Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of $374,000,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2021. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under respectively.

DATES:

Effective September 22, 2021. To avoid penalties and interest, regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 24, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 21-98, MD Docket No. 21-190, adopted on August 25, 2021 and released on August 26, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection by downloading the text from the Commission's website at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

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

C. Congressional Review Act

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

3. In this Report and Order, we adopt a schedule to collect the $374,000,000 in congressionally required regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2021. The regulatory fees for all payors are due on September 24, 2021.

4. This Report and Order addresses the issues that were raised in the FY 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including: (i) The use of non-geographic numbers in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) provider; (ii) ending our phase-in of direct broadcast satellite (DBS) regulatory fees, and have the Media Bureau-based DBS regulatory fee category to be in the same fee category as cable television and internet Protocol Television (IPTV); (iii) continuing to assess regulatory fees for full service broadcast television on population-based methodology that we used for FY 2020, including changes that we adopted previously for stations in Puerto Rico; (iv) apportioning NGSO regulatory fees between the new NGSO fee subcategories for “less complex” NGSO systems and “other” NGSO systems, taking into account the relative benefits provided to them from our oversight and regulatory activities; and (v) extending our streamlined waiver provisions adopted in FY 2020 for FY 2021. These issues are discussed below.

II. Report and Order

A. Issues Raised by Commenters

5. Broadband DATA Act Implementation. As part of our FY 2021 appropriation, Congress directed the Commission to assess and collect $374 million in regulatory fees, of which $33 million is to be made available for implementing the Broadband DATA Act. Among other things, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to collect standardized, granular data on the availability and quality of both fixed and mobile broadband internet access services, to create a common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed (the Fabric), and to create publicly available coverage maps.

6. Several commenters representing the broadcast industry object to the assessment on broadcasters of any portion of the $33 million designated by Congress to cover the costs of implementation of the Broadband DATA Act as part of the Commission's FY 2021 appropriation. They argue that broadcasters are not regulated by nor do they benefit from implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. Specifically, that these Broadband DATA Act costs are not overhead costs because they pertain only to certain Commission core bureaus and identifiable entities, namely, broadband service providers, that are regulated by and benefit from the Commission's activities implementing the legislation.

7. Therefore, we adjust the Commission's approach to account for the unusual circumstances accompanying the Broadband DATA Act earmark. While we categorize the costs of implementation of the Broadband DATA Act as indirect costs consistent with our normal methodology, in this limited instance, given the one-time nature and magnitude of the earmark, the statutory text, the legislative history, and the record in this proceeding, we exclude one group of regulatees—broadcasters or “Media Services” licensees—from their share of these indirect costs. While we modify our methodology here with respect to the $33 million earmark, this one-time modification is consistent with the Commission's longstanding goals of implementing a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory fee regime.

8. Auction FTEs. Several commenters contend that the Commission should include auctions FTEs in the calculation of indirect and overhead expenses. In other words, excluding Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FTEs who work on auction issues artificially depresses the costs attributable to the wireless industry and, disadvantages Media Bureau regulatees, as the Media Bureau has substantially fewer of its FTEs classified as auction employees. We find, however, that including auctions FTEs would be inconsistent with section 9 of the Act and therefore decline to accept this proposal. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of carrying out the Commission's functions equal to the amount of the Commission's salaries and expenses appropriations each fiscal year. Auctions FTEs are not included in the calculation of regulatory fees because our methodology excludes all auction-related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations. Auctions expenses are separately funded and not part of the Commission's appropriation supported by regulatory fees. The Commission recovers the costs of developing and implementing its section 309(j) spectrum auctions program as an offsetting collection against auction proceeds and subject to an annual cap.

9. Office of Engineering and Technology Activities. Commenters contend that the Commission should require users of unlicensed spectrum and/or equipment manufacturers to pay regulatory fees to support the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET's) work on the management of spectrum for unlicensed use and authorization of equipment. We decline the commenters' request to revisit our fundamental regulatory fees methodology, and their proposal to create one or more new regulatory fee payor categories consisting of unlicensed spectrum users and/or equipment manufacturers, which under our current methodology would effectively transform OET into a “core bureau” and transform OET FTEs into “direct” FTEs. The Commission has not treated OET as a core bureau and has considered its FTEs' work to be “indirect” activities for which all payors of regulatory fees have been responsible.

10. Exempt Noncommercial Stations. A broadcast commenter contends that broadcasters should not be responsible for the regulatory fees of exempt noncommercial stations. The RAY BAUM'S Act specifically exempted non-commercial radio and television stations from regulatory fees. And because Congress has mandated collection of regulatory fees equal to the annual appropriation, the $374 million must be collected from all non-exempt regulatory fee payors. As a result, we find it is consistent with section 9 of the Act to include those costs that are attributable to all regulatees in each bureau's revenue requirement because all of the regulatees in that fee category, whether they pay regulatory fees or not, benefit from the oversight and regulation of that bureau.

B. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Regulatory Fees Calculation

11. We adopt our proposal to include non-geographic numbers in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider. The inclusion non-geographic numbers does not increase the total amount collected from the CMRS industry but will reduce the per subscriber fee. In the FY 2021 NPRM, we determined that, with the inclusion of non-geographic numbers, there would be 504 million payment units, and the estimated regulatory fee would be 15 cents per subscriber. As we explained in the FY 2021 NPRM, non-geographic numbers are assigned numbers but not associated with any particular geographic area. They are included in Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) Report data and fall within the definition of assigned numbers. Historically, non-geographic numbers were commonly used for “follow me” services, which allowed a consumer to receive a call at different locations, and were not used for independent subscribers. For that reason, the Commission did not previously include these numbers in the CMRS subscriber count estimates because it would result in double counting of subscribers. More recently, however, non-geographic numbers are increasingly used for machine-to-machine calling, such as wireless alarm monitoring and car emergency services subscriptions. Therefore, counting non-geographic numbers for regulatory fee purposes is no longer duplicative of the geographic number. No commenters oppose our proposal, and we therefore adopt it.

C. Direct Broadcast Satellite Fees

12. We adopt our proposal to complete the phase-in of the DBS regulatory fee and place all DBS, cable television, and internet Protocol television (IPTV) providers in the same fee category at the same per subscriber regulatory fee. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS providers are multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), as defined in section 602(13) of the Act. The Media Bureau oversees the regulation of MVPDs, including the two providers of DBS in the United States: DISH Network and DIRECTV. Upon adoption of this Report and Order, the Commission will include cable, IPTV, and DBS in the same fee category. Commenters also request that the Commission use updated MVPD subscriber numbers that are closer in time to the release of the Commission's annual regulatory fee order. While we understand this concern, we are unable to administratively accommodate this request. Since DBS subscriber information is not reported to the Commission, it would be difficult for the Commission to permit DBS providers to pay based on their most recent subscriber count in June, for example, because this subscriber count information would only become known to the Commission when DBS providers make their payment in late September. Therefore, we decline to make this change on the reporting date of DBS subscriber information.

D. Full-Service Television Broadcaster Fees

1. FY 2021 Regulatory Fees

13. We adopt the use of the population-based methodology for full-service television broadcasters for FY 2021, as proposed. In FY 2020, the Commission completed the transition to a population-based full-power broadcast television regulatory fee, finding it to be more equitable. In the FY 2021 NPRM, we proposed adopting a factor of .8525 of one cent ($.008525) per population served for FY 2021 full-power broadcast television station fees. We are, however, adopting a lower fee factor, .7793 of one cent ($.007793). This lower fee factor is a result of excluding radio and television broadcasters from the $33 million portion of our appropriation that is earmarked for implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. The population data for each licensee and the population-based fee (population multiplied by $.007793) for each full-power broadcast television station, including each satellite station, is listed in Table 7. Some commenters argue that the Commission's resources in oversight and regulation do not increase or decrease depending on the population served by a broadcaster, and therefore we should not base the regulatory fee on the population served. These commenters do not, however, offer an alternative proposal that would be fair and reasonable to small and large broadcasters. As we have previously stated, the Commission's methodology need not reach scientific precision, but simply be reasonable.

2. Stations in Puerto Rico

14. We adopt the same adjustments to population count for FY 2021 for TV broadcasters in Puerto Rico that we provided those broadcasters in FY 2020. Previously, a group of broadcasters in Puerto Rico argued that our methodology overstates the population served by Puerto Rico stations because the mountainous terrain conditions result in the TVStudy overstating the population served. They also argued that significant and measurable drops in Puerto Rico's population resulting from an exodus caused in part by Hurricane Maria overstated that the population counts underlying the TVStudy. To address these concerns, in the FY 2020 Report and Order, the Commission reduced the population counts used in the TVStudy by 16.9%, or the decline between the last census in 2010 and the current population estimate. Additionally, the Commission limited the market served by primary television stations and commonly owned satellite broadcast stations in Puerto Rico to no more than 3.10 million people, the latest population estimate. We find that since commenters on this issue do not oppose the Commission's actions, we adopt our proposals in the FY 2021 NPRM to adjust the population and to limit the market served by all stations to the total population.

E. Toll-Free Numbers

15. We decline to revise our rules and remove a Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs)'s responsibility to pay regulatory fees for toll-free numbers. Toll-free numbers allow callers to reach the called party without being charged for the call. With toll-free calls, the charge for the call is paid by the called party (the toll-free subscriber) instead. Historically, the Commission has not assessed regulatory fees on toll-free numbers under the rationale that the entities controlling the numbers, wireline and wireless carriers, were paying regulatory fees based on either revenues or subscribers. For reasons discussed in the FY 2014 Report and Order and the FY 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established a regulatory fee obligation for RespOrgs that manage toll-free numbers, beginning in FY 2015, so that toll-free numbers are allocated in an equitable and orderly manner that serves the public interest under section 251(e)(1) of the Act.

16. A commenter contends that the regulatory fee for toll-free numbers should be assessed differently for entities that are not carriers, arguing that carriers that report revenues on FCC Form 499s, should be responsible for the payment of regulatory fees. Commenter contends that clients should remit the fee to the Commission under their own FCC Registration Numbers. We disagree and continue to believe that the existing process is orderly and equitable. While we recognize that many RespOrgs offset their fee payments to the Commission by passing these fees on to their customers who use the toll-free numbers, this practice is not mandatory. The statutory responsibility for payment of the regulatory fee rests solely with the regulated entity, the RespOrg, and not with customers of the RespOrg. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the RespOrg to pay the full amount of toll-free regulatory fees to the Commission by the fee due date.

F. Submarine Cable Regulatory Fees

17. We adopt our proposal to use the same tiers for assessing fees on submarine cable operators for FY 2021 as in FY 2020, which are based on the “lit” capacity of the fiber-optic submarine cable. International bearer circuits (IBCs) consist of terrestrial and satellite circuits and submarine cable systems. Prior to 2009, IBC regulatory fees were collected based on 64 kbps circuits for each of the three types of facilities used to provide international service. In 2009, at the request of a large number of submarine cable operators (“2009 Consensus Proposal”), the Commission changed the methodology for assessing IBC fees and began to assess fees on a per cable landing license basis, with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller submarine cable systems. The Commission concluded that this methodology served the public interest and was competitively neutral because it included both common carriers and non-common carriers. Through FY 2019, the Commission continued to assess fees for international service provided over terrestrial and satellite facilities based on a per 64 kbps basis with the proportion of 87.6% for submarine cable operators, and 12.4% for terrestrial and satellite facilities based on relative capacity at the time. Later, the Commission adopted a five-tier structure for assessing fees on submarine cables systems, with larger systems paying more based on lit capacity, and a per gigabits per second (Gbps) assessment on active circuit capacity for terrestrial and satellite facilities.

18. In the FY 2020 Report and Order, the Commission revised the allocation of IBC fees and adopted new tiers for the fees. The Commission concluded that a ratio attributing 95% to submarine cables and 5% to terrestrial and satellite circuits would be more reasonable than the historic ratio. The Commission found again that capacity was an appropriate measure by which to assess IBC fees. The Commission rejected the use of a flat rate for submarine cables and adjusted the tiers for submarine cables. Subsequently, in the FY 2021 NPRM, we proposed to use the same tiers for assessing fees on submarine cable operators as the Commission adopted in the FY 2020 Report and Order. We find there are no significant changes in our regulatory framework and oversight of submarine cables, or changes in the marketplace, to reevaluate our fee framework based on lit capacity. As the Commission has previously stated, lit capacity is a reasonable basis to assess regulatory costs among the submarine cable regulatees that benefit from the Commission's work. We therefore find sufficient reason to adopt submarine cable systems fees based on lit capacity.

G. Space Station Regulatory Fees

1. NGSO Regulatory Fees—Less Complex and Other

19. In 2020, the Commission adjusted the allocation of FTEs among GSO and NGSO space station and earth station operators. The Commission noted the disparity in number of units between GSO space stations (98) and NGSO systems (seven), and observed that many space stations can be operated under a single NGSO license while counting as a single unit for regulatory fee purposes, but only one satellite can be operated per GSO space station regulatory fee unit. To ensure that regulatory fees more closely reflect the work of FTEs' oversight and regulation for each category, the Commission allocated 80% of space station regulatory fees to GSOs and 20% of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs.

20. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the FY 2020 Report and Order, the Commission sought comment on adopting subcategories of NGSO systems for regulatory fee purposes. Based on comments received, we concluded that space systems planning to communicate with 20 or fewer U.S. authorized earth stations that are primarily used for Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and/or Automatic Identification System (AIS) are significantly less complex to regulate than other types of NGSO systems. We concluded that this category of “less complex” systems does in fact require fewer Commission resources for several reasons. Such systems rarely involve resource-intensive NGSO processing rounds, based on their ability to share with other operators in the requested frequency bands. The “Other” types of NGSO systems typically have a more global presence, thereby requiring significantly more resources in connection with international forums. These other NGSO systems also have significant spectrum needs and involve a variety of frequency bands, technical issues, and services, constituting a significant part of the International Bureau's NGSO work and resource allocation. We therefore adopted two new fee subcategories: “less complex” NGSO systems and all other NGSO systems identified as “other” NGSO systems, both under the broader category of “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)” with an 20/ 80 allocation within the NGSO fee category. We proposed a 20/80 allocation (in the FY 2021 NPRM) within the category of NGSO fees, with “less complex” NGSO systems responsible for 20% of NGSO regulatory fees and the remaining NGSO systems (“other”) responsible for 80% of NGSO regulatory fees.

21. Several commenters disagree generally with creating NGSO subcategories, arguing that operators should not pay differing fees based on whether an NGSO system is “less complex.” Below, we discuss the NGSO subcategories and the allocation of the NGSO fees among the NGSO subcategories.

a. NGSO Space Station Subcategories

22. We reject commenters' arguments that we should not have adopted the “less complex” and “other” subcategories within the NGSO regulatory fee category. Our decision is based on the fact that commenters primarily rely on arguments that were fully considered and addressed as part of our decision in the Report and Order accompanying the FY 2021 NPRM, providing no new arguments or citing no new developments. Thus, our decision to create two NGSO fee subcategories incorporated elements of the specific proposals, and our decision-making process did not constitute an “abrupt reversal” or “abrupt change in direction,” but was based on a fully developed record following a notice and comment rulemaking.

23. We also disagree with the contention that we “attached misplaced significance” to application processing costs in determining the amount of Commission resources used in the oversight and regulation of NGSO systems because we took into consideration processing round procedures in concluding that certain NGSO systems require fewer Commission resources. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to recover, through regulatory fees, the total amount of its appropriation each year. The Commission must consider all FTE time costs in recovering its regulatory fees. We perform a holistic analysis of our regulation of NGSO systems and the FTE time accorded the oversight and regulation thereof, including rulemakings benefiting those systems, which are directly relevant for purposes of assessing regulatory fees. In so doing, we look at the overall FTE time spent in oversight and regulation of the types of NGSO systems and identify examples of proceedings involving certain NGSO systems.

24. Finally, we reject commenters' allegations that the consideration of earth stations is overly simplistic. Comparative complexity in earth station siting and licensing is not relevant to our analysis to determine whether an NGSO space system is less complex to regulate. Regulatory fees for earth stations are separately assessed from space stations fees. Although individual earth station applications may differ in terms of Commission resources required to process, those activities are not relevant to determine whether a space system planning to communicate with such an earth station is a complex system or not. Similarly, we disagree with arguments that space station systems communicating with larger numbers of earth stations are not likely to require more Commission oversight and regulatory activities. While an earth station blanket license application for technically-identical user terminals may in some instances be fairly easily processed, the ongoing activities associated with regulating the corresponding NGSO space station system will be more intensive, because the number of earth stations is an indicator that the space system itself is more complex. Furthermore, we also disagree with the contention that our consideration of numbers of earth stations presupposes that EESS systems require no more than 20 earth stations to support their network. Our experience has shown that authorized EESS systems typically communicate with fewer than 20 earth stations in the United States, and takes into account earth stations owned and operated by a third party that communicate with a particular NGSO system. As indicated, we are using “fewer than 20 earth stations” as a proxy and at the application stage, if we determine that a space system is planning to communicate with more than 20 earth stations based on the system design, such system design and plans would indicate that the space system would not fall into the “less complex” system category for regulatory fee purposes. Nothing in the record, or our analysis of the resources the International Bureau devotes to NGSO oversight and regulation, demonstrates that we erred in adopting an additional NGSO space station regulatory fee category for “less complex” NGSO systems.

b. 20/80 NGSO Regulatory Fee Allocation

25. We adopt our proposal from the FY 2021 NPRM to allocate 20% of NGSO regulatory fees to “less complex” NGSO systems and 80% of NGSO regulatory fees to “other' NGSO systems. In so doing, we consider the record, our experience, and analysis of the time International Bureau FTEs devote to oversight and regulation of “less complex” and “other” NGSO systems. While some commenters agree with the 20/80 allocation, others disagree. Many of those commenters disagree with the underlying creation of the “less complex” NGSO fee category, as adopted. The Commission considered various aspects of the Commission's oversight and the amount of FTE time devoted to the subcategories of NGSOs, specifically on the number of applications processed, the number of changes made to the Commission's rules, and the number of FTEs working on oversight for each category of operators. Here, in evaluating the FTE time devoted to the subcategories to develop the proposed 20/80 allocation, we considered the adjudicatory role of the Commission in connection with different types of NGSO systems—which is typically more intensive for those systems authorized as part of processing rounds. We also considered the number of rulemakings over the last several years, as well as current rulemakings, and which types of NGSO systems were implicated in those rulemaking activities, and we considered the various international activities that Commission staff engage in and how those activities benefit the different types of NGSO systems. We then considered the number of FTEs typically working on processing round issues/adjudications on an ongoing basis, compared the number of FTEs working on various rulemakings, and considered the number of FTEs in the International Bureau that engage in various international activities and forums, and the extent to which such activities benefit each category of NGSO system. Our allocation percentage is based on our quantitative experience (approximate numbers of FTE hours spent in a year) and expert judgement, and such calculation remains to be the best approximation of our FTE cost allocation at this time, based on the record before us. The fees must be administrable, and we note again that the Commission's methodology need not reach scientific precision and instead must simply be reasonable.

2. NGSO Regulatory Fees—Satellites Authorized Under Multiple Call Signs

26. We find it premature to make a determination how the Commission's regulatory fees should apply to NGSO satellites operating as an integrated NGSO system, but authorized under multiple call signs. Several commenters to the FY 2021 NPRM asked us to clarify whether NGSO satellites operating as an integrated NGSO system, but authorized under multiple call signs, should be considered part of the same system—and therefore be assessed a single regulatory fee. Specifically, commenters suggest that the Commission should consider NGSO satellites operating as part of the system—but authorized under multiple call signs (even by different operators)—as one “system” for purposes of NGSO regulatory fees. The Commision does not currently have any authorized NGSO systems that fit the description of a multi-regulatee/multi-call sign NGSO system. The answer is likely to be fact-specific, and involve a determination of what exactly constitutes an NGSO “system” and where the space stations in the “system” are operated by different entities. In the case of GSO space stations, it is clear when there are multiple licensees associated with the same physical satellite. The situation is less clear for NGSO systems because the situation could quickly become factually complex where different space stations in the “system” are described as attributable to different entities for regulatory fee purposes. We will continue to apply the general presumption that NGSO systems operated by different licensees or market access grantees constitute different NGSO systems.

H. Flexibility for Regulatory Payors Due to COVID-19 Pandemic

27. As proposed in the FY 2021 NPRM, we extend the temporary COVID-19 regulatory fee relief measures that were implemented in our FY 2020 Report and Order. Last year, the Commission adopted certain relief measures to address concerns raised by commenters about financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Comments received in response to the FY 2021 NPRM indicate that the financial hardship caused by the pandemic have continued into the 2021 fiscal year. Accordingly, we find good reason to continue the same relief measures we adopted in FY 2020 for FY 2021.

28. Specifically, for FY 2021, we again waive section 1.1166 of our rules, to the extent necessary, to permit parties seeking regulatory fee waiver, deferral and/or installment payment relief for financial hardship reasons related to the pandemic. Those parties may make a single request for all forms of relief sought, whether in combination or in the alternative, and may submit all such requests for relief electronically to the Commission via a dedicated email address. For FY 2021, the email address is 2021regfeerelief@fcc.gov. Additionally, we partially waive our red-light rule to allow debtors that are experiencing financial hardship to nonetheless request relief with respect to their regulatory fees. As we provided in FY 2020, however, such regulatees are required to resolve all delinquent debt by paying it in full, entering into an installment agreement to repay it, and/or if applicable, curing all payment and other defaults under existing installment agreements. We believe the existing waiver standard together with the measures described above will work as designed, to provide fee relief to those regulatees most in need.

29. Regulatees whose businesses have been hurt by the pandemic, but not to the extent required to receive a waiver, reduction, or deferral, may be eligible to pay their FY 2021 fees in installments under section 1.1914 of our rules. For those regulatees, we exercise our discretion under section 3717(a) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, as amended, to reduce the interest rate the Commission charges on installments payments to a nominal rate and we suspend our down payment requirement. We also recognize that demonstrating financial hardship caused by the pandemic may require different financial documentation than the documentation the Commission has traditionally accepted. While the burden of proving financial hardship remains with the party requesting it, we again direct the Managing Director to work with individual regulatees that have filed requests if additional documents are needed to render a decision on the request. Finally, we direct the Managing Director to release one or more public notices describing in more detail the relief we have described herein.

We remind regulatees that we cannot relax the standard for granting a waiver or deferral of fees, penalties, or other charges for late payment of regulatory fees under section 9A of the Act. Under the statute, the Commission may only waive a regulatory fee, penalty or interest if it finds there is good cause for the waiver and that the waiver is in the public interest. The Commission has only granted financial hardship waivers when the requesting party has shown it “lacks sufficient funds to pay the regulatory fees and to maintain its service to the public.” Other statutory limitations include that the Commission must act on waiver requests individually, and cannot extend the deadline we set for payment of fees beyond September 30.

III. Procedural Matters

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

31. Credit Card Transaction Levels. In accordance with Treasury Financial Manual, Volume I, Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7045— Limitations on Card Collection Transactions, the highest amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies is $24,999.99. Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in Fee Filer. Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2021 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.

32. Payment Methods. Pursuant to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive, the Commission is moving towards a paperless environment, extending to disbursement and collection of select federal government payments and receipts. In 2015, the Commission stopped accepting checks (including cashier's checks and money orders) and the accompanying hardcopy forms ( e.g., Forms 159, 159-B, 159-E, 159-W) for the payment of regulatory fees. During the fee season for collecting regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through Pay.gov, ACH, debit card, or by wire transfer. Additional payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html. 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, a 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 Federal Communications Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.

33. De Minimis Regulatory Fees, Section 9(e)(2) Exemption. Under the de minimis rule, and pursuant to our analysis under section 9(e)(2) of the Act, a 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 each fiscal year to determine whether it meets the de minimis exemption.

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

• Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2020 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF broadcast television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2020.

• Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2020. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2020, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category. For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in section 52.103 of the Commission's rules. The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2020.

• Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2020. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2020 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, 2020, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed, or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2021.

• Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2020. Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2020. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2020, 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, 2020. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2020, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• International Services (Earth Stations and Space Stations): Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2020. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2020, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• International Services ( Submarine Cable Systems, Terrestrial and Satellite Services ): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on lit circuit capacity as of December 31, 2020. Regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2020 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, 2020. 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, 2020, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

35. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and Mobile Services Assessments. The Commission compiled data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”). We have included non-geographic numbers in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each CMRS provider in Tables 2 and the CMRS regulatory fee rate in Table 3. CMRS provider regulatory fees are calculated and should be paid based on the inclusion of non-geographic numbers. CMRS providers can adjust the total number of subscribers, if needed. This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer).

36. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation. The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. 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 Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

37. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services ( i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2020), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

38. Effective Date. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication before this Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, becomes effective as normally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2021 fees before FY 2021 ends on September 30, 2021. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register . Because payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late September, persons affected by the Report and Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.

39. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is contained in the back of this document.

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

41. 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 these rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Tables

Table 4—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2021

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2021, we adjusted FY 2020 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2021 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections, when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS), Licensing and Management System (LMS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast. Regulatory fee payment units are not all the same for all fee categories. For most fee categories, the term “units” reflect licenses or permits that have been issued, but for other fee categories, the term “units” reflect quantities such as subscribers, population counts, circuit counts, telephone numbers, and revenues.

We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2021 estimates with actual FY 2020 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 2021 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2021 payment units are based on FY 2020 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2021 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2020. We have either rounded the FY 2020 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

Table 5—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages

AM Stations

For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, 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 sections 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 2010 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 2010 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.