Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005, 9575-9606 [05-3822]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 38 (Monday, February 28, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9575-9606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3822]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 05-59; FCC 05-35]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission will revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in 
order to recover the amount of regulatory fees that Congress has 
required it to collect for fiscal year 2005. Section 9 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual 
assessment and collection of regulatory fees under sections 9(b)(2) and 
9(b)(3), respectively, for annual ``Mandatory Adjustments'' and 
``Permitted Amendments'' to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.

DATES: Comments are due March 8, 2005, and reply comments are due March 
18, 2005. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on 
or before April 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, 
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to Kristy--L. 
LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 
Director at (202) 418-0444 or Rob Fream. Office of Managing Director at 
(202) 418-0408. For additional information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this 
document, contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet 
at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
Analysis: This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due April 29, 2005. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1064.
    Title: Regulatory Fee Assessment True-Ups.
    Form No.: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,650.
    Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 413 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not 
affect individuals or households; thus, there is no impact under the 
Privacy Act.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission collects Congressionally-mandated 
regulatory fees from its regulatees based upon a schedule of fees that 
it establishes each year in an annual rulemaking proceeding. As part of 
our modernization efforts, we are able to provide regulatory fee 
assessments to select categories of regulatees: (1) Cable television 
operators, (2) media services licensees and (3) commercial mobile radio 
service (CMRS) licensees. Along with the fee assessment notices that we 
intend to send to these three categories of regulatees, we will provide 
them with a ``true-up'' opportunity to correct, update or otherwise 
rectify their assessed fee amounts well before the actual due date for 
payment of regulatory fees. This ``true-up'' collection of information 
is necessary because it enables regulatees to confirm for themselves 
what their regulatory fee payment obligations will be, well before 
their fees are due. The ``true-up'' opportunity also serves to provide 
the Commission with a higher degree of certainty in its regulatory fee 
payment expectations for the fiscal year.
    Adopted: February 11, 2005; Released: February 15, 2005.
    By the Commission:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Discussion
    A. Development of FY2005 Fees
    1. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements
    2. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units
    B. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging Service
    C. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS)
    D. International Bearer Circuits
    E. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS)
    F. Broadband Radio Service (BRS) / Educational Broadband Service 
(EBS), (formerly MDS/MMDS and ITFS)
    G. Regulatory Fees for AM and FM Construction Permits
    H. Clarification of Policies and Procedures
    1. Ad Hoc Issues Concerning Our Regulatory Fee Exemption 
Policies
    2. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Broadcasters
    3. Regulatory Fee Obligations for AM Expanded Band Broadcasters
    4. Effective Date of Payment of Multi-Year Wireless Fees
    I. Proposals for Notification, Assessment and Collection of 
Regulatory Fees
    1. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs)
    2. Satellite Space Station Licensees
    3. Media Services Licensees
    4. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Cellular and Mobile 
Services
    5. Cable Television Subscribers
    J. Future Streamlining of the Regulatory Fee Assessment and 
Collection Process
III. Procedural Matters
    A. Payment of Regulatory Fees
    1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability

[[Page 9576]]

    2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates
    B. Enforcement
    C. Comment Period and Procedures
    D. Ex Parte Rules
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
    F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    G. Authority and Further Information
Attachments
    Attachment A Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    Attachment B Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY2005
    Attachment C Calculation of Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata 
Fees
    Attachment D FY 2005 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
    Attachment E Factors, Measurements, and Calculations that 
Determine Station Contours and Population Coverages
    Attachment F FY 2004 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to 
collect $280,098,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. 
These fees are mandated by Congress and are collected to recover the 
regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy 
and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Development of FY2005 Fees

1. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements
    2. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the 
total amount that must be collected via regulatory fees (Attachment 
C).\2\ For FY 2005, this allocation was done using FY 2004 revenues as 
a base. From this base, a revenue amount for each fee category was 
calculated. Each fee category was then adjusted upward by 2.6 percent 
to reflect the increase in regulatory fees from FY 2004 to FY 2005. 
These FY 2005 amounts were then divided by the number of payment units 
in each fee category to determine the unit fee.\3\ In instances of 
small fees, such as licenses that are renewed over a multiyear term, 
the resulting unit fee was also divided by the term of the license. 
These unit fees were then rounded in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 
159(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ It is important to note that the required increase in 
regulatory fee payments of approximately 2.6 percent in FY 2005 is 
reflected in the revenue that is expected to be collected from each 
service category. Because this expected revenue is adjusted each 
year by the number of estimated payment units in a service category, 
the actual fee itself is sometimes increased by a number other than 
2.6 percent. For example, in industries where the number of units is 
declining and the expected revenue is increasing, the impact of the 
fee increase may be greater.
    \3\ In most instances, the fee amount is a flat fee per licensee 
or regulatee. However, in some instances the fee amount represents a 
unit subscriber fee (such as for Cable, Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service (CMRS) Cellular/Mobile and CMRS Messaging), a per unit fee 
(such as for International Bearer Circuits), or a fee factor per 
revenue dollar (Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider fee). 
The payment unit is the measure upon which the fee is based, such as 
a licensee, regulatee, subscriber fee, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units
    3. In calculating the FY 2005 regulatory fees proposed in 
Attachment D, we further adjusted the FY2004 list of payment units 
(Attachment B) based upon licensee databases and industry and trade 
group projections. Whenever possible, we verified these estimates from 
multiple sources to ensure the accuracy of these estimates. In some 
instances, Commission licensee databases were used, while in other 
instances, actual prior year payment records and/or industry and trade 
association projections were used in determining the payment unit 
counts.\4\ Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final 
estimates to take into consideration variables that may impact the 
number of payment units, such as waivers and/or exemptions that may be 
filed in FY 2005, and fluctuations in the number of licensees or 
station operators due to economic, technical or other reasons. 
Therefore, when we note that our estimated FY 2005 payment units are 
based on FY 2004 actual payment units, we may have rounded the number 
for FY 2005 or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The databases we consulted include, but are not limited to, 
the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS), International 
Bureau Filing System (IBFS), and Consolidated Database System 
(CDBS). We also consulted industry sources including but not limited 
to Television & Cable Factbook by Warren Publishing, Inc. and the 
Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook by Reed Elsevier, Inc., as well as 
reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline 
Competition Bureau's Trends in Telephone Service and the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast 
and Annual CMRS Competition Report. For additional information on 
source material, see Attachment B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Additional factors are considered in determining regulatory fees 
for AM and FM radio stations. These factors are facility attributes and 
the population served by the radio station. The calculation of the 
population served is determined by coupling current U.S. Census Bureau 
data with technical and engineering data, as detailed in Attachment E. 
Consequently, the population served, as well as the class and type of 
service (AM or FM), determines the regulatory fee amount to be paid.

B. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging Service

    5. In our FY 2003 Report & Order (68 FR 48445, August 13, 2003), we 
noted that in recent years there has been a significant decline in the 
number of CMRS Messaging units--from 40.8 million in FY 1997 to 19.7 
million in FY 2003--a decline of 51.7 percent.\5\ This trend is 
continuing. For example, in the FY 2004 regulatory fee cycle, the 
number of CMRS Messaging units for which regulatory fees were paid 
declined to 13.5 million. This is consistent with our Ninth Annual CMRS 
Competition Report, which estimates the number of paging-only 
subscribers at the end of 2003 to be 11.2 million units.\6\ We also 
note that in recent years there have been no significant changes in the 
level of regulatory oversight for this fee category. For these reasons, 
we propose to continue our policy of maintaining the CMRS Messaging 
subscriber regulatory fee at the rate calculated in FY 2003 and FY 2004 
to avoid further contributing to the financial hardships associated 
with a declining subscriber base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2003, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15985, 15992, at paragraph 
21 (2003) (FY 2003 Report and Order).
    \6\ Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of 
Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile 
Services, Ninth Report, FCC 04-216, released Sept. 28, 2004, at 
paragraph 177 (Ninth Annual CMRS Competition Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS)

    6. In the FY 2004 NPRM,\7\ we again sought comment on the 
appropriate fee classification for LMDS.\8\ Commenters urged the 
Commission to classify LMDS as a microwave service, arguing that LMDS 
is operationally, functionally, and legally similar to 24 and 39 GHz 
services in the microwave fee category. We rejected this argument 
because

[[Page 9577]]

LMDS licenses are, as a factual matter, quite different than other Part 
101 fixed microwave services in the upper frequency bands (above 15 
GHz). While these three services are licensed on a geographic basis 
allowing licensees to place multiple stations within the authorized 
service areas, most microwave stations are currently licensed on a 
site-by-site basis thereby requiring, depending on the frequency band, 
multiple individual licenses to serve a particular geographic area or 
multiple points therein.\9\ Even when the fees for LMDS licensees are 
compared with the fees for licensees in the 24 and 39 GHz bands, we did 
not find current fee assessments to impose a disproportionate burden on 
LMDS licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 5795, 5797-8, 
at paragraph 5 (2004) (FY 2004 NPRM).
    \8\ In the FY 2003 NPRM, we sought comment on the appropriate 
fee classification of the Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS). Some commenters urged that LMDS be classified in the 
microwave fee category. We declined to do so because technological 
developments and emerging commercial applications suggested that 
usage of LMDS could evolve differently than services in the 
microwave fee category. We recognized, however, that ``substantive 
distinctions did exist between MDS and LMDS, and that they should 
not be placed in the same fee category.'' Therefore, we created a 
separate LMDS fee category and stated that we would ``initiate a 
specific proceeding that addresses the policies and fee structure 
governing LMDS and other wireless services.'' See FY 2003 Report and 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15985, 15988-9, at paragraphs 6-10 (2003).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. However, we did identify an anomaly in FY 2004 between LMDS 
Block A and LMDS Block B licenses. Block A licenses are authorized for 
1150 MHz of spectrum, more than seven times the amount of spectrum 
authorized for Block B licenses (150 MHz). Currently, LMDS regulatory 
fees are assessed on a per-license basis. Using the authorized 
bandwidth for each license as the basis for comparison, we noted that 
the LMDS fee for Block A licenses in FY2004 was significantly lower on 
a per megahertz basis than the fee for Block B licenses. For example, 
on a per MHz basis, Block B licenses, which are authorized for 150 MHz 
in the 31,000-31,075/31,225-31,300 MHz bands, paid $1.80 per MHz in 
FY2004, whereas Block A licenses authorized for 1150 MHz of spectrum 
paid $0.24 per MHz. Because this anomaly appears to create a 
disproportionate fee obligation on LMDS Block B licenses, on our own 
motion we propose in FY 2005 to exercise our authority pursuant to 
section 9(b)(3) and amend the fee schedule to assess LMDS regulatory 
fees on a per megahertz basis. This proposed action would thereby place 
fee assessments on Block A and Block B licenses more in line with the 
benefits received under the respective licenses in terms of their 
authorized bandwidth, which varies substantially, as noted above.
    8. Following auctions 17 and 23, half of all of the licenses were 
Block A licenses and half were Block B licenses. Since then, some of 
the original licenses have been divided among other licensees pursuant 
to the Commission's license disaggregation and partitioning policies 
and procedures and others have been surrendered back to the FCC. Based 
on the FY 2005 revenue amount to be collected from the LMDS fee 
category ($94,050),\10\ the per megahertz per unit fee is $0.44, which 
is based on a total authorized bandwidth of 1,300 MHz and estimated 
units of 165 Block A units and 165 Block B units.\11\ This methodology 
of calculating LMDS regulatory fees incorporates the differences in 
bandwidth use between Block A and Block B licenses, as well as 
differences in the number of units between Block A and Block B 
licenses. Using the per MHz per unit fee of $0.44, the regulatory fee 
for LMDS Block A licenses is calculated to be $505 per license, and the 
regulatory fee for LMDS Block B licenses is calculated to be $65 per 
license.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Attachment C.
    \11\ The per megahertz per unit fee is calculated as follows:
    165 Block A units times 1,150 MHz used = 189,750 (total MHz used 
by Block A licensees).
    165 Block B units times 150 MHz used = 24,750 (total MHz used by 
Block B licensees).
    Total = 214,500 (total MHz used by Block A & B licensees).
    Per MHz Per Unit Fee = $94,050 divided by 214,500 = $0.44.
    \12\ LMDS Block A Licenses: $0.44 per MHz per unit times 1,150 
MHz bandwidth = $506, rounded to $505. LMDS Block B Licenses: $0.44 
per MHz per unit times 150 MHz bandwidth = $66, rounded to $65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. We seek comment on our proposal to use the above methodology for 
calculating regulatory fees for LMDS. We are aware of the dramatic one-
year increase in regulatory fees that would result for Block A 
licensees if we were to adopt the above per-MHz methodology. Therefore, 
so as to minimize the impact of the fee increase, we seek comment on 
whether we should graduate the increase in increments over a brief 
period of years.
    10. Additionally, we seek general comment on applying the per-MHz 
methodology to LMDS Block A and Block B licenses that have been 
partitioned and disaggregated. We also seek comment on whether to 
continue to use a fee calculation process that does not distinguish 
between LMDS Block A and LMDS Block B licenses. A fee calculation 
process that does not distinguish between Block A and Block B licenses 
would result in a regulatory fee of $285 per LMDS license.\13\ Finally, 
we seek comment on other proposals to address the assessment of 
regulatory fees for LMDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A regulatory fee that does not distinguish between Block A 
and Block B LMDS licenses is calculated as follows: $94,050 (total 
expected FY 2005 revenue) divided by 330 (estimated units) = $285 
per license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. International Bearer Circuits

    11. The Commission currently assesses regulatory fees on 
international carriers based on the number of active international 
bearer circuits the carrier had the previous year.\14\ In response to 
our FY 2004 NPRM, several commenters requested that the Commission 
change the regulatory fee regime for international carriers.\15\ In the 
FY 2004 Report and Order we found that we needed a more complete record 
on these issues and stated that we would seek comment on them in our 
2005 regulatory fees proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Regulatory fees for International Bearer Circuits are to be 
paid by facilities-based common carriers for active international 
bearer circuits in any transmission facility for the provision of 
service to an end user or resale carrier, and also including active 
circuits to themselves or their affiliates. In addition, non-common 
carrier satellite operators must pay a fee for each circuit sold or 
leased to any customer, including themselves or their affiliates, 
other than an international common carrier authorized by the 
Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services. 
Non-common carrier submarine cable operators are also to pay fees 
for any and all international bearer circuits sold on an 
indefeasible right of use (IRU) basis or leased to any customer, 
including themselves or their affiliates, other than an 
international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide 
U.S. international common carrier services. See Assessment and 
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2001, MD Docket No. 
01-76, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13525, 13593 (2001); Regulatory 
Fees Fact Sheet: What You Owe--International and Satellite Services 
Licensees for FY 2004 at 3 (released July 2004) (the fact sheet is 
available on the FCC web-site at: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_
public/attachmatch/DOC-249904A4.pdf).
    \15\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11662, 11671-72, at 
paragraphs 26-30 (2004) (FY 2004 Report and Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In this proceeding we seek comment on possible changes to the 
regulatory fees assessed on international carriers. Specifically we 
seek comment on possible bases, other than active circuits, for 
assessing regulatory fees on international carriers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because of the complexity of this issue, we will review the 
comments and reply comments, but we will not implement any action in 
FY 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Several carriers raised concerns with the use of international 
bearer circuits as the basis for assessing regulatory fees in the 2004 
regulatory fee proceeding. They argued that basing fees on the number 
of active circuits an international carrier has favors older, lower-
capacity systems to the detriment of newer, higher-capacity systems. 
Specifically the commenters argued that (1) the Commission's present 
methodology does not take into account the reduced regulation of non-
common carrier (also known as ``private'') submarine cable operators, 
and (2) imposing fees based on a company's ``lit and sold'' (also known 
as ``active'') bearer circuit capacity is at odds with how non-common 
carrier submarine cable operators actually sell capacity, thereby 
requiring operators to spend

[[Page 9578]]

time determining if regulatory fees are applicable based on the 
Commission's definition of ``active.''
    14. Tyco proposed the following changes be made to the regulatory 
regime: (1) Separate the non-common carrier submarine cable operator 
subcategory from the existing international bearer circuit fee category 
by creating a new non-common carrier submarine cable operator category; 
(2) allocate the current revenue requirement for the bearer circuit fee 
category between two new fee categories based on the regulatory burden 
of each new category; and (3) adopt a flat, per-cable-landing-license 
fee for non-common carrier submarine cable operators. Several 
commenters supported Tyco's position. Several commenters also noted 
that satellite operators provide international bearer circuits on a 
non-common carrier basis, and that circuit fees should include both 
non-common carriers as well as private submarine cable providers.
    15. The Commission concluded in the FY 2004 Report and Order that 
these arguments warranted further consideration, and that a fee system 
based on cable landing licenses and international section 214 
authorizations, rather than international bearer circuits, would be 
administratively simpler for both the Commission and carriers.\17\ The 
Commission also noted that a fee system based on licenses/
authorizations could provide an incentive for carriers to initiate new 
services and to use new facilities more efficiently.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FY 2004 Report and Order at paragraph 29.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The assessment of regulatory fees on international carriers 
based on active international circuits is set out in the fee schedule 
in section 9 of the Communications Act.\19\ The statute provides the 
Commission with the authority to amend the fee schedule. 47 U.S.C. 
159(b)(3). Section 9(b)(3) requires the Commission to amend the 
schedule if the Commission determines that amendment is necessary to 
comply with the general fee authority set forth in section 9(b)(1)(A) 
of the Communications Act. Section 9(b)(3) also grants the Commission 
authority to ``add, delete, or reclassify service in the Schedule to 
reflect additions, deletions, or changes in the nature of its services 
as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in the 
law.'' \20\ We seek comment on whether a change to the computation of 
fees for the international bearer circuit category or a 
reclassification of the category is warranted in light of the 
Commission's authority to amend the fee schedule.\21\ If a 
reclassification of the category is proposed, commenters should 
specifically address the Commission rulemakings or changes in law that 
justify the reclassification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 47 U.S.C. 159(g).
    \20\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).
    \21\ On December 15, 2004, counsel for Tyco Telecommunications 
(US) Inc. submitted a letter addressing the Commission's legal 
authority to amend the schedule of regulatory fees pursuant to 
section 9(b)(3), 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3). Letter from Kent D. Bressie, 
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, to David Krech, FCC, dated December 15, 
2004. A copy of the letter has been placed in the record for this 
proceeding. We seek comment on the analysis presented in the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Commenters should address possible alternative methods of 
assessing regulatory fees on international carriers, for example 
whether regulatory fees should be assessed based on the holding of an 
international section 214 authorization or a cable landing license. As 
noted above, Tyco proposed to separate the non-common carrier submarine 
cable operator subcategory from the existing international bearer 
circuit fee category, thereby creating a new non-common carrier 
submarine cable operator category. We seek comment on the Tyco 
proposal. Commenters should address how to allocate the current 
international bearer circuit revenue requirement between non-common 
carrier submarine cable operators and the remaining circuit fee 
category.

E. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS)

    18. In 2002 the Commission established the Multichannel Video 
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12 GHz 
band),\22\ totaling 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum that is 
licensed by 214 service areas (``MVDs''). MVDDS spectrum is used to 
facilitate the delivery of new video and broadband communications 
services, such as local television programming and high-speed Internet 
access.\23\ The technical rules reflect a carefully crafted balance in 
which the Commission affords protection to the Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS) service and the non-geostationary satellite orbit 
(NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) while allowing the entrance of 
MVDDS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to 
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and 
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the 
Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 
12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their 
Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband 
Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide a Fixed 
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9680 
(2002) (MVDDS Second R&O).
    \23\ MVDDS licensees may use the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for any 
digital fixed non-broadcast service (broadcast services are intended 
for reception of the general public and not on a subscribership 
basis) including one-way direct-to-home/office wireless service. See 
47 CFR 101.1407 (Permissible operations for MVDDS).
    \24\ See generally subpart P of 47 CFR Part 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The Commission established MVDDS because it had concluded that 
a fourth provider in the MVPD marketplace would generate significant 
public interest benefits, such as lower prices, improved service 
quality, increased innovation, and increased service to unserved or 
underserved rural areas.\25\ However, the Commission found that ``open 
eligibility for in-region cable operators [would] pose a significant 
likelihood of substantial competitive harm'' because ``cable operators 
have a strong incentive to prevent entry by new MVPD providers.''\26\ 
Therefore, cable operators and entities holding attributable interests 
in cable operators must divest these interests within ninety days of 
being granted an MVDDS license whose geographic service area 
significantly overlaps the cable operator's service area.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 25 MVDDS Second R&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 9680.
    \26\ 26 Id.
    \27\ 47 CFR 101.1412(a). ``Cable operator'' means a company that 
is franchised to provide cable service, as defined in 47 CFR 
76.1000(e), in all or part of the MVDDS license area, id. Sec.  
101.1412(b). ``Significant overlap'' occurs when a cable operator's 
subscribers in the MVDDS license area make up 35 percent or more of 
the households in that MVDDS license area which subscribe to one or 
more Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), as defined in 
47 CFR 76.1000(e). See 47 CFR 101.1412(c) and (e). The winning 
bidder for the MVDDS license of the New York service area (MVD001), 
inter alia, requested and received a 270-day extension of the 90-day 
divestiture deadline, see 47 CFR 101.1412(g)(4), of the Commission's 
MVDDS/cable cross-ownership rule. See DTV Norwich, LLC, Application 
for Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service License, 
MVD001-New York, Request for Waiver of Section 101.1412(g)(4) of the 
Commission's Rules, Order, File No. 0001618606-MVD001, DA 04-3044 
(released September 23, 2004) (DTV Norwich Waiver Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed the auction of 
the 214 MVDDS licenses (``Auction No. 53''), raising (in net bids) a 
total of $118,721,835. In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total 
of 192 MVDDS licenses, which the Commission issued later in 2004.\28\

[[Page 9579]]

MVDDS licenses are issued for a ten-year term beginning on the date the 
initial authorization is granted.\29\ Licensees must provide 
``substantial service'' within five years of the grant, which must be 
documented at license renewal time.\30\ As of the third quarter 2004, 
MVDDS equipment was still under development. Because MVDDS spectrum can 
be used to provide non-video, i.e., broadband data services,\31\ the 
Commission concluded that MVDDS does not fall within the Cable 
Television and DBS Subscribers regulatory fee category, which raises 
the question of whether MVDDS should be established as a new regulatory 
fee category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Multichannel 
Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses, Public Notice, DA 04-
2331 (released July 27, 2004) (granting 154 licenses); Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Grants Multichannel Video Distribution and 
Data Service Licenses to South.Com LLC, DA 04-2547, Public Notice, 
(released August 18, 2004) (granting 37 licenses); and DTV Norwich 
Waiver Order (granting license for MVD001). All of the grants are 
subject to conditions.
    \29\ 47 CFR 101.1413(a).
    \30\ 30 47 CFR 101.1413(b) and (c).
    \31\ MVDDS licensees may use this spectrum for any digital fixed 
non-broadcast Service (broadcast services are intended for reception 
of the general public and not on a subscribership basis) including 
one-way direct-to-home/office wireless service. Licensees are 
permitted to provide one-way video programming and data services on 
a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier basis. Mobile and 
aeronautical services are not authorized. Two-way services may be 
provided by using other spectrum or media for the return or upstream 
path. See 47 CFR 101.1407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Since MVDDS equipment is still under development, we propose to 
not establish regulatory fees for MVDDS as a new regulatory fee 
category in FY 2005. We seek comment on this proposal. In the 
alternative, if the Commission were to establish regulatory fees for 
MVDDS in FY 2005, we seek comment on equitable ways to assess fees for 
MVDDS based on the nature of this service, such as whether the fee 
should be flat or be set on a per-MHz basis. We also seek comment on 
whether the Commission should collect the fee on an annual basis, or 
whether we should collect it in advance to cover the term of the 
license fee when the application for license is filed.

F. Broadband Radio Service (BRS)/Educational Broadband Service (EBS), 
(Formerly MDS/MMDS and ITFS)

    22. On June 10, 2004, we adopted a Report & Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and FNPRM), 69 FR 72048 (December 
10, 2004), and also referred to as the BRS/EBS proceeding) \32\ that 
takes important steps to transform our rules and policies governing the 
licensing of the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), the 
Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), and the Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MMDS) in the 2500-2690 MHz band.\33\ The actions 
taken in this proceeding initiated a fundamental restructuring of the 
band that will provide both existing ITFS and MDS licensees and 
potential new entrants with greatly enhanced flexibility in order to 
encourage the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and 
internationally, and the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and 
efficient communications technologies and services.\34\ The R&O renamed 
the MDS service as the ``Broadband Radio Service'' (BRS). This new 
designation connotes a more accurate description of the services we 
anticipate will develop in the band.The R&O also renamed the ITFS 
service as the Educational Broadband Service'' (EBS), which more 
accurately describes the kinds of the services that we anticipate will 
develop in the band.\35\ The R&O, among other things, implemented 
geographic area licensing for all licensees in the band, which gives 
licensees increased flexibility while greatly reducing administrative 
burdens on both licensees and the Commission. We note that geographic 
area licensing will reduce the total number of BRS licenses because, in 
most cases, separate licenses will no longer be necessary for each 
transmitter a licensee places in service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the 
Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile 
Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 
2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands et al, Report & Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (R&O and 
FNPRM).
    \33\ The terms MDS and MMDS are often used interchangeably. The 
Commission coined the term ``MDS'' at a time when it was making only 
two channels available for the service, at 2150-2162 MHz. The 
Commission began using the term ``MMDS'' when formulating rules 
making additional channels for the service available in the 2500-
2690 MHz band. In discussing this Report & Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, we will use the term ``MDS'' to signify both 
services.
    \34\ Federal Communications Commission, Strategic Plan FY 2003-
FY 2008 at 5 (2002) (Strategic Plan).
    \35\ Federal Communications Commission, Strategic Plan FY 2003-
FY 2008 at 5 (2002) (Strategic Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. In the FNPRM, we sought comment on issues relating to 
regulatory fees.\36\ We note that, other than renaming our MDS/MMDS 
regulatory fee category to BRS and adjusting its estimated number of 
payment units, any other changes to the regulatory fee rules we adopt 
in the BRS/EBS proceeding will not be adopted in time to take effect in 
FY 2005. If new regulatory fee rules are adopted in the BRS/EBS 
proceeding, the Commission will make appropriate adjustments in the 
appropriate regulatory fee cycle, which will presumably be the cycle 
for FY 2006 or beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See R&O and FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 14293-97 paragraphs 351-
359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Regulatory Fees for AM and FM Construction Permits

    24. At the inception of our regulatory fee program in FY 1994, the 
regulatory fee amount for construction permits was set at an amount 
that, when compared to licensed stations, was commensurate to the 
limited nature of station operations under the terms of a construction 
permit. Each year since FY 1994, the unit fee for AM, FM, and full-
service VHF and UHF television construction permits was calculated by 
determining the proportion of the amount to be collected by each 
respective fee category, divided by the number of estimated units, as 
illustrated in Attachment C. However, since the inception of the 
program in FY 1994, the amount of fees that we have been directed to 
collect each year has steadily increased, while the number of estimated 
payment units for these construction permits has steadily decreased. 
This combination of increasing expected revenue and decreasing payment 
units for these construction permits has resulted in a regulatory unit 
fee that is higher than that of some licensed stations.
    25. To rectify this situation, we propose beginning in FY 2005 to 
set the AM, FM, VHF, and UHF construction permit fee to be no higher 
than the regulatory fee associated with the lowest licensed station for 
that fee category. Because there are unit and revenue variables in 
assessing the per-unit regulatory fee, thereby causing the fee to 
change each fiscal year, it may be necessary to make revenue 
adjustments each fiscal year to keep the per unit regulatory fee for 
construction permits at the level of the lowest licensed fee for AM, 
FM, VHF, and UHF stations. We seek comment on whether construction 
permit fees should be held at the level of the lowest licensed fee for 
their respective fee categories (e.g. AM, FM, VHF, and UHF stations), 
and whether any adjustments that have to be made to hold the 
construction permit fee at the level of the lowest respective licensed 
fee should be spread across only a narrow group of fee categories, such 
as AM, FM, VHF, and UHF stations, or across all fee categories.

H. Clarification of Policies and Procedures

1. Ad Hoc Issues Concerning Our Regulatory Fee Exemption Policies
    26. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1162, the Commission does not establish 
regulatory fees for applicants, permittees and licensees who qualify as 
government entities or non-profit entities. Despite the language of 47 
CFR

[[Page 9580]]

1.1162, we still encounter frequent uncertainty and comments from 
parties with respect to our fee exemption policies. Therefore, we 
believe it would be helpful for us to provide clarification of these 
policies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In the ensuing discussion, ``facility'' includes 
``station'' and ``licensee'' includes ``permittee.'' ``October 1'' 
means the close of business on October 1, the first day of the 
government fiscal year. ``Fee Due Date'' means the close of business 
on the day determined to be the final date by which regulatory fees 
must be paid. The Fee Due Date usually occurs in August or 
September. An ``Exempt Entity'' is a legal entity that is relieved 
of the burden of paying annual regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Determination of Fee Code for a Facility: The fee code is 
determined by the operational status of the facility as of October 1 of 
each year. This involves factors such as whether the facility is in 
construction permit status or licensed status and a variety of other 
factors. Every facility has a fee code. There is no prorating of 
regulatory fees. For example, if a facility is in construction permit 
status as of the close of business October 1, but a license is granted 
on or after October 2, that facility is considered to be in 
construction permit status for the entire year. Other facility changes 
during the course of the year, such as technical changes, are treated 
in the same manner.
    28. Establishment of Exempt Status: State, local, and federal 
government agencies and IRS-certified not-for-profit entities are 
generally exempt from payment of regulatory fees. The Commission 
requires that each exempt entity have on file a valid IRS Determination 
Letter or certification from a government authority documenting its 
exempt status. In instances where there is a question regarding the 
exempt status of an entity, the FCC may request, at any time, for the 
entity to submit an IRS Determination Letter or certification from a 
government authority that documents its exempt status.
    29. Subsidiaries of Exempt Entities: The licensee of a facility may 
be distinct from the ultimate owner. Exempt entities may hold one or 
more licenses for media facilities directly and/or through 
subsidiaries. Facilities licensed directly to an exempt entity and its 
exempt subsidiaries are excused from the regulatory fee obligation. 
However, licensees that are for-profit subsidiaries of exempt entities 
are subject to regulatory fees regardless of the exempt status of the 
ultimate owner.

    Examples: A University owns a commercial facility whose profits 
are used to support the University and/or its programs. If the 
facility is licensed to the University directly, or to an exempt 
subsidiary of the University, it is exempt from regulatory fees. If, 
however, the license is held by a for-profit subsidiary, regulatory 
fees are owed, even though the University is an exempt entity.
    A state pension fund is the majority owner of a for-profit 
commercial broadcasting firm. The facilities licensed to the for-
profit broadcasting firm would be subject to regulatory fees, even 
though it is owned by an exempt agency.

    30. Responsible Party, and the Effects of Transfers of Control: The 
entity holding the license for a facility as of the Fee Due Date is 
responsible for the regulatory fee for that facility. Eligibility for a 
regulatory fee exemption is determined by the status of the licensee as 
of the Fee Due Date, regardless of the status of any previous 
licensee(s).
2. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Broadcasters
    31. Our current schedule of regulatory fees does not include 
service categories for digital broadcasters. Licensees in the broadcast 
industry pay regulatory fees based on their analog facilities. For 
licensees that broadcast in both the analog and digital formats, the 
only regulatory fee obligation at present is for their analog facility. 
Moreover, a licensee that has fully transitioned to digital 
broadcasting and has surrendered its analog spectrum would have no 
regulatory fee obligation.
    32. At this time, we regard it as premature to establish regulatory 
fee obligations for digital broadcasters. However, recognizing the 
Commission's initiatives to transition analog broadcasters to digital 
spectrum, we wish to begin to address these issues from a regulatory 
fee perspective, so that both the Commission and licensees can prepare 
for fee policy changes that may need to occur.
    33. Therefore we seek comment on whether and when we should 
establish regulatory fee service categories for digital broadcasters. 
In particular, we seek comment on ways that we could most efficiently 
and seamlessly adjust our schedule of regulatory fees to account for 
the collection of fee revenue from digital broadcasters without harming 
early transitioners to digital spectrum or late transitioners from 
analog spectrum.
3. Regulatory Fee Obligations for AM Expanded Band Broadcasters
    34. AM Expanded Band Radio Station: We are aware of uncertainty 
among licensees as to whether or not regulatory fees are owed for AM 
Expanded Band radio stations. The concept of the AM Expanded Band has 
its basis in the Commission's rules regarding experimental 
stations.\38\ The AM Expanded Band was created to reduce interference 
in the upper standard band portion of the AM spectrum band by allowing 
stations to voluntarily move their broadcasts from the standard band to 
a point above 1605 kHz.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Definitions regarding AM Expanded Band stations are listed 
in many places in the Commission rules, including 47 CFR 73.14, 
73.21, 73.30, and 73.37.
    \39\ See 47 CFR 73.14, 73.21, 73.30, and 73.37 of the 
Commission' rules for information regarding AM Expanded Band 
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Uncertainty about the fee status of AM Expanded Band stations 
may exist because AM Expanded Band radio service is not among our 
categories for general exemptions from regulatory fees, as defined in 
47 CFR 1.1162. While not fitting a general exemption, we clarify here 
that, at this time, licensees of AM Expanded Band radio stations--
stations authorized for broadcast in the 1605-1705 kHz range--are not 
required to pay regulatory fees for such stations. Licensees that 
operate a standard band AM station (540-1600 kHz) that is linked to an 
AM Expanded Band station are subject to regulatory fees for their 
standard band station only.
    36. We also note that our decision not to require regulatory fee 
payments for AM Expanded Band stations is not synonymous with giving AM 
Expanded Band radio service a general exemption from regulatory fees. 
Because the movement to the expanded band is voluntary and helps to 
reduce interference in the standard bandwidth, we wish to continue our 
policy of not subjecting this relatively small group of stations to 
regulatory fees. However, at some future point when the migration of 
standard band broadcasters to the Expanded Band has advanced, we will 
consider establishing regulatory fee requirements for AM Expanded Band 
stations.
4. Effective Date of Payment of Multi-Year Wireless Fees
    37. The first eleven fee categories in our Attachment D, Schedule 
of Regulatory Fees, constitute a general fee category known as multi-
year wireless fees. Regulatory fees for this category are generally 
paid in advance, and for the amount of the entire 5-year or 10-year 
term of the license. Because payment of these regulatory fees is linked 
to the date of license renewal (or at the time of a new application), 
these fees can be paid at any time during the fiscal year. As a result, 
there has been some confusion as to the regulatory fee rate that should 
apply at the time of license renewal. Current fiscal year regulatory

[[Page 9581]]

fees generally become effective 30 or 60 days after publication of the 
fees Report & Order in the Federal Register, or in some instances, 90 
days after delivery of the Report & Order to Congress. Because current 
fiscal year regulatory fees have an effective date, only licensees 
(including new licensees) whose license renewal dates fall on or after 
this effective date pay regulatory fees at the new rate. Licensees 
whose license renewal dates fall before the current year effective date 
pay regulatory fees at the prior year rate, which, in other words, is 
the rate currently in effect before the new rate becomes effective.

I. Proposals for Notification, Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 
Fees

    38. Each year, we generate public notices and fact sheets that 
notify regulatees of the fee payment due date and provide additional 
information regarding regulatory fee payment procedures. In prior 
years, we disseminated these notices and fact sheets to regulatees 
through surface mail. We discontinued this practice two years ago, 
informing regulatees that with the widespread use of the Internet, 
sending public notices by surface mail was not an efficient use of our 
time and resources. We stated that we can better serve the public by 
providing these general notices on our website, while exploring ways to 
disseminate specific regulatory fee bills or assessments through 
surface mail.
    39. Accordingly, in FY 2005 we will provide our public notices, 
fact sheets and all other relevant materials on our web site at https://
www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html, just as we have done for the past 
several years. As a general practice, we will not send such information 
through surface mail. However, in the event that regulatees do not have 
access to the Internet, we will mail public notices and other relevant 
materials upon request. Regulatees and the general public may request 
such information by contacting the FCC CORES Help Desk at (877) 480-
3201, Option 4.
    40. Although last year we did not send public notices and fact 
sheets to regulatees en masse, we did send specific regulatory fee 
assessments or bills by surface mail to a select group of fee 
categories. Here, we believe that it is important to clarify the 
distinction between an assessment and a bill. An assessment is a 
proposed statement of the amount of regulatory fees owed by an entity 
to the Commission (or proposed subscriber count to be ascribed for 
purposes of setting the entity's regulatory fee) but it is not entered 
into the Commission's accounts receivable system as a current debt. A 
bill is distinct from an assessment in that it is automatically entered 
into our financial records as a debt owed to the Commission. Bills 
reflect the amount owed and have a due date of the last day of the fee 
payment window. Consequently, if a bill is not paid by the due date, it 
becomes delinquent and is subject to our debt collection 
procedures.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. We are pursuing our billing initiatives as part of our effort 
to modernize our financial practices. Eventually, we intend to expand 
our billing initiatives to include all regulatory fee service 
categories. For now, based on the results of our assessment and billing 
initiatives from last year, and the resources currently available to 
us, we propose to proceed with our various FY 2005 initiatives as 
follows.
1. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs)
    42. In FY 2001, we began sending pre-completed FCC Form 159-W 
assessments to carriers in an effort to assist them in paying the 
Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (ITSP) regulatory 
fee.\41\ The fee amount on FCC Form 159-W was calculated from the FCC 
Form 499-A report, which carriers are required to submit by April 1st 
of each year. Throughout FY 2002 and FY 2003, we refined the FCC Form 
159-W to simplify the regulatory fee payment process.\42\ In FY 2004, 
we generated and mailed the same pre-completed FCC Form 159-W's to 
carriers under the same dissemination procedures, but we informed them 
that we will be treating the amount due on Form 159-W as a bill, rather 
than as an assessment. Other than the manner in which Form 159-W 
payments were entered into our financial system, carriers experienced 
no procedural changes regarding the use of the FCC Form 159-W when 
submitting payment of their FY 2004 ITSP regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See FY 2001 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13590 (2001) at 
paragraph 67. See also FCC Public Notice--Common Carrier Regulatory 
Fees (August 3, 2001) at 4.
    \42\ Beginning in FY2002, Form 159-W included a payment section 
at the bottom of the form that allowed carriers the opportunity to 
send in Form 159-W in lieu of completing Form 159 Remittance Advice 
Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. For FY 2005, we propose to continue our Form 159-W billing 
initiative for ITSPs. We seek comment on this proposal and on ways that 
we could improve our billing initiative for ITSPs.
2. Satellite Space Station Licensees
    44. Last year, for the first time, we mailed regulatory fee bills 
through surface mail to all licensees in our two satellite space 
station service categories. Specifically, geostationary orbit space 
station (``GSO'') licensees received bills requesting regulatory fee 
payment for satellites that (1) were licensed by the Commission and 
operational on or before October 1, 2003; and (2) were not co-located 
with and technically identical to another operational satellite on 
October 1, 2003 (i.e., were not functioning as a spare satellite). Non-
geostationary orbit space station (``NGSO'') licensees received bills 
requesting regulatory fee payment for systems that were licensed by the 
Commission and operational on or before October 1, 2003.
    45. For FY 2005, we propose to continue our billing initiative for 
our two satellite space station categories: GSOs and NGSOs.
    46. Finally, we emphasize that the bills that we propose to 
generate for our GSO and NGSO licensees will be only for the satellite 
or system aspects of their respective operations. GSO and NGSO 
licensees typically have regulatory fee obligations in other service 
categories (such as earth stations, broadcast facilities, etc.), and we 
expect satellite operators to meet their full fee payment obligations 
for their entire portfolio of FCC licenses. We seek comment on our 
proposal to generate regulatory fee bills for our two satellite space 
station service categories.
3. Media Services Licensees
    47. In FY 2003 and FY 2004, we mailed fee assessment postcards to 
media services entities on a per-facility basis. The postcards served 
to notify licensees of the date when fee payments are due, the assessed 
fee amount for the facility, as well as other data attributes that we 
used in determining the fee amount.\43\ We propose to continue our 
assessment initiative for media services licensees this year in a 
similar fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Fee assessments were issued for AM and FM Radio Stations, 
AM and FM Construction Permits, FM Translators/Boosters, VHF and UHF 
Television Stations, VHF and UHF Television Construction Permits, 
Satellite Television Stations, Low Power Television (LPTV) Stations, 
and LPTV Translators/Boosters. Fee assessments were not issued for 
broadcast auxiliary stations, nor will they be issued for them in FY 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. As was the case last year, we propose to mail a single round of 
postcards to licensees and their other known points of contact listed 
in CDBS (Consolidated Database System) and in CORES (Commission 
Registration System), the Commission's two official

[[Page 9582]]

databases for media services. By doing so, licensees and their other 
points of contact will all be furnished with the same information for 
each facility in question so that they can designate among themselves 
the payer of this year's fee. Mailing postcards to all interested 
parties at different addresses on file for each facility also 
encourages all parties to visit our Commission-authorized web site to 
update or correct information regarding the station, or to certify 
their fee-exempt status, if appropriate. The web site will be available 
again on-line throughout this summer.\44\ In addition to using the 
postcards to direct parties to our authorized web site for updates and 
corrections, the postcards will also direct licensees to the telephone 
number of our FCC CORES Help Desk at (877) 480-3201, Option 4, where 
licensees can call to obtain clarification on procedures. We seek 
comment on our proposal to generate fee assessment postcards for media 
services entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Commission-authorized web site is http: //
www.fccfees.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Under our proposal, media services licensees would still be 
required to submit a completed Form 159 with their fee payments, 
despite having received an assessment postcard. We cannot guarantee 
that your regulatory fees will be posted accurately against your 
account if a Form 159 is not returned with your fee payment. We 
emphasize that the assessment postcards that we propose to mail to 
media services licensees are not to be used as a substitute to 
completing Form 159. Rather, we hope licensees will use the postcards 
as a tool to help them complete their Form 159.
    50. We also emphasize that the most important data element that 
media services licensees need to include on their Form 159 is their 
station's facility ID. The facility ID is a unique identifier that 
never changes over the course of a station's existence. Despite the 
fact that we prominently display a station's facility ID on the 
station's assessment postcard, and Form 159 filing instructions call 
for each station's facility ID and call sign to be provided, we 
typically receive many incomplete Form 159s that do not provide the 
facility ID of the station whose fee is being paid.
4. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Cellular and Mobile Services
    51. In our FY2004 NPRM, we proposed to mail assessments to 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) cellular and mobile service 
providers using information from the Numbering Resource Utilization 
Forecast (NRUF) form.\45\ We proposed that subscriber data from the 
NRUF form and the Local Number Portability (LNP) database be used to 
compute and assess a regulatory fee obligation. Upon the suggestion of 
some of our commenters to our NPRM, we decided to provide entities who 
filed an NRUF form an opportunity to revise their subscriber counts 
before making a regulatory fee payment.\46\ We propose to continue our 
procedure of giving entities an opportunity to revise their subscriber 
counts again this year by sending two rounds of assessment letters, an 
initial assessment and a final assessment letter. If this exercise 
again proves to be successful, we will be sending these letters next 
year as ``bills'', which will have Debt Collection Improvement Act 
(DCIA) implications if the assessment fee based on these subscriber 
counts is not paid by the due date of next year's regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 5795, 5801, at 
paragraph 20 (2004) (FY 2004 NPRM).
    \46\ See FY 2004 Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11662, 11676-
11677, at paragraphs 48-49 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. As in FY 2004, we again propose to send an assessment letter 
that is based on NRUF data \47\ that includes a list of the carrier's 
Operating Company Numbers (OCNs) upon which the assessment is based. 
The letters will not include assigned number counts by OCNs, but rather 
an aggregate of assigned numbers for each carrier. If the number of 
subscribers on the initial assessment letter differs from the 
subscriber count they provided on the NRUF form, CMRS cellular and 
mobile service providers can amend their initial assessment letter to 
correctly identify their subscriber count as of December 31, 2004. 
Assessment letters that are amended should indicate the specific reason 
for the change, such as the purchase or the sale of a subsidiary, the 
date of the transaction, and any other information that will help to 
justify a reason for the change. If we receive no response to our 
initial assessment letter, we will assume that the initial assessment 
is correct and will expect the fee payment to be based on the number of 
subscribers listed on the initial assessment. We will review all 
responses and determine whether a change in the number of subscribers 
is warranted. As in previous years, operators will certify their 
subscriber counts in Block 30 of the FCC Form 159 Remittance Advice 
when making their regulatory fee payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Our proposal to continue to use NRUF data is subject to 
action taken in response to a Petition for Reconsideration of the FY 
2004 Fee Order filed by Cingular Wireless LLC filed on August 6, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. Although two assessment letters will be mailed to carriers that 
have filed an NRUF form, it is conceivable that some carriers will not 
be sent any letters of assessment because they did not file the NRUF 
form. For these carriers, we again propose to use the methodology \48\ 
that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services. They should use 
their subscriber count as of December 31, 2004 and submit payment 
accordingly on FCC Form 159. However, whether a carrier receives a 
letter of assessment or computes the subscriber count itself, the 
Commission reserves the right, under the Communications Act, t