompanying the NPRM. The IRFA) is set forth in the back of this document.

8.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

II. Introduction

9. For fiscal year (FY) 2023, the Commission is required to collect

$390,192,000 in regulatory fees, pursuant to sections 9 and 9A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and the Commission's FY 2023 Appropriations Act. In this annual NPRM, we seek comment on the Commission's proposed methodology and regulatory fees for FY 2023, as set forth in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the record received in response to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in MD Docket No. 22-301, and after a review of the work being conducted by Commission employees, we seek comment on a proposal to treat certain FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau that have previously been considered indirect FTEs as direct FTEs for the purpose of calculating regulatory fees. Specifically, where we are able to determine that time is being spent on work that is directly related to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau and that such determination is reasonably accurate for the fiscal year, we propose to reallocate the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant core bureau(s).

10. We also seek comment on several additional regulatory fee issues, including: (i) the calculation of television and radio broadcaster regulatory fees, including the modification of the existing grid by adding a new tier for AM and FM radio stations; (ii) defining the category of operations for on-orbit servicing (OOS) and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) for regulatory fee purposes, including whether a separate regulatory fee category is necessary, and how to apply regulatory fees to OOS and RPO spacecraft specifically operating near the geostationary satellite orbit arc, including the two licensed OOS and RPO spacecraft that remain operational in FY 2023; (iii) evaluating how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; (iv) considering whether to continue in FY 2023 several of the temporary measures we implemented in FYs 2020 through 2022; and (v) whether to permit regulatory fee payors to prepay their regulatory fees in installments.

III. Discussion

11. In accordance with the statute, each year, in an annual fee proceeding, the Commission proposes adjustments to the prior fee schedule under section 9(c) to “(A) reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees; and (B) result in the collection of the amount required” by the Commission's annual appropriation. Such changes are rarely the subject of dispute and are usually addressed in the more ministerial changes to the fee schedule. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee schedule under section 9(d) “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment so that such fees reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities. Challenges to the Commission's allocation of FTEs are not uncommon.

12. The Commission has explained that, consistent with its statutory directive, it bases regulatory fees on the direct FTEs in core bureaus. The Commission has stated that, given the Communication Act's explicit language that fees must reflect FTEs, the FTE counts are by far the most administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations. The Commission does not assign direct FTEs within a bureau to specific fee categories by rote or at random, but rather in a manner that reflects the time spent by FTEs on a regulatory fee category, which is in itself a reflection of “benefit” to the fee category. Thus, the Commission has explained it continues to apportion regulatory fees across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau and the proportionate number of indirect FTEs and to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the payor's benefits.

13.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation and Fee Calculation.
The Commission allocates FTEs according to the nature of the work performed by its different organizational units. If the work performed by a group or office is directly related to our oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category or categories in one of the four core licensing bureaus, then such FTEs are counted as a direct FTE. If the work cannot be allocated to one of the bureau's designated fee categories, the work performed is counted as an indirect FTE. Under this framework, the Commission, therefore, has historically assessed the allocation of FTEs by first determining the number of direct FTEs, those non-auctions FTEs that work in each of the Commission's core bureaus (
i.e.,
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Bureau, part of the Wireline Competition Bureau, and part of the International Bureau), and then attributing all other non-auction FTEs outside the core bureaus and other Commission costs as indirect. Regulatory fees are initially apportioned across the regulatory fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau whose time is focused on a particular industry segment and then is adjusted “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.”

14. The FTE time devoted to developing and implementing the Commission's spectrum auctions is not included in the calculation of regulatory fees and is not offset by the collection of regulatory fees. Instead, such FTE time is offset by the auction proceeds that the Commission is permitted to retain pursuant to section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act and the Commission's annual appropriation. Thus, spectrum auctions FTEs are not included in the calculation of regulatory fees and the Commission's methodology excludes all spectrum auction-related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations. To the extent that FTEs within core bureaus spend a portion of their time on auctions issues and a portion of their time on appropriated issues, their time is split and only the non-auctions portion of their time is reflected in the relevant core bureau's FTE count.

15. Early in each fiscal year, the Commission receives FTE data from its Human Resources Management office and identifies FTEs at the core bureau level (
i.e.,
direct FTEs), which is then used to determine the FTE allocations for the four core bureaus. This FTE data is then validated through consultation with the bureaus and offices and apportioned to the various fee categories within each core bureau based on FTE time spent on each fee category. After the number of direct FTEs is determined for each core bureau of the Commission, the direct FTE numbers are used to calculate the percentage of the total amount of regulatory fees to be collected for a given fiscal year. We allocate appropriated amounts to be recovered proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each core bureau, with indirect FTEs allocated in proportion to the direct FTEs within each core bureau. Those proportions are then subdivided within each core bureau into fee categories among the regulatees served by the core bureau. Finally, within each regulatory fee category the amount to be collected is divided by a unit that allocates the regulatee's proportionate share based on an objective measure.

16. In prior regulatory fee proceedings, the Commission has

categorized the FTEs in the Enforcement Bureau, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Chairwoman's and Commissioners' Offices, Office of the Managing Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Engineering and Technology, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Workplace Diversity, Office of Media Relations, Office of Economics and Analytics, and Office of Administrative Law Judges, along with some FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau and the International Bureau as indirect for regulatory fee purposes. Unlike the work of direct FTEs, the work of indirect FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices is not focused on the oversight and regulation of a specific category of regulatory fee payors, but instead benefits the Commission, the telecommunications industry, and the public as a whole. The Commission's high percentage of indirect FTEs demonstrates that many of our activities and costs are not limited to a particular fee category.

17. In this NPRM, we are not proposing adjustments to our regulatory fee categories or methodologies such that our actions require 90 days' notice to Congress. Instead, in response to concerns expressed in the NOI record, we have undertaken a fresh, high level evaluation of the work of indirect FTEs. As more fully explained below, where we can determine that the work of a historically indirect FTE is directly related to our oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee payor, and we are confident that such determination is reasonably accurate for the fiscal year, we propose to consider the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant core bureau(s), and accordingly reallocate such indirect FTEs as direct, solely for the purposes of calculating regulatory fees.

18. In this NPRM, we propose and seek comment on regulatory fees for FY 2023 as set forth in Tables 2 and 3. In particular, and as fully discussed below, we seek comment on our proposal to reallocate a limited number of indirect FTEs within the Office of Economics and Analysis (OEA), the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) as direct FTEs and to incorporate them into the count of FTEs of the relevant core bureau, solely for the purposes of calculating regulatory fees for FY 2023.

19. We also seek comment on several additional regulatory fee issues, including: (i) the calculation of television and radio broadcaster regulatory fees, including the modification of the existing grid by adding a new tier for AM and FM radio stations; (ii) defining the category of operations for OOS and RPO for regulatory fee purposes, including whether a separate regulatory fee category is necessary, and how to apply regulatory fees to OOS and RPO spacecraft specifically operating near the geostationary satellite orbit arc, including the two licensed OOS and RPO spacecraft that remain operational in FY 2023; (iii) evaluating how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; (iv) considering whether to continue in FY 2023 several of the temporary measures we implemented in FYs 2020 through 2022; and (v) whether to permit regulatory fee payors to prepay their regulatory fees in installments.

1. Assessment of Regulatory Fees

a. Methodology for Assessing Regulatory Fees

20. Congress has required us to collect $390,192,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2023. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires us to set regulatory fees to “reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Our first step in establishing our regulatory fee schedule is to take into consideration the adjustments necessitated by the more discernable changes from the prior year regulatory fee proceeding,
e.g.,
changes in the (i) FY appropriation, (ii) FTE levels, and (iii) relevant unit measures for each regulatory fee category. Such adjustments are often considered ministerial. Our second step is a more substantive review where we look to the core bureaus within the Commission in order to identify the number of direct non-auction FTEs in each core bureau. Once the direct FTEs are identified, we then allocate fees to specific fee categories within each core bureau. These proportional calculations allocate all Commission non-auction related costs across all fee categories.

21. For FY 2023, in response to the comments we received to our NOI, we propose to employ the same methodology, but, in addition to looking at the current allocation of direct FTEs within the core bureaus, we propose to rely on and include a high level analysis of the work of our indirect FTEs in non-core bureaus and offices and, where we can determine with reasonable accuracy for the fiscal year that such work is being spent on the regulation and oversight of a regulatory fee payor, we propose to reallocate the burden of that work as direct to a core bureau, solely for regulatory fee purposes. As described in more detail below, we propose that approximately 63 indirect FTEs should be reallocated as direct FTEs to a core bureau, for regulatory fee purposes, based on our evaluation of the burden of their work. Some of the reallocations we are proposing are of FTE time that had previously been reassigned from direct to indirect as the result of a Commission reorganization. As a result of taking this fresh, high level evaluation of the work of our indirect FTEs we found that even though the physical location of certain FTEs moved from a core bureau to an indirect bureau or office, the burden of their FTE work remained focused directly on the oversight and regulation of specific regulatory fee payors in a core bureau(s). Insofar as we are confident this determination is reasonably accurate for the fiscal year, we find that reallocating certain indirect FTEs for regulatory fee purposes in the manner that we are proposing is consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires us to base our methodology on the number of FTEs in calculating regulatory fees. We seek comment on this proposal and on the schedule of FY 2023 regulatory fees as set forth in Tables 2 and 3. Any proposals or comments requesting a change or modification to our proposed methodology and regulatory fees for FY 2023 should include a thorough analysis showing a sufficient basis for making the change and provide alternative options for the Commission to meet its statutory obligation to collect the full amount of the appropriation by the end of the fiscal year. Commenters should also indicate how such proposed alternative options are fair, administrable, and sustainable.

b. Reallocation, for Regulatory Fee Purposes, of Certain Indirect FTEs as Direct FTEs

22. Broadcasters and satellite operators commenting in response to our NOI have argued that the methodology used to proportionally assign indirect FTEs is inequitable. We disagree. Non-core bureaus and offices handle a variety of issues and generally most indirect FTE time is devoted to many matters including services that are not specifically correlated with one of the core bureaus or one category of regulatory fee payors. Further, because Commission attorneys, engineers,

analysts, and other staff work on a variety of issues during a single fiscal year, a snapshot of indirect FTE assignments in a division in any bureau or office, for example, may misrepresent the work being done a short time later, and, if allocated as direct FTEs, could result in an inaccurate FTE count and fee calculation for a core bureau. In light of the issues raised by the commenters to the NOI, however, and as noted above, we have undertaken a high level evaluation of the work performed by the Commission's indirect FTEs. As a result, we now propose to reallocate certain indirect FTEs as direct FTEs and incorporate them into the count of FTEs of the relevant core bureau solely for purposes of calculating regulatory fees for FY 2023. This proposal would result in changes in the percentages of direct FTEs in the core bureaus. We seek comment on this proposal.

23. According to information provided by our Human Resources Management office, there currently are 339.25 direct non-auctions FTEs for FY 2023 that are distributed among the core bureaus. Today we propose to reallocate 63 indirect FTEs from OEA, OGC, and PSHSB and add those FTEs as direct to a relevant core bureau solely for the purposes of collecting regulatory fees, which would result in a revised total of 402.25 direct non-auctions FTEs. Our calculations of direct FTEs under our proposal, which are more fully detailed below, would be as follows: International Bureau (31), Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (98), Wireline Competition Bureau (143.25), and Media Bureau (130). Based on these proposed reallocations and after adjustments are made to these direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent, we would collect approximately $30.16 million (7.73%) in fees from the International Bureau regulatory fee payors; $95.36 million (24.44%) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors; $139.42 million (35.73%) in fees from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and $125.25 million (32.10%) in fees from Media Bureau regulatory fee payors.

Core Bureau FTE Percentages With and Without Proposed Indirect FTE Reallocations

Core bureau

2022
FTE%

2022
Amount
(millions)

FY 2022
Appropriation
was $381.95

2023
FTE %
without
indirect FTE
reallocations

2023
amount
without
indirect FTE
reallocations
(millions)

FY 2023
Appropriation
is $390.192

2023
Proposed
FTE %
with certain
indirect FTE
reallocations

2023
Proposed
amount
with certain
indirect FTE
reallocations
(millions)

FY 2023
Appropriation
is $390.192

Wireline Bureau
33.94
$129.62
35.57
$138.79
35.73
$139.42

Media Bureau

137.89
33.96
132.52
32.10
125.25

Media Bureau subcategory Broadcasters
16.25
62.07
15.28
59.65
14.27
55.68

Media Bureau subcategory Cable
19.85
75.82
18.68
72.87
17.83
69.57

Wireless Bureau
21.4
81.74
22.19
86.56
24.44
95.36

International Bureau
8.56
32.70
8.28
32.32
7.73
30.16

24. After our analysis of the work performed in our non-core bureaus and offices, we reaffirm that, in general, the vast majority of the FTE burden of work is properly considered indirect. In evaluating indirect FTE time, we are mindful that any changes we adopt must serve the goal of ensuring that the Commission's assessment of regulatory fees is fair, administrable, and sustainable. We also recognize that allocating regulatory fees is not and cannot be an exact science. We continue to conclude the Commission's indirect FTE time is devoted to a variety of issues, including matters that are either not directly allocable or not associated with a regulatory fee payor, and therefore should continue to be considered indirect and allocated in a proportional manner across all fee categories. As the Commission explained in the
FY 2019 Report and Order,
by analyzing indirect FTE time in order to try to associate it with a core bureau in one given period of time, and ignoring the understanding of management regarding ongoing and future work, we risk proffering FTE allocations that are not accurate for the entire year. We are also aware that in the non-core bureaus and offices much of the work that could be assigned to a single category of regulatory fee payors is likely to be interspersed with the work that Commission staff does on behalf of many entities that do not pay regulatory fees,
e.g.,
governmental entities, non-profit organizations, work that does not equate with any specific regulatory fee category, and regulatees that have an exemption.

25. Nevertheless, the Commission has previously evaluated whether certain FTEs should be reallocated, for regulatory fee purposes, from direct to indirect, from indirect to direct, or from one core bureau to another based on the nature of the work. Insofar as the regulatory fees are based on FTE time associated with the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors, we only propose to reallocate indirect FTEs to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes where we have determined that such FTE work is primarily in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of that industry and is reasonably accurate for the fiscal year. After taking a closer look at FTE time in several non-core bureaus and offices, we now conclude that we can reasonably identify instances within OEA, OGC, and PSHSB, where it is appropriate to consider the FTE burden of such work as directly devoted to the oversight and regulation of certain industries such that the FTE time should be reallocated as direct for the relevant core bureau(s).

26. After our review of the work within the Commission's bureaus and offices, we recognize that experts in the non-core bureaus and offices engage in measurable work associated with the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors. We will continue to be mindful of these findings in coming years while also relying upon the expertise of the bureau or office management to evaluate the overall nature of the work of each organizational unit, the FTE levels committed to the different types of work, and the level of FTE support, if any, primarily associated with the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors. In gathering this high level

data for this proposal, we directed non-core bureaus and offices to evaluate if measurable FTE time for fiscal year 2023 is primarily spent on the regulation and oversight of an industry subject to regulatory fees. Our objective was to rigorously address the concerns that certain fee payors have expressed regarding the number of indirect FTEs. We have satisfied our goal and seek comment on our tentative conclusion and the factors we employed in reaching these proposed reallocations for regulatory fee purposes. We further recognize that these proposed reallocations for calculating regulatory fees may require the Commission to continue to assess certain indirect FTEs annually, in addition to the annual calculation of direct FTEs in core bureaus.

27.
Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA).
During an agency reorganization, the Commission reassigned staff from several bureaus and offices to the new OEA, effective December 11, 2018. After the reorganization, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate for the non-auctions FTEs in OEA to be considered indirect FTEs because the work of its FTEs would benefit the Commission and the telecommunications industry and would not specifically focused on the regulatory fee payors. In creating OEA, the Commission reassigned 95 FTEs (of which 64 were not auctions-funded) as OEA FTEs.

28. OEA is responsible for expanding and strengthening the use of economic analysis in Commission policy making, for enhancing the development and use of auctions, and for implementing consistent and effective agency-wide data practices and policies. Specifically, OEA (a) provides economic analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, for rulemakings, transactions, adjudications, and other Commission actions; (b) manages Commission auctions in support of and in coordination with other bureaus and offices; (c) develops policies and strategies to help manage Commission data resources and establish best practices for data use throughout the Commission in coordination with other bureaus and offices; and (d) conducts long-term research on ways to improve the Commission's policies and processes in each of these areas. Notably, OEA collaborates with and advises other bureaus and offices in the areas of economic and data analysis and with respect to the analysis of benefits, costs, and regulatory impacts of Commission policies, rules, and proposals. As part of this collaboration, OEA reviews all rulemakings prepared by those bureaus and offices, all other Commission-level items that contain economic or data analysis, and similar items that the bureaus or offices release on delegated authority.

29. NAB contends that we should consider treating the FTEs that were reorganized to OEA from direct bureaus as direct FTEs. We disagree that all such FTEs should be reallocated to direct. However, based on our experience over the approximately four years that OEA has been in existence, we have observed that certain bureaus tend to generate more numerous and more complex economic and data issues for OEA to analyze as well as more documents for release that require OEA review and expertise. As a result, OEA has necessarily devoted more time to and developed greater expertise in certain areas under the purview of a specific bureau. In light of that understanding, for FY 2023, we find that there is measurable work done by OEA that is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in certain industry segments. We recognize that we previously rejected suggestions related to reallocating OEA FTEs. Our proposals, however, are based on a current, deeper analysis of FTE work. Based on this analysis, we propose to reallocate a certain number of OEA's FTEs as direct for regulatory fee purposes, and include those FTEs in the count of a core bureau. We seek comment on this general proposal.

30. Specifically, we propose to allocate a certain number of OEA FTEs as direct to reflect the work by OEA on wireline matters related to universal service fund issues in high-cost areas; competition and interconnection; the setting of rates for calls from incarcerated persons; the establishment of a national suicide hotline; and efforts to protect privacy. Based on our review, because this FTE work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors, we propose that the burden of the work of 13 OEA FTEs should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation. Similarly, our analysis shows that OEA non-auctions FTE's work with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau addresses various wireless and spectrum issues, such as mergers, transactions, and acquisitions, spectrum licensing, mobile spectrum holdings policies, and deployment in rural areas and on tribal lands. Because this work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors, we propose that the burden of the work of eight OEA FTEs should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation. OEA FTEs' work with the Media Bureau relates to broadcast and cable issues, including ownership regulation, next generation standards, content source disclosures, program carriage and retransmission, and rates and billing practices. We find that after analysis, because their work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Media Bureau regulatory fee payors, the burden of the work of seven OEA FTEs should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the Media Bureau regulatory fee categories, for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation. OEA's work with the International Bureau addresses national security, mergers and acquisitions, undersea cables, and satellite issues and we find that, because their work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of International Bureau regulatory fee payors, the burden of the work of two OEA FTEs should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the International Bureau, proportionally among the International Bureau regulatory fee categories, for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation.

31. Notably, our analysis reveals that after the Commission's creation of OEA, given the amount of economic analysis and data issues being generated by the core bureaus, the work and expertise of certain of OEA's FTEs remained focused on the oversight and regulation of certain regulatory fee payors in a manner that was consistent with the work they were doing in their previous core bureau, which further supports our proposal to reallocate the burden of the work of certain of OEA's FTEs as direct for regulatory fee purposes. We seek comment on our proposal to reallocate a total of 30 OEA FTEs as direct FTEs to the core bureaus as follows: 13 FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau, eight FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, seven FTEs to the Media Bureau, and two FTEs to the International Bureau, for regulatory fee purposes.

32.
Office of General Counsel (OGC).
In the context of the Commission's annual regulatory fee proceeding, the work of the OGC, as represented by FTE allocations, has been considered to be indirect. As we explain below, on review, we believe that certain aspects of OGC's work are sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of

individual regulatory fee categories that the associated FTEs could properly be considered direct FTEs for such regulatory fee categories.

33. OGC serves as the chief legal advisor to the Commission and its various bureaus and offices. In that capacity OGC's responsibilities are generally described as interpreting new and existing statutes and executive orders as they pertain to the Commission's exercise of its Communications Act authority and other authorities, as well as performing such functions involving implementation of such statutes and executive orders as may be assigned to it by the Commission. OGC advises the Commission in the preparation and revision of our rules, recommends decisions in adjudicatory matters before the Commission, assists the Commission in its decision-making capacity and performs a variety of legal functions regarding internal and other administrative matters. OGC also advises and represents the Commission in matters of litigation. These roles are divided between the Administrative Law Division and the Litigation Division and are overseen by the General Counsel (GC) and the GC's Front Office.

34. The Administrative Law Division provides legal advice to the Commission concerning a wide array of substantive areas of the law necessary to the functioning of any federal agency. Such work benefits the work of the Commission as a whole and is not specific to any particular regulatory fee category. As such, the FTE burden associated with such work properly remains allocated as indirect. In contrast, it is possible to allocate some of the work of the Administrative Law Division in reviewing Commission rules, proposed rules, and adjudicatory orders, as well as providing extensive advice on the Commission's authority under the Communications Act, including the exercise of delegated authority by the bureaus and offices, to the core bureaus and offices that develop the underlying orders and seek the advice of OGC. Where this work is directly related to our oversight and regulation of specific regulatory fee payor categories, we propose allocating the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant bureau(s). Thus, we propose as follows for FY 2023: one OGC FTE would be reallocated as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau; two OGC FTEs would be reallocated as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; one OGC FTE would be reallocated as direct to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the Media Bureau fee categories; and one OGC FTE would be reallocated as direct to the International Bureau, proportionally among the International Bureau fee categories. We seek comment on this proposal.

35. The Litigation Division represents the Commission in a wide variety of court cases covering actions that most federal agencies are subject to (
e.g.,
personnel, Federal Tort Claims Act, Freedom of Information Act, False Claims Act, and contract actions and disputes) in addition to challenges regarding the Commission's exercise of our Communications Act authority. As we explain below, after careful consideration, we do not propose any FTE changes for the Litigation Division. The level of effort to support litigation that is unrelated to our Communications Act authority is generally not tied to oversight and regulation of any regulatory fee category. Thus, the FTE burden remains appropriately considered as indirect. The FTE burden associated with litigation that directly touches on our Communications Act authority should also remain as indirect. We make this determination for a variety of reasons. Primarily, it is not possible to determine with any level of consistency year to year whether the FTE work in support of litigation matters benefits a particular regulatory fee category. This is particularly true because the essential issue in dispute when a matter moves to litigation may touch on issues of broader concern than any one regulatory fee group, or conversely be so procedural as to be effectively generic to all federal agency action. Moreover, at its core, the FTE work defending the Commission's expert authority in implementing the Communications Act is the epitome of work that benefits the agency as a whole and we do not believe it would be fair for any one regulatory fee group to shoulder the FTE burden of such work.

36.
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB).
PSHSB advises and coordinates within the Commission on all matters pertaining to public safety, homeland security, national security, cybersecurity, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management, and related matters. The bureau leads initiatives that strengthen public safety and emergency response capabilities enabling the Commission to assist the public, first responders, law enforcement, hospitals, the communications industry and all levels of government in times of emergency.

37. PSHSB is organized into three divisions: the Policy and Licensing Division, the Operations and Emergency Management Division, and the Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division. After assessing the work performed in these three divisions, in instances where we are able to determine that the work being performed is directly related to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau, we are proposing to consider the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant core bureau(s). We seek comment on this proposal for each PSHSB division below.

38. The Policy and Licensing Division develops and administers rules, regulations, and policies to support public safety entities, including law enforcement, fire and emergency medical first responders, Public Safety Answering Points, and emergency operations organizations. The division handles licensing of public safety frequencies, including modifications, renewals and adjudications, in frequencies below 470 MHz, and in 470-512 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 4.9 GHz and 5.9 GHz under part 90 of the Commission's rules, and the microwave bands under part 101; 911/Enhanced 911/Next Generation 911; Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act; the Emergency Alert System; operability and interoperability for public safety communications and the First Responder Network Authority; and intra- and interagency coordination on spectrum management.

39. After analyzing at a high level data regarding the FTE work in the Policy and Licensing Division, we find that, because the burden of the work of 14 of the FTEs in this division is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of a core bureau, we propose that it is appropriate to consider such work as direct to the relevant bureau, for regulatory fee purposes. Specifically, of the 14 FTEs we have identified, there are two FTEs that could be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau, eight FTEs that could be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and four FTEs that could be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Media Bureau.

40. With regard to the two FTEs we propose to consider as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and the eight FTEs that we propose to consider as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, we propose these reallocations for regulatory fee purposes because the burden of the work performed on 911 policy, covering issues such as 911 location accuracy, and the transition to

Next Generation 911, as well as clarifying provider obligations and acting on waiver and other provider-specific requests, directly furthers the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Similarly, with regard to the four FTEs we propose to consider as direct to the Media Bureau, we propose these reallocations for regulatory fee purposes, proportionally among the fee categories in the Media Bureau, because the FTE burden of the work on the Emergency Alert System, developing and maintaining the operational rules that apply to EAS participants, facilitating interactions between EAS participants and alert originators, reviewing State EAS Plans, and acting on waiver and similar requests directly furthers the oversight and regulation of the regulatory payors of the Media Bureau. We seek comment on this proposal.

41. The Operations and Emergency Management Division (OEMD) ensures the readiness of the Federal Communications Commission to respond to threats and emergencies; conducts and coordinates risk and incident management activities; and supports public safety and events of national security significance. Division staff recommend, develop, and implement emergency plans, policies, and preparedness programs covering reporting and situational awareness of communications status during times of emergency; Commission functions during emergency conditions; and the provision of service by communications service providers during emergency conditions.

42. The division staff provide legal guidance and perform technical operations in support of interagency Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) government national security and public safety risk and incident management efforts. In addition, the division provides situational awareness to FCC and federal government leadership regarding national security risks and makes recommendations to help manage those risks; manages the FCC Continuity Programs to ensure the Commission's ability to perform the functions vital to an enduring government and the availability of nationwide and international communications under all conditions; and assesses and evaluates the status of communications services and infrastructure through Over-The-Air observations and analysis by its Spectrum Monitoring and Analysis Response Team. The division also coordinates with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on critical national security and emergency preparedness priority communications programs, such as Telecommunication Service Priority Program, Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, and Wireless Priority Service.

43. After analyzing at a high level data regarding the FTE work in OEMD, we find that the work of five of the FTEs in this division is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of a core bureau. We propose to consider the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Specifically, of the five FTEs we have identified there are two FTEs that could be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau, two FTEs that could be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and one FTE that could be reallocated as a direct FTE to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee categories in the Media Bureau.

44. With regard to the two FTEs we propose to consider as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau, we propose these reallocations for regulatory fee purposes because the burden of the work performed is directly related to the oversight and regulation of wireline regulatory fee payors. This division, in performance of its risk assessment responsibilities, surveys the status of wireline service and infrastructure following major disasters, emergencies, or events of a national security or law enforcement nature and facilitates restoration through coordination with other federal and SLTT entities and private sector companies. In addition, the division administers legal oversight and review of the Commission's Local Number Portability Act (LNPA) activities. Similarly, we propose allocating two FTEs as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, for regulatory fee purpose, because the burden of the work performed is directly related to the oversight and regulation of wireless regulatory fee payors based on the same functions described above, with respect to wireline regulatory fee payors.

45. In addition, the work done by one FTE in OEMD directly supports the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of the Media Bureau by conducting site surveys of media broadcast transmitters to determine potential issues of interference, and by deploying personnel to disaster areas to perform spectrum scans before and after disasters to ascertain the operational status of broadcast stations and assist those that are not operational. Deploying personnel to disaster areas primarily supports the oversight and regulation of the regulatory fee payors of all three bureaus by, among other things, providing direct assistance to providers in disaster areas with issues such as obtaining access to facility sites and procurement of fuel for generators. Based on this analysis, we propose to reallocate, for regulatory fee purposes, one FTEs as a direct FTEs to be included in the count of the Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee categories in that bureau. We seek comment on this proposal.

46. The Communications and Crisis Management Center (FCC Operations Center), which is part of OEMD, maintains a 24/7 staff at FCC Headquarters. Its responsibilities include: monitoring the status of communications and engaging in real-time with emergency operations centers and PSAPs in the event of outages or disasters; resolving consumer complaints; supporting the Commission's enforcement activities; granting special temporary authority to Commission licensees after hours; and maintaining the Commission's primary classified environment and the required support systems.

47. The Operations Center is available 24/7 to field requests from all regulatees for assistance and to grant special temporary authority outside of normal business hours. Operations Center staff routinely field calls regarding consumer complaints of communications outages and interference or requests for information on the provision of wireless and wireline communications services in specific regions of the Nation. In response to these communications, Operations Center staff will coordinate solutions across Commission Bureaus and Offices, SLTT stakeholder entities, and private sector companies. After analyzing at a high level data regarding the FTE work performed in the Operations Center, we find that, the work of three of the FTEs of the Operations Center is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of a core bureau. We propose to consider such work as direct to the relevant bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Specifically, we propose that one FTE could be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes as a direct FTE of the Wireline Competition Bureau, one FTE could be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes as a direct FTE to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and one FTE could be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes as direct to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee

categories in that bureau. We seek comment on this proposal.

48. The Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division helps ensure that the nation's communications networks are reliable and secure so that the public can communicate, especially during emergencies. This division identifies and promotes network improvements through analysis and investigation of significant communications outages, providing situational awareness of the status of communications infrastructure during times of emergency, administering the Commission's primary advisory committee on communications security and reliability, and rulemakings. Focus areas include emergency communications, such as 911 and wireless emergency alerting, network performance during disasters, and major network outages and threats. This division monitors and analyzes communications network outages to identify trends, assess actions the FCC can take to help prevent and mitigate outages, and where necessary, assist response and recovery activities.

49. The division provides oversight and regulation of the regulatory payors by, among other things, providing situational awareness of the status of communications infrastructure and coordinating requests for assistance during times of emergency. We find, after analyzing the burden of the work done in this division, there are four FTEs that could be reallocated, for regulatory fee purposes, as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau because the work being done on wireline network outage reporting, in routine and disaster environments, as well as outages and notifications impacting the 911 and 933 systems, is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of wireline regulatory fee payors We also find that two FTEs can be reallocated, for regulatory fee purposes, to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau because the work of FTEs being done to administer the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative to ensure providers of commercial mobile services engage in mutual aid activities during times of emergency, the work of its Federal Advisory Committee on standards and best practices related to 5G deployment, and the work to develop and implement performance standards and accuracy for wireless emergency alerting is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of wireless regulatory fee payors. Finally, the division supports the security of services provided across platforms, in the Commission's Alerting Security docket, and Federal Advisory Committee work on 911 standards and alerting standards, as well as network and supply chain security.

50. In sum, because we are able to determine that some of the work being performed by certain FTEs in PSHSB is directly related to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau, we propose to consider the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant bureau(s). Specifically, we propose to reassign a total of nine FTEs as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau, 13 FTEs as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and six FTEs as direct FTEs to the Media Bureau. The reassignment, for regulatory fee purposes, to the Media Bureau would be proportional among the fee categories in the bureau. This is a total of 28 Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau FTEs reallocated, as direct FTEs, for regulatory fee purposes, in the core bureaus.

51.
Conclusion of the Proposal To Reallocate Certain Indirect FTEs From OEA, OGC, and PSHSB as Direct FTEs to a Relevant Core Bureau.
As represented above, FTE time associated with the proposed reallocations for regulatory fee purposes would be added to the relevant core bureau. Such a reallocation for regulatory fee purposes would result in increasing the number of direct FTEs in a core bureau and reducing the total number of indirect FTEs within the Commission. Because our underlying methodology for calculating regulatory fees does not change, we conclude that our fee regulatory fee calculation continues to be consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires us to base our methodology on the number of FTEs in calculating regulatory fees. We seek comment on this conclusion.

52. We are mindful that our treatment of FTEs as direct or indirect can change over time based on our evaluation of the FTE burden associated with the Commission's work assignments and the ebbs and flows within industry segments and needs of specific regulatory fee payors. We also emphasize that our proposals to reallocate certain FTEs from indirect to direct proposes a modest change to the percentages of direct FTEs allocated to the core bureaus. This analysis assures us that the Commission's general methodology for establishing regulatory fees has been appropriate. Based on our careful consideration of the record, we seek comment on whether we should, based on a high level evaluation of data gathered by Commission staff as described above, calculate regulatory fees for FY 2023 based on the proposed reallocations, and whether doing so is appropriate and consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act. The table below shows the proposed reallocations of a total of 63 FTEs to each of the core bureaus, as discussed above. Such reallocations, for regulatory fee purposes, would be proportionally distributed within the core bureau. We seek comment on these reallocations.

Core bureau

Number of direct
FTEs without
indirect FTE
reassignments

Percentage

Number of direct FTEs with indirect
FTE reassignments

Percentage

International Bureau
28
8.28

+2 from OEA
+ 1 from OGC
Total additional FTEs, +3

7.73

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
75
22.19

+8 from OEA
+2 from OGC
+13 from PSHSB
Total additional FTEs +23

24.44

Wireline Competition Bureau
120.25
35.57

+13 from OEA
+1 from OGC
+9 from PSHSB
Total additional FTEs +23

35.73

Media Bureau
116
33.96

+7 from OEA
+1 from OGC
+6 from PSHSB
Total additional FTEs +14

32.10

53. As reflected in the table above, our proposals to reallocate 63 indirect FTEs as direct for regulatory fee purposes will result in a nearly 19% increase in our overall direct FTE count. We make these proposals consistent with our long standing regulatory fee methodology and conclude that our determinations are reasonably accurate for fiscal year 2023. In sum, based on our staff analysis of the activities of the Commission, we tentatively conclude that our proposals for FTE reallocation better reflect the burdens that certain segments of the telecommunications industry impose on the Commission and our workforce, and will allow us to continue to assess and collect regulatory fees to cover the costs of meeting those obligations. We seek comment on our proposals and this tentative conclusion.

54. Our proposals today to reallocate, for regulatory fee purposes, certain indirect FTEs to direct FTEs in a core bureau recognizes and responds to commenters concerns that some work being done in non-core bureaus and offices is done in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of specific regulatory fee payors. We are nonetheless mindful of the fact that FTEs' work in OEA, OGC, and PSHSB can change from year to year and we want to avoid any unplanned shifts in regulatory fees on an annual basis that would undermine the goals of having a fair, administrable, and sustainable program. In evaluating our proposals, we therefore ask commenters to speak to whether the potentially fluctuating nature of this information on an annual basis will negatively impact their ability to predict what their regulatory fee obligations will be each year. Specifically, we seek comment on depth of analysis we should engage in and the frequency of such analysis when making FTE allocation proposals.

2. Treatment of Non-High Cost Universal Service Fund FTEs as Indirect

55. In 2017, the Commission decided to assign as indirect, for regulatory fee purposes, 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau who worked on non-high cost programs of the Universal Service Fund. This reallocation was based on the Commission's conclusion that due to changes over time in the universal service fund regulatory landscape, it was no longer appropriate to consider all FTE time spent working on non-high cost universal service issues as Wireline Competition Bureau direct FTEs. In the non-high cost programs, funding eligibility is based on the beneficiary,
i.e.,
a school, a library, a low-income individual or family, or a healthcare provider. While initial programs were focused on wireline services, as the Commission's non-high cost programs have evolved, other providers, like wireless carriers and broadband providers, are also participating in the programs. Additionally, satellite operators, Wi-Fi network installers, and fiber builders may all receive universal service funding through the Commission's non-high cost programs. As Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) are no longer the sole contributors or beneficiaries of the non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs, the Commission concluded that reallocating the Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs devoted to non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs as indirect FTEs was more consistent with how FTEs working for programs that benefit consumers and the American public are treated elsewhere in the Commission.

56. The Commission explained that such FTE time should be considered indirect because it is not focused specifically on regulatory fee payors of any core bureau. Instead it covers all program participants. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission reasoned that the FTE time devoted to the non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues is not oversight and regulation of a particular category of fee payors as is the case for ITSPs and CMRS providers, but instead is the oversight of several programs with a wide array of beneficiaries and participants. The Commission determined that FTE time spent on non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues is indirect because it would be “impossible to determine the precise costs attributable to FTEs and the precise benefits flowing from Commission regulation to any one regulatee, let alone a particular cross-section of regulatees or even an entire industry—not to mention the complications associated with regulatees statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees (such as governmental licensees) and with beneficiaries (such as schools and libraries) that are not regulatees, all of whom nonetheless create costs that must be covered.”

57. In FY 2022, broadcasters raised concerns about the inclusion of payment for these indirect FTEs in their regulatory fees. The Commission took a closer look at the FTE burden associated with these non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues and determined that broadcasters should be excluded from the costs associated with these indirect FTEs. Based on this determination, the costs associated with these indirect FTEs in FY 2022 was apportioned among all other regulatory fee payors. Broadcasters have argued that these indirect FTEs should be treated as direct and allocated across other fee payors but have not identified a methodology for reallocating the FTE burden associated with these programs to the core bureau. For FY 2023, we tentatively conclude that the Commission's FY 2022 reasoning remains sound and the indirect FTE burden associated with these non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs should not be apportioned to broadcasters. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We ask any commenters asserting that these indirect FTEs should be reassigned as direct FTEs to a core bureau to provide an explanation of how these FTEs provide a direct benefit to other fee payors.

58. Additionally, our analysis of the FTE burden associated with these non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs reveals that we need to adjust downward the number of indirect FTEs working on the non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs from 38 FTEs in FY 2022 to 23.75 indirect FTEs for FY 2023, a decrease of 14.25 indirect FTEs. We seek comment on allocating, for regulatory fee purposes, these 23.75 Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs as indirect for FY 2023.

3. Other FTE Allocations

59. In conducting our high-level review of FTE time within the various bureaus and offices within the Commission in response to commenters' concerns, we tentatively conclude that FTE time within the International Bureau, the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, is appropriately designated as either indirect or direct. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and our allocation analysis, as discussed below, for each bureau and office.

60.
International Bureau.
The International Bureau had 81 FTEs as of October 1, 2022, and similar to last year, we propose the same allocation of those 81 FTES to be 28 direct FTEs and 53 indirect FTEs for purposes of regulatory fees (prior to adding three FTEs that we are proposing to reallocate for regulatory fee purposes). In 2013, the Commission concluded that the number of direct FTEs engaged in the regulation and oversight of International Bureau licensees should be 28. The Commission reviewed the number of FTEs in the International Bureau each year as part of the annual regulatory fee process, including last year, and found that that number still accurately reflects the number of direct FTEs engaged in the regulation and oversight of International Bureau licensees. Between the Telecommunications and Analysis Division (TAD) and the Satellite Division there are 27 FTEs, and one FTE in the Office of the Bureau Chief (IBFO), that are allocated as direct FTEs. All FTEs in the Global Strategy and Negotiation Division (GSN) are considered indirect FTEs.

61. We have taken a closer look at the indirect FTE time in the International Bureau, which is primarily in GSN. GSN staff represent the Commission in international conferences, meetings, and negotiations, draft written contributions including proposed USA and regional positions, and coordinate Commission preparation for such conferences, meetings, and negotiations with other Bureaus and Offices, and government agencies, as appropriate. In addition, GSN manages Commission participation in the fellowship telecommunication training program for foreign officials offered through the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI) as well as the Commission's International Visitors Program. Under the leadership of the Department of State, staff participate in various international and regional organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Maritime Organization, the International Civil Aeronautics Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission. The ITU has three sectors, radiocommunications (ITU-R), telecommunications standardization (ITU-T), and telecommunications development (ITU-D). GSN staff cover all three sectors, with ITU-R work focused on spectrum allocations and related international regulations governing spectrum use, ITU-T work focused on international standards setting issues, numbering, and related policy issues, and ITU-D work focused on capacity building and digital inclusion. GSN also coordinates cross-border issues with Mexico and Canada that involve a wide range of services, such as maritime, aeronautical, mobile and fixed satellite, broadcasting, mobile, and terrestrial wireless services. In addition, GSN's functions include international broadcasting station licensing and coordination of frequencies for International Broadcast licenses at the ITU. GSN's multilateral and bilateral international work ultimately benefits all fee payors by maintaining and advancing the United States' global leadership and interests, which encompasses, among others, U.S. trade, foreign policy, and national security interests. Insofar as the work of GSN does not benefit a specific fee payor, but rather the government as whole, we continue to conclude the work of its FTEs is appropriately categorized as indirect.

62. In the IBFO and in the IB divisions, a number of FTEs support the various bureau functions involving management and administrative support, such as IT issues, international travels, and other administrative activities. In the IBFO, approximately one FTE can be attributed to overseeing the Satellite Division's activities that directly benefit space and earth stations. Some work in the IBFO and TAD involve coordinating with Executive Branch agencies on issues involving foreign ownership, national security, law enforcement, and cyber security. Most FTE work in the IBFO supports all regulatory fee payors and also supports GSN work. For that reason, we conclude that they should continue to be considered indirect. In addition, not all the Satellite Division work can be attributed directly to a particular category of regulatory fee payor. For example, a number of space related activities indirectly benefit the existing fee categories, including space stations, commercial mobile services, and earth stations. For example, the Satellite Division coordinates with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), State Department on space sustainability, planetary protections, and on leading space innovation. Lastly, the Satellite Division works closely with GSN staff, to help cover certain ITU World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) agenda items. Based on our review of the FTEs in the International Bureau, we find that the allocation of direct and indirect FTEs should remain the same for FY 2023,
i.e.,
28 direct and 53 indirect FTEs. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

63. Further, we note that, on January 9, 2023, the Commission adopted the
Space Bureau Order,
which among other things, reorganized the International Bureau by establishing a new Space Bureau and a new Office of International Affairs. This reorganization became effective on April 10, 2023. At this time, however, we are not proposing to reallocate any FTEs on the basis of this reorganization. Other than the reallocations we have proposed herein for regulatory fee purposes, the number of direct FTEs working on oversight and regulation of the International Bureau regulatory fee payors therefore remains unchanged for FY 2023. We will revisit the FTE allocations for the Space Bureau, as we do for all the Commission's bureaus and offices, in FY 2024.

64.
Office of Engineering and Technology.
The Office of Engineering and Technology provides engineering and technical expertise to the agency and supports each of the agency's four core bureaus. Part of that office's role is to participate in matters “not within the jurisdiction of any single bureau” or “affecting more than one bureau.” More specifically, the Office of Engineering and Technology manages the spectrum and maintains the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, manages the experimental licensing and equipment authorization programs, regulates the operation of devices on an unlicensed basis, and conducts engineering and technical studies. Each of these functions is broadly applicable and benefits multiple industry sectors, including the broadcasting industry. For example, work in overseeing the equipment authorization program benefits multiple industry sectors partly because many devices that require

authorization, including some broadcast receiving equipment (
e.g.,
smart TVs), operate on several spectrum bands under rules for both licensed services and unlicensed operations.

65. NAB contends that broadcasters' regulatory fees should not include the indirect FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology because that office is focused on the use of spectrum on an unlicensed basis, evaluating new radio frequency (RF) devices, and managing the equipment authorization program. According to NAB, these issues have very little to do with broadcasters. In the
FY 2021 Report and Order,
we rejected commenters' proposals that would effectively treat the Office and Engineering and Technology as a core bureau making FTEs who work in that office direct FTEs. At that time, we found that the Office of Engineering and Technology provides engineering and technical expertise to the agency as a whole and supports each of the agency's four core bureaus and for that reason the FTEs were appropriately assigned as indirect.

66. We have taken a closer look at the FTE time in this office and we again conclude that the FTEs in Office of Engineering and Technology are appropriately considered indirect. Our analysis shows that a significant amount of FTE time is devoted to equipment authorization. FTE work in equipment authorization involves not only RF testing of various equipment that uses spectrum on both a licensed and unlicensed basis, but also such functions as management of the equipment authorization system, coordination with Telecommunications Certification Bodies, and rulemaking activities such as updating testing and laboratory certification standards. FTE time to manage the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes activities such as rulemaking and coordination with other federal and international entities, which impacts virtually all spectrum use, including both licensed and experimental use. The work of OET FTEs therefore benefit the work of the Commission as a whole and is not specific to any particular regulatory fee category. As such, the FTE burden associated with such work properly remains allocated as indirect. Other FTE time in OET is spread out among multiple core bureaus within the Commission and its regulatees. For example, users of spectrum on an unlicensed basis includes virtually every American consumer and business, and management of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations has the potential to impact every spectrum user, either directly with regard to primary or secondary use, or indirectly such as with regard to emissions from adjacent spectrum bands. Accordingly, we seek comment on our tentative conclusion to continue to assign all of the FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology as indirect and to apportion them across the core bureaus.

67.
Enforcement Bureau.
NAB contends that the Enforcement Bureau's Fraud Division, Market Disputes Resolution Division, and Telecommunications Consumers Division all perform work that benefit broadband service providers, cable operators, and telecommunications carriers and broadcasters should not be responsible for these indirect FTEs and they should instead be characterized as direct to certain core bureaus. We have closely analyzed the FTE time in the Enforcement Bureau, not just the divisions NAB selected, and we tentatively conclude that this bureau should continue to be treated as indirect because, as we discuss below, the Enforcement Bureau FTEs enforce the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The FTE oversight function is focused on the integrity of Commission's rules and ensuring the implementation of the Commission's Act. FTE time devoted to enforcement of the Commission's rules is the epitome of work that benefits the agency as a whole and the American public and we do not believe it would be fair for any one regulatory fee group of payors to shoulder the FTE burden of such work.

68. We disagree with NAB's argument that the FTEs in the Fraud Division should be direct FTEs. This division has primary responsibility for investigating and enforcing the violations of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and investigates alleged fraudulent receipt of federal funds from the Commission's federal financial aid programs. The division also coordinates with other offices and bureaus within the Commission and with the Office of Inspector General, and other federal and state agencies to maximize enforcement efforts. These issues handled by the Fraud Division are not tied to the oversight and regulation of particular regulatory fee categories. Investigations of fraud may involve voice service providers, but may also focus on entities that are not regulatory fee payors. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to keep these FTEs as indirect.

69. We disagree with NAB's argument that the FTEs in the Telecommunications Consumers Division should be reassigned as direct. The FTE time devoted to protecting consumers from robocalls is not solely focused on Commission regulatory fee payors, but includes the entities initiating the robocalls and coordination with other agencies. The wireline and wireless voice service providers (regulatory fee payors) are generally not the bad actors targeted in these investigations; although we have recently adopted rules regarding voice service providers that carry illegal robocall traffic. This division conducts investigations of a variety of entities including regulatory fee payors and non-payors. Further, this division investigates manufacturers of equipment as well as telemarketers for practices that harm consumers. Thus, despite NAB's assertion, FTE time in this division is not only focused on regulatory fee payors of the core bureaus but includes non-payors. We seek comment on keeping these FTEs as indirect.

70. In addition to the divisions listed by NAB, we have closely looked at the remaining Enforcement Bureau divisions and we also find that the FTEs are properly assigned as indirect. The Market Disputes Resolution Division handles all formal complaints against common carriers and pole attachment complaints, and this includes entities that use poles that are not regulatory fee payors, such as utilities. The Market Disputes Resolution Division provides an avenue for such parties, not limited to regulatory fee payors, to resolve complaints. We seek comment on maintaining these FTEs as indirect.

71. The Spectrum Enforcement Division conducts investigations and takes enforcement actions against complaints primarily involving wireless equipment matters, such as electronic devices that are advertised, sold, or operated without proper authorization under the Commission's technical rules,
e.g.,
unauthorized drone accessories that could interfere with aviation frequencies. Other investigations involve entities that operate unauthorized wireless services, such as unauthorized satellite transmissions or unlicensed wireless data networks, which could jeopardize government operations and authorized commercial wireless operations. This division also focuses on public safety and technical issues such as jamming devices that threaten cellular networks and GPS, 911 system failures, and other equipment requirements, including labeling requirements and user manual disclosures for radiofrequency devices. The Spectrum Enforcement Division also investigates licensees that fail to comply with the terms of their licenses and widespread interference matters. In

addition, this division provides engineering and technical support to the Enforcement Bureau. FTE time in this division is not solely focused on regulatory fee payors of the core bureaus. For all of these reasons, we find that these FTEs should remain indirect. We seek comment on maintaining these FTEs as indirect.

72. Similarly, we find that the Investigations and Hearings Division FTEs should remain indirect. This division conducts investigations and takes appropriate enforcement action against broadcast licensees, cable operators, DBS operators, wireless licensees, and telecommunications carriers for violations of the Communications Act and Commission rules; oversees the Equal Employment Opportunity compliance of television and radio broadcast licensees, as well as multichannel video programming distributors (MPVDs), such as cable and DBS operators, and satellite radio; investigates and takes appropriate enforcement action for violations of various Commission transparency rules concerning broadband services, cable television, and other communications offerings. This FTE time is spread among all core bureaus as well as entities that are not Commission regulatory fee payors. For this reason, we find that the FTEs in this division should remain indirect.

73. FTE time in the Enforcement Bureau Field Offices is devoted to investigating unauthorized radio stations, among other things. Parties found operating radio stations without FCC authorization will be subject to a variety of enforcement actions including seizure of equipment, imposition of monetary forfeitures, ineligibility to hold any FCC license, and criminal penalties. Such unauthorized radio stations interfere with licensed radio stations and prevent the American public from enjoying the radio station that is unable to broadcast due to such interference. Field offices have other functions, such as on-scene investigations, inspections, and audits; responding to safety of life matters; investigating and resolving individual interference complaints; investigating violations in all licensees and/or operator services; coordinating with local and state public safety entities; and carrying out special priorities of the Commission.

74. After analyzing the FTE time in this bureau, we find that the Enforcement Bureau is appropriately considered an indirect bureau. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that none of the FTEs in the Enforcement Bureau should be considered for reallocation. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. As a general matter, investigations are undertaken by Enforcement Bureau staff in the Field offices, and the Fraud, Telecommunications Consumers, Investigations and Hearings, and Spectrum Enforcement Divisions based on complaints and the Commission's decisions on how to allocate investigation resources among various disputes, including those concerning bad actors. Attempting to discern whether the FTE work conducted in general dispute resolution benefits a particular regulatory fee payor would be difficult, time consuming and impractical to administer. Moreover, where the work of the Enforcement Bureau concerns bad actors, it would be particularly unfair to consider the work of resolving such matters as direct to a category of regulatory fee payors. The direct FTE time on which we calculate regulatory fees should not be based on these types of considerations. For example, a decision by the Commission to have the Field offices investigate complaints about unauthorized radio operators should not result in an increase in the AM and FM broadcasters' regulatory fees based on the FTE time in such investigations. An investigation of a fraudulent robocaller should not result in an increase in the wireline or wireless carriers' regulatory fees, due to the fact that the robocalls were made to consumers' phones. This bureau addresses all violations of Commission rules; some of those could be considered fraud or bad actors and others are rule violations or disagreements between parties. As a policy matter, our regulatory fees should not be based on our investigations of generalized disputes or the actions of parties that have violated the Commission's rules. Our regulatory fee calculations are based on the FTEs devoted to oversight and regulation of the regulatory fee payors, and should not be inflated or skewed due to the Commission's focus on investigations and its enforcement of our rules that are related to the telecommunications industry generally or to bad actors within it. We therefore seek comment on our tentative conclusion to maintain all of the Enforcement Bureau FTEs as indirect FTEs.

75.
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
Similarly, we propose to continue considering the FTEs in Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau as indirect because the work of the FTEs in this bureau, and the oversight and regulation by these FTEs, is primarily devoted to outreach and consumer matters and enforcing the Act and the Commission's rules. FTE time devoted to regulatory fee payors is often either spent on complaints or petitions for declaratory rulings or on oversight more generally of the industry,
e.g.,
establishing and oversight of the Reassigned Numbers Database. As we explained with respect to Enforcement Bureau FTEs, our regulatory fees should not be based on the volume of complaints or petitions for declaratory rulemakings and the Commission's discretion in allocating resources to handling such matters. Thus, we tentatively conclude that none of the FTEs in the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau should be considered for reallocation as direct FTEs. We therefore seek comment on our tentative conclusion to maintain the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau FTEs as indirect.

4. Broadcast Regulatory Fees

a. Broadcast Television Stations

76. In the
FY 2020 Report and Order,
we completed the transition to a population-based full-service broadcast television regulatory fee. The population-based methodology conforms with the service authorized here—broadcasting television to the American people. For FY 2023, we propose to continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's contour. We seek comment on our mechanism, described below, for how we will calculate the regulatory fee based on the previously decided population-based methodology. We propose adopting a factor of .7799 of one cent ($.007799) per population served for FY 2023 full-power broadcast television station fees. The population data for broadcasters' service areas are determined using the TVStudy software and the LMS database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour. The population data for each licensee and the population-based fee (population multiplied by $.007799) for each full-power broadcast television station is listed in Table 7. We seek comment on these proposed fees.

b. Broadcast Radio Stations

77. For the last several years, broadcaster groups have consistently filed comments in the Commission's annual regulatory fee proceedings about the impact of increasing regulatory fees on small independent broadcasters' ability to continue to provide service to their local communities. Among other factors, they cite competition from

satellite radio and music streaming services, a shrinking advertising base and their inability to pass regulatory fee increases on to a subscriber base. We share the broadcasters' concern that market pressures are significant and, as currently structured, we risk that our fee schedule results in those that are least able to pay regulatory fees overpaying their share of fees, to the benefit of broadcasters with a larger population base. We have reviewed the existing tiered fee structure on which we base our calculation of annual regulatory fees for radio broadcasters and have concluded that creating an additional tier within the lowest population tier is necessary to ensure that broadcaster fees are more equitably distributed among all radio broadcasters and that the regulatory fees assessed to the smaller broadcasters are “reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities” as required by section 9(d) of the Act. To that end, we propose a revised radio station regulatory fee table that would include a lower population tier for AM and FM broadcasters. Specifically, we propose to separate the previous years' tier of <= 25,000 population into two tiers: (1) ≤= 10,000, and (2) 10,001-25,000. Under our proposal, the remaining population tier thresholds would stay the same as prior years. We seek comment on the table below.

FY 2023 Radio Station Regulatory Fees

Population served

AM
Class A

AM
Class B

AM
Class C

AM
Class D

FM
Classes A,
B1 & C3

FM
Classes
B, C, C0, C1 & C2

<=10,000
$595
$430
$370
$410
$650
$745

10,001-25,000
990
715
620
680
1,085
1,240

25,001-75,000
1,485
1,075
930
1,020
1,630
1,860

75,001-150,000
2,230
1,610
1,395
1,530
2,440
2,790

150,001-500,000
3,345
2,415
2,095
2,300
3,665
4,190

500,001-1,200,000
5,010
3,620
3,135
3,440
5,490
6,275

1,200,001-3,000,000
7,525
5,435
4,710
5,170
8,245
9,425

3,000,001-6,000,000
11,275
8,145
7,060
7,745
12,360
14,125

>6,000,000
16,920
12,220
10,595
11,620
18,545
21,190

5. Space Station Regulatory Fees

78. We seek comment on the proposed regulatory fees for space stations as provided in Table 2. In 2020, the Commission adjusted the allocation of FTEs among geostationary orbit space stations (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems (NGSO) operators. To ensure that regulatory fees more closely reflected the FTE oversight and regulation for each space station category, the Commission allocated 80% of space station regulatory fees to GSOs and 20% of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs. We also seek comment on defining the category of operations for on-orbit servicing (OOS) and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) for regulatory fee purposes, including whether a separate regulatory fee category is necessary. In addition, we seek comment on how to apply regulatory fees to OOS and RPO spacecraft specifically operating near the geostationary satellite orbit arc.

79. In 2021, the Commission adopted two new fee subcategories: “less complex” NGSO systems and all other NGSO systems identified as “other” NGSO systems, both under the broader category of “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit).” “Less complex” NGSO systems are defined as NGSO satellite systems planning to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S. authorized earth stations that are primarily used for Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and/or Automatic Identification System (AIS). “Less complex” NGSO fees and “other” NGSO fees were split within the broader NGSO fee category on a 20/80 basis. For FY 2023, we calculate the fees using the allocation of 80% of space station regulatory fees to GSOs and 20% of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs. We also use the 20/80 allocation between “less complex” and “other” NGSO space station fees, respectively, within the NGSO fee category. Such allocations still accurately reflect the amount of work involved in regulating NGSO systems and the number of reasonably related benefits provided to the payors of each fee category.

80. In the Report and Order attached to the
FY 2022 NPRM,
we adopted a methodology for calculating the regulatory fee for small satellites and small spacecraft (together, small satellites) within the NGSO fee category based on 1/20th (5%) of the average of the non-small satellite NGSO space station regulatory fee rates from the current fiscal year on a per license basis. This methodology accommodates fluctuations in the number of NGSO space stations fee payors, continues to provide a middle ground and an opportunity to gain more experience in regulating small satellites, and reflects that FTEs spend approximately twenty times more time on regulating one non-small satellite NGSO system compared to the time spent for regulating one small satellite license.

81. Accordingly, in Tables 2 and 3, we have included the proposed fees for NGSO space stations calculated by assessing the fees that small satellites will pay in FY 2023, reducing that amount from the overall NGSO space stations fee category, and allocating the remaining NGSO space station fees 20/80 using the two fee subcategories: “less complex” NGSO space stations and all other NGSO space stations identified as “other” NGSO space stations. In Tables 2 and 3, we also propose fees for GSO space stations. We seek comment on these proposed fees.

82.
Spacecraft Performing On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) and Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO).
In the
FY 2022 NPRM,
we sought comment on adopting regulatory fee categories for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO. Missions, which can include satellite refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and removing debris, and transforming materials through manufacturing while in space, have the potential to benefit all space stations and improve the sustainability of the outer space environment and the space-based services. Due to the somewhat nascent nature of the OOS and RPO, or more generally “in-space servicing” industries, we currently do not have a regulatory fee category for such spacecraft. We noted in the
FY 2022 NPRM
that there have been a limited number of such operations. We tentatively concluded at that time that it was too early to identify exactly where operations, such as those in low-Earth orbit (LEO), might fit into the regulatory

fee structure in the future. We accordingly deferred our determination of whether to create a new fee category for such services to a future fiscal year once the regulatory framework under which space stations performing in-space servicing operations, including OOS, RPO, space situational awareness (SSA), and space domain awareness (SDA) operations, and the scope of those operations, is better understood.

83. Since the
FY 2022 NPRM,
neither the scope of in-space servicing operations nor the regulatory framework has developed sufficiently to adopt regulatory fee categories at this time. For example, although we expect that most of these operations are likely to ultimately be in NGSO, there will not be any operational OOS or RPO spacecraft in NGSO for FY 2023. For those spacecraft that may conduct such in-space servicing operations in the future, we seek further comment on defining this emerging category of operations for regulatory fee purposes, including whether a separate regulatory fee category is necessary. In response to our
FY 2022 NPRM,
three commenters supported the creation of a new fee category. Of those commenters, one suggested that we use the term “in-space servicing” to define services that will fit within the category to correlate the language with the In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) National Strategy and define those services as activities in space “by a servicer spacecraft or servicing agent on a client space object which require rendezvous and/or proximity operations.” Another commenter suggested a definition for OOS missions as spacecraft whose “primary function” is to provide OOS, including concepts of operations such as deployment via orbital transfer vehicle (OTV), hosting, or RPO, and another agreed with such a definition and added that SSA and SDA operations should also be included. We seek comment on these and additional or different definitions for a potential new fee category. Commenters that favor a new fee category or categories should fully explain the basis for their positions, including how the Commission might identify where these operations might fit into the existing regulatory fee structure and why these operations are distinct from operations classified under other fee categories.

84. Some spacecraft conducting satellite servicing have or plan to operate near the GSO arc. To date, we have licensed two spacecraft under part 25 for communications while conducting these types of operations with GSO satellites. These two spacecraft remain operational in FY 2023. Based on our review and experience regulating OOS and RPO spacecraft in GSO, we tentatively conclude that, despite being assigned their own call signs, which is the unit usually used to assess fees for satellite regulatees operating in GSO, such spacecraft appear to operate as part of existing GSO systems, rather than as separate independent spacecraft. Under this tentative conclusion, there is no independent system for a separate fee assessment for these operations near the GSO arc, and the regulatory burden for such operations are included in the fees collected from the regulatory fee payors paying fees for GSO satellites. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and whether our experience to date may not apply to future operations of OOS and RPO spacecraft, which may operate more independently of the satellites that they will service. For spacecraft conducting OOS and RPO with GSO satellites, identifying whether such spacecraft operations are part of an existing GSO system appears to be the first step in determining whether we should assess a separate fee. We propose to apply the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)” to OOS and RPO spacecraft operating near the GSO arc, unless we determine that the OOS or RPO spacecraft is operating as part of an existing GSO system and therefore should not be assessed a separate regulatory fee. We seek comment on this approach, as well as on the specific factors that we should consider to determine whether a OOS or RPO spacecraft will operate as part of an existing GSO system for regulatory fee purposes.

6. Digital Equity and Inclusion

85. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals for collecting regulatory fees for FY 2023 may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority. We note that diversity and equity considerations, however, do not allow the Commission to shift fees from one party of fee payors to another nor to fees under section 9 of the Act for any purpose other than as an offsetting collection in the amount of our annual S&E appropriation.

7. Continuing Flexibility in FY 2023 for Regulatory Fee Payors

86. In FY 2020, the Commission adopted several temporary measures to assist parties experiencing COVID-19 -related financial hardship in seeking regulatory fee relief. The Commission found good cause to continue the temporary measures in FY 2021 and FY 2022. The measures included: (i) waiver of section 1.1166(a) of the Commission's rules to permit parties seeking regulatory fee waiver, reduction and/or deferral for financial hardship reasons to make a single request for all forms of relief sought, rather than requiring separate filings for each form of relief; (ii) waiver of section 1.1166(a) to permit requests to be submitted electronically to a dedicated email address, rather than requiring the requests to be filed in paper form with the Commission's Office of Secretary; and (iii) allowing parties seeking installment payment terms to do so by submitting their requests to the same dedicated email address and to combine their installment payment requests with their waiver, reduction, and/or deferral requests in a single filing.

87. The Commission also reduced the interest rate typically charged on installment payments to a nominal rate and waived the down payment normally required before granting an installment payment request. In addition, the Commission partially waived the requirement that parties seeking relief on financial hardship grounds submit with their requests all financial documentation needed to prove financial hardship. This allowed regulatory fee payors experiencing pandemic-related financial hardship to submit additional financial documentation post-filing if necessary to determine whether relief should be granted. The Commission directed the Managing Director to work with individual regulatory fee payors that filed requests if additional documents were needed to render a decision on the request.

88. Finally, the Commission allowed debtors barred from filing requests or applications by the Commission's red-light rule and experiencing pandemic-related financial hardship to nonetheless request relief with respect to their regulatory fees. The Commission authorized the Managing Director to partially waive the red light to permit consideration of those requests while requiring those parties to resolve all

delinquent debt to the Commission's satisfaction in the process.

89. We seek comment on whether any of the remaining temporary measures described in paragraphs 87 and 88 above should be extended for FY 2023, and if so, why? Specifically, for FY 2023, should the Commission continue to offer a reduced interest rate and waive the down payment for installment payments of regulatory fees? Should we continue our partial waiver of the red light rule to permit delinquent debtors to seek fee relief, conditioned on the debtor's satisfactory resolution of its delinquent debt? Finally, should the Commission continue our partial waiver of section 1.1166 to permit a regulatee to submit financial documentation after its request is filed if the Managing Director determines that additional documents are needed to render a decision on the request? Commenters that support extension of any of these temporary measures should explain why extension of any temporary measure is necessary, and in the case of those temporary measures that require a waiver of a Commission rule, why good cause exists for the waiver and why the waiver is in the public interest. We remind commenters that we cannot relax the standard for granting a waiver or deferral of fees, penalties, or other charges for late payment of regulatory fees under section 9A of the Communications Act. Under that statute, the Commission may only waive a regulatory fee, penalty or interest if it finds there is good cause for the waiver and that the waiver is in the public interest. The Commission has only granted financial hardship waivers when the requesting party has shown it “lacks sufficient funds to pay the regulatory fees and to maintain its service to the public.” Other statutory limitations include that the Commission must act on waiver requests individually, and cannot extend the deadline we set for payment of fees beyond September 30.

8. Providing Installment Payment Relief to Small Regulatory Fee Payors

90. Several broadcaster groups request that the Commission allow regulatees to prepay their annual regulatory fees in installments, including by prepaying their annual regulatory fees in increments before the annual regulatory fee payment deadline. The broadcasters state that this and other measures would assist in lessening the broadcasters' regulatory fee burden.

91. We start by reminding regulatory fee payors that the Commission has had a robust installment payment program in place for many years, and that many fee payors, especially small fee payors, have availed themselves of the relief installment payment plans provide, enabling repayment of the annual regulatory fee in installments after the payment deadline, without incurring a 25% late payment penalty. The Commission's existing installment payment program operates pursuant to the requirements of section 901.8 of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), which permits installment payment of monies owed to the United States after the due date, where a debtor demonstrates that it is financially unable to pay its fees in lump sum by the due date. While the Commission does not have the authority to waive the required showing of financial inability to pay in lump sum, the Commission has discretion in setting the interest rate to be charged under an installment payment agreement and other repayment terms. In response to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, in FYs 2020, 2021, and 2022, the Commission substantially reduced the interest rate it customarily charges on installment payment of regulatory fees to a nominal rate and waived its standard down payment requirement, and in this proceeding, is seeking comment on whether to extend those measures in FY 2023. We seek comment on whether the Commission should consider other temporary or permanent modifications to its existing installment payment program, bearing in mind the constraints of section 901.8 of the FCCS.

92. We also seek comment on the broadcasters proposal that they be permitted to prepay their annual regulatory fees in increments, in advance of the annual regulatory fee date. We note here that the Communications Act has long required the Commission to permit installment payment of large regulatory fees. The Commission has historically interpreted this requirement to mean that large fee payors should be permitted to pay their fees in installments between the time the annual fee amount is established and the annual deadline for paying the fee, making its implementation impractical. We seek comment on whether we should permit prepayment in increments in advance of the release of the annual report and order establishing the fee amounts, and if so, how would such a program work? For instance, how would the regulatory fee payor determine the amount to be prepaid, given that the regulatory fee will not have been established until most, if not all, of the prepayments are made? How would we structure the prepayment terms, for instance, the frequency and size of each prepayment? Would the prepayment option be available to all regulatory fee payors or only certain payors, and if the latter, what criteria would we use to determine eligibility to prepay?

93. Implementation of such a program, particularly if the eligible pool of regulatory fee payors is a large one, would likely require modifications to our recordkeeping, financial operations and accounting systems, as well as additional personnel to administer the program. What concrete benefits would the Commission and its participating regulatees derive from such a program? For instance, if we assume that the principal benefit to a regulatee of prepaying its regulatory fees in increments is in the ability to budget and plan the expenditure, would prepayment in installments be significantly more beneficial than a regulatee regularly setting aside an amount equivalent to the prepayment it would make, in order to pay its upcoming regulatory fee obligation when due and if so, how would it be more beneficial? Would the program's benefit to regulatees justify the Commission's cost of implementing and administering a prepayment by installment program and if so, how?

9. Other Forms of Assistance

94. We seek comment on other ways in which the Commission might assist regulatory fee payors, including small entities such as broadcasters, in meeting their annual regulatory fee obligations. We ask that commenters explain the legal bases for any proposals they make and how such proposals fit within the Commission's statutory authorizations and our existing regulatory fee methodology.

10. New Regulatory Fee Categories

95. Finally, we continue to seek additional comment on “whether we should adopt new regulatory fee categories and on ways to improve our regulatory fee process regarding any and all categories of service.

IV. Procedural Matters

96. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods. We include these payments and collection procedures here as a useful way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.

97.
Credit Card Transaction Levels.
In accordance with
Treasury Financial Manual,
Volume I, Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7045—
Limitations on Card Collection Transactions,
the highest

amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies is $24,999.99. Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, Automates Clearing House (ACH) debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in CORES. Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2023 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets,
https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.

98. Payment Methods.
During the fee season for collecting regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through
Pay.gov
, ACH, debit card, or by wire transfer. Additional payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.
The receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, NY (TREAS NYC). Any other form of payment (
e.g.,
checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, an FCC Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information. The fax should be sent to the Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.

99.
Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates.
The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

•
Media Services:
Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2022 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF broadcast television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2022.

•
Wireline (Common Carrier) Services:
Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2022. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category. For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in section 52.103 of the Commission's rules. The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2022.

•
Wireless Services:
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2022. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2021 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

•
Wireless Services, Multi-year fees:
The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees (first seven in our Calculation of Fees in Table 2) pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed, or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2023.

•
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) Services (cable television operators, Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) licensees, DBS, and IPTV):
Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2022. Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2022. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of DBS service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2022. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

•
International Services:
Regulatory fees must be paid for earth stations that were licensed (or authorized) on or before October 1, 2022. Regulatory fees must also be paid for Geostationary orbit space stations (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems (NGSO), and the two NGSO subcategories “Other” and “Less Complex,” that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2022. Licensees of small satellites that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2022 must also pay regulatory fees. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

•
International Services (Submarine Cable Systems, Terrestrial and Satellite Services):
Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on lit circuit capacity as of December 31, 2022. Regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2022, in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, entities must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2022. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2022, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

100.
CMRS and Mobile Services Assessments.
The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”). We have included non-geographic numbers

in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each CMRS provider in Table 2 and the CMRS regulatory fee factor proposed in Table 3. CMRS provider regulatory fees will be calculated and should be paid based on the inclusion of non-geographic numbers. CMRS providers can adjust the total number of subscribers, if needed. This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's Registration System (CORES) along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

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

102. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in CORES. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (
i.e.,
compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2022), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in CORES or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

V. List of Tables

Table 1—Comments and Reply Comments to the FY 2022 Notice of Inquiry, MD Docket No. 22-301

Commenter
Abbreviated name
Date filed

Comments to NOI

ACA Connects—America's Communications Association
ACA Connects
10/26/22

National Association of Broadcasters
NAB
10/26/22

Satellite Industry Association; SIA Executive Members include: Amazon; The Boeing Company; DIRECTV; EchoStar Corporation; HawkEye 360; Intelsat S.A.; Iridium Communications Inc.; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions; Ligado Networks; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Northrop Grumman; OneWeb; Planet; SES Americom, Inc.; Space Exploration Technologies Corp.; Spire Global Inc.; and Viasat Inc. SIA Associate Members include: ABS US Corp.; The Aerospace Corporation; Artel, LLC; AST & Science; Astranis Space Technologies Corp.; Aurora Insight; Blue Origin; Comtech Telecommunications Corp.; Eutelsat America Corp.; ExoAnalytic Solutions; Hughes Defense and Intelligence Systems Division/Government Solutions; Inmarsat; Kymeta Corporation; Leonardo; Lynk; Omnispace, LLC; OneWeb Technologies; Ovzon; Panasonic Avionics Corporation; Telesat; United Launch Alliance; and XTAR, LLC
SIA
10/26/22

Reply Comments to NOI

Reply commenter
Abbreviated name
Date filed

AGM CALIFORNIA, INC
AGM NEVADA, LLC
ALABAMA MEDIA, LLC
COXSWAIN MEDIA, LLC
DAVIS BROADCASTING, INC. OF COLUMBUS
EQUITY COMMUNICATIONS, LP
FLORIDA KEYS MEDIA, LLC
GALAXY SYRACUSE LICENSEE LLC GALAXY UTICA LICENSEE LLC
GOLDEN ISLES BROADCASTING, LLC
GOOD KARMA BRANDS MILWAUKEE, LLC
GOOD KARMA BROADCASTING, LLC
GULF SOUTH RADIO, INC
HANCOCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC
HEH COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
HOLLADAY BROADCASTING OF LOUISIANA, LLC
INLAND EMPIRE BROADCASTING CORP. JAM COMMUNICATIONS, INC
KLAX LICENSING, INC
KLOS RADIO HOLDINGS, LLC
KPWR RADIO HOLDINGS, LLC
KRZZ LICENSING, INC
KWHY-22 BROADCASTING, LLC
KXOL LICENSING, INC
KXOS RADIO HOLDINGS, LLC

L.M. COMMUNICATIONS, INC
L.M. COMMUNICATIONS OF KENTUCKY, LLC
L.M. COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC
L.M.N.O.C. BROADCASTING LLC
MERIDIAN MEDIA GROUP, LLC
MERUELO RADIO HOLDINGS, LLC MISSISSIPPI BROADCASTERS, LLC
NEW SOUTH RADIO, INC
NORTHWAY BROADCASTING, LLC PARTNERSHIP RADIO, LLC
PATHFINDER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
QBS BROADCASTING, LLC
REGIONAL RADIO GROUP, LLC
SBR BROADCASTING CORPORATION SERGE MARTIN ENTERPRISES, INC. SPANISH BROADCASTING SYSTEM HOLDING COMPANY, INC
TALKING STICK COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C
THE CROMWELL GROUP, INC. OF ILLINOIS WCMQ LICENSING, INC
WCYQ, INC. WINTON ROAD BROADCASTING CO., LLC
WKLC, INC. WLEY LICENSING, INC
WMEG LICENSING, INC
WPAT LICENSING, INC. WPYO LICENSING, INC
WRMA LICENSING, INC
WRXD LICENSING, INC
WSBS LICENSING, INC
WSKQ LICENSING, INC
WSUN LICENSING, INC
WXDJ LICENSING, INC

Joint Commenters
11/23/22

National Association of Broadcasters
NAB
11/25/22

NCTA—The Internet & Television Association
NCTA
11/25/22

WISPA—
Broadband Without Boundaries

WISPA
11/25/22

Alabama Broadcasters Association; Alaska Broadcasters Association; Arizona Broadcasters Association; Arkansas Broadcasters Association; California Broadcasters Association; Colorado Broadcasters Association; Connecticut Broadcasters Association; Florida Association of Broadcasters; Georgia Association of Broadcasters; Hawaii Association of Broadcasters; Idaho State Broadcasters Association; Illinois Broadcasters Association; Indiana Broadcasters Association; Iowa Broadcasters Association; Kansas Association of Broadcasters; Kentucky Broadcasters Association; Louisiana Association of Broadcasters; Maine Association of Broadcasters; MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Association; Massachusetts Broadcasters Association; Michigan Association of Broadcasters; Minnesota Broadcasters Association; Mississippi Association of Broadcasters; Missouri Broadcasters Association; Montana Broadcasters Association; Nebraska Broadcasters Association; Nevada Broadcasters Association; New Hampshire Association

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-11109. Public record. Not legal advice.