# Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2023

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-19107

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** September 15, 2023
- **Citation:** 88 FR 63694

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket Nos. 23-159, 22-301; FCC 23-66; FR ID 168489]
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2023

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover $390,192,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for its fiscal year (FY) 2023. Sections 9 and 9A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act), provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees by the Commission.

DATES:

Effective September 15, 2023, except for 47 CFR 1.1166, which is effective October 16, 2023, and 47 CFR 1.1914, which is delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Register
announcing the effective date for 47 CFR 1.1914 after review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. To avoid penalties and interest, regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 20, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, in MD Docket Nos. 23-159 and 22-301; FCC 23-66, adopted on August 10, 2023 and released on August 10, 2023. The full text of this document is available for public inspection by downloading the text from the Commission's website at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-66A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

2. This document does not contain new or substantively 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). The non-substantive modifications to an information collection related to 47 CFR 1.1166 effected in this document were approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, on August 17, 2023.

C. Congressional Review Act

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

II. Introduction

4. In this item, the Commission takes action to address longstanding concerns to better ensure that our assessment and collection of our annual regulatory fees is more closely aligned with the burden of the work being performed by Commission employees for each regulatory fee category. Specifically, we adopt the proposals in our Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Regulatory Fee Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
FY 2023 NPRM
) (88 FR 36154, June 1, 2023) and reallocate almost nineteen percent of our indirect full time equivalents (FTEs) as direct to one of the Commission's four core licensing bureaus, following a high-level, comprehensive staff analysis of the time utilized in the oversight and regulation of certain segments of the telecommunications industry. Our decisions in this Report and Order reflect our conclusion that we can determine, with reasonable accuracy for this fiscal year, that certain FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau that were previously considered to be indirect are devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau such that the FTE burden of that work should be allocated as direct to that bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Consistent with our long-standing regulatory fee methodology, we implement these reallocations and we adopt a schedule of regulatory fees, as set forth in Appendices B and C, in order to collect $390,192,000 in congressionally required regulatory fees for FY 2023 by the end of September.

5. Additionally, in the Report and Order, we (i) adopt our proposal regarding 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) continue to consider operations for on-orbit servicing (OOS) and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) on a mission-by-mission basis for regulatory fee purposes, and apply the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)” to OOS and RPO spacecraft operating near the geostationary orbit (GSO) arc, unless it is determined 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; (iii) confirm that orbital transfer vehicles (OTVs) are responsible for regulatory fees under the current regulatory fee scheme; (iv) continue two of the temporary measures that were implemented in FYs 2020 through 2022 to assist regulatory fee payors that were experiencing financial hardship related to the COVID-19 pandemic to request waiver, reduction, deferral and/or installment payment of regulatory fees, and continue a third such measure in modified form; (v) decline to permit regulatory fee payors to prepay their regulatory fees in installments before the annual regulatory fee payment deadline; and (vi) make certain technical corrections to 47 CFR 1.1914 and 1.1166.

A. Methodology for Assessing Regulatory Fees and FTE Allocation

6. Consistent with our statutory mandate and our regulatory fee methodology, we start our regulatory fee assessment with the FTE counts and then adjust fees to reflect other factors related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities. In section 9 of the Act Congress prescribes that regulatory fee payors bear the FTE burden associated with their oversight and regulation by the relevant core bureau(s). Insofar as the non-auctions FTE time in the four core bureaus continues to focus on the oversight and regulation of fee payors in the industry segment regulated by each of those bureaus, we will continue to apportion regulatory fees across fee categories based on the number of non-auction direct FTEs in each core bureau and take into account factors that are “reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the

Commission's activities.” After we determine the number of direct FTEs for each core bureau, we use these numbers to start our calculations of the percentage of the total amount of regulatory fees to be collected for a given fiscal year from each fee category.

7. We then allocate appropriated amounts to be recovered proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each core bureau. Those proportions are then subdivided within each core bureau into fee categories among the regulatory fee payors served by the core bureau. Finally, within each regulatory fee category, we divide the amount to be collected by a unit that allocates the regulatee's proportionate share based on an objective measure. As a general matter, there is no additional calculation to attribute indirect costs. Instead, the proportional allocation of the whole S&E appropriation based on the number of direct FTEs effectively attributes all indirect costs among the core bureaus so that the Commission can recover its entire appropriation each year.

8. As the Commission has explained, “[g]iven the Act's requirement that fees must `reflect' FTEs before adjusting fees to take into account other factors, we find FTE counts by far the most administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations.” Regulatory fees must cover the entire S&E appropriation, even those portions of the appropriation that supports work on issues for which we do not have regulatory fee categories. Therefore, we continue to find that, consistent with section 9 of the Act, regulatory fees are not based on a precise allocation of specific employees with certain work assignments each year and instead are based on a higher-level approach. While some commenters continue to take issue with some of the Commission's determinations of whether certain FTEs should be considered to be indirect or direct and also advocate that the Commission should adopt new fee categories, no commenter has offered an alternative methodology for the Commission to recover our annual appropriation. Instead, we agree with commenters that argue that the record supports the adoption of regulatory fees consistent with the Commission's long standing regulatory fee framework. Accordingly, we find no basis to adjust our general methodology for assessing regulatory fees. We find that the Commission's general methodology for establishing regulatory fees has been, and continues to be, appropriate and consistent with section 9 of the Act. Thus, for FY 2023, our fee methodology will attribute the direct FTEs within each core bureau to payor categories based on the nature of the FTE work. We also will consider the ministerial 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. Once the percentages of total direct FTEs in the core bureaus are determined, the Commission calculates fee rates among the specific fee categories within each core bureau based upon the fee categories' proportional fee amounts to be collected. These proportional calculations allocate all Commission non-auction related costs across all fee categories that total the target goal amount.

9. For FY 2023, our Human Resources Management office has provided the Commission data identifying 339.25 non-auctions, direct FTEs distributed among the core bureaus. In consultation with the bureaus and offices, we have validated this data. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
following a high level, yet comprehensive, staff analysis of indirect FTE time in non-core bureaus and offices, we proposed to reallocate 63 indirect FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau where we were able to determine with reasonable accuracy for the fiscal year that the FTE burden of such work is directly related to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau such that it should be considered as direct to that bureau for the purposes of calculating regulatory fees. As explained fully below, with the overwhelming support of commenters, we adopt our proposal for these reallocations. In addition, in order to apply consistent principles to our determinations, and in response to the record gathered in this proceeding, we also reallocate two direct FTEs from the Media Bureau to be considered as indirect FTEs because the nature of their work is sufficiently linked to work that is similar to that of work performed in the Enforcement Bureau, which is categorized as indirect. Our adoption of these reallocations results in a revised total of 400.25 non-auctions, direct FTEs for FY 2023. Our calculations of direct FTEs associated with each core bureau are now as follows: International Bureau (31), Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (98), Wireline Competition Bureau (143.25), and Media Bureau (128).

10. Based on these reallocations and after we make adjustments to these direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent regarding FTEs working on non-high cost Universal Service Fund matters, we will collect approximately $30.32 million (7.77%) in fees from the International Bureau regulatory fee payors; $95.83 million (24.56%) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors; $140.12 million (35.91%) in fees from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and $123.92 million (31.76%) in fees from Media Bureau regulatory fee payors.

11. The record supports our proposal to reallocate certain indirect FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct to a core bureau because we can determine with reasonable accuracy for the fiscal year that these FTEs are devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau such that the burden of that work should be allocated as direct for regulatory fee purposes. Commenters addressing this issue agree that by taking a more granular approach, the Commission's fee structure more closely aligns the recovery of costs with those who benefit from Commission regulatory activities. Commenters support our proposal to reallocate a total of 63 indirect FTEs as direct for regulatory fee purposes. They contend that doing so will advance the Communications Act objective for the Commission to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.

12. We conclude that, as part of our annual FTE analysis, we will continue to evaluate whether any FTEs should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes as we do each year when reviewing and validating the FTE data. And, where our evaluation merits inclusion of proposed reallocations, we will seek comment on any such potential reallocation of FTEs in an annual proceeding. We note, however, that we will exercise our discretion regarding where to focus our analytical efforts each year to best respond to changes in the FCC's substantive work, changes in the FCC's organization, and changes in the telecommunications industry itself. We further conclude that such agency discretion is particularly important because we agree with CTIA that we do not wish to inadvertently expand our indirect FTE levels by engaging in an endless review of all FTE allocations. As such, we will exercise our discretion to ensure that we conduct our annual review in a manner that is fair, manageable, and sustainable.

13. We emphasize that our decision to adopt our proposal today is in accord with past Commission precedent. Thus, it is not uncommon for the Commission to reassign direct FTEs as indirect or from one core bureau to another for regulatory fee purposes to reflect, among other things, changes in the FCC's substantive work, changes in the FCC's organization, and changes in the telecommunications industry.

14. As we described in the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we limit our reallocation of indirect FTEs as direct FTEs to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes to those instances where we can determine with reasonable accuracy for the entire fiscal year that such FTE work furthers the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors. We recognize that this reclassification represents a change from some recent reviews of the same offices. Nevertheless, at this time our evaluation of FTE time in the non-core bureaus and offices supports our conclusion that, for certain FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, it is appropriate to consider the FTE burden of their work as directly devoted to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors. For that reason, we are adopting our proposal that such FTE time should be considered direct for those relevant core bureau(s).

15. For the purposes of this determination, we have evaluated whether measurable FTE time for FY 2023 is primarily being spent on the regulation and oversight of regulatory fee payors. Commission staff excluded any FTE time from this analysis if it was not equivalent to the time of at least one FTE, concluding that less than a full-time FTE demonstrates that the work being done is appropriately considered to be indirect and should not be reassigned. Table 1 below summarizes all of the reallocations we are adopting today.

Table 1—Core Bureau FTE Percentages With and Without FTE Reallocations

Core bureau

2023 FTE %
without
FTE
reallocations

2023 Amount
without
FTE
reallocations
(millions)

FY 2023
appropriation
is $390.192

2023 FTE %
with
FTE
reallocations

2023 Amount
with
FTE
reallocations
(millions)

FY 2023
appropriation
is $390.192

Wireline Competition Bureau
35.57
$138.79
35.91
$140.12

Media Bureau
33.96
132.52
31.76
123.9

Media Bureau subcategory Broadcasters
15.28
59.65
14.12
55.10

Media Bureau subcategory Cable
18.68
72.87
17.64
68.83

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
22.19
86.56
24.56
95.83

International Bureau
8.28
32.32
7.77
30.32

16. We conclude that 63 FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau devote their time to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors, where we can determine with reasonable accuracy for the entire fiscal year, as we discuss below. For that reason, we reallocate the FTE time as direct to the relevant core bureau(s) for calculating regulatory fees. Likewise, to apply consistent principles across our determinations, we reallocate two direct FTEs from the Media Bureau as indirect FTEs because the nature of their work is sufficiently linked to work that is similar to that performed in the Enforcement Bureau, which has been categorized as indirect. Below, we discuss our analysis.

17.
Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA).
We adopt our proposal to reallocate 30 indirect FTEs from OEA as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes as follows: two to the International Bureau, eight to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 13 to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and seven to the Media Bureau. We reach this conclusion after evaluating the burden of FTE time in OEA.

18. Following its inception in 2018, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate for the non-auctions FTEs in OEA to be considered indirect FTEs because their work benefits the entire Commission as well as the telecommunications industry and does not specifically focus on regulatory fee payors. As a general matter, this remains true today. Of relevance to the regulatory fee proceeding, OEA's non-auction funded work provides economic analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, for rulemakings, transactions, adjudications, and other Commission actions; 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 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.

19. In evaluating the burden of the work currently being performed by OEA's FTEs, staff recognized that certain bureaus tend to generate more economic and data issues for OEA to analyze as well as more documents that require OEA review. For FY 2023, we find that there is measurable work done by OEA FTEs that is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in certain industry segments. In fact, staff analysis reveals that the work and expertise of certain FTEs from OEA remain devoted to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a manner that is consistent with the FTE burden of work performed within a core bureau prior to the OEA's implementation. This determination supports our decision to reallocate the burden of the work of certain of OEA's FTEs as direct for regulatory fee purposes. We recognize that this is a partial change from our determination in the 2019 regulatory fee proceeding with respect to OEA FTEs. We have explained however, that our determinations are based an analysis of the actual work of the OEA.

20. We conclude that 13 indirect FTEs from OEA should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau because the burden of their work is devoted to universal service fund issues in high-cost areas; competition and interconnection; setting rates for calls from incarcerated persons; the establishment of a national suicide hotline, and efforts to evaluate the costs, benefits, and public interest factors associated with protecting privacy matters such as the Wireline Competition Bureau's work on customer proprietary network information (CPNI) rules addressing access, use, and disclosure of information related to the use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by a customer of a telecommunications carrier. This FTE work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors, therefore, we find that it appropriate to reallocate it as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation.

21. Similarly, staff analysis shows that the work of eight OEA FTEs address various wireless and spectrum issues, such as mergers, transactions, and acquisitions, mobile spectrum holdings policies, and deployment in rural areas and on tribal lands. Insofar as the burden of this work is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors, we adopt our proposal to reallocate these eight indirect FTEs as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation.

22. Further, we find that because the burden of the work of seven FTEs from OEA relates to broadcast and cable issues, including ownership regulation, next generation (or NextGen TV) standards, content source disclosures, program carriage and retransmission, and rates and billing practices, and is being done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of Media Bureau regulatory fee payors, it is appropriate to reallocate these FTEs as direct to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the Media Bureau regulatory fee categories, for purposes of our regulatory fee calculation.

23. Lastly, because the burden of the work of two FTEs from OEA addressing undersea cables, international bearer circuits, and satellite services related issues is done directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of International Bureau regulatory fee payors, we conclude that it is appropriate to reallocate these two indirect FTEs as direct to the International Bureau, proportionally among the International Bureau regulatory fee categories.

24.
Office of General Counsel (OGC).
Our evaluation of the burden of the FTE time in OGC supports the Commission's repeated conclusion that the majority of the work this office performs is most appropriately categorized as indirect, for regulatory fee purposes. On review, however, for FY 2023 we conclude that certain aspects of OGC's work are sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of individual regulatory fee categories such that five FTEs from OGC should be reallocated as direct FTEs to a relevant core bureau for regulatory purposes.

25. 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.

26. 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. After careful consideration of the burden of FTE work in this division, we do not make any FTE reallocations 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 of this work 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.

27. 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. In large part, such work benefits the work of the Commission as a whole and is not specific to any particular regulatory fee category. Thus, the FTE burden associated with such work properly remains almost entirely allocated as indirect. In contrast to the Litigation Division, however, it is possible to determine that some of the burden of the work performed by FTEs from the Administrative Law Division, particularly 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, is done in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in the core bureaus. Accordingly, where we have determined that this work is directly related to our oversight and regulation of specific regulatory fee payor categories, we adopt our determination to reallocate the FTE burden of such work as direct to the relevant core bureau(s). Specifically, for FY 2023 we reallocate one OGC FTE as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau; two OGC FTEs as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; one OGC FTE as direct to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the Media Bureau fee categories; and one OGC FTE as direct to the International

Bureau, proportionally among the International Bureau fee categories.

28.
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB).
We also adopt our proposal to reallocate, for regulatory fee purposes, a total of 28 indirect FTEs from PSHSB as direct FTEs to core bureaus as follows: 13 to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, nine to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and six to the Media Bureau.

29. 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. Insofar as 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, we continue to conclude that the majority of its work is best categorized as indirect. PSHSB is organized into three divisions: the Policy and Licensing Division, the Operations and Emergency Management Division, and the Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division. On review for FY 2023, we conclude that certain aspects of the burden of some of the FTE work within these divisions is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of individual regulatory fee categories such that certain FTEs, as described below, should be reallocated as direct FTEs to a relevant core bureau for regulatory purposes.

30. 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 (EAS); operability and interoperability for public safety communications and the First Responder Network Authority; and intra- and interagency coordination on spectrum management.

31. After analyzing the FTE work in the Policy and Licensing Division, we conclude that the burden of the work of 14 FTEs in this division is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of a core bureau such that it is appropriate to adopt our proposal to reallocate these FTEs as direct, for regulatory fee purposes. Of the 14 FTEs we have identified, we reallocate two FTEs as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau, eight FTEs as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and four FTEs as direct to the Media Bureau. Specifically, we adopt 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 proposed to consider as direct to the Media Bureau, we adopt these reallocations for regulatory fee purposes, proportionally among the fee categories in the Media Bureau, because the FTE burden of the work on the EAS, developing and maintaining the operational rules that apply to EAS participants (
i.e.,
broadcasters), facilitating interactions between EAS participants and alert originators, reviewing State EAS Plans, and acting on waiver and similar requests from broadcasters directly furthers the oversight and regulation of the regulatory payors of the Media Bureau.

32. 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 the reporting and situational awareness of communications status during times of emergency and Commission functions during emergency conditions. OEMD also manages the provision of service by communications service providers during emergency conditions.

33. 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. After analyzing the FTE work in OEMD, we conclude that the burden of the work of five FTEs in this division is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors of a core bureau such that it should be reallocated for regulatory purposes. Specifically, of the five FTEs we have identified from this division there are two FTEs that should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireline Competition Bureau, two FTEs that should be reallocated as direct FTEs to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and one FTE that should be reallocated as a direct FTE to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee categories in the Media Bureau. OEMD's deployment of personnel to disaster areas primarily supports the oversight and regulation of the regulatory fee payors of all three of these core bureaus by, among other things, receiving and facilitating federal partner responses to requests from providers in disaster areas with issues such as obtaining access to facility sites and procurement of fuel for generators.

34. Moreover, with regard to the two FTEs we reallocate as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau and the two FTEs we reallocate as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, we adopt these changes for regulatory fee purposes because the burden of the work performed by these FTEs is directly related to the oversight and regulation of wireline and wireless regulatory fee payors. In particular, the FTE burden from this division relates to working with federal partners on risk assessment and surveying the status of providers' service and infrastructure

following major disasters, emergencies, matters of law enforcement or events of a national security as well as facilitating providers' restoration by coordinating requests and responses with other federal and SLTT entities and private sector companies. In addition, the FTE burden of this work in this division involves administering legal oversight and review of the Commission's Local Number Portability Act (LNPA) activities.

35. 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 radio frequency 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. Based on this analysis, we adopt our proposal to reallocate, for regulatory fee purposes, one FTE from OEMD as a direct to Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee categories in that bureau.

36. 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.

37. 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 staff analysis of data regarding the FTE work performed in the Operations Center, we find that the burden of the work of three FTEs from the Operations Center is performed directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that it should be reallocated as direct to a core bureau, for regulatory fee purposes. Specifically, we reallocate one FTE as a direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau, one FTE as direct FTE to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and one FTE as direct to the Media Bureau, proportionally among the fee categories in that bureau.

38. 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 and administers 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. 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.

39. The Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability 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. After analyzing the burden of the work done in this division, we adopt our proposal to reallocate four FTEs from this division as direct to the Wireline Competition Bureau because the burden of the work being done on wireline network outage reporting, in routine and disaster environments, as well as outages and notifications impacting the 911 and 988 systems, is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of wireline regulatory fee payors We also adopt our proposal to reallocate two FTEs from this division as direct to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau because the FTE burden of this work is being done to administer the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative to ensure providers of commercial mobile services can engage in mutual aid activities during times of emergency. The FTE burden in this division also includes working with the Federal Advisory Committee on standards and best practices related to 5G deployment as well as the work performed to develop and implement performance standards and regulation of wireless regulatory fee payors.

40.
Conclusion Regarding Allocations.
Table 2 below summarizes the FTE reallocations adopted here.

Table 2—Summary of FTE Reallocations

Core bureau

Number of direct 2023 FTEs

without
FTE

reallocations

% Before
reallocations

Direct FTEs after reallocations

Number of direct 2023 FTEs

with
FTE

reallocations

% After
reallocations

International Bureau
28
8.28

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

31
7.77

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
75
22.19

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

98
24.56

Wireline Competition Bureau
120.25
35.57

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

143.25
35.91

Media Bureau
116
33.96

+7 from OEA
+1 from OGC
+6 from PSHSB
−2 from MB Reallocated as Indirect
Total additional FTEs +12

128
31.76

Total
339.25
100

400.25
100

B. Non-High Cost Universal Service Fund FTEs

41. In the
FY 2017 Report and Order,
the Commission reallocated 38 direct FTEs from the Wireline Competition Bureau working on the non-high-cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as indirect for regulatory fee purposes. The Commission found that this reallocation was supported by the fact that contributions to the Universal Service Fund are required from service providers using any technology that has end-user interstate telecommunications and because of changes in the universal service fund regulatory landscape. The Commission observed that although initially universal service programs were focused on wireline services, wireless carriers, and broadband providers had since become involved in the E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare programs. The Commission also noted that the E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare programs tie funding eligibility to the beneficiary,
i.e.,
a school, a library, a low-income individual or family, or a rural healthcare provider, and not to Commission regulatory fee payors. Given these considerations, the Commission concluded that the burden of FTE time dedicated to non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs should be considered indirect because the nature of the work being conducted is not focused specifically on the oversight and regulation of fee payors of any core bureau. The Universal Service Fund programs are administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), with oversight from the Commission. Specifically, the Commission reasoned that the FTE time devoted to the non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues is not oversight and regulation of a category of regulatory fee payors, but instead is the oversight of several Universal Service Fund programs (administered by USAC) with a wide array of beneficiaries and participants. With such a diversity of participants, beneficiaries, and contributors, and a wide variety of issues addressed by Commission staff (including matters pertaining to entities that are not Commission regulatory fee payors), the Commission concluded that Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) were no longer the sole contributors or beneficiaries of these programs. The Commission further found that it could not determine the benefits flowing from Commission oversight of the programs to any one fee category, let alone a particular cross-section of fee categories or even an entire industry. The Commission explained that as they are not traditional telecommunication industry members, attributing the benefits of FTE non-high cost work to any one fee category would be problematic at best. For all of these reasons, the Commission concluded that FTE time spent on non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues should be reassigned as indirect.

42. In the
FY 2017 Report and Order,
the Commission also observed that the concern that the reallocation would impose a burden on broadcasters, which do not participate in the universal service program was misplaced “as there is no completely pure way to precisely allocate every Commission FTE.” In support of this decision the Commission explained that the Commission's methodology need not reach scientific precision and instead must simply be reasonable. Subsequently, the Commission addressed NAB's continued objection to assessing broadcasters for the costs of these indirect FTEs in the
FY 2022 Report and Order
by explaining that the reallocation was appropriate and that indirect FTEs in the Commission devote their time to a large variety of issues, some of which may not directly affect every Commission regulatee, including broadcasters. The Commission nonetheless 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 burden associated with these indirect FTEs. Based on this determination, the burden associated with these indirect FTEs in FY 2022 was apportioned among all other regulatory fee payors.

43. For FY 2023, we tentatively concluded that the Commission's FY 2022 reasoning remained sound and the indirect FTE burden associated with these non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs should not be apportioned to broadcasters. We sought comment on this tentative conclusion and asked 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.

44. NAB continues to assert that we should reallocate the burden of FTE time dedicated to these matters as direct to a core bureau or bureaus because providers receive funding and program beneficiaries receive subsidies. Specifically, NAB argues that the Commission could base this reallocation upon the information the Commission has about the fee payors that receive a particular percentage of the Commission's non-high cost USF program funds. Likewise, the State Broadcasters Association contends that because these programs provide certain service providers with significant funding, it should not be difficult to determine the direct impact of the FTE burden that benefits specific regulatees. We disagree. As CTIA correctly points out, our regulatory fees must be based on the work conducted by Commission staff,
i.e.,
the Commission's FTE burden, and the amount of USF program funds that a regulatory fee payor receives, is not a relevant factor in allocating regulatory fees among the core bureaus.

45. In particular, we agree with CTIA that NAB's argument to reallocate FTEs based upon the financial benefit received by any particular service provider does not properly demonstrate that the FTE burden of this work is devoted to the oversight and regulation of any regulatory fee category such that it should be considered to be direct. WISPA also supports the Commission's decision to treat the FTE burden of this work as indirect, and remarks that

attributing FTEs as direct on the basis of such work could unfairly impact smaller providers, like WISPA's members, and cause an exodus from non-high cost USF programs, which would be contrary to the public interest. Moreover, the FTE work on these non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs covers issues regarding all program participants as well as benefits that are derived by the general public. We continue to agree with prior Commission determinations that FTE time spent on non-high cost Universal Service Fund issues is indirect because we cannot reasonably determine the FTE burden of oversight of the programs to any one fee payor category, let alone a particular cross-section of fee payors or even an entire industry.

46. As we have stated previously, indirect FTE time is devoted to issues that may include more than one regulated service or matters that are not related to services regulated by the Commission. Commenters' argument is based on their assertion that they do not obtain benefit from the universal service programs, but that is not a factor in determining whether the FTEs should be allocated as direct to other fee payors. Accordingly, we conclude that NAB's suggestion to reallocate the burden of the 23.75 FTEs working on non-high cost Universal Service Fund matters as direct to a core bureau based upon the percentage of subsidies received by any particular category of fee payor category conflates the nature of the work of the Commission's FTEs with the identity of the entities that ultimately receive support from any particular program. Commenters have thus failed to show that these indirect FTEs should be reassigned as direct. We therefore affirm prior Commission determinations that the burden of FTE time devoted to non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs is properly categorized as indirect, and that such a conclusion is consistent with how FTEs working for programs that benefit consumers and the American public are treated elsewhere in the Commission.

47. Additionally, as explained in the
FY 2023 NPRM,
staff analysis of the FTE burden associated with these non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs reveals that we need to adjust the number of indirect FTEs working on the non-high cost Universal Service Fund programs from 38 FTEs in FY 2022 downward to 23.75 indirect FTEs for FY 2023, a decrease of 14.25 indirect FTEs. As a result of staff's comprehensive review of the Commission's indirect bureaus and offices, we conclude that the FTE time within the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, continues to be appropriately designated as indirect.

C. New Regulatory Fee Categories

48. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we sought 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. The Satellite Operators argue that the Commission has unquestionable jurisdiction to extend its regulatory fee categories to include service providers and manufacturers that benefit from the Commission's regulatory activities. The Satellite Operators suggest that we again seek comment on four new fee categories: (i) broadband internet access providers, (ii) database administrators that enable unlicensed operations, (iii) equipment manufacturers, and (iv) experimental licenses. TechFreedom, on the other hand, contends that the Commission lacks legal authority to require entities that it neither licenses nor regulates to pay regulatory fees.

49. We have previously sought comment on the fee categories proposed by the Satellite Operators and others, and, as no new facts or analysis have been provided in the record to support such proposals, we are neither adopting such categories at this time nor seeking further comment on them. Because commenters have provided no basis for us to change the Commission's prior determinations on this issue and we therefore affirm that such fees would be unworkable and logistically infeasible to collect at this time.

D. Space Station and International Bearer Circuit Regulatory Fees

1. Space Station Regulatory Fees

a. NGSO/GSO 80/20 Allocation

50. For FY 2023, we adopt the regulatory fees for space and earth stations proposed in the
FY 2023 NPRM,
which were based on the allocation of International Bureau FTEs that regulated space and earth stations. The International Bureau existed for most of FY 2023, and therefore we conclude that it is appropriate to adopt regulatory fees for FY 2023 based on the work of International Bureau FTEs for this fiscal year. We find that the proposed categories and allocations continue to accurately reflect the allocation of International Bureau FTEs in FY 2023. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to change allocations or add categories or subcategories of space station regulatory fees at this time. FY 2024 will be the first full fiscal year that the Space Bureau will be in existence. We anticipate closely evaluating the work of staff during the first year to ensure the continued accuracy of our FTE allocations. Moreover, given the rapid pace of development change in this segment of the telecommunications industry, we also anticipate closely considering whether any space and earth station regulatory fee categories should be revised in the coming years.

51. The
FY 2023 NPRM
sought comment on proposed regulatory fees for space and earth stations. For space stations, the proposed fees were calculated using the existing allocation of FTEs between GSO and NGSO space station categories, and among different categories of NGSO space station systems. Under the existing methodology of calculating regulatory fees for space stations, 80% of space station regulatory fees are allocated to GSOs and 20% of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs. In addition, there are two subcategories for NGSO space stations regulatory fees: “less complex” NGSO systems and all other NGSO systems identified as “other” NGSO systems. “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. In 2022, the Commission 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.

52. The
FY 2023 NPRM
did not seek comment on the methodology previously adopted to allocate regulatory fees among GSO and NGSO space stations, nor did it seek comment on the definitions of existing subcategories of NGSO space stations or the creation of new subcategories of NGSO space stations in general. It did, however, seek comment generally on whether to adopt new regulatory fee categories and on ways to improve the regulatory fee process regarding “any and all categories of service.” It also sought comment specifically on how to apply regulatory fees to spacecraft performing On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) and Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO) specifically operating near the geostationary satellite orbit arc.

53. No comments were received in response to the proposed regulatory fees

for earth stations or for small satellites. As stated above, we find that these categories and allocations continue to accurately reflect the allocation of International Bureau FTEs for FY 2023. Accordingly, we adopt the proposed regulatory fees for earth stations and small satellites for FY 2023.

54. Several space station operators, individually or collectively, submitted comments regarding proposed regulatory fees for space stations other than small satellites. Broadly speaking, the comments can be divided into two categories. The first category proposes revisions to our existing methodology and categories for assessing regulatory fees on NGSO space stations. These commenters argue in favor of revising the “20/80” allocation between “less complex” and “other” NGSO space stations, revisiting the definition of “less complex” NGSO space station systems, or proposing to initiate a further notice of proposed rulemaking to revise and expand the subcategories of NGSO space station fees. The second category provides comments on how to apply regulatory fees to OOS and RPO spacecraft. We address each category of comments in turn below, but in each instance conclude that the record is insufficient at this time to adopt changes to the proposed regulatory fees for FY 2023 or to initiate a further notice of proposed rulemaking. Moreover, as observed previously in this order, the Commission's methodology need not reach scientific precision and instead must simply be reasonable.

b. NGSO Space Stations “Less Complex” and “Other” Regulatory Fees

55.
20/80 Less Complex/Other Allocation.
The Satellite Operators contend that we should revisit the “20/80 split” between “less complex” and “other” NGSO space station systems and the assumptions that underly it. They argue that our regulatory fee structure should “not remain stagnant” regarding the nature of “less complex” NGSO space station systems that provide EESS, and that the Commission should initiate a further notice of proposed rulemaking because “[t]oday's EESS business . . . is virtually unrecognizable from what existed when the Commission first established [the “less complex”] NGSO regulatory fee structure” in 2021.

56. We find that the record is insufficient at this time to revisit, or to initiate a further rulemaking to revisit, the 20/80 allocation between “less complex” and “other” NGSO space station systems. The Satellite Operators do not provide any specific alternative proposals to the current allocations, other than to seek comment on the significance of the purported changes to the EESS business in order to build a foundation to take action on next year. As the EESS Operators observe, however, the Satellite Operators offer no new evidence that might cause the Commission to alter its conclusions and change the allocation, but repeat the argument they have made in the regulatory fee proceedings for FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022, and do not provide a basis for the Commission to revisit its decision regarding NGSO fee category definitions adopted in the
FY 2021 NPRM.
In addition, the purported changes to the EESS business presented by the Satellite Operators (for example, multiplying use cases, mushrooming demand of customers for data, and changes in methods of distribution) do not go to the factors relied on in adopting the 20/80 allocation between “less complex” and “other” NGSO space stations: the amount of staff work involved in regulating NGSO space stations planning to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S. authorized earth stations primarily in EESS and/or AIS versus the amount of work involved in regulating other types of NGSO space station systems. Thus, there is no basis for initiating a further notice of proposed rulemaking at this time.

57.
NGSO Space Station Fee Category Definitions and Expansion.
Some commenters propose to revisit the definition of “less complex” NGSO space station systems to include a broader range of NGSO space station systems, or to initiate a further notice of proposed rulemaking to revise and expand the subcategories of NGSO space station fees. In particular, Kinéis alleges that the Commission did not fully explain the decision in the
FY 2021 NPRM
to use “the total number of earth stations with which satellite network will communicate” as the “only” factor to distinguish NGSO space station systems as “less complex” for regulatory fee purposes. To the extent that Kinéis's comments seek reconsideration of our holding in in that order, we agree with other comments that such an argument would be untimely. While we decline to revisit our prior holding, we will, however, address the Kinéis comments to the extent it proposes that the Commission should, on a going forward basis, expand the category of “less complex” NGSO space stations to include factors other than “the total number of earth stations with which satellite network will communicate” to distinguish NGSO space station systems as “less complex.”

58. As an initial matter, Kinéis mischaracterizes the prior decision as to which types of NGSO space station systems are “less complex” as being based only on the number of earth stations utilized by a NGSO space station system. In fact, the number of earth stations was not, and is not, the only factor for determining that an NGSO space station system is “less complex” for regulatory fee purposes. Rather, the Commission found that NGSO space station systems “planning to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S.-authorized earth stations
that are primarily used for [EESS] and/or [AIS]
are significantly less complex to regulate than other types of NGSO systems” (italics added). As the Commission explained, multiple factors led to determining that NGSO space station systems communicating with 20 or less U.S.-authorized earth stations used primarily for EESS and/or AIS involved less staff resources to regulate that other NGSO space station systems.

59. Thus, the number of earth stations is not the only factor for determining whether an NGSO space station system is “less complex” for regulatory fee purposes, but it is one factor, together with the service primarily being provided, that serves as a proxies for other factors, such as whether processing rounds are required to process the application, the geographic area being served by the system, the quantity and range of spectrum needs, and how the system utilizes spectrum vis-à-vis other systems. All these factors, not just the number of earth stations, go towards determining the amount of FTE resources required to regulate a NGSO space station system, thereby determining whether an NGSO space station system is “less complex” for regulatory fee purposes.

60. We note that the possibility of other NGSO space station systems being categorized as “less complex” for regulatory fee purposes in the future has not be rejected or precluded. Indeed, such a possibility has been expressly recognized. But the inclusion of NGSO space station systems into the “less complex” category must arise from factors that reflect the amount of work that FTEs perform to regulate such systems relative to the work performed for other NGSO space station systems. If the Commission finds in the future that another type of NGSO space station system requires less regulatory work than other NGSO space station systems, that type of NGSO space station system would be eligible for the “less complex” category as well. Although Kinéis and Myriota argue that their non-voice, non-geostationary mobile satellite service (NVNG MSS) designed to provide “Internet of Things” (IoT) connectivity

should also be categorized as “less complex,” their arguments focus on the alleged superior benefits received by other NGSO space station systems compared to their own, rather than on the amount of regulatory work that FTEs perform. Such benefits, however, are not material to determining the complexity of regulation of a satellite system, which is the determining criterion for a “less complex” NGSO space station system. As such, we find that the record is not sufficiently developed at this time to determine that NVNG MSS IoT space station systems should be included in the “less complex” NGSO space station regulatory fee category.

61. Kinéis also proposes that the Commission adopt a further notice of proposed rulemaking to develop a record to separate the various NGSO networks into more homogenous categories that group providers together with others that provide similar types of services. Kinéis proposes that we adopt a multi-tiered approach to the fee categories for NGSO space station systems, using many different factors to group NGSO space station systems into tiers that would “charge each provider an amount commensurate with its demands on Commission resources and the benefits it receives through regulation based on these enumerated factors.” Kinéis suggests five NGSO tiers: (1) Global Fixed/Mobile Broadband; (2) Big LEO Voice & Data; (3) EESS Space Imaging & Other; (4) UHF IoT Data Collection & Monitoring/AIS; and (5) SmallSat. Although much of the basis for the different tiers is purported differences in the benefits received from FCC regulation, Kinéis also attempts to quantify the amount of FTE work necessitated by each tier by evaluating the number of filings each tier made in our Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS) from the start of FY 2022 until June 1, 2023.

62. We find Kinéis's multi-tiered proposal for defining NGSO fee categories to be potentially useful framework as the Commission has used such multi-tiered approaches for assessing regulatory fees for other services. There is not sufficient time, however, to consider such expansive changes in time to adopt regulatory fees for FY 2023 because the conclusions underlying the proposal by Kinéis require further comment and evaluation. Kinéis's attempts to quantify the amount of FTE work necessitated by each proposed tier rely exclusively on filings made during a limited time period in docketed proceedings such as rulemakings, without consideration of applications and related filings, which would be made through ICFS, not ECFS. In addition, as the Satellite Operators observe, Kinéis has not attempted to explain how we would allocate the FTE time among these categories.

63. We agree, however, that an examination of our regulatory fees and categories for NGSO space stations would be useful in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau and fuller consideration of possible adjustments to into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided by the Commission's activities. We do not, however, have a sufficient record to initiate such an examination at this time. Section 9 requires regulatory fees be keyed to the FTE burden associated with the oversight and regulation of each regulatory fee category. We anticipate that the changes in the industry that resulted our decision to create the Space Bureau will likely also result in changes in the relative FTE burden between and among our space and earth station fee payors. Moreover, we anticipate the creation of the Space Bureau will result in the streamlining of the oversight and regulation of space stations, which could also change FTE burdens. Accordingly, we find it will be more efficient to seek comment on proposals to reexamine the categories of regulatory fees for NGSO space station systems, like the one offered by Kinéis, at the same time as other proposals that might arise as part of a more holistic review of the FTE burden of the Space Bureau in FY 2024.

64.
Miscellaneous.
Space X contends that we have miscalculated the space station regulatory fees because we based our calculations on nine units in the “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary, Other)” category, instead of ten. Although there are ten such licensed systems, one of the licensed systems was not operational as of October 1, 2022, and we are removing that station from the unit count when calculating the per unit fee. A unit count of nine is correct.

c. Spacecraft Performing On-Orbit Servicing (OOS) and Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO) (In-Space Servicing Industries)

65. In the
FY 2022 NPRM,
we sought comment on adopting regulatory fee categories for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO. 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 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. The Commission noted at that time that there have been a limited number of such operations and tentatively concluded 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.

66. Neither the scope of in-space servicing operations nor the regulatory framework developed sufficiently to adopt regulatory fee categories for FY 2022. As a result, in the
FY 2023 NPRM
we sought comment on defining this emerging category of operations for regulatory fee purposes, including whether a separate regulatory fee category is necessary for those spacecraft that may conduct such in-space servicing operations in the future. The
FY 2023 NPRM
also observed that some spacecraft conducting satellite servicing operate, or plan to operate, near the GSO arc, but that most of these operations are likely to ultimately be in NGSO.

67. Currently, two spacecraft operate under part 25 for communications while conducting these types of operations with GSO satellites. These two spacecraft remain operational in FY 2023. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
the Commission tentatively concluded 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. Therefore, there would be no independent system for a separate fee assessment for these operations near the GSO arc, and the regulatory burden (
i.e.,
the FTE time) for such operations would be included in the fees collected from the GSO regulatory fee payors. The Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion and whether it may not apply to future operations of OOS and RPO spacecraft, which may operate more independently of the satellites that they will service. The Commission also observed that, 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 the Commission should assess a separate regulatory fee. The
FY 2023 NPRM
proposed to apply the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit)” to OOS and RPO spacecraft operating near the GSO arc,

unless a determination is made 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. The Commission sought comment on this approach, as well as on the specific factors that should be considered to determine whether a OOS or RPO spacecraft is operating as part of an existing GSO system for regulatory fee purposes.

68. We find that the record remains too incomplete to adopt a separate regulatory fee category for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO at this time. Although commenters generally support the creation of new, separate regulatory fee categories for OOS and RPO space stations, we conclude there is insufficient understanding of the nature and regulation of such spacecraft to consider concrete proposals for assessing regulatory fees for OOS and RPO space stations at this time. The Commission is still in the early stages of considering the regulatory environment for such services as a whole, and the definition of which services would fit into OOS and RPO and the regulatory framework for such services are yet to be developed. Accordingly, we are unable to determine who would be eligible for such a category or the amount of the FTE burden that the Commission would spend in regulating such a category, which is a necessary first step in adopting regulatory fees. We will continue to develop the record regarding a possible separate fee category for OOS, RPO, and in-space servicing more generally, with the benefit of progress made in rulemaking proceedings concerning these emerging services and will revisit this issue as part of the regulatory fees proceeding for FY 2024.

69. We will continue to develop a record that will inform possible establishment of a fee category(ies) and appropriate methodology for assessing such a fee category(ies). We will also continue to consider OOS and RPO spacecraft licensing for those spacecraft operating near the GSO arc on a mission-by-mission basis. Relatedly, Astroscale requests that we also clarify that a determination that the OOS or RPO spacecraft is operating as part of an existing GSO system could also include GSO servicing spacecraft operating in other frequency bands not supported by the client vehicle. We find, however, that the record is insufficiently developed at this time to act on this request. Although some comments oppose ever assessing the fee for GSO space stations on OOS and RPO spacecraft, arguing that the current GSO fee category reflects FTE hours spent on typical GSO spacecraft issues and that these are not efforts that servicing spacecraft near the GSO arc benefit from, there is no other fee category available for space stations operating in geostationary orbit, and section 9 does not permit the Commission to exempt regulatees from paying regulatory fees. Because we are not proposing to adopt, at this time, a regulatory fee category for OOS or RPO operations, or in-space servicing more generally, we need not consider what factors should go into determining the regulatory fees for such categories.

70.
Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV).
The
FY 2023 NPRM
also sought comment on additional or different definitions for a potential new fee category, such as including in the definition of OOS concepts of operation such as deployment via an OTV. Spaceflight argues that the new fee category for in-space servicing systems should be broadly defined, encompassing a range of activities, including OTV deployment services, rendezvous and proximity operations, refueling, situational awareness, and debris-related activities. Spaceflight submits that it is essential that OTVs are not simply designated as either GSO or NGSO, but rather recognized as a distinct category within the regulatory framework. Spaceflight believes that OTVs possess distinct capabilities and serve a specific purpose in space operations, making it crucial to establish a separate classification that reflects these characteristics. Spaceflight supports a fee assessment comparable to the one applicable for small satellites because there are similarities between OTVs and the small satellite systems. Spaceflight argues that both types of missions are generally characterized by the following factors: (i) limited interference protection, (ii) limited mission durations, (iii) smaller system investments, (iv) less probability of ongoing adjudications, (v) higher chance to require multiple licenses or market grants, and (vi) a limited number of in-space servicing missions.

71. In addition, Spaceflight disagrees with our position that innovative OTVs should not be classified as in-orbit servicing spacecraft but rather as an NGSO spacecraft which deploys other spacecraft and contends that the Commission has not provided a basis by which to characterize Sherpa-AC1, or OTVs more generally, as “less complex” NGSO systems for regulatory fee purposes. Spaceflight explains that the very purpose of OTVs is to support other space missions, and this service is more similar to that of a launch vehicle, rather than a traditional communications or other satellite service. Spaceflight argues that there is nothing in the record or the Commission's analysis to explain why a physical, in-orbit delivery service is like the satellite services provided by NGSO spacecraft classified in the “less complex” fee category,
i.e.,
Earth imaging or other type of monitoring services. Moreover, Spaceflight purports that simply classifying OTV missions as “less complex” based on the number of earth stations used to communicate with the OTV system would be inappropriate. Spaceflight submits that traditional systems generally rely more heavily on spectrum use, either for the provision of two-way communications or the transmission of service data, such as imagery of the Earth or other similar commercial data; however, OTVs generally use spectrum simply to operate the spacecraft or for other limited testing. Spaceflight argues that such spectrum use is also typically on a non-interference and unprotected basis because there is no specific spectrum allocation for the physical services provided by OTV operators.

72. Spaceflight also argues that OTVs generally have significantly shorter operational lives compared to traditional NGSO satellites, such as mission lifetimes of less than a few hours or days. In contrast, Spaceflight contends, satellites in traditional communications or imaging satellite systems have mission lifetimes measured in years and are generally parts of constellations with 15-year license terms. For these reasons, Spaceflight submits that OTVs are unlike “less complex” (or “other”) NGSO systems and should not be treated as such for regulatory fee purposes. Spaceflight further argues that if the Commission decides that OTV licensees should pay annual regulatory fees associated with “less complex” NGSO licenses, OTV operators should be permitted to seek blanket licenses for the launch and operation of multiple OTV spacecraft per license. Spaceflight submits that such a policy would be consistent with the treatment of other NGSO systems and licensees and would more accurately reflect regulatory costs borne by the Commission.

73. As stated above, the record is not sufficiently complete to adopt or even propose a separate regulatory fee category for spacecraft performing OOS, regardless of whether OTVs are included within the definition of OOS or not. We will continue to develop the record regarding a possible separate fee category for OOS, RPO, and in-space servicing more generally, and will consider OTVs as part of that record

development. In addition, Spaceflight's proposal that OTV operators should be permitted to seek blanket licenses for the launch and operation of multiple OTV spacecraft per license is outside the scope of this proceeding and is more appropriately considered as part of a separate license application or rulemaking.

2. International Bearer Circuit Regulatory Fees—Submarine Cable Systems

74. We reject the Submarine Cable Coalition's request to revise the Commission's regulatory fee methodology for submarine cable operators, which is based upon the lit capacity of the fiber-optic submarine cable, because, they contend, that under our current methodology the fees charged to submarine cable operators do not account for the amount of Commission resources and services required for oversight. We find that the Submarine Cable Coalition provides no persuasive argument that the Commission's assessment of these regulatory fees based on capacity is contrary to the Communications Act and is not reasonably related to the benefits provided. We adopt our proposal to use the same tiers for assessing fees on submarine cable operators for FY 2023 as in FY 2022, which are based on the “lit” capacity of the fiber-optic submarine cable.

75. International bearer circuits (IBCs) consist of terrestrial and satellite circuits and submarine cable systems. In the 2009
Submarine Cable Order
(74 FR 22104, May 12, 2009), based on a consensus proposal made by a large number of submarine cable operators (Consensus Proposal), the Commission adopted a new methodology for assessing IBC fees. Instead of assessing IBC fees based on 64 kbps circuits for all types of IBCs, the Commission began assessing regulatory fees for submarine cable operators on a per cable landing license basis, with higher fees for larger capacity submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller capacity submarine cable systems. The Commission adopted a five-tier structure for assessing fees on submarine cables systems based on lit capacity. The Commission explained that it will define operational submarine cable systems as either “large” or “small” submarine cable systems based on the capacity of each system and the “small” systems will be further subdivided into additional subcategories. The Commission concluded that this methodology served the public interest and was competitively neutral because it included both common carrier and non-common carrier submarine cable operators. The Commission also explained that the methodology would be easier to administer and for submarine cable operators to comply with. The Commission further stated that a lower fee for licensees of smaller cable systems would mitigate concerns that a flat fee may create a barrier to entry for new entrants. In the
FY 2020 Report and Order
(85 FR 59864, September 23, 2020), the Commission found that lit capacity was an appropriate measure by which to assess IBC fees for submarine cables.

76. The Submarine Cable Coalition contends that the fee structure continues to impose disproportionate fees on submarine cable operations that do not reflect their limited use of Commission resources and services. These commenters argue that the benefits submarine cable licensees receive from the Commission's work pale significantly in comparison to the regulatory oversight required of other Commission licensees. The Submarine Cable Coalition argues that a regulatory fee structure disconnected from and disproportionate to the benefits rendered to the regulatory fee payor is contrary to the Communications Act and imposes an undue burden on the industry.

77. We disagree with the Submarine Cable Coalition's contention that the Commission's regulatory fee methodology is contrary to the Communications Act and that the Commission has not developed regulatory fees that are reasonably related to the benefits provided. The Commission has long held that capacity is a reasonable basis to assess regulatory costs among the submarine cable regulatory fee payors that benefit from the Commission's work. As the Commission has previously stated, the fee assessment on submarine cables covers the costs for regulatory activity concerning submarine cables as well as the services provided over the submarine cables. We find it reasonable to continue to assess higher regulatory fees on licensees with larger facilities that benefit more from the Commission's work and thus should pay a larger proportion of the Commission's costs.

78. Since FY 2009, when the Commission adopted the new methodology for assessing submarine cable fees, the level of lit capacity for submarine cable systems has increased and the Commission has expanded the different tiers to take into account this change and accommodate for this rapid growth in capacity. However, the basic methodology for calculating submarine cable fees based on capacity has not changed. Submarine cable fees are still calculated on the basis of “1” unit, “.5” units, “.25” units and so forth. Furthermore, we note that the regulatory fees for FY 2023 have been reduced from those assessed in FY 2022. As discussed above, lit capacity remains a reasonable basis to apportion regulatory costs among the submarine cable regulatory fee payors that benefit from the Commission's work, and our fee methodology with respect to submarine cables continues to reasonably reflect the FTE costs for our regulatory activity concerning submarine cables as well as the services provided over the submarine cables.

E. Broadcaster Regulatory Fees for FY 2023

1. Full Service Television

79. The Commission has utilized a population-based full-service broadcast television regulatory fee since 2020. The population-based methodology conforms with the service authorized here—broadcasting television to the American people. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we proposed to continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast station's contour and proposed adopting a factor of 0.7799 of one cent ($0.007799) per population served for FY 2023 full-power broadcast television station fees. We received no comments on this issue. We therefore conclude that we will continue to use the population-based methodology for full-service television broadcasters based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's contour. We also adopt a factor of 0.7799 of one cent ($0.007799) per population served for FY 2023 full-power broadcast television station fees. The population data for broadcasters' service areas will continue to be 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 $0.007799) for each full-power broadcast television station is listed in Table 10. For those VHF stations whose power had to be increased to obtain a clearer signal, the Commission will continue to use a population count based on that station's lower VHF power level rather than at the increased power level.

2. Radio Stations

80. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we sought comment on the existing tiered fee structure for radio broadcasters regulatory fees and proposed the creation of an additional tier within the lowest population tier to ensure that broadcaster fees fairly represent the regulatory oversight benefits 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. NAB agrees that we should adopt the proposal to create a new fee tier for the smallest AM and FM radio stations. In its reply comments, the State Associations of Broadcasters agree that the Commission should implement the proposed new radio tier to more fairly distribute the burden of regulatory fees. No commenter in the record objected to our proposal. We therefore adopt a revised radio station regulatory fee table that includes a lower population tier for AM and FM broadcasters. Specifically, we separate the previous years' tier of <=25,000 population into two tiers: (1) <=10,000, and (2) 10,001-25,000. The remaining population tier thresholds will stay the same as prior years. In addition, beginning in FY 2023, the radio population count that is the basis for assessing regulatory fees will include 2020 U.S. Census data.

Table 3—FY 2023 Radio Station Regultory Fees

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

F. Continuing Flexibility in FY 2023 for Regulatory Fee Payors

81. In FYs 2020, 2021, and 2022, we provided temporary relief to fee payors experiencing financial hardship caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we asked whether we should continue certain of those temporary measures for FY 2023 regulatory fees. Both NAB and the State Broadcasters Associations filed comments in support of continuing the temporary measures for FY 2023 regulatory fees. While the National Emergency has ended, we recognize, as NAB and the State Broadcasters Associations pointed out in their comments to the
FY 2023 NPRM,
that extending relief measures for FY 2023 regulatory fees while businesses like broadcasters continue to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic, will benefit fee payors. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause to continue to offer a nominal interest rate and waive its down payment requirement, for installment payment of regulatory fee debt. OMD will continue to exercise its delegated authority to partially waive § 1.1910 of the Commission's rules to allow regulatees on “red light” and experiencing financial hardship to nonetheless request waiver, reduction, deferral, and/or installment payment of their FY 2023 regulatory fees, provided that those regulatees resolve all of the delinquent debt they owe to the Commission in advance of the Commission's decision on their relief requests.

82. We also will continue a partial waiver of § 1.1166 of our rules to permit fee payors seeking waiver, deferral or reduction of their FY 2023 regulatory fees to submit documentation supporting their requests after their underlying requests are submitted. This partial waiver of § 1.1166(c) does not remove the burden of submitting documents in support of individual waiver requests. Parties seeking waiver, deferral or reduction of their FY 2023 regulatory fees must make a good faith effort to submit all necessary documentation with their initial regulatory fee waiver requests. As part of our partial waiver of 1.1166(c), we will provide fee payors, after filing their requests for waiver, reduction or deferral of their FY 2023 regulatory fees, with one opportunity to submit additional documents to support their requests, which submission must occur by January 31, 2024 in order for their supplemental documentation to be considered with their requests. We condition our temporary waiver in order to more closely align our practices with the requirements of § 1.1166. This provides fee payors with relief while at the same time scaffolding a return to normal operation of our rules.

83. The State Broadcasters Associations also advocate for making permanent these remaining temporary measures, stating that without them, the Commission's processes and rules, particularly with respect to installment payment requests, are sufficiently onerous as to prevent distressed fee payors from effectively accessing the relief. Because we did not propose to codify the remaining temporary measures in the
FY 2023 NPRM,
the record is insufficient to consider the State Broadcasters Associations' proposal and we therefore decline to consider it at this time.

84. Finally, in the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we amended § 1.1166 of our rules to permit parties seeking regulatory fee waiver, reduction and/or deferral to make a single request for all forms of relief sought, rather than requiring separate filings for each form of relief, and to require all requests made under the rule to be submitted electronically to a dedicated email address. We also amended § 1.1914 of our rules to direct parties seeking to pay their regulatory fees in installments to submit those requests to the same dedicated email address and to permit those parties to combine their installment payment requests with their waiver. While we did not receive any comments on this point, it is very unlikely that the OMB PRA approval process will conclude in time for parties seeking installment relief to proceed under the codified revisions to § 1.1914. Therefore, we will continue these revisions to § 1.1914 as temporary measures until their codification is effective.

85. We also remind regulatory fee payors that we cannot relax the

substantive standard for granting a waiver or deferral of fees, penalties, or other charges for late payment of regulatory fees under section 9A of the Act. Under the statute, the Commission may only waive a regulatory fee, penalty, or interest charge 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.

G. Providing Installment Payment Relief to Small Regulatory Fee Payors

86. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we sought comment on a proposal to allow regulatory fee payors to prepay their annual regulatory fees in increments before the annual regulatory fee payment deadline. The State Broadcasters Associations asked that the Commission consider the proposal, on the basis that permitting incremental prepayment of regulatory fees would ease broadcasters' regulatory fee burden. In seeking comment on the proposal, we noted that implementation of such a program would require modifications to our recordkeeping, financial operations, and accounting systems and additional personnel to administer the program. We asked commenters what concrete benefits the Commission and participating regulatory fee payors would derive from the program, to justify the Commission's cost of implementing and administering a prepayment by installment program. In their reply comments, the State Broadcasters Associations concede the significant administrative difficulties of a prepayment program but do not identify any program benefits sufficient to justify implementation and administration of such a program. We received no other comments on the proposal. Because the record does not identify any concrete benefits derived from a prepayment program, as distinct from, for example, broadcasters individually setting aside money each month in advance of the payment deadline to pay their regulatory fee obligation, and would increase the Commission's costs, we decline to adopt the proposal to permit regulated parties to prepay their annual regulatory fee obligation in increments in advance of the regulatory fee payment deadline.

H. Technical Corrections to Sections 1.1166 and 1.1914 of the Commission's Rules

87. We further amend § 1.1166 to delete certain language added to the rule in error in the FY 2023 NPRM. Specifically, we delete “or installment payment” in the introductory paragraph of § 1.1166 and in 1.1166(a), make grammatical changes to move the word “or” twice, and we delete “and 1.1914” in 1.1166(a). We also restore the following text (bolded) that was inadvertently deleted from § 1.1166(a) in the FY 2023 NPRM: “All requests for waiver, reduction and deferral shall be acted upon by the Managing Director with the concurrence of the General Counsel.”

88. We also make two technical corrections to § 1.1914 to clarify the language of the rule. The third sentence of § 1.1914(a) is revised to read as follows: “Requests for installment payment of non-regulatory fee debt shall be filed electronically, by submission to the following email address:
installmentplanrequest@fcc.gov
.” We make this change to ensure that, for administrative simplicity purposes, installment payment requests that are non-regulatory fee in nature are submitted to a different email address than the email address to which all regulatory fee relief requests, including those for installment payment of regulatory fees, are to be submitted. Finally, we revise the fourth sentence of § 1.1914(a) to more clearly state that requests for installment payment of regulatory fees may be combined with other regulatory fee relief requests that are filed pursuant to § 1.1166 of our rules. We make these technical corrections
sua sponte
without notice and comment because we conclude that they are rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice exempt from the general notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

I. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

89. In the
FY 2023 NPRM,
we sought comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority. We did not receive any comments on this issue. While diversity and equity considerations do not impact our methodology for establishing regulatory fee rates, we continue to remain mindful of the importance of these considerations and the impact of our rules on them. We again emphasize, however, that the Commission is not permitted to shift fees from one party of fee payors to another nor to raise fees for any purpose other than as an offsetting collection in the amount of our annual S&E appropriation, consistent with the requirements of section 9 of the Act.

III. Procedural Matters

90. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods.

91.
Commission's Registration System.
To increase efficiency, the Commission is using an all-electronic payment system for regulatory fees, which is contained within the Commission's Registration System (CORES). Before using CORES for the first time, you must obtain an FCC Username through the FCC User Registration System, and subsequently use it to access CORES and either register an FCC Registration Number (FRN) or associate an existing FRN to your password. If you are unable to register electronically, you may fax your application for a Registration Number (FCC Form 160) to the CORES Helpdesk at (202) 418-7869 for filing procedures.

92.
Credit Card Transaction Levels.
In accordance with
Treasury Financial Manual,
Volume I, Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7055.20—
Transaction Maximums,
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, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in the CORES system. 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.

93.
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.

94.
De Minimis Regulatory Fees, Section 9(e)(2) Exemption.
Under the de minimis rule, and pursuant to our analysis under section 9(e)(2) of the Act, a regulatory fee payor is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatory fee payor will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether it meets the de minimis exemption.

95.
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 and VHF/UHF broadcast 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 § 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:
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, 2022 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 seven regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the 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 2022.

•
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV):
Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 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 (Earth Stations and Space Stations):
Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) by all licensed or authorized earth stations on or before October 1, 2022, (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that are licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2022, and (3) small satellite space stations that were licensed and operational 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. During the “de-commissioning” phase of satellites, whereby satellites are often not operational, the satellite license must be cancelled by September 30, 2022 to avoid paying FY 2023 regulatory fees.

•
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.

96.
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and Mobile Services Assessments.
The Commission compiled 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 6 and the CMRS regulatory fee rate. CMRS provider regulatory fees are 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 electronic filing and payment system.

97. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing CORES and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or

supporting documentation. The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation 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 additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in 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. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

98. 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.

99.
Effective Date.
Providing a 30-day period after
Federal Register
publication before this Report and Order becomes effective as normally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2023 fees before FY 2023 ends on September 30, 2023. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order will become effective upon publication in the
Federal Register
. Because payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late September, persons affected by the Report and Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.

100.
People with Disabilities.
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).

IV. List of Tables

Table 4—Calculation of FY 2023 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees
[Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed]

Fee category

FY 2023
payment units

Yrs

FY 2022
revenue
estimate

Pro-rated FY 2023 revenue requirement

Computed FY 2023
regulatory fee

Rounded FY 2023 reg. fee
Expected FY 2023 revenue

PLMRS (Exclusive Use)
1,200
10
187,500
300,000
25.00
25
300,000

PLMRS (Shared use)
19,000
10
1,250,000
1,900,000
10.00
10
1,900,000

Microwave
16,000
10
4,500,000
4,000,000
25.00
25
4,000,000

Marine (Ship)
7,000
10
1,035,000
1,050,000
15.00
15
1,050,000

Aviation (Aircraft)
4,800
10
420,000
480,000
10.00
10
480,000

Marine (Coast)
240
10
84,000
96,000
40.00
40
96,000

Aviation (Ground)
300
10
70,000
60,000
20.00
20
60,000

AM Class A
1

60
1
326,740
286,929
4,782
4,780
286,800

AM Class B
1

1,403
1
4,054,050
3,559,924
2,537
2,535
3,556,605

AM Class C
1

814
1
1,450,360
1,274,519
1,566
1,565
1,273,910

AM Class D
1

1,373
1
4,793,460
4,210,959
3,067
3,065
4,208,245

FM Classes A, B1 & C3
1

3,043
1
10,109,400
8,880,633
2,918
2,920
8,885,560

FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2
1

3,111
1
12,378,460
10,874,394
3,496
3,495
10,872,945

AM Construction Permits
2

5
1
3,450
3,100
620.1
620
3,100

FM Construction Permits
2

16
1
19,360
17,360
1,085
1,085
17,360

Digital Television
5
(including Satellite TV)

3.265 billion population
1
28,897,591
25,463,155
.00779893
.007799
25,463,735

Digital TV Construction Permits
2

4
1
20,840
20,400
5,100
5,100
20,400

LPTV/Class A/Translators FM Trans/Boosters
6,325
1
1,858,440
1,630,258
257.7
260
1,644,500

CARS Stations
120
1
230,175
206,629
1,721.9
1,720
206,400

Cable TV Systems, including IPTV & DBS
56,000,000
1
76,475,000
68,642,063
1.226
1.23
68,880,000

Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers
$25,100,000,000
1
124,597,500
135,463,365
0.005397
0.00540
135,540,000

Toll Free Numbers
34,700,000
1
4,164,000
4,654,582
0.1341
0.13
4,511,000

CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public Mobile)
553,000,000
1
74,900,000
86,750,595
0.1569
0.16
88,480,000

CMRS Messaging Services
1,300,000
1
120,000
104,000
0.0800
0.080
104,000

BRS/
3

1,195
1
716,625
836,500
700
700
836,500

LMDS
360
1
204,750
252,000
700
700
252,000

Per Gbps circuit Int'l Bearer Circuits
Terrestrial (Common & Non-Common) & Satellite (Common & Non-Common)

17,000
1
468,000
433,092
25.48
26
442,000

Submarine Cable Providers (See chart at bottom of Table 6)
4

67.00
1
8,822,138
8,228,737
122,817
122,815
8,228,605

Earth Stations
2,900
1
1,783,500
1,667,486
575
575
1,667,500

Space Stations (Geostationary)
136
1
17,143,565
15,990,883
117,580
117,580
15,990,880

Space Stations (Non-Geostationary, Other)
9
1
3,380,200
3,129,773
347,753
347,755
3,129,795

Space Stations (Non-Geostationary, Less Complex)
6
1
845,040
782,443
130,407
130,405
782,430

Space Stations (Non-Geostationary, Small Satellite)
7
1
60,725
85,505
12,215
12,215
85,505

****** Total Estimated Revenue to be Collected

385,369,869
389,885,391

392,991,324

****** Total Revenue Requirement

381,950,000
390,192,000

390,192,000

Difference

3,419,869
(306,609)

2,799,324

1
The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2023 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted average broadcast regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2023 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located at the end of Table 6.

2
The AM and FM Construction Permit revenues and the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues were adjusted, respectively, to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service based on the threshold 10,001-25,000, the traditional basis for identifying the lowest licensed fee. Reductions in the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues, and in the AM and FM Construction Permit revenues, were offset by increases in the revenue totals for Digital television stations by market size, and in the AM and FM radio stations by class size and population served, respectively.

3
The MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS).
See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,
Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, para. 6 (2004).

4
The chart at the end of Table 5 lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008) and
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008,
Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009). The Submarine Cable fee in Table 4 is a weighted average of the various fee payers in the chart at the end of Table 5.

5
The actual digital television regulatory fees to be paid by call sign are identified in Table 9.

Table 5—FY 2023 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
[Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed]

Fee category

Annual regulatory fee
(U.S. $s)

PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90)
25.

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

Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)
15.

Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)
40.

Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category)
10.

PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90)
10.

Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)
10.

Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)
20.

CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) (Includes Non-Geographic telephone numbers)
.16.

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

Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27)
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR, part 101)

700.
700.

AM Radio Construction Permits
620.

FM Radio Construction Permits
1,085.

AM and FM Broadcast Radio Station Fees
See Table Below.

Digital TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF and UHF Commercial Fee Factor

$.007799.

See Table 10 for fee amounts due, also available at
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/regulatory-fees.

Digital TV Construction Permits
5,100.

Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & FM Boosters (47 CFR part 74)
260.

CARS (47 CFR part 78)
1,720.

Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76), Including IPTV and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
1.23.

Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00540.

Toll Free (per toll free subscriber) (47 CFR 52.101 (f) of the rules)
.13.

Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
575.

Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
117,580.

Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Other)
347,755.

Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Less Complex)
130,405.

Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)
12,215.

International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per Gbps circuit)
$26.

Submarine Cable Landing Licenses Fee (per cable system)
See 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

FY 2023 International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable Systems

Submarine cable systems
(capacity as of December 31, 2022)

Fee ratio
(Units)

FY 2023
regulatory
fees

Less than 50 Gbps
.0625
$7,680

50 Gbps or greater, but less than 250 Gbps
.125
15,355

250 Gbps or greater, but less than 1,500 Gbps
.25
30,705

1,500 Gbps or greater, but less than 3,500 Gbps
.5
61,410

3,500 Gbps or greater, but less than 6,500 Gbps
1.0
122,815

6,500 Gbps or greater
2.0
245,630

Table 6—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2023

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2023, we adjusted FY 2022 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2023 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections, where available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS), Licensing and Management System (LMS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast.
Regulatory fee payment units are not all the same for all fee categories. For most fee categories, the term “units” reflect licenses or permits that have been issued, but for other fee categories, the term “units” reflect quantities such as subscribers, population counts, circuit counts, telephone numbers, and revenues. As more current data is received after the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
is released, the Commission sometimes adjusts the NPRM fee rates to reflect the new information in the
Report and Order.
This is intended to make sure that the fee rates in the
Report and Order
reflect more recent and accurate information. We realize that by adjusting the unit counts as more accurate information is received may adjust the fee rates for certain regulatory fee categories. Certain entities that collect the fees from customers in advance in order to pay the Commission, such as Cable and DBS companies, ITSP providers, Cell Phone and Toll-Free providers, to name a few, may need to adjust their billings to customers as the Commission adjusts its fee rates. As a result, the Commission understands that these adjustments are necessary so that

[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%3A2023-19107. Public record. Not legal advice.