Rule2025-17218
Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2025
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 8, 2025
Effective
September 8, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts its regulatory fee schedule to assess and collect regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 25).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 171 (Monday, September 8, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 171 (Monday, September 8, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43284-43364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17218]
[[Page 43283]]
Vol. 90
Monday,
No. 171
September 8, 2025
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 1
Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees
for Fiscal Year 2025; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 171 / Monday, September 8, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 43284]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket Nos. 25-190, 24-85; FCC 25-52; FR ID 311170]
Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2025
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts its regulatory fee schedule to assess and
collect regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 25).
DATES: Effective September 8, 2025. To avoid penalties and interest,
regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 25, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Brogan, Office of Economics
and Analytics, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d3d0c191f040e06432f1f020a0c032d0b0e0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="316150454358525a1f73435e56505f715752521f565e47">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-418-7378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and Order) in MD Docket Nos.
25-190, 24-85, FCC 25-52, adopted on August 28, 2025, and released on
August 29, 2025. The full text of this document is available at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-52A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-52A1.pdf</a>.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and
policy changes contained in the FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and
Order. The FRFA is set forth below.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission
will send a copy of the FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and Order to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document does
not contain any proposed new or substantively modified information
collections 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).
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aaccc9c99f9a9eeaccc9c984cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f696c6c3a3f3b4f696c6c21686079">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
Synopsis
Each fiscal year (FY), the Commission must adopt a schedule of
regulatory fees to be assessed and collected by the end of September in
an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's
annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Pursuant to the
Commission's statutory obligation in Section 9 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, (Act or Communications Act) and the
Commission's FY 2025 Further Consolidation Appropriations Act, the
Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2025, to assess and
collect $390,192,000 in regulatory fees.
In June, the Commission proposed a regulatory fee schedule for FY
2025. Consistent with the Commission's long-standing regulatory fee
methodology and the record gathered, the Commission adopts the proposal
in the FY 2025 NPRM, 90 FR 25432, June 16, 2025, to reallocate the time
of 61 indirect full time equivalents (FTEs) as direct for regulatory
fee purposes. This determination rests on the Commission's conclusion
that certain FTE work in the Office of General Counsel, the Office of
Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of
regulatory fee payors such that the burden of that work should be
considered in applying the Commission's regulatory fee methodology.
The Commission also implements the targeted amendments it adopted
in June 2025 to the methodology it uses to assess regulatory fees for
space and earth stations. Additionally, the Commission adopts its
proposal in the FY 2025 NPRM for the calculation of television
broadcaster regulatory fees, as adjusted. The Commission implements
these determinations and adopts a schedule of regulatory fees, as set
forth in Tables 3 and 4.
Finally, the Commission declines to adopt various proposals to
modify its regulatory fee methodology or to add new regulatory fee
categories in FY 2025. The arguments supporting such proposals have
been fully considered by the Commission in prior proceedings.
Commenters have provided no basis for the Commission to change its
prior determinations, and therefore the Commission reaffirms the prior
conclusions that the methodology changes and new regulatory fee
categories that have been proposed are unworkable and logistically
infeasible at this time.
Background. FY 2025 started on October 1, 2024, and ends on
September 30, 2025. The regulatory fee collection is guided by both the
statutory authority in sections 6 and 9 of the Act and the explicit
language of each fiscal year's S&E appropriation directing the amount
to be collected as an offsetting collection. Section 9 of the Act and
the FY 2025 S&E appropriation require the Commission to collect
$390,192,000 in regulatory fees in FY 2025. The Act requires the
Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs
of carrying out its activities in the total amounts provided for in
Appropriations Acts. Regulatory fees cover the Commission's non-
auctions direct, indirect, and support costs, including costs to cover
statutorily required tasks that do not directly equate with oversight
and regulation of a particular fee payor, but instead benefit the
Commission and the industry as a whole. Direct costs are those such as
salaries and expenses, indirect costs are those such as overhead
functions, and support costs include those such as rent, utilities, and
equipment. Since regulatory fees must recover the total amount of the
Commission's S&E appropriation for the fiscal year, they also must
cover the costs incurred in oversight and regulation of: (1) entities
that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees; (2) entities
whose total assessed annual regulatory fees fall below the annual de
minimis threshold; and (3) entities whose regulatory fees are waived.
Entities that are exempt from paying regulatory fees include
governmental and nonprofit entities, amateur radio operators, and
noncommercial radio and television stations. The Commission has
previously observed that it is consistent with the Act to include those
costs that are attributable to the fee paying and exempt regulatees in
the revenue requirement because all of the
[[Page 43285]]
regulatees in that fee category, whether they pay regulatory fees or
not, benefit from the oversight and regulation of that bureau. The
Commission's annual de minimis threshold is $1,000. The Commission
takes into consideration the relatively small amount of waivers,
exemptions, and non-payors in our calculations each year so that we can
recover the full amount of our S&E appropriation.
Regulatory Fees Calculation Methodology
Congress has prescribed a method for the Commission to collect the
full S&E appropriation by keying its regulatory fee assessment to its
FTE burden. One FTE, a ``Full Time Equivalent'' or ``Full Time
Employee,'' is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually
by a full-time person (working a 40-hour workweek for a full year)
assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel
staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget. In this proceeding, if the Commission states 1.5 FTEs work on a
particular subject matter, that might mean three individuals spend 50%
of their time on that area. Moreover, in the FY 2025 Regulatory Fees
Report and Order, when the Commission discusses FTEs and any change in
allocation, it is solely for regulatory fee purposes and does not
reflect proposals for the change of personnel in the various
organizational work units. The methodology for assessing regulatory
fees must ``reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within
the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into
account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to
the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.'' Thus, the fee
assigned to each regulatory fee category relates to the FTE burden
associated with oversight and regulation of each regulatory fee
category by the relevant core bureaus (i.e., the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Bureau, most of the Wireline
Competition Bureau, part of the Office of International Affairs (OIA),
and most of the Space Bureau). The Commission has previously concluded
that allocating the work of FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau
devoted to non-high-cost Universal Service Fund programs as indirect
FTEs is consistent with how FTEs working for programs that benefit
consumers and the American public are treated elsewhere in the
Commission. Moreover, in the non-high-cost universal service fund
programs, the E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare programs tie
funding eligibility based on 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. Thus, the burden
of FTE time devoted to non-high-cost Universal Service Fund programs is
properly categorized as indirect. As part of this determination, the
Commission has also excluded broadcasters from the fee burden
associated with these indirect FTEs because broadcasters do not
directly participate in the universal service program. The burden of
this indirect FTE work is analyzed by staff annually and is deducted
from the calculation of the direct FTEs allocated to the Wireline
Competition Bureau and, after it excludes broadcasters, the Commission
apportions these indirect FTEs among all other fee payors. The
Commission has also explained that most of the work of OIA, including
the work of the Global Strategies and Negotiation Division, does not
benefit a specific fee payor, but rather the government as a whole, and
is therefore appropriately categorized as indirect. However, the
Commission continues to categorize as direct the FTE work of OIA
concerning international bearer circuit issues, including the services
provided over submarine cables, determining that there were eight FTEs
within OIA whose work was direct on that basis.
The total amount of the offsetting collection generally changes
each fiscal year. Therefore, the regulatory fees due from payors also
typically change as a mathematical consequence of the total amount that
needs to be collected, the number of FTEs, and the projected unit
estimates for each regulatory fee category. For example, if the number
of units in a regulatory fee category increase, the amount due per unit
may decrease, depending on other factors. This would also include
proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall
increase in the annual FY appropriation. Insofar as the Communications
Act's explicit language requires that fees must reflect FTEs, the
Commission has consistently concluded that FTE counts are the most
administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations, and the
Commission's regulatory fees are based on the direct FTEs in core
bureaus. Thus, when considering changes, additions, or deletions to the
regulatory fee schedule, the Commission focused on the direct FTE cost
burden related to the regulatory fee category at issue within each of
the core licensing bureaus.
FTEs are not assigned within a bureau to specific fee categories
``by rote or at random, but rather in a manner that reflects the time
spent by FTEs on a regulatory fee category, which is in itself a
reflection of `benefit' to the fee category.'' The Commission has
stated that Section 9 of the Act is clear, however, that regulatory fee
assessments are based on the burden imposed on the Commission, not
benefits realized by regulatees. The Commission apportions regulatory
fees across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each
core bureau to take into account factors that are reasonably related to
the payors' benefits. Any decrease to the fees paid by one category of
regulatory fee payors necessitates an increase in fees paid by other
categories of regulatory fee payors, which means the collection of the
Commission's regulatory fees is a zero-sum exercise.
The Commission allocates FTEs according to the nature of the work
performed by its different organizational units. If FTE work directly
relates to the oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category in
one of the five core licensing bureaus then it is considered to be
direct. Work that cannot be allocated to one of those regulatory fee
categories is counted as indirect FTE time.
Indirect FTE time covers a wide range of issues that include
services that are not specifically correlated with one core bureau, let
alone one specific category of regulatory fee payors. Indirect FTE work
also includes matters that are not specific to any regulatory fee
category, and many Commission attorneys, economists, engineers,
analysts, and other staff work on a variety of issues during a single
fiscal year, which benefits the Commission, the telecommunications
industry, and the public. Historically, the Commission has categorized
FTE work conducted in the Enforcement, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureaus along with
some of the work in the Wireline Competition and the former
International Bureau as well as the work of those in the Office of the
Chair and the Commissioners' Offices and in the Offices of the Managing
Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Communications Business
Opportunities, Engineering and Technology, Legislative Affairs,
Workplace Diversity, Media Relations, Economics and Analytics, and
Administrative Law Judges as indirect for regulatory fee purposes.
Following this framework, the Commission assesses the allocation of
FTEs by first determining the number of direct non-auctions FTEs in
each of the Commission's core bureaus. Other
[[Page 43286]]
factors the Commission takes into consideration include the annual S&E
appropriation and the projected unit estimates. Early in each fiscal
year, the Human Resources Management office identifies FTEs at the core
bureau level. The Commission then validates that data through
consultation with the bureaus and offices to determine the number of
direct FTEs allocated to each of the five core bureaus. Those numbers
are then used to calculate the corresponding percentage of the total
amount of regulatory fees to be collected for a given fiscal year from
the fee payors of each core bureau. The percentage for each core bureau
is the number of direct non-auction FTEs within the core bureau divided
by the total number of direct non-auction FTEs in the Commission.
This means fees are apportioned across the regulatory fee
categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau whose
time is focused on a particular industry segment and are adjusted ``to
take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits
provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.''
Specifically, the Commission allocates appropriated amounts to be
recovered proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each
core bureau. 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. Those
proportions are then subdivided and apportioned within each core bureau
into fee categories among those served based on the time spent on each
fee category. Finally, within each regulatory fee category the amount
to be collected is divided by a unit count that allocates the
regulatory fee payor's proportionate share based on an objective
measure.
The FTE time devoted to developing and implementing the
Commission's spectrum auctions is not included in the calculation of
regulatory fees and is not offset by the collection of regulatory fees.
Thus, the Commission's methodology excludes all spectrum auction-
related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations.
To the extent that FTEs within the core bureaus spend a portion of
their time on auctions issues and a portion of their time on other
issues, their time is split and only the non-auctions portion of their
time is reflected in the relevant core bureau's direct FTE count.
Adjustments and Amendments to Regulatory Fees Schedule
In order to collect regulatory fees in the amount required by the
Commission's annual S&E appropriation, it conducts a rulemaking
proceeding each year to consider any necessary increases or decreases
in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees and to
reflect any adjustments needed to the prior year's fees schedule. For
example, if the number of units in a regulatory fee category increase,
the amount due per unit may decrease. This would also include
proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall
increase in the annual FY appropriation. Such changes are rarely the
subject of dispute and are usually addressed in the more ministerial
changes to the fee schedule. As necessary, the Commission will also
propose amendments to the fee schedule ``if it determines that changes
are necessary for the fees to reflect the full-time equivalent number
of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted
to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the
benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's
activities.'' Pursuant to the Act, the Commission must notify Congress
immediately upon adoption of any adjustment. The Act also requires the
Commission to notify Congress at least 90 days prior to making
effective any amendments to the regulatory fee schedule.
The Commission considers the adoption of a new regulatory fee
category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when
it develops a sufficient basis for making the change, ensuring that its
assessment of regulatory fees is fair, administrable, and sustainable.
The Commission will adopt new regulatory fee categories and new
methodologies for calculating regulatory fees when there is a
sufficient basis for doing so based on the record, and under the
relevant statutory provisions and precedent.
Commission FY 2025 Regulatory Fee Releases
On June 5, 2025, the Commission released the FY 2025 NPRM. There,
the Commission proposed and sought comment on the regulatory fees and
methodology to assess and collect $390,192,000 in congressionally
required regulatory fees for FY 2025. The Commission proposed to
increase the number of FTEs that are allocated directly to the core
licensing bureaus for this fiscal year based upon the determination
that burden of the work they are performing is sufficiently linked to
the oversight and regulation of certain regulatory fee payors. In
particular, the Commission proposed reallocating 61 indirect FTEs as
direct FTEs to the Commission's core licensing bureaus. In addition,
the Commission sought comment on proposed regulatory fees for space and
earth station fee payors either under the existing fee methodology or
under the various alternative or amended methodologies on which the
Commission was seeking comment at the time. The Commission also
proposed to continue the past practice of calculating television
broadcaster regulatory fees using the methodology based on the
population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's
contour. The FY 2025 NPRM did not propose any amendments that would
require congressional notification 90 days before becoming effective.
On June 9, 2025, the Commission released the FY 2024 Third Report
and Order. In that order, the Commission adopted changes to its
regulatory fee methodology to (i) assess regulatory fees on space and
earth stations once they are authorized, rather than when the stations
are certified to be operational, and (ii) split existing regulatory fee
categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new
fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space
stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or
more). The FY 2024 Third Report and Order was published in the Federal
Register, 90 FR 29760, on July 7, 2025, and the amendments to the space
and earth station regulatory fee methodologies become effective on
September 14, 2025.
Discussion. The Commission received six comments and nine reply
comments in response to the Commission's FY 2025 NPRM. As generally
supported by the record gathered, the Commission adopts its proposals
in the FY 2025 NPRM. Accordingly, using the Commission's historical
methodology for allocating FTEs, along with targeted amendments to
assess regulatory fees for space and earth stations, the Commission
adopts a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2025 to collect $390,192,000,
which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the
Commission's annual S&E FY 2025 appropriation, as set forth in Tables 3
and 4.
Assessment of Regulatory Fees
Methodology for Assessing Regulatory Fees. Section 9 of the
Communications Act requires the Commission to set
[[Page 43287]]
regulatory fees to ``reflect the full-time equivalent number of
employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission adjusted to
take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits
provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.''
As a general matter, to establish its regulatory fee schedule,
first, the Commission identifies changes from the prior fiscal year
regulatory fee proceeding, e.g., changes in the (i) FY S&E
appropriation, (ii) FTE levels, and (iii) relevant unit measures for
each regulatory fee category. After that, the Commission identifies the
number of direct non-auction FTEs in each core bureau for purposes of
the regulatory fee calculation. The remaining non-auction FTEs are
considered indirect and are not part of the regulatory fee calculation.
Once the Commission determines the number of direct FTEs for each core
bureau, it calculates the percentage of regulatory fees that it needs
to collect for the given fiscal year from each regulatory fee category
within each core bureau. These proportional calculations allocate all
of the Commission's non-auction related costs across all regulatory fee
categories. For FY 2025, the Commission implements the same methodology
it has used historically for allocating FTEs as well as the targeted
amendments to the methodology it uses to assess regulatory fees for
space and earth stations that were adopted by the Commission in June
2025 in the FY 2024 Third Report and Order.
Adjustment of Reallocations of Certain Indirect FTEs as Direct
FTEs. The Commission's decision to adopt its proposal to reallocate
certain indirect FTEs as direct to one of its core bureaus reflects its
conclusion that it can again determine, with reasonable accuracy for
this fiscal year, that certain FTE time from the Office of General
Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau is devoted to work that is sufficiently
linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such
that the FTE burden of that work should be allocated as direct to a
core bureau for regulatory fee purposes. As the Commission explained in
2023 and 2024, the Commission will continue to evaluate whether any
FTEs should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes each year when
reviewing and validating the FTE data. The Commission, however, will
exercise its discretion regarding where to focus its analytical efforts
each year to best respond to changes in the Commission's substantive
work and organization, and changes in the telecommunications industry
itself. Thus, the Commission ensures it conducts its annual review in a
manner that is fair, administrable, and sustainable. Moreover,
commenters support the Commission's efforts to ensure that regulatory
fees reflect the work performed by Commission FTEs, which benefits fee
payors.
To conduct its annual review for FY 2025, the Commission evaluated
the work being performed by FTEs. According to information provided by
the Commission's Human Resources Management office, at the start of FY
2025, there were 384.5 direct non-auctions FTEs distributed among the
core licensing bureaus. With respect to other bureaus and offices the
Commission conducted a high-level, yet comprehensive, analysis of the
work being performed by non-auctions FTEs in the Office of Economics
and Analytics, Office of General Counsel, and Office of Engineering and
Technology as well as the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
(and other bureaus and offices) to determine if identifiable time of
any of the FTEs in those organizational units is directly related to
the oversight and regulation of fee payors such that it should be
considered in applying its fee methodology. In other words, staff
examined and validated the data through consultation with the bureaus
and offices to determine whether in applying the Commission's
regulatory fee methodology any FTE time in the non-core bureaus and
offices should be reallocated and be considered as direct FTE time to a
core bureau.
Based on staff analysis, which the Commission concludes is
reasonably accurate for FY 2025, it adopts its proposal to reallocate
63 indirect FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office
of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
as direct to a core bureaus. The Commission finds these reallocations
are necessary because, as the Commission concluded in both FY 2024 and
FY 2023, the nature of certain FTE work conducted in those
organizations remains primarily related to the oversight and regulation
of fee payors. Additionally, consistent with the Commission's
determination for the past two fiscal years, it also reallocates two
FTEs from the Media Bureau to be considered as indirect FTEs because
the nature of their work is similar to work performed in the
Enforcement Bureau, which it considers to be indirect. The Commission
determines that these conclusions are consistent with Section 9 of the
Act, which requires the Commission to base its methodology on the
number of FTEs in calculating regulatory fees.
These reallocations result in an overall increase of 61 indirect
FTEs being reallocated as direct FTEs to core bureaus. Although NAB
notes its continued belief that FTE work devoted to certain non-high-
cost Universal Service Fund matters also should be reallocated as
direct, the Commission concludes that NAB provides no new arguments to
warrant it to revisit the Commission's prior determinations that such
work is appropriately categorized as indirect, and therefore the
Commission declines to do so.
Reallocations, for Regulatory Fee Purposes, of Certain Indirect FTEs as
Direct FTEs
As the Commission has previously explained, when it discusses FTEs,
it is not referring to any particular employee at the Commission but
rather an amount of work performed annually by a full time employee or
employees. In analyzing the work of FTEs, the Commission applies
conservative estimates so as not to imply a false sense of precision in
the proposed reallocation. Specifically, where the amount of work under
consideration for reallocation of an indirect FTE was half an FTE or
less, the Commission rounds down and it only proposes its reallocations
in full FTE increments.
In evaluating the nature of the work of its FTEs, the Commission
generally categorizes the FTEs in its non-core bureaus and offices as
indirect. For example, the Office of Engineering and Technology
provides engineering and technical expertise to the agency as a whole
and supports each of the agency's core bureaus. Likewise, the
Enforcement Bureau FTE oversight is focused on the integrity of
Commission's rules and ensuring the implementation of the
Communications Act, which is work that benefits the agency as a whole
and the American public, and not one particular group of regulatory fee
payors. Similarly, the work of FTEs in the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau is primarily devoted to developing and implementing
consumer policies as required by the Communications Act, including
disability rights, via rulemaking and declaratory ruling; consumer
education; processing informal complaints; outreach to state, local,
and Tribal governments; and oversight more generally of the
telecommunications industry (e.g., establishing and oversight of the
Reassigned Numbers Database). In sum, the Commission has found it would
not be equitable for any one
[[Page 43288]]
regulatory fee group of payors to shoulder the FTE burden of indirect
work.
While the Commission concludes that much of the work of the FTEs in
the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel,
and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau continues to be
appropriately considered indirect, in validating the FTE count for this
year, it affirms the Commission's conclusion of the past two years that
certain work should again be reallocated as direct. The Commission
explains that its consideration of the work of FTEs as direct or
indirect may change over time based on its evaluation of the FTE burden
associated with the Commission's work assignments, fluctuations within
industry segments, the needs of specific regulatory fee payors, and the
requests of commenters to continue its review of any necessary
reallocations.
Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA). OEA is responsible for
expanding and strengthening the use of economic analysis in Commission
policy making, for enhancing the development and use of auctions, and
for implementing consistent and effective agency-wide data practices
and policies. Much of the work of the non-auctions FTEs in OEA
therefore benefits the Commission and the telecommunications industry
as a whole and does not specifically focus on a particular category of
regulatory fee payors. Thus, as the Commission has previously
concluded, such work is appropriately considered to be indirect.
As the Commission recognized in both FY 2023 and FY 2024, however,
and as it has validated again for FY 2025, there continues to be
measurable FTE work conducted in OEA that is being done directly in
furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in
certain industry segments. On that basis, in the FY 2025 NPRM, the
Commission proposed targeted reallocations of OEA FTEs. No commenters
disagreed with the Commission's proposal to reallocate 29 indirect FTEs
from OEA as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Based
on the Commission's staff analysis, it adopts that proposal and
reallocates indirect FTEs from OEA as follows: one to the Space Bureau,
eight to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 13 to the Wireline
Competition Bureau, and seven to the Media Bureau.
Office of General Counsel (OGC). The Commission, as it has in the
past, concludes that much of the work of the OGC, as represented by FTE
allocations, should be considered to be indirect. OGC serves as the
chief legal advisor to the Commission and its various bureaus and
offices.
Yet, as the Commission recognized in FY 2023 and FY 2024, and has
again validated for FY 2025, it finds that certain aspects of OGC's
work are sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of
individual regulatory fee categories that the associated FTEs should
properly be considered direct FTEs for such regulatory fee categories.
Specifically, based on the substance of the work that is done directly
in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors
in certain industry segments for FY 2025, the Commission adopts its
proposal to reallocate four indirect FTEs as direct to a core bureau as
follows: one to the Wireline Competition Bureau, one to the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (instead of two as in FY 2024), one to the
Space Bureau, and one to the Media Bureau.
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB). The Commission
also concludes, as the Commission has previously, that much of PSHSB's
work, as represented by FTE allocations, should be considered to be
indirect. 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.
As the Commission concluded in FY 2024 and FY 2023, and as it has
validated again for FY 2025, there remains substantive work done by
PSHSB that is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation
of certain regulatory fee payors. For FY 2025, the Commission finds it
is appropriate to reallocate 30 indirect FTEs from PSHSB as direct to a
core bureau for regulatory fee purposes as follows: 14 to the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, nine to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and
seven to the Media Bureau.
Conclusion of the Proposal to Reallocate Certain Indirect FTEs from
OEA, OGC, and PSHSB as Direct FTEs to a Relevant Core Bureau. FTE time
associated with these reallocations will be added to the direct FTE
totals for a relevant core bureau. The reallocation of indirect FTEs
will increase the number of direct FTEs in a core bureau and reduce the
total number of indirect FTEs within the Commission. Insofar as the
Commission's underlying methodology for calculating regulatory fees
remains unchanged, the Commission concludes that its fee regulatory fee
calculations continue to be consistent with Section 9 of the
Communications Act.
The reallocation of 61 indirect FTEs as direct for regulatory fee
purposes in FY 2025, results in a 15.9% increase in the Commission's
overall direct FTE count for FY 2025, and a decrease of 4.25% in the
overall direct FTE count from FY 2024.
The Result of the FTE Reallocations from the Office of Economic
Analytics, Office of General Counsel, and Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau. Based on these reallocations and after adjustments are
made to the direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent, the
Commission has a total of 445.5 non-auctions direct FTEs for FY 2025,
and it will collect approximately $7.039 million (1.80%) in fees from
the Office of International Affairs regulatory fee payors; $44.872
million (11.50%) in fees from the Space Bureau regulatory fee payors;
$105.582 million (27.06%) in fees from Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau regulatory fee payors; $116.580 million (29.88%) in fees from
Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and $116.119 million
(29.76%) in fees from Media Bureau regulatory fee payors. These FTE
reallocations, for regulatory fee purposes, will be proportionally
distributed within the core bureaus. The Commission's underlying
methodology for calculating regulatory fees remains unchanged; its
regulatory fee calculation continues to be consistent with Section 9 of
the Act, which requires it to base its methodology on the number of
FTEs in calculating regulatory fees.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 43289]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.002
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
Although the Submarine Cable Coalition generally supports the
Commission's efforts to reallocate FTEs that are working on the
oversight and regulation of fee payors as direct FTEs, it nonetheless
``asserts that further Commission review should be conducted to
determine if it is possible to lower the number of direct FTEs
attributed to international bearer circuits within OIA, or to convert
some or all these direct FTEs into indirect FTEs.'' In support of this
position, it argues that it ``should not be the burden of submarine
cable operators, nor any one type of international licensee under OIA,
to subsidize holders of other license types.'' The Submarine Cable
Coalition renews its claims that the ``the benefits submarine cable
licensees receive from the Commission's work pale significantly in
comparison to the regulatory oversight required of other Commission
licensees.'' CTIA, however, responds to this argument by advocating
that the Commission should decline to reclassify FTEs in OIA working on
international bearer circuits as indirect, because doing so would
disregard the requirements of Section 9 and the Commission's core
principles underlying its regulatory fee framework. CTIA maintains that
the Submarine Cable Coalition has provided no valid reason why the
Commission should redo its FTE analysis and reclassify these FTEs based
on something other than the work they undertake. The
[[Page 43290]]
Commission agrees with CTIA and finds based on its staff analysis for
FY 2025 that 8 FTEs are appropriately considered direct in OIA and
declines to reclassify some or all as indirect FTEs.
The Commission also disagrees with the comments of Telesat that
repeat a suggestion previously offered by the Satellite Operators in
2023 contending that the Commission should propose regulatory fees at
the outset of each non-application rulemaking proceeding in order to
collect its attendant costs. The Commission rejected this proposal at
that time, observing that there was no explanation of ``how such an
approach would facilitate recovery on an annual basis of the
Commission's entire FY S&E appropriation.'' The Commission agrees with
the Commission's 2023 conclusion that this proposal ``does not appear
administrable because it would inject a potentially contentious issue--
who bears the FTE burden of the proceeding--into each rulemaking and
thereby only increase the possible points of disagreement in each
respective rulemaking.'' As the Commission previously observed, because
there is no way to determine at the NPRM stage of a proceeding the
entities or interested parties that might file comments and/or
challenge a matter in any given rulemaking, any initial allocations
regarding the FTE burden of work associated with any category of fee
payors for a particular rulemaking would require frequent reassessment.
Moreover, the Commission further explains that as a general matter,
rulemakings are not based on a fiscal year, and the work attendant with
any particular year can extend, and often evolve, across multiple
years. Additionally, the Commission reasons that if this proposed
approach were to replace its current approach, it would fail to capture
the FTE burden of work on issues that involve the day-to-day oversight
of policies and rules that impact all categories of regulatory fee
payors, issues that are often unrelated to any particular proceeding
that is active during the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Commission
explains it is entirely unclear how it could manage the administration
of regulatory fees if a proceeding were to go dormant or close. Such
fluctuations in the expectations associated with assessing regulatory
fees would be difficult for both fee payors as well as the Commission.
The Commission therefore agrees with prior Commission conclusions that
such a proposal is ``impractical and thereby unlikely to facilitate the
statutorily required recovery, on an annual basis, of the Commission's
entire FY S&E appropriation.'' The Commission concludes that Telesat
has provided no new basis on which to revisit these conclusions or to
adopt a revised approach.
Space and Earth Stations
The Commission implements for FY 2025 the targeted amendments to
the methodology it uses to assess regulatory fees for space and earth
stations that were adopted in the FY 2024 Third Report and Order.
Specifically, for FY 2025, the Commission will (i) assess regulatory
fees on space and earth stations once they are authorized, rather than
when the stations are certified to be operational, and (ii) split
existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-
Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations
(fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations
(1000 or more authorized space stations). The Commission specifically
adopted the amendments in time for them to be effective for FY 2025.
These changes to the fee categories are reflected within the schedule
of regulatory fees for FY 2025 contained in Sec. 1.1156(a) of the
Commission's rules and in the charts of space stations assessed
regulatory fees for FY 2025 in Table 6.
The Commission declines to revisit the decision made in the FY 2024
Second Report and Order to adopt a change to the allocation of space
station regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO space stations.
Specifically, Kuiper urges the Commission to reexamine the prior
decision to increase the share of space station regulatory fees
assessed to NGSO space stations from 20% to 40%. Kuiper presents no new
evidence regarding the amount of FTE burdens attributable to GSO and
NGSO space stations, but instead relies on arguments previously made
and rejected by the Commission. Likewise, the Commission declines to
revisit decisions made in the recent FY 2024 Third Report and Order.
Commenters urge the Commission to change the 60-40% allocation of NGSO
space station FTEs between small and large NGSO constellations, either
to assess a greater share of FTE burdens to small constellations, or a
greater share of FTE burdens to large constellations. The Commission
declines at this time to revisit a decision made a little less than
three months ago. As the Commission does each year, however, it will
continue to examine the appropriate allocation of FTE burdens as part
of future annual regulatory fee assessment proceedings. Likewise, the
Commission will continue to consider potential amendments to its
regulatory fee methodologies in future regulatory fee assessment
proceedings, as urged by commenters, although the Commission declines
to commence a rulemaking proceeding at this time specifically to
address space station regulatory fees for FY 2026.
The Commission declines to interpret ``authorized stations'' solely
as stations ``that have received unconditional permission to provide
service without the need for further agency action,'' as requested by
Kin[eacute]is. Kin[eacute]is argues that the placement of a condition
on an authorization that must be satisfied at a later date leaves
unclear the ultimate ability to commence service, and therefore a space
station should not be deemed ``authorized'' until the Commission
determines that the condition has been satisfied and grants an
unconditional authorization. Kin[eacute]is's request returns to a focus
on the operational status of the space station as the basis for
assessing regulatory fees, although the Commission just recently
determined that the operational status of a space or earth station
should no longer be the deciding factor of whether space and earth
station regulatory fees should be assessed. In the FY 2024 Third Report
and Order, the Commission's decision to assess regulatory fees on
authorized stations, rather than operational space stations, recognizes
that significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of space
and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational, and that
if an authorized space station never becomes operational, then the FTE
burdens associated with regulating such space stations would never be
recovered and have to be borne by stations that are operational. These
considerations equally apply to space stations that are authorized, but
subject to a condition that needs to be fulfilled by the licensee or
grantee prior to becoming operational, or prior to accessing the U.S.
market (in the case of a non-U.S. licensed space station).
Furthermore, the Commission found that assessing regulatory fees on
authorized stations broadens the base of regulatory fee payors,
spreading the recovery of fees from all licensees and grantees that
benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities,
and potentially lowering the per unit regulatory fee burden by
increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed. This
rationale for adopting regulatory fees on authorized stations would be
undermined by not assessing regulatory fees on space stations that are
authorized, but are subject to conditions that need to be fulfilled
prior to commencing operations. Not assessing regulatory fees
[[Page 43291]]
until all aspects of an application are fully resolved could
effectively remove a significant number of current fee payors from
regulatory fee assessments. It would also require Commission staff to
determine whether the conditions placed on every space and earth
station grant prevent the licensee from commencing operations, which
risks being subjective and administratively burdensome.
Broadcast Television Stations
Having received no response to the Commission's FY 2025 NPRM
proposals for assessing full-power broadcast stations, the Commission
will continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast television
stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast
television station's contour as the Commission has since 2020. The
population-based methodology conforms with the service authorized
here--broadcasting television to the American people. The Commission
will also continue its use of 2020 U.S. Census data to assess fees for
full-power broadcast television stations, as it traditionally has over
the last few years. The population data for broadcasters' service areas
are determined using the TVStudy software and the Licensing and
Management System (LMS) database, based on a station's projected noise-
limited service contour. However, consistent with the Commission's
decision in FY 2024, the Commission explains that it will base
assessments on limiting the population count of full-power television
stations that rely on satellite television stations to reach terrain-
limited areas in Puerto Rico. The Commission adopts a factor of
$.006674 per population served for the FY 2025 full-power broadcast
television station fee. The population data for each licensee and the
population-based fee (population multiplied by $.006674 for each full-
power broadcast television station) are listed in Table 7.
Proposed New Regulatory Fee Categories
In the FY 2025 NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on whether
it should consider any new regulatory fee categories. In exercising the
Commission's Congressional mandate to collect regulatory fees each
fiscal year, the Commission proceeds with careful consideration and
make changes in its process, including the adoption of new fee
categories and the accompanying assessment methodologies, only after
fully developing the record. This meticulous approach to making changes
serves the goal of ensuring that the Commission's actions in assessing
regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable.
For FY 2025, the Commission rejects the proposals to add new
regulatory fee categories because they fail to satisfy this standard.
NAB and Telesat propose that the Commission should adopt five new
regulatory fee categories to expand the base of fee payors.
Specifically, they suggest that the Commission adopt fee categories for
broadband service providers, large technology companies, equipment
authorization holders, experimental license holders, and entities that
provide database services to enable the provision of unlicensed
services. Iridium and the State Broadcasters Associations support these
proposals; however, CTIA, the Wi-Fi Alliance, Kin[eacute]is, NCTA, the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the Consumer
Technology Association (CTA) strongly oppose them. The Commission does
not adopt new fee categories at this time.
The Commission also declines NAB's proposal, supported by Iridium
and the State Broadcasters Associations, to hold ``roundtables'' to
discuss such matters in advance of the FY 2026 notice of proposed
rulemaking. NAB claims that a lack of access to internal Commission FTE
data constrains their and other commenters' ability to offer more
detailed proposals and therefore the Commission should work with
interested stakeholders to close these information gaps. Notably, some
commenters do not agree. The Wi-Fi Alliance describes the proposal to
as ``unwarranted.'' CTIA also maintains that there is no need to hold
roundtables to gather additional information on creating new fee
categories. Specifically, CTIA explains that such roundtables would
create a duplicative process for stakeholders to continue to raise
issues that the Commission has already considered because its annual
rulemaking process provides ``ample'' opportunity for it and relevant
stakeholders to consider changes to the regulatory fee process. CTA too
disagrees with NAB's proposals, explaining that access to Commission
staffing data is not a real problem that prevents NAB from defining the
new fee categories it wants the Commission to create.
The Commission agrees with commenters that contend that convening
roundtables is unnecessary. The Commission has extensively explained
its reasoning with respect to the work of its FTEs that is both direct
and indirect, and concludes that nothing has changed herein. Moreover,
parties already have the ability to present new arguments and evidence
to Commission staff in advance of the next fiscal year's regulatory
fees rulemaking, thus rendering it inefficient for the Commission to
host open-ended, presumably contentious stakeholder discussions that
appear unlikely to yield a framework for the adoption of new fee
categories that is fair, administrable, and sustainable. Hosting a
forum for parties to rehash comments from prior years or to explore the
granular details of the Commission's FTE work assignments and burdens
is unlikely to persuade the Commission to adopt a new fee category.
Broadband internet Access Service Providers and Large Technology
Companies. The Commission is not persuaded by NAB's arguments, which
Iridium and the State Broadcasters Associations support, that it should
create a new regulatory fee category for either broadband internet
service providers or large technology companies to expand the base of
fee payors beyond licensees to other entities that benefit from its
activities. Many commenters strongly reject these proposals.
Although NAB concedes that some of these types of entities may
already pay regulatory fees for certain services, it nonetheless claims
that they ``escape paying the full amount of fees associated with their
operations (e.g., broadband services or equipment authorizations), even
when those services directly benefit from FCC activity.'' NAB maintains
that a larger array of entities other than those currently paying
regulatory fees benefit from the Commission's work. Notably, however,
NAB offers no specific examples of what it believes to be the
unaccounted FTE burden associated with oversight and regulation of
these unnamed entities. Similarly, Iridium suggests that the Commission
can ``add new payors over time as it determines appropriate fees for
the activities that benefit them,'' but also provides no concrete
suggestions as to how to differentiate such activities from those that
are already covered by the Commission's existing regulatory fee
categories. In support of NAB's proposals, the State Broadcasters
Associations generally contend that as a matter of fairness, the
Commission must look for entities that benefit from the Commission's
work but have escaped paying regulatory fees because their benefits do
not include a physical license issued by one of the core bureaus. While
the State Broadcasters Associations claim that broadcasters and other
licensed entities ``unfairly subsidize'' much ``larger entities in
healthy and growing industries that are far more able to bear the
operating costs
[[Page 43292]]
of the Commission,'' it also fails to include any specificity as to
which larger entities should fall into new fee categories.
The Commission will add a new fee category where it can determine
that significant FTE resources of a core bureau are being spent on
oversight and regulatory activities with respect to a specific service
necessitating a new regulatory fee category. The Commission states such
circumstances have not been presented here. As the Commission has
previously explained, there is no specific bureau or office in the
Commission with oversight of all broadband services because the work of
Commission FTEs on broadband matters is spread out among most of its
organizational units, including the core bureaus. Providers offering
broadband internet access services are involved in many Commission
initiatives and proceedings and are, in many cases, already responsible
for regulatory fees. Broadband internet access services are offered
through various technical means and by widely differing entities and to
distinct user groups, e.g., wireless service providers, wireline
service providers (including VoIP), cable operators, and satellite
operators, to consumers and businesses, on both a retail and wholesale
basis. Thus, such service is offered by different types of providers
and is delivered to end users in different ways. Accordingly, the
Commission agrees with the Commission's conclusion from just last year
that ``creating a new regulatory fee category for broadband internet
access services appears to be redundant with existing fee categories in
the case of those broadband internet access service providers that
otherwise already were subject to the existing fee categories, and thus
a new fee category in this regard is not administrable at this time.''
Additionally, the Commission recognizes that these same observations
regarding the work being spread throughout the Commission could hold
equally true for large technology companies, many of which may offer or
rely upon broadband services.
As Wi-Fi Alliance points out, NAB's proposal to create a new fee
category for large technology companies is too vague in its description
of entities that would fall into this category or how the Commission
could make such determinations to be administrable. CTA also strongly
urges the Commission to reject NAB's proposal to adopt a new fee
category for what it calls a ``vaguely defined'' group because NAB's
suggestion is unworkable and lacks clarity. CTA further points out the
NAB's proposal reiterates prior flawed arguments.
The Commission agrees with commenters that NAB's proposal for
either of these new fee categories would be inconsistent with its
policy goals of having regulatory fees that are fair, administrable,
and sustainable. Commenters advocating for these new fee categories
have failed to indicate how their adoption would fit within the
Commission's current regulatory fee methodology. For example, claims
that large technology companies ``benefit significantly'' from the
Commission's work--presumably work promoting the deployment of
broadband upon which they rely to reach consumers--are not sufficient.
As CTA correctly observes, consumers likewise benefit immensely from
having fast and reliable broadband available, but if any benefits--no
matter how attenuated--were the criterion, they too would be subject to
regulatory fees.
By merely reiterating the arguments that NAB acknowledges it has
offered before, the Commission concludes NAB has failed to present any
new basis or evidence to demonstrate that a broadband internet access
service provider or large technology company regulatory fee category is
necessary for this fiscal year. Likewise, the Commission reasons,
Iridium's support of adopting new fee payor categories, without
explaining a foundational basis or framework to do so, does not offer a
workable solution. NAB, and supporting commenters, have not offered any
new reason to revisit the Commission's prior determination that it
would be administratively difficult to try to determine the FTEs that
should be included in either of these proposed new regulatory fee
categories. Likewise, convening roundtables to explore these proposals
is not likely to solve such problems with administrable feasibility.
It is also worth noting, as the Commission has previously, that
because the amount of regulatory fees collected from each core bureau
is based on the number of non-auctions FTEs in each bureau, adding a
new broadband internet access or large technology fee category would be
unlikely to change the number of Media Bureau FTEs devoted to broadcast
issues. Rather, as NCTA reasons, the Commission's efforts to modernize
its media rules should, over time, result in decreased regulatory fees
for Media Bureau regulatees as the Commission's deregulatory endeavors
reduce the amount of time and effort Commission FTEs must devote to
regulating the industry.
The Commission finds no basis to conclude that adopting either of
these fee categories would satisfy the factors that the Commission has
previously relied on to create a new regulatory fee category.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes, as the Commission has over the
last several years, that Section 9 of the Act does not require the
creation of either category.
Holders of Equipment Authorizations. The Commission also declines
to adopt Telesat's and NAB's proposals to create a new regulatory fee
category for manufacturers or others that hold equipment
authorizations. Here too, the Commission finds that the record does not
provide a sufficient basis, consistent with Section 9 of the Act, for
the adoption of a new regulatory fee category. In the instances where
the Commission has adopted a new fee category, it has done so based on
a determination that significant FTE resources of a core bureau were
being spent on oversight and regulatory activities with respect to a
specific service. As the Commission has previously decided, the
Commission again concludes that those circumstances with respect to
equipment manufacturers are absent here.
Telesat generally maintains that because the Commission has broad
authority to regulate services and equipment integral to the nation's
communications networks, that authority should extend to recovering the
cost of regulating manufacturers of equipment and the Commission should
be able to recoup a significant amount of FTE time devoted to equipment
authorizations. NAB includes entities that hold equipment
authorizations in its broad list of those who ``often escape paying the
full amount of fees associated with their operations'' even though they
benefit directly from Commission activity. Both Iridium and the State
Broadcasters Associations support this proposal generally, but neither
provides any specificity with respect to how the Commission should
administer a new fee category for holders of equipment authorizations.
As with other proposed fee categories, several reply commenters
strongly maintain that the Commission should reject this proposal as it
has in years past. For instance, TIA contends that NAB is recycling its
prior rejected arguments that these types of entities are not paying
regulatory fees and points out that such entities are not ``escaping
fees'' as NAB alleges because they are already subject to authorization
fees to third-party test labs and the Commission's authorized
Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs). CTA agrees, explaining
that the
[[Page 43293]]
proposal for such a fee category ``ignores how the process actually
works.'' CTA, like TIA, explains that because the Commission has
outsourced nearly all testing and certification work, ``there is no
free regulatory ride'' for these entities, but rather ``only a system
that functions efficiently because the Commission wisely chose to
privatize much of the burden.'' The Wi-Fi Alliance asserts that because
there are multiple categories of equipment authorization, this proposal
presents challenges in determining a fair, administrable, or
sustainable fee system. Finally, Kin[eacute]is calls the proposal for
this class of regulatory fees ``ill-defined'' and explains that
authorization holders have different and varied interactions with the
Commission.
The Commission states that it is not persuaded to add a new fee
category at this time. Nothing has changed from the Commission's
examination last year of the functions of the Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET) and its FTE work dedicated to equipment
authorizations. As the Commission has repeatedly explained, it
classifies OET FTEs as indirect because their work benefits the
Commission and the industry as a whole and is not specifically focused
on the regulatory fee payors and licensees of a specific core bureau.
Many devices, including those operating wholly or in part on an
unlicensed basis, are exempt from equipment authorization requirements.
Moreover, devices that are not exempt are tested by competent test
labs, and if certification is required, applications are submitted to
Telecommunications Certification Bodies. Other devices, generally those
considered to have reduced potential to cause RF interference, are
authorized pursuant to the Commission's SDoC process, which provides
for the equipment to be authorized based on the responsible party's
self-declaration that the equipment complies with the pertinent
Commission requirements. As the Commission concluded last year, its
``regulatory framework does not include an efficient way to identify
equipment, specifically that which is exempt from authorization or
authorized pursuant to SDoC procedures, that operate on an unlicensed
(as opposed to licensed) basis.'' As was the case last year, commenters
have not provided suggestions for an efficient methodology to obtain
this type of information. In other words, as the Commission referenced
last year, any FTE time devoted to this is proportionately small, and
it has no method currently to segregate out the portion of direct FTE
time devoted to such matters.
CTIA argues that, as in prior years, commenters advocating for this
fee category have failed to provide any new reason or basis for the
Commission to reverse course on its longstanding policy to exclude
equipment authorizations from regulatory fees. Likewise, Wi-Fi Alliance
maintains that commenters requesting this fee category have failed to
demonstrate why the FTE burden of work conducted by OET for this
category should not continue to be classified as indirect. The
Commission agrees with these commenters and concludes, as it has
previously found, that the work of OET FTEs concerning manufacturers
and other holders of equipment authorizations benefits the Commission
as a whole and industries in each of the core bureaus.
Furthermore, as the Commission has also previously opined,
``equipment that operates on spectrum on an unlicensed basis is diverse
in nature, ubiquitous, and used for many purposes including non-
communications purposes.'' Thus, the Commission explains that focusing
on the service provided would not create a clear and administrable
regulatory fee category, and at this time it remains unclear how it
could distill a specific group of users, service providers, or
manufacturers to form the core of a regulatory fee category. As in past
years, under the current Commission equipment authorization regime, it
does not collect information from or communicate with all device
manufacturers. Accordingly, the Commission finds that a new regulatory
fee category for manufacturers and other holders of equipment
authorizations, on the basis of the instant record, is not consistent
with Section 9 of the Communications Act and is not practicable at this
time. The Commission therefore declines to adopt such a regulatory fee
category.
Experimental License Holders. The Commission also disagrees with
Telesat that experimental license holders should comprise a category of
regulatory fee payors. Telesat proposes that the Commission impose
regulatory fees on experimental license holders because such entities
have ``chosen to invoke the Commission's processes'' and should
therefore pay their fair share of regulatory expenses. Telesat argues
that for-profit companies with experimental authority should be charged
regulatory fees, just as they must pay application fees when seeking
experimental licenses. Telesat further reasons that it is equitable to
impose regulatory fees on experimental license holders because
experimental authority confers important benefits that allow commercial
entities to develop new technologies, and these parties should
reimburse the Commission for the associated regulatory costs, rather
than burdening other fee payors with those costs.
Other commenters oppose this proposal and advocate that the
Commission should reject it as the Commission has in the past.
Kin[eacute]is asserts that unlike broadcast, wireless, or satellite
licensees that hold their licenses for lengthy, defined terms of years,
experimental license holders may obtain authority for periods as
limited as a few days or weeks (e.g., experimental STAs). CTIA
maintains that the Commission should reject calls to create new
regulatory fee categories for experimental license holders. CTIA points
to the Commission's previously stated reasoning for classifying OET
FTEs as indirect, as well as its conclusions that experimental
licensing affects multiple core bureaus and that fees for such users
would be unworkable and logistically infeasible to collect. Wi-Fi
Alliance agrees and states that the Commission has correctly rejected
nearly identical proposals in each of the past few years, and
commenters proposing these changes for FY 2025 have not identified any
material change that warrants the Commission reaching a different
decision now.
The Commission agrees with commenters opposing this proposal.
Experimental licenses are granted subject to coordination and as
secondary to all licensed services regulated by other bureaus. In the
FY 2022 Report and Order, the Commission concluded that although
``resources are expended on processing experimental applications, these
licenses are approved for a proposed experiment or range of
experiments, and not for an actual operational service under
established service rules providing some level of interference
protection.'' The Commission finds that Telesat has not provided any
new argument or evidence to convince it that an experimental license is
the same as--or even sufficiently similar to--other Commission licenses
such that it should be subject to a regulatory fee, even if it incurs
an application fee. Nor has Telesat set forth any other persuasive
reason why the Commission should revisit that decision. Accordingly,
for all the reasons offered by the Commission over the last several
years, which the Commission incorporates here, as well as the
significant record opposing this proposal, the Commission declines to
adopt a regulatory fee category for
[[Page 43294]]
experimental license holders at this time.
Entities that Provide Database Services to Unlicensed Spectrum
Users. The Commission is equally unpersuaded to adopt a regulatory fee
category for entities that provide database services to unlicensed
spectrum users. Telesat proposes that the Commission adopt a new fee
category for entities that provide database services to unlicensed
spectrum users, claiming that such fees would be consistent with those
the Commission assesses for Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that
administer the Toll Free Numbers (TFN) database.
Notably, this is not the first time this exact suggestion has been
raised before the Commission. Telesat offered this same analogy to
``RespOrgs'' in reply comments offered by the Satellite Operators (of
which it was a party) in the Commission's FY 2023 regulatory fees
proceeding. The Commission was not persuaded by it then, nor is the
Commission now. When the Commission last considered this proposal, it
correctly explained: the suggestion that it create a regulatory fee
category for only these database administrators ignores the fact that,
under the Commission's rules, there are a variety of database
administrators and spectrum coordinators (e.g., television white space
devices, 6 GHz devices, and fixed, personal/portable, and mobile
devices). Thus, focusing solely on database administrators enabling the
use of spectrum on an unlicensed basis, i.e., selecting one type of
database administrator, due to the connection with users of spectrum on
an unlicensed basis, appears to be a tactic to assess regulatory fees
on certain users of spectrum on an unlicensed basis.
Furthermore, the Commission finds the record does not support this
proposal. For instance, Wi-Fi Alliance objects, explaining that
``relevant FTE activities related to these databases--i.e., rulemakings
to establish the databases and ensure the administrators have the
requisite technical expertise--benefit a broad range of industries
across the Commission, including both licensed and unlicensed entities
and are thus consistent with the treatment of these FTEs as indirect.''
The Commission agrees with this observation, which is also consistent
with the Commission's decision in FY 2023.
Telesat has failed to offer any evidence for the Commission to
conclude that there are sufficient benefits (i.e., FTE work in
oversight or regulation) provided by the Commission each fiscal year to
these types of database operators that warrant creating a regulatory
fee category at this time. The Commission acknowledges that in
establishing any set of rules that allow database operators to support
unlicensed spectrum users, FTE time may be devoted to adopting
regulations for database operators to perform such functions. But as a
general matter, particularly in the absence of specific, contradictory
evidence, the Commission would expect such FTE time to be minimal and
almost always a one-time effort which provides an insufficient basis
upon which to assess regulatory fees each fiscal year. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that a new regulatory fee category for entities that
provide database management for unlicensed spectrum users is not
consistent with Section 9 of the Communications Act. The Commission
therefore declines to adopt such a regulatory fee category.
Procedural Matters
The Commission includes procedural items as well as current
payments and collection methods. These payments and collection
procedures are a useful way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the
public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection
process.
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, one 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 the Username. If unable to register
electronically, fax the application for a Registration Number (FCC Form
160) to the CORES Helpdesk at (202) 418-7869 for filing procedures.
Credit Card Transaction Levels. In accordance with Treasury
Financial Manual, Volume I, Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7065.20a--
Credit Card Collections, the total daily credit card transactions
processed from a single customer can be no more than $24,999.99
(hereinafter the ``Maximum Daily Limit'') and the total monthly
transactions processed from a single customer (based on a rolling 30-
day period) can be no more than $100,000.00 (hereinafter the ``Maximum
Monthly Limit''). Transactions greater than the Maximum Limits will be
rejected. If a customer initiates multiple transactions on the same day
with the same credit card, those transactions causing the total charge
to exceed the Maximum Limits will also be rejected. This 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 debit cards,
Automates Clearing House (ACH) debits from a bank account, and wire
transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing
regulatory fee information in the Commission's Registration System
(CORES). Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and
procedures at the time of FY 2025 regulatory fee collection in Fact
Sheets, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/regfees">https://www.fcc.gov/regfees</a>.
Payment Methods. During the fee season for collecting regulatory
fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>,
ACH, debit card, or by wire transfer. Additional payment instructions
are posted on the Commission's website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer">https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer">https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer</a>.
De Minimis Regulatory Fees, Section 9(e)(2) Exemption. Under the de
minimis rule, and pursuant to the Commission's analysis under Section
9(e)(2) of the Act, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees
if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is
$1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies
only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid
through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each
regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability
[[Page 43295]]
each fiscal year to determine whether it meets the de minimis
exemption.
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:
<bullet> Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial
construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2024 for
AM/FM radio stations, full-power VHF/UHF broadcast television stations,
and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all
broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2024.
<bullet> Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must
be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1,
2024. In instances where an authorization is transferred or assigned
after October 1, 2024, responsibility for payment rests with the holder
of the authorization 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 Sec.
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, 2024.
<bullet> Wireless Services: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of
subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid
for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2024. The
number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2024
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, 2024, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of
the permit or license as of the fee due date.
<bullet> Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight
regulatory fee categories in the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory
Fees (first seven in its Calculation of Fees Table) pay ``small multi-
year wireless regulatory fees.'' Entities pay these regulatory fees in
advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-
year terms of their initial licenses and pay regulatory fees again only
when the license is renewed, or a new license is obtained. The
Commission includes these fee categories in its rulemaking to publicize
its estimates of the number of ``small multi-year wireless'' licenses
that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2025.
<bullet> Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) Services
(cable television operators, Cable Television Relay Service (CARS)
licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number
of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2024.
Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted
on or before October 1, 2024. In instances where a permit or license is
transferred or assigned after October 1, 2024, 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, 2024. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or
assigned after October 1, 2024, responsibility for payment rests with
the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.
<bullet> Space Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for earth
stations that were licensed (or authorized) on or before October 1,
2024. Regulatory fees must also be paid for geostationary orbit space
stations (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems (NGSO),
and the two NGSO subcategories ``Small Constellations '' and ``Large
Constellations,'' that were authorized or granted U.S. market access on
or before October 1, 2024. Licensees of small satellites and RPO, OOS,
and OTV space stations that were authorized or granted U.S. market
access on or before October 1, 2024 must also pay regulatory fees. In
instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after
October 1, 2024, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of
the authorization as of the fee due date.
<bullet> 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, 2024. Regulatory fees for
terrestrial and satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or
leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2024, 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, 2024. 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,
2024, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or
license as of the fee due date.
CMRS and Mobile Services Assessments. The Commission will compile
data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report
that is based on ``assigned'' telephone number (subscriber) counts that
have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (``in'' and
``out''). The Commission has included non-geographic numbers in the
calculation of the number of subscribers for each CMRS provider in
Table 2 and the CMRS regulatory fee factor proposed in Table 3. CMRS
provider regulatory fees will be calculated and should be paid based on
the inclusion of non-geographic numbers. CMRS providers can adjust the
total number of subscribers, if needed. This information of telephone
numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on CORES along with the
carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).
A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count
can do so by accessing CORES and following the prompts to revise their
telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts
should be accompanied by an explanation. The Commission will then
review the revised count and supporting explanation, if any, and either
approve or disapprove the submission in CORES. If the submission is
disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the
provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or
provide supporting documentation. If the Commission receives no
response from the provider, or the Commission does not reverse its
initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee
payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in
CORES. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number
counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are
to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in
CORES.
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
[[Page 43296]]
counts as of December 31, 2024), 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. If the Commission
determines that a carrier paid CMRS or mobile services regulatory fees
based on an incorrect number of telephone numbers, the Commission will
bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what
should have been paid.
Effective Date. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register
publication before this FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and Order
becomes effective as normally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not
allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2025 fees before FY 2025 ends
on September 30, 2025. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
the Commission finds there is good cause to waive the requirements of
section 553(d), and the FY 2025 Regulatory Fees 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 FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and
Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their
payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 43297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.003
[[Page 43298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.004
[[Page 43299]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.005
[[Page 43300]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.006
[[Page 43301]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.008
[[Page 43302]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.009
Table 4--Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2025
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2025, we
adjusted FY 2024 payment units for each service to more accurately
reflect expected FY 2025 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated
estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, we used
Commission licensee databases, 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), 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 are received after the 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, 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 these regulatees can recover their
fee obligations from their customers.
We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources
and, in all cases, we compared FY 2025 estimates with actual FY 2024
payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable.
Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to
take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on
the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient
accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions
that may occur in FY 2025 and the fact that, in many services, the
number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates over time
due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for
example, that our estimated FY 2025 payment units are based on FY 2024
actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2025
projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2024. We have either
rounded the FY 2025 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these
variables.
[[Page 43303]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.010
[[Page 43304]]
Table 5--Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine Signal
Contours and Associated Population Coverages
AM Stations
For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical
radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional
daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including
field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as
the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all
directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter
(mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented
standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was
calculated using techniques and methods specified in Sec. Sec. 73.150
and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated
for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated
soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the
information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation
values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the
principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360
radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were
used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was
accomplished by determining which 2020 block centroids were contained
in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area
containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum
of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total
population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
FM Stations
The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power
(ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m)
combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level
(HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure
to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study.
Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to
produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were
used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves
specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the
distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt
per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The
resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a
geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by
determining which 2020 block centroids were contained in the polygon.
The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents
the total population for the predicted principal community coverage
area.
[[Page 43305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.011
[[Page 43306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.012
[[Page 43307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.013
[[Page 43308]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.014
[[Page 43309]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.015
[[Page 43310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.016
[[Page 43311]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.017
[[Page 43312]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.018
[[Page 43313]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.020
[[Page 43314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.021
[[Page 43315]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.022
[[Page 43316]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.023
[[Page 43317]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.024
[[Page 43318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.025
[[Page 43319]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.026
[[Page 43320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.027
[[Page 43321]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.028
[[Page 43322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.029
[[Page 43323]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.030
[[Page 43324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.031
[[Page 43325]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.032
[[Page 43326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.033
[[Page 43327]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.034
[[Page 43328]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.035
[[Page 43329]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.036
[[Page 43330]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.037
[[Page 43331]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.038
[[Page 43332]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.039
[[Page 43333]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.040
[[Page 43334]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.041
[[Page 43335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.042
[[Page 43336]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.043
[[Page 43337]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.044
[[Page 43338]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.045
[[Page 43339]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.046
[[Page 43340]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.047
[[Page 43341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.048
[[Page 43342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.049
[[Page 43343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.050
[[Page 43344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.051
[[Page 43345]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.052
[[Page 43346]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.053
[[Page 43347]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.054
[[Page 43348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.055
[[Page 43349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.056
[[Page 43350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.057
[[Page 43351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.058
[[Page 43352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.059
[[Page 43353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.060
[[Page 43354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.061
[[Page 43355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.062
[[Page 43356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.063
[[Page 43357]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.064
[[Page 43358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.065
[[Page 43359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.066
[[Page 43360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.067
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Review of the
Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal
Year 2025, released in June 2025. The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the FY 2025 NPRM, including comment on the
IFRA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. In the FY 2025
Report and Order, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule to
meet its objective of fully complying with its congressionally mandated
requirement of collecting regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2025.
For FY 2025, the Commission is required to collect $390,192,000 in
regulatory fees, an amount equal to the Commission's annual salaries
and expenses appropriation, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and the
Commission's FY 2025 Further Consolidation Appropriations Act. The
Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees must ``reflect
the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and
offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that
are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee
by the Commission's activities.'' The total amount the Commission must
collect in an offsetting collection generally changes each fiscal year,
and payors' regulatory fees will also typically change each fiscal year
as a mathematical consequence of the changes in the total amount to be
collected, the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs), and projected
unit estimates for each regulatory fee category.
In the FY 2025 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on several
regulatory fee issues, including: (i) the proposed regulatory fees and
methodology for FY 2025, as set forth in Tables 2, 3, and 6; (ii) the
calculation of television broadcaster regulatory fees as set forth in
Table 7; and (iii) whether any new regulatory fee categories or
processes will improve its ability to meet its statutory obligations to
assess and collect regulatory fees. For FY 2025, the Commission adopts,
with modification, the regulatory fee schedule set forth in Tables 2
and 3 to the Report and Order.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA. Although not specifically filed in response to the IRFA,
comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rulemaking by
small satellite and constellation entities Telesat Corporation, Iridium
Communications, Inc., and Kin[eacute]is, arguing that the Commission
should revisit its recent determinations regarding the targeted
amendments it will implement to the methodology we use to assess
regulatory fees for space and earth stations. Additionally, although
they also were not filed in response to the IRFA, two commenters, NAB
and Telesat, submitted proposals suggesting that the Commission should
consider adopting
[[Page 43361]]
new fee categories, arguing that fairness requires the Commission to
expand regulatory fee categories to include additional entities that
utilize, and are beneficiaries of Commission resources, but are not
currently assessed regulatory fees. The proposals regarding new fee
categories were supported by Iridium and the States Broadcasters
Association, but strongly opposed by other commenters, including CTIA,
the Wi-Fi Alliance, Kin[eacute]is, NCTA, TIA and the CTA. In section F
below, we address these comments.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to
any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any
change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The
Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description
of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as under
the Small Business Act. In addition, the term ``small business'' has
the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset,
three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected
herein. In general, a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75
million businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules adopted in the Report and Order will apply to small
entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-
digit North American Industry Classification System codes and
corresponding SBA size standard.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.068
Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the
estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we
conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of
small entities. Where available, we provide additional information
regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the above
identified industries, and information for other affected entities, as
follows.
[[Page 43362]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.069
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has
developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of cable
rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are
small under this size standard.
Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a ``small cable
operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size standard.
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. According to Commission
data, only two entities provide DBS service, DIRECTV (owned by AT&T)
and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation.
DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for
classification as a small business.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE25.070
Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities.
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed
rules on small entities, as well
[[Page 43363]]
as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
The Report and Order does not adopt any changes to the Commission's
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for
collecting regulatory fees from regulatees. Small and other regulated
entities are required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The
cost of compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small
entities is the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category,
based upon the methodology employed by the Commission in FY 2025 to
determine the allocation of direct FTEs within the core bureaus, and
indirect FTEs in non-core bureaus and offices.
In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts the FY 2025 targeted
amendments to the regulatory fee methodology adopted in the FY 2024
Third Report and Order, expanding the assessment of fees to include
authorized--not just operational--space stations. This change broadens
the fee base for GSO (Geostationary Orbit) and NGSO (Non-Geostationary
Orbit) space station licensees and ensures more equitable cost recovery
from all licensees and grantees that benefit from for the Space
Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities. Nevertheless, while some
small space station regulatees may see a decrease in their assessment
fee, other small space station regulatees that may not have been
assessed regulatory fees under the prior methodology will now be
subject to regulatory fee payment compliance obligation and may have to
hire professionals to comply. Small station regulatees that have
previously paid regulatory fees should not require professional
assistance to comply, as they are generally familiar with the
Commission's current collection procedures.
Small entities facing financial hardship from the regulatory
assessments adopted in the Report and Order may qualify for fee relief
through waivers, reductions, deferrals, or installment payments.
Additionally, small entities may be exempt from regulatory fees if the
assessed amount falls below the Commission's established de minimis
threshold.
Discussion of Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic
Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The
RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small
entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal
reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why
each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered
by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.''
In response to the FY 2025 NPRM, the Commission received comments
proposing alternatives to various elements of the methodology for
assessing regulatory fees, the FY 2025 regulatory fee schedule, as well
as proposals advocating the adoption of new fee categories for the
collection of regulatory fees. After considering those comments and the
Commission's precedent, the regulatory fees adopted in the Report and
Order reflect the Commission's efforts to minimize significant economic
impact on small entities when practicable. Below is a discussion of
some of the steps the Commission has taken in the Report and Order and
alternative proposals it considered in reaching its conclusions.
Assessment of Regulatory Fees. For FY 2025, we employ the same
long-standing methodology as the Commission has applied in FY 2023 and
2024 as well as targeted amendments the Commission adopted in June 2025
to the methodology we use to assess regulatory fees for space and earth
stations. However, we conclude as the Commission did in FY 2023 and
2024, that the work of certain FTEs located in the Office of General
Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau merits reallocation as direct FTEs to a
core bureau. Based on the results of our staff's high-level evaluation
of the work conducted within the Commission, we conclude that certain
indirect FTEs could be reassigned as direct FTEs, and we incorporate
these into the count of FTEs of the relevant core bureau for purposes
of calculating regulatory fees for FY 2025, which could reduce
regulatory fee obligations for some small and other regulatory fee
payees.
In the Report and Order, we also considered and rejected the
alternatives proposed by commenters, including Telesat, Iridium,
Kin[eacute]is, regarding the targeted amendments the Commission adopted
in June 2025 to the methodology we use to assess regulatory fees for
space and earth stations as well as the proposals of NAB and Telesat,
supported by Iridium and the State Broadcasters Associations, proposing
to adopt new regulatory fee categories to include broadband service
providers, experimental license holders, equipment authorization
holders, and database administrators for unlicensed services as new
categories of payors. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
declines to adopt any of these new fee payor categories which would
impose new economic burdens on small entities in these categories.
For each of the suggested new categories of payors, commenters
proposing or supporting these additions failed to provide with
specificity the entities that would be included in the new categories,
the factors the Commission would use to make such a determination, new
information to justify the new categories, and a framework for
administration of these new categories within the Commission's current
regulatory fee assessment methodology. More specifically, Telesat, NAB,
nor Iridium provided specific examples of the FTE burden it associates
with the oversight and regulation of the unidentified additional
entities, or any new evidence to support assessing regulatory fees for
the proposed new categories. Additionally, some of the comments and
proposals seek to revisit matters the Commission recently resolved.
For example, the Commission addressed the assessment of regulatory
fees on broadband service providers last year concluding that
``creating a new regulatory fee category for broadband internet access
services appears to be redundant with existing fee categories in the
case of those broadband internet access service providers that
otherwise already were subject to the existing fee categories, and thus
a new fee category in this regard is not administrable at this time.''
Similarly, the comments and alternatives proposed by Kuiper and
Kin[eacute]is attempt to revisit recent Commission space station
regulatory fee methodology determinations. Kuiper advocates for a
change to the 60-40% allocation of NGSO space station FTEs between
small and large NGSO constellations the Commission adopted in the FY
2024 Second Report and Order, to allocate a larger share of FTE burdens
to small constellations. Kin[eacute]is seeks to carve out licensees
with conditional authorization from regulatory fee assessments which
the Commission determined in the FY 2024 Third Report and Order would
be based on authorized stations, rather than operational space
stations. Kin[eacute]is requests that the Commission interpret
``authorized stations'' solely as stations ``that have received
unconditional permission to provide service without the need for
further agency action.''
[[Page 43364]]
Based on the record, there is no basis for the Commission to
conclude that adopting any new fee categories would align with the
factors the Commission has previously considered for establishing a new
regulatory fee category. Likewise, there is no basis for the Commission
to revisit recent regulatory assessment methodology fee determinations,
or to change existing regulatory fee assessment methodologies discussed
herein.
Broadcast Regulatory Fees. In the Report and Order, the Commission
did not receive any comments on the FY 2025 NPRM proposals for full-
power broadcast stations regulatory fee assessments, and therefore
continues to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations
based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television
station's contour, which may reduce the economic impact of the
regulatory fees for some small licensees. While the population-based
methodology used to calculate full-power broadcast television station
regulatory fees decreases fees for some licensees and increases fees
for others, the Commission believes the population-based metric better
conforms with the service of broadcasting television to the American
people.
Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the FY 2025
Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the FY 2025 Report and
Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will publish a copy of the FY
2025 Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
9, 9A, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, 159a, and 303(r), the FY 2025 Regulatory
Fees Report and Order is hereby adopted.
It is further ordered that the FY 2025 Section 9 regulatory fees
assessment requirements are adopted as specified herein.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary
shall send a copy of the FY 2025 Regulatory Fees Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-17218 Filed 9-5-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 8, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.